Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I have to announce to the House that Mike Amesbury, the former Member for Runcorn and Helsby, has been granted the Chiltern hundreds. The recall process would have begun once the time limit for all routes of appeal had been reached. It is now no longer relevant, but for the convenience of the House, I will, as is customary, arrange for the notifications from the courts to be placed in the Votes and Proceedings.
Ordered,
That on the 26th day of March 2025, the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County constituency of Runcorn and Helsby, in the room of Michael Lee Amesbury, who since his election for the said County constituency has been appointed to the Office of Steward and Bailiff of His Majesty’s three Chiltern hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckinghamshire.—(Sir Alan Campbell.)
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Our warm homes plan will upgrade up to 5 million homes with technologies such as heat pumps, solar panels and insulation, helping families to lower bills and improve their homes. Last week we allocated £1.8 billion to local authorities and social housing providers to help low-income households and social housing tenants. We will publish further plans following the spending review.
Euan Stainbank
The warm homes plan delivers a welcome uplift in resources for domestic energy efficiency. Failures by Governments, energy companies and local authorities over a number of years have left my constituents paying huge energy costs, with poor connectivity, failure to install smart meters or smart meters not working when they are installed, and not-fit-for-purpose electric heating systems in the Braes villages. Does the Minister agree that the Government must do all they can to end fuel poverty, and will he meet me to discuss how to hold accountable those who are responsible for the ongoing issues in my constituency?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises a number of important issues. It is about having a tough regulator in Ofgem, it is about smart meters that work, and it is about every decision the Government take seeking to tackle fuel poverty. That is why I was incredibly pleased that we announced the extension of the warm homes discount to an extra 2.7 million families, with an extra £150 next winter to help families. That is what this Labour Government are all about.
Debbie Abrahams
I welcome the energy efficiency measures that my right hon. Friend mentions, which will really make a difference to many families in the future, but what can the Government and energy providers do to help families struggling to pay their energy bills today?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise about these issues. She will know that the Minister for Energy Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), put in place with the energy companies £500 million this winter to help families struggling with their bills. We also want to see Ofgem proceed with the plan to relieve the debts that many families face, because the debt overhang from the cost of living crisis that we saw after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine still blights many families in our country. If we move forward on all those fronts, we can tackle these issues.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I strongly support all efforts to increase energy efficiency and bring down bills. Is the Secretary of State concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences of raising the minimum level of energy performance certificates to C for long-term rented accommodation but not doing so for short-term lets and owned properties? Will that not create an incentive in communities such as ours for people to go to Airbnb or second home ownership, rather than providing affordable homes for local people?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I believe I am right in saying—I was checking with the Minister for Energy Consumers—that as part of the consultation on energy efficiency, we are looking at the issue of short-term lets, which has been raised in the past. He is right to draw attention to what we are doing here, because this measure, which the last Government proposed and then backed away from—a pattern we are seeing quite a lot at the moment—will take up to 1 million families out of poverty. It is a basic principle: if someone is renting a home and they pay their rent on time, they have a right to live in decent, warm accommodation.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Our clean power mission will end our dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets, giving the British people the energy security they deserve and driving jobs and investment into our communities. We are already seeing the impact of the clean energy transition, with thousands of jobs being created across the country in CCUS—carbon capture, usage and storage—hydrogen and offshore wind, and more nationally significant solar power being approved in eight months than the previous Government managed in 14 years.
Mr French
The London power tunnels project has been a positive story locally in Bexley, as National Grid has worked with the community to minimise disruption with a plan to restore the site. However, the Labour Government’s planning reforms have led developers to propose two extensive industrial battery storage facilities on a nature conservation area and farmland locally in Bexley that do not meet fire safety guidance. While we need infrastructure, does the Minister agree that weakening green belt protections against residents’ wishes and damaging nature in the process to meet Labour’s unrealistic grid targets will result in bad developments in inappropriate places?
Michael Shanks
I am glad the hon. Gentleman draws attention to the London power tunnels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have visited them recently and they are a fantastic example of engineering and of what we can achieve if we set ambitious targets in this area. I gently disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the wider point, however, as we are going to have to build infrastructure across the country to get the benefits of the renewable energy that we are generating, and battery storage is important for that. Of course communities have a voice through the planning system and it would be wrong for me to comment on individual applications, but the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues must remember that we cannot simply block every infrastructure project that needs to be built. We need to build for the economic growth of the country and for our energy security.
James Wild
Once again the Minister has failed to answer the question about the cost estimate, but we do know that the Government’s dogma-driven 2030 target will drive up costs and that we will see pylons and substations imposed in Walpole in my constituency and across the country against the wishes of local people. That will damage our countryside and it relies on Chinese supply chains, which the Energy Secretary visited only over the weekend. When will the Government realise that their approach of ruling out underground options and attempting to buy off local communities on the cheap, rather than listening to them, will only drive opposition to their plans?
Michael Shanks
Once again, we hear from Conservative Members about all these grand plans that they wish they had done in the 14 years that they were in government. They could have moved forward on undergrounding if they were so keen on it, but of course they did not. The reality is that it is for individual companies, not us, to set forward the design of individual projects, and cost estimates for undergrounding are five or 10 times more expensive.
The bottom line on all of this is that the leader of the hon. Member’s party earlier today moved away from the commitments that she had made on net zero. Just a few years ago, she said that
“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made it clear that relying on authoritarian regimes”
can make it
“harder…to heat our homes”.
They recognised then the importance of this net zero transition; now they are running away from how we deliver on it.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
UK electricity bills are the highest in Europe compared to gas. Evidence given to the Select Committee suggests that the Government are absolutely right to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and it is a shame that some Opposition Members have abandoned an evidence-informed approach to policymaking. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are considering rebalancing the infrastructure levies on our energy bills, as a way of reducing electricity bills in the immediate future and as a down payment towards 2030 and beyond?
Michael Shanks
The Select Committee Chair makes an important point. Along with the Minister for Energy Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), I am looking at all options, because it is important that we bring down bills and that we are building an energy system that protects us from the volatile fossil fuel markets in the future. There are trade-offs to be made when rebalancing that we need to be aware of, in particular whether a diminishing number of gas customers can pay bills if we were to transfer levies, but we are looking at all options and are, of course, looking at how we review with Ofgem the wider question of standing charges to make sure we bring down bills. My hon. Friend is right to say of the journey that we are on—and that the Conservative party used to be on, and on which there used to be consensus—that our transition to net zero is important for energy security and for the climate, but also for protecting bills in the long term.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
The Minister is clearly aware of the foolhardy decision by the Opposition to abandon the political consensus on net zero, but has he made an assessment of the cost to the consumer of pursuing that disastrous path, which would lock us into our dependence on polluting fossil fuels, volatile oil and gas prices, and the whims of foreign dictators?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to recognise that where once there was consensus in this country on how we tackle the climate crisis and, crucially, how we deliver the economic and industrial advantage, that consensus seems to have been splintered by the Conservative party. It was only two years ago that the leader of that party made an important point, which I agree with strongly, when she said
“if we get our strategy wrong, we risk being left on the backfoot as other countries seize the advantage.”
The Conservative party now wishes us to be on the backfoot, but we are determined that we will drive forward because that is the best policy for consumers, economic growth and energy security.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Government’s rush to decarbonise the grid means more hidden costs, more curtailment payments, more balancing payments, more subsidies and a higher carbon price. Will the Minister guarantee that our carbon price will remain lower than the European price for the remainder of this Parliament?
Michael Shanks
I think the hon. Gentleman knows more than anyone about the work that the previous Prime Minister Theresa May did in this area—work that his party is now moving away from rapidly. The Conservatives were right then: the only way for us to bring down bills, deliver economic growth and tackle the economic opportunities is for us to be on this journey together. Conservative Members used to strongly believe in that. We will continue on that path because it is the right thing for the country to do.
Nick Timothy
That was a long-winded answer, but the Minister did not actually address the question, and I think he just gave away that it is Labour’s secret plan to increase the price of carbon—a massive rise in the carbon price—adding hundreds of pounds to families’ bills and decimating British industry. Given Labour’s election promise to cut bills, will he take this moment—he can look up into the camera if he likes—to promise the country that by the next election bills will be lower, as Labour promised? Yes or no?
Michael Shanks
Never mind long-winded answers—that was a very long-winded question. I have not revealed any secret plans, but the Conservatives have revealed their not so secret plan, and I can tell the county that it is just as disappointing as the one the country rejected seven months ago. We have been very clear that it is our commitment to bring down bills, and we are determined to deliver on that. Unlike the Conservative party, which left consumers across the country exposed to volatile fossil fuel markets—the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that bills went up and up and up when his party was in government—we will bring them down. His party wants to take us back to the fossil fuel casino but we will not do that.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
This Labour Government have ended the historic injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. At the end of November last year, the first uprated payments for the pension scheme landed for over 100,000 miners and their families. That is an average increase of 32% on their monthly payments, or an average additional £28 a week.
Nick Smith
I thank the Minister for her answer and for her hard work to increase payments to mineworkers and their families across the country. After digging for coal for many years, 1,600 miners and their families have received an uplift of nearly £30 a week in my constituency of Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney. However, progress is still needed on the staff superannuation scheme. The trustees of that scheme confirmed to me that the average age of pension members is 76, so with time marching on, will the Minister outline the next steps to help members of the staff scheme?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks; he is right to talk about the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. The initial focus of our work was on the mineworkers’ pension scheme, which was in our manifesto. We had to work at pace on that commitment, and we are working with the Government Actuary’s Department on how the surplus-sharing arrangement will work going forward. That big piece of work is under way, but my hon. Friend is right to point to the tens of thousands of people who are in the BCSSS. I too have met the trustees, and we are working as fast as we can through the issues associated with that scheme. The two schemes are different—they operate in different ways—but the Government are the guarantor for both of them, and I will reconvene trustees to continue discussions with them and take this matter forward.
Jake Richards
At the last general election, I made a promise to ex-miners in my constituency that a Labour Government would deliver justice on the MPS investment reserve fund and return it to its members. I am delighted that at the end of last year, this Government delivered, providing a boost of more than 32% to their pensions. However, in my constituency there are more than 600 BCSSS members, who are still really concerned about this issue, so I would welcome the Minister’s answer on that. Can she reassure them and me that the trustees will continue to update the members of that scheme? At the moment, there is a degree of uncertainty on what progress can be made over the coming months.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his concern for his constituents who are in the BCSSS. I am very receptive to the calls from BCSSS trustees. I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the end of last year to begin discussions. We have received a positive response from him, and we are now taking the next steps to move this process forward.
Elaine Stewart
We are only partway there on the pension injustice for miners. The British Coal staff superannuation scheme has around 40,000 members who formerly worked in mining industries, including a number of my constituents. They include many women who were among the lowest paid in the coal industry—my own mum worked in the pit canteen. Can I assure my constituents enrolled in the BCSSS that transferring the £2.3 billion investment reserves to its members is a priority for this Government?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are about 40,000 people in this scheme. About 5,000 of them are women, unlike the mineworkers’ pension scheme, of which the vast majority of members are men. The two schemes are different and operate in a different way, because in 2015 the BCSSS had run two deficits and was at risk, so there had to be an intervention from Government. The two schemes operate differently and have to be looked at differently. The Government Actuary’s Department team is working its way through the mineworkers’ pension process, and we are now working with officials on this issue. I am meeting officials later today to talk about it more to see what we need to do. I stress that this is very complex—we are talking about billions of pounds-worth of assets—but we are absolutely receptive to calls from the trustees, and I will meet with them again soon.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
We are driving forward at speed to deliver clean power by 2030. Last week, the Government introduced the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will enable the biggest expansion of the grid for generations, sweeping away the connection delays and the queue that held us back for too long under the last Government and reforming the planning system to speed up delivery. We have also laid out for the first time legislation to provide households near new or upgraded pylons £250 a year off their energy bills for 10 years, as part of our commitment to delivering meaningful benefits for communities hosting clean energy infrastructure.
Dan Tomlinson
Does the Secretary of State agree that community energy has a vital role to play in the transition to cleaner and greener power? Will he accept an invitation to come to my constituency in north London to visit Community Energy Barnet, which is working on one of the largest community energy projects in the country?
Ed Miliband
I always like visiting north London, and I would very much like to accept an invitation from my hon. Friend. He makes a really serious and important point about community energy. If we look at Germany and Denmark, we see that they have done much better on community energy than us. Great British Energy has an important role to play in this, and we will say more about that in the coming weeks.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State share my concern about reports of persistent misconduct by Drax, regarding cutting down old-growth forest and burning it at its power station? To be clear, this is a company that chops down pristine forest, ships it halfway across the world to burn it in the United Kingdom and claims that it is sustainable. Will he look again at the large amounts of subsidies that have been approved by this Government for that company?
Ed Miliband
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, was present when the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), made a statement on precisely that issue. On the impact on bills, he will be delighted to know that under the new arrangements that this Government agreed, there has been an absolute transformation in the scale of subsidy to Drax; it will be halved. There is also a windfall tax when its profits go above a certain level, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of, and there are much higher standards of sustainability. He is right that we should take these issues seriously.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Conservative party abandoned the economy, the NHS, the justice system and immigration, and now it is joining its Reform collaborators and other climate change deniers in the dunce’s corner. Does the Secretary of State agree that, unlike this Government, who recognise the triple benefit of the 2030 goal—energy security, a transition to renewables, and job creation—the Conservative party has no solutions for 21st century Britain?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend should not be so shy and retiring. He makes a really important point. I listened to the interim shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), on the radio this morning. He made net zero 2050 sound like a target dreamed up by me, but it is not. It was Theresa May, the former Conservative Prime Minister, who legislated for net zero by 2050. The hon. Member was her Parliamentary Private Secretary at the time—he was supposed to be the man implementing it. She set the target because it was the right thing to do, so that we can have cleaner home-grown energy, get the jobs, and protect future generations.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The plans for a green generator at the Peterhead power station in my constituency are shovel-ready, but they depend on approval for the Acorn project at St Fergus. On 12 November last year, the Minister for Industry stated in response to a question from me that more information would be available on the track 2 projects “in the coming months.” Given that four months have passed, can the Secretary of State provide an updated timescale and outline what the next steps will be?
Ed Miliband
I support the Acorn project; it is really important. For reasons that the hon. Member will understand, the right time to make decisions will be at the spending review in June.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
We know that people are worried about their energy bills, and that too many are struggling to afford them. We agreed £500 million of industry support, alongside our warm home discount, to ensure that £1 billion of support was available for households struggling with their energy bills this winter. We will continue to take action to support consumers in the short term, as we sprint towards clean power in order to bear down on energy bills for good.
Sarah Edwards
In my constituency, a local hospitality business’s energy provider, E.ON, has behaved appallingly by back-billing and incorrectly billing, leaving that business nearly bankrupt. While I welcome the new expanded remit of the Energy Ombudsman, we need to ensure that it has the capacity and powers that it needs to protect businesses. Would the Minister meet me to discuss this case, and what are the Government doing to ensure that our local businesses are not driven to bankruptcy by the outrageous behaviour of energy suppliers?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this case. However, there are clear rules in place to protect consumers from unfair back-billing, and energy companies must comply with those rules. I have met Energy UK, the industry body, and Ofgem to reinforce our expectation that if rules are not complied with, Ofgem will take enforcement action. The broader point is that we have to ensure that the energy market is working for consumers and is fair. We are reviewing Ofgem to ensure that it has the mandate, the duties and the powers—including the Energy Ombudsman—that it needs to be an effective and strong consumer champion.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
For the record, I and my constituents are proud of the southern North sea development—the largest wind farm in the world, begun under the last Government. However, we are not happy about this Government’s rush to force our consumers to pay higher bills; to see, as a result of vast subsidies, farmers in a very important agricultural area of Norfolk farming solar panels, rather than the food that we need to ensure affordability and our security; and to abandon agricultural leadership on net zero. Can the Minister reassure my consumers that £250 is adequate compensation for higher bills and the defoliation of a large part of Norfolk? That is what has happened in the rush towards ill-thought-out net zero targets, set in London, without any consideration of local people.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The past few years have shown us why we must break our reliance on global fossil fuel markets. Under the hon. Gentleman’s Government’s watch, energy prices spiralled, and consumers across the country paid the price. That is a reality that Opposition Members were happy with, but it is not a reality that we think is tenable, so we will sprint to clean power, because that is the route by which we achieve energy security for the country, and financial security for families. We are on the right side of history, and on the side of consumers. Opposition Members are deluded.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
In Blackpool, we have more than 250 charities that are doing incredible work supporting people with their mental health, in getting back to work, and also with the cost of living, but too many people tell me, week in, week out, that they cannot afford to pay the bills. What conversations has the Minister had with energy companies about supporting these charities? Will she agree to meet me to discuss this important issue?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: charities and third-sector organisations play a vital role in getting support to households, which we know are struggling with bills. Part of the reason we thought it was so important to agree £500 million of industry support was to make sure that we got additional support to households. We are also consulting on extending our warm home discount to 2.7 million more households, so that more than 6 million people get help. We will work with the energy sector to make sure that we use the vital network of charities to get that support to the households that need it.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The price of gas is some 20% lower than it was at the beginning of this year, and the Secretary of State promised that bills would come down. Can the Government say when bills will come down for consumers, given that they are going up by 6% on 1 April?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to check his facts. The price cap went up, which was disappointing for families, because of the spike in wholesale prices. That is because of our reliance on global fossil fuel markets. [Interruption.] I will say it incredibly slowly for him, so he can understand: it is because of our reliance on global fossil fuel markets. We must break that reliance. We have to wean ourselves off this rollercoaster of price spikes and price falls, which is harming consumers across the country. The sprint to clean power will achieve that. It is a shame that he cannot see that.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Consumers are concerned about the rising energy price cap. What will the Secretary of State do to strengthen existing energy schemes and initiate new schemes? Will it include delivering the £300 reduction in energy bills that Labour promised during the general election?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We know that households are struggling with bills and are worried about them. That is why we are doing everything we can to bear down on bills. We are doing that not just because it is a manifesto commitment, but because it matters to households across the country. While we sprint to clean power—we are clear that that is the route to bearing down on bills—we will support households. Whether it is the £500 million agreement we made with energy suppliers, the extension of the warm home discount to more than 6 million households, or the debt support we are providing to consumers with energy debt, we are taking short-term action. Let me be clear that the way we get ourselves out of this bind is by delivering clean power for consumers across the country.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
I thank my hon. Friend for her continued interest in this issue. Despite significant challenges, COP29 agreed a new climate finance goal and finalised guidance on international carbon markets. We would have liked more progress in certain areas, such as on mitigation outcomes. We look forward to playing an important role in the run-up to COP30 in Belém, to ensure that more progress is made.
Harpreet Uppal
Tackling climate change should matter to all of us because it affects all of us. At COP29, the UK led the way on setting strong climate targets. How is the Minister ensuring that measures are in place to track progress against our COP commitments? How is she working with businesses, local authorities and industry to deliver on those targets and drive investment?
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend is right: we earn the credibility that enables us to show international leadership by delivering at home. In due course we will publish a cross-economy plan for meeting our climate targets, which will outline the policies that are needed to meet our 2035 nationally determined contribution, and we are engaging with a range of stakeholders on delivery through, for instance, the Net Zero Council, which has a very busy work programme, and the local net zero delivery group.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What assessment has the Minister made of the COP29 commitment to tripling finance for developing countries from the previous goal of $100 billion to $300 billion a year by 2035, and what is the United Kingdom’s contribution to that sum?
Kerry McCarthy
It is always a pleasure to answer questions from the hon. Member. We remain committed to international climate finance, and to the new climate finance goal agreed at COP29. The level of the UK’s contribution will be considered in the spending review, when we will also consider how we can maximise investment from the private sector.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
The £21.7 billion of funding to which we committed in October will kick-start the carbon capture, usage and storage industry, supporting thousands of jobs in our industrial heartlands through the east coast and HyNet clusters. We continue to engage with important future projects, such as Acorn in Scotland and Viking in the Humber, and we will make further announcements following the spending review.
Matthew Patrick
As my right hon. Friend will recognise, Merseyside is a clean energy pioneer, a hub of carbon capture and hydrogen technology. The climate emergency is the challenge of our generation, and that challenge will be met only through the collective endeavour of communities across our country, including mine in Wirral West. How are the Government helping our communities to deliver good, local energy projects?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is entirely right about this. We have learned over the last decade and more that this is the biggest jobs opportunity of the 21st century. Nowhere is that more true than in the investments we are making in carbon capture, usage and storage, and I am confident that my hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit. A couple of weeks ago, the Confederation of British Industry produced an important report that showed that last year, the net zero economy grew three times faster than the economy as a whole. The House should let that sink in, because it tells us that if we turn our back on the net zero economy, we turn our back on business, jobs and investment.
Richard Baker
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is huge potential for carbon capture and storage to play a key role in our green energy ambitions for Scotland? As we look towards the spending review, does he agree that the Acorn project presents an excellent and efficient opportunity to invest in CCUS, and to reduce the carbon impact of industries across Scotland, because it will repurpose existing pipelines?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate my hon. Friend. He is a fantastic advocate for the Acorn project, of which we are hugely supportive. Track 1 projects were agreed in last year’s Budget—a fiscal event, a fiscal moment—and the Government are considering those projects ahead of the next phase of the spending review, which will come in June; but I do not think that anyone doubts the potential value of the Acorn project, not just to Scotland but to the whole United Kingdom.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
No one who cares about the future of our children and our grandchildren will gainsay the importance of carbon capture, but does the Secretary of State not understand that he is undermining that good work—notwithstanding his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden)—by continuing to subsidise the Drax power station, which is cutting down forests in Canada, turning the wood into pellets, and shipping it thousands of miles across the Atlantic to burn here? That makes nonsense of what he is trying to achieve.
Ed Miliband
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect. The situation that we inherited from the last Government meant that we had to consider matters such as security of supply and how we could secure the best deal for bill payers. That is what we did, and that is why we made the statement that we made on Drax. On longer term, however, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. We need to move away from unabated biomass and consider all the possibilities to enable us to move towards net zero, and that is what this Government are doing.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the six students from Bourne community college who came to Westminster yesterday to present their report on the future of hydrogen storage as a net zero approach to aviation? Does he agree that students engaging with science, technology, engineering and mathematics are excited about the potential of clean power and carbon capture, and that proper funding for STEM in our schools will provide us with the next generation of scientists and engineers who can help us to achieve these goals?
Ed Miliband
I join the hon. Lady in warmly congratulating the six students from her constituency whom she mentioned. I am sure that I speak for all Members of the House when I say that when we meet young people who are engaged in the potential of clean energy technology to transform our country and our world, it is an incredibly important reminder, both about its potential for jobs, and about our duties to future generations.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has made it clear that by 2050, we need to be removing 10 billion tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere every year if we are to stand a chance of keeping below the 1.5° target. It is clear that carbon removal, and not just carbon capture and storage, will play a critical role in our avoiding a climate disaster. In the face of the Conservative party once again embracing climate denialism, what steps will the Government take to support the research, development and deployment of carbon removal technologies to ensure that British companies become leaders in this emerging sector?
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I can tell him that the Minister for Industry held a roundtable with a whole range of industry voices on this precise topic last week. He is right about this issue. There is scepticism about CCS in some parts of academia and elsewhere. All the evidence that I have seen from the Climate Change Committee, the IPCC and others, including the International Energy Agency, is that CCS technology has a crucial role to play on something like 20% of emissions. He is also right to say that carbon removal is the next stage of that journey, and it is something that my Department is heavily engaged in.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
Nuclear power is at the heart of our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. It is not just providing energy security, but driving billions of pounds in investment and creating thousands of highly skilled jobs. Great British Nuclear is on track to make final decisions on its small modular reactor competition this spring, while a final investment decision on Sizewell C will be made in the spending review.
Mr Snowden
Whether one agrees with the Government’s net zero targets or not, they will not be able to achieve them without nuclear energy playing a significant role, which is why I was delighted that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State chose to launch their nuclear strategy in my constituency—I can only assume that my invite was lost in the post. A key part of the nuclear fuel strategy is the nuclear fuel industry in this country. From the aggressive actions of Russia and other countries that have pushed western commercial providers out and dominated elements of the nuclear fuel enrichment and manufacturing market, we see that it is ever more important for our national security that we develop whole-of-lifecycle nuclear fuel production. When will the Government announce the concrete steps that they will take, as part of the strategy, to improve the whole-of-lifecycle manufacturing of nuclear power?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Minister for nuclear in the other place have visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and seen the good work that is happening there, and just shy of £20 million from Government grants has gone into that work to help develop nuclear fuels, which will be part of the future. The big nuclear developments at Sizewell and Hinkley, SMRs and advanced modular reactors all need to be in the mix, and he is absolutely right to make that point.
Cat Smith
Many of my constituents were pleased to see the extension of Heysham 1 and 2 late last year, and they would like long-term jobs for the future in the nuclear industry created in the north-west. Does the Minister agree that it is thanks to this Labour Government that we are ending the last Government’s legacy of no new nuclear being built?
Sarah Jones
I completely agree. The Conservative party built no new nuclear in 14 years. Small modular reactors will bring energy efficiency and economic growth to many parts of this country. We are working at pace and will make sure that we have the answer on SMRs shortly. We will have the answer on Sizewell in the spending review, and of course nuclear will play a big role in the future.
Peter Prinsley
Small modular reactors, as the Minister says, will play an important part in delivering clean, cheap and secure energy across this country. However, current rules require that any reactor must apply for regulatory justification, as if nuclear power was an entirely new practice instead of an existing one. That delays reactors getting online and lowering energy bills for people across the country, including in Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, by up to two years. Will the Secretary of State consider working with his Cabinet colleagues to simplify the system and recognise that nuclear energy technology is an existing practice, thereby accelerating the deployment of small modular reactors?
Sarah Jones
I will happily investigate further the issue that my hon. Friend has raised. There are two pieces of work going on in this space: the draft nuclear planning policy statement and the nuclear regulatory taskforce. We want to make things as easy as we can, and I am very happy to talk to him further.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Small modular nuclear reactors are clearly the way forward for decarbonising the grid but are held up by constant delays. When does the Minister expect to be able to announce the first one to be brought into operation, and when does she expect it to actually start work?
Sarah Jones
I am hoping that it will take less than the 14 years in which the previous Government failed to deliver anything. We will see the announcements on the first SMR in the spring. Our door is open to anyone who wants to suggest building new nuclear in this country.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
On 6 February, the Prime Minister announced that he would “take on the blockers” and build new small modular reactors, but do those blockers include his own Government? With essential work being delayed and paused at Sellafield, possible job losses at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and still no certainty for Sizewell C due to a general fear in the industry that the spending review will stymie the ambitions of Great British Nuclear, are the biggest blockers to new nuclear in the UK not in Labour’s Treasury?
Sarah Jones
I am not sure how many times the hon. Member promised he would get to the final investment decision on Sizewell under the last Government—I think he and his colleagues promised that at least five times in the House—and of course it did not happen. I gently repeat that the previous Government managed no new nuclear in 14 years, and he himself admitted that the Government had moved too slowly in getting nuclear projects off the ground. We are working at pace, and we will deliver the result of the competition in the spring. Sizewell C is also moving at pace, and we will have final answers in the spending review.
Mr Speaker
We are going to run on a bit because we are behind. We have hardly got through any questions.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
For this Government, good pay and conditions for workers and the role of trade unions must be at the heart of the renewable energy sector, because that is the only route to a fair transition. Since we came to office, EDF Renewables has announced recognition agreements with four major trade unions. We applaud it for its decision, and we want others to follow suit. Through the Office for Clean Energy Jobs, we are also working with industry and trade unions to support fair pay, terms and conditions in the sector.
Anneliese Midgley
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. The Employment Rights Bill is an historic step forward for workers, but these rights must go hand in hand with good jobs. What action is he taking to strengthen the UK’s manufacturing capacity and supply chains to ensure that communities such as mine in Knowsley benefit from the transition to net zero?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for her constituency, and on this issue of manufacturing jobs. If we look at what this Government are doing—from GB Energy to the national wealth fund and the clean industry bonus—we see that this Government are determined to ensure that we manufacture in Britain. We care about where things are made, and we will make those good manufacturing jobs happen.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Meeting our clean power mission will require a significant increase in the deployment of both ground-mounted and rooftop solar projects. As well as consenting record amounts of ground-mounted solar, we want to see a much greater deployment of rooftop solar power. We will soon publish the solar road map—work that started under the previous Government—to bring together our next steps in this area.
Sir Edward Leigh
The Government say that only 1% of agricultural land will be taken up by solar farms, but in the pipeline around Gainsborough 10,000 acres have already been put aside for solar farms, with another 4,000 announced a couple of weeks ago—up to 15% of my constituency, which is the most arable and most fertile in the country. I make one quite reasonable request of the Secretary of State: will he consider applications in the round rather than individually, and look at their cumulative effect on food production and the local environment?
Michael Shanks
Under even the most ambitious scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land would be occupied by solar farms. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about their being holistically planned, the strategic spatial energy planning that we have taken forward is important in having a coherent view of the entire energy system. That is work that we should have done many, many years ago. We are now moving at pace to do it, but individual planning applications are—
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Now that the Conservative party opposes large-scale solar, net zero and onshore wind, I am tempted to ask the Minister what he makes of that party’s new energy policy, which is to take us back to the past, rub two sticks together and hope for the best. Instead, will he update the House on the progress of Great British Energy in delivering our clean energy mission?
Michael Shanks
I think we have rehearsed the arguments about the absolute failure of the previous Government over the past 14 years. The Conservatives have just gone further back today. On GB Energy, I was delighted to be in Aberdeen yesterday to join the board of GB Energy for its first board meeting. The Bill will soon, we hope, complete its passage through Parliament. It can then get on with delivering for the British people.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Britain produces 1% of global climate emissions. China is the world’s largest emitter, yet no UK Energy Secretary has visited it in eight years to make the case for it to do more. That is why I have been in Beijing making the case for climate action. Engagement, not negligence, is what fighting for Britain looks like. On climate, as on so much else, this Government believe that Britain can only protect our national interests by engaging on the international stage.
Steff Aquarone
The Bacton energy hub in my constituency is undergoing a green transition, which I support because I believe in protecting our natural environment and boosting our economy through net zero—two things the Conservatives seem to have abandoned. Green hydrogen at Bacton needs wind power to be brought in from the coast. Will the Secretary of State help to make that happen, and will he visit Bacton with me to see the potential for himself?
Ed Miliband
This, among many others, is a very, very important potential project and the hon. Gentleman is right to make the case for it. Green hydrogen is absolutely part of our energy mix in the future.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
Clean energy is one of the eight growth sectors in the industrial strategy and will provide a core part of that strategy. If anybody wants to build new nuclear in this country, our door is always open.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Last month, with surprisingly little fanfare from the Department or the Secretary of State, the Climate Change Committee published carbon budget 7. Among the more eyewatering recommendations was the figure put on the cost of meeting the obligations: £319 billion over the next 15 years. Frontloading that will be a net cost to industry every year until 2050. Is that exorbitant cost the reason that he cancelled his Department’s review, commissioned by his predecessor, into the whole-systems cost of net zero?
Ed Miliband
I deeply regret the direction in which the hon. Gentleman is going. The Climate Change Committee does incredibly important work. We will look at CB7, but the biggest cost we face as a country is if we do not act on the climate crisis. That is what would leave hundreds of billions of pounds of costs to future generations.
Andrew Bowie
The right hon. Gentleman might be content with signing our energy sovereignty over to the People’s Republic of China, and he might be happy with his Government’s arbitrary targets and bans, pushing bills up and leaving us more reliant on importing and costing jobs, but we think it is time for a new approach, as the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, focused on security and cost to the consumer, not pie-in-the-sky targets with no plan to reach them. Will he recommission the review into the whole-systems cost? If not, what is he trying to hide?
Ed Miliband
It is the Tory party that has an energy surrender policy: surrendering us to fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The Tories would keep us locked in to fossil fuels, threaten billions of pounds of investment in net zero and leave our children and grandchildren a terrible legacy. That is the Conservative party in 2025: anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-business and anti-future generations.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have moved forward on delivering our plan that people hosting important infrastructure in their constituencies should benefit from it. The Conservatives consulted on it, like so many policies that they talked and talked and talked about, but failed to deliver over 14 years—we are moving on with delivering it.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
In the recent advice for its seventh carbon budget, the Climate Change Committee highlighted the urgency of ensuring cheaper electricity so that households can transition away from gas heating. When will the Government act to improve energy security and reduce costs for the households seeking to adopt low-carbon heating by reforming policy costs on energy bills?
Ed Miliband
As we discussed earlier, the CCC raised an important issue that we need to look at. The key question on this so-called rebalancing is that it must be looked at in the context of understanding the principled case, while also ensuring that if we go down that or another route, we do so in a way that is fair. That is the work that my Department is engaged on.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his concern for his constituents. As I said, I am very receptive to calls from BCSSS trustees. I wrote to the Chancellor, who sent back a positive response, and we are now taking the next steps in this process. I will be reconvening trustees to meet and talk about it again.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are very aware of the issues with park homes, and industry support is provided to residents. As we think about expanding the warm home discount and the support we provide for households that cannot afford their energy, we will, of course, have park homes in our mind.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Ed Miliband
Yes, that sounds really good. Community energy is a crucial part of our energy future.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman and I do not necessarily agree on everything, but on this we do agree. The transformation of the West Burton site from a fossil fuel-fired power station to a fusion power plant is an incredibly exciting project, and we should all be battling for it.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Michael Shanks
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He underlines the importance not just of delivering on energy projects but the wider economic benefits from building infrastructure—the kind of infrastructure that the Conservatives now oppose. He is right that in order to deliver these projects, we need to see investment in rural communities by the Scottish Government. We will continue to press them on those issues.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue. Rolling out electric car infrastructure is incredibly important. If he writes to my Department, we will ensure that he gets the best possible reply.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Will Ministers consider exercising the community electricity right within the Infrastructure Act 2015 to require commercial renewable energy developers to offer communities the opportunity to part-own schemes developed in their area?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. As an energy nerd, I am really interested in this 2015 power, which, despite my nerdery, I did not actually know about. We are actively looking at this really important power, which was put in place by the previous Government.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In response to a written question to me last week, the Minister confirmed that no nationally significant infrastructure projects have been consented to that will use greater than 50% best and most versatile agricultural land. In my constituency, the East Park Energy solar farm is close to 75%, but the overarching national policy statement for energy states at paragraph 5.11.34:
“The Secretary of State should ensure that applicants do not site their scheme on the best and most versatile agricultural land without justification.”
Can the Minister confirm whether nearly 1,500 acres of best and most versatile land is too much good-quality agricultural land to sacrifice?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman will know that any nationally significant project goes through a proper planning process, and it would not be right for me to comment on that. None the less, I am sure that the decision makers will be looking closely at the issues that he has raised.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
There is to be a much reduced testing process for oil at the import terminal at Grangemouth. Is the Secretary of State concerned that, if imported oil does not pass these reduced tests, it cannot be used, leading to Scotland suffering a fuel shortage?
Michael Shanks
Throughout the seven months that we have been in government, we have been doing everything we can to work with the operators of the Grangemouth refinery. Of course we were disappointed by its closure. We have carried out a number of pieces of work on fuel security. We are not concerned about that at this point, but, across the whole country, we keep constantly it under review.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Although the Leader of the Opposition thinks that achieving net zero is impossible without “bankrupting us”, investment in low carbon energy for communities such as Severn Beach in my constituency could create valuable skilled jobs. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the area around the River Severn will get the investment that it needs to realise its potential?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady is absolutely right on that. The Opposition are off to the “Wacky Races” when it comes to net zero. We in the Labour party know the truth: net zero is the economic opportunity of the 21st century and, under this Government, we will seize it.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Carbon capture, utilisation and storage is the central plank of the Humber 2030 vision. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to meet the Humber Energy Board, and if he does not will he join me in doing so?
Sarah Jones
I talk every day to my hon. Friend about her constituency and I am very happy to meet whoever she wants me to, because we think this is an incredibly important matter. The opportunities for her area and the Humber are great if we can harness the talents of the people in her constituency.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Requiring developers to include solar panels in all new homes and buildings would be extremely popular with the public and help deliver net zero targets. Can the Secretary of State give an update on his discussions with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, including those on mandatory solar as part of the future homes and buildings standard?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We are actively working on that in government. Whatever one’s view on ground-mounted solar—we in the Labour party think that it has a role—we do need solar panels on rooftops. It is an important opportunity. While we are about it, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can start supporting our plans on planning and infrastructure so that we can build the clean energy infrastructure that we need.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the ongoing work to deliver new nuclear investment in Hartlepool. Billions of pounds are on the table, which will mean jobs and skills for generations to come. Will he meet me to discuss how we can get this deal over the line?
Ed Miliband
New nuclear is an essential part of our future energy plans. My Ministers and I would be absolutely delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those plans.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I welcome the warm words from the Secretary of State earlier about the Acorn project. How confident is he that the Chancellor is listening?
Ed Miliband
I speak as an old lag in these things: we have never had a Prime Minister and a Chancellor so enthusiastic and committed to the net zero agenda and what it can do economically for our country. The right hon. Gentleman should take heart from that.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Teesside is seeing thousands of jobs coming on stream in carbon capture and storage, but the Conservatives’ new energy policy would put those jobs at risk. Will the Secretary of State restate his commitment to this industry, and will he work to establish a Europe-wide CO2 market to bring investment and jobs to our region?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend puts it so well. This is the economic opportunity of our time. Our investment in carbon capture and storage shows what is possible. Today’s desperate request for attention from the Opposition is anti-business, anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-investment and the wrong choice for Britain.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we continue proceedings, I pay tribute to John “Paddy” Hemingway, the last surviving Battle of Britain pilot, who died yesterday at the age of 105. Mr Hemingway was a teenager when he joined the RAF during the second world war. At the age of 21 he was a fighter pilot in the Battle of Britain, a three-month air campaign in 1940 to protect the southern parts of England and British shipping from large-scale assault by the Luftwaffe. There is no doubt that the courage and overwhelming sense of duty of RAF pilots such as Mr Hemingway helped to end the second world war and allowed us the freedoms that we enjoy today.
Welfare Reform
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
This Government are ambitious for our people and our country. We believe that unleashing the talents of the British people is the key to our future success. But the social security system that we inherited from the Conservatives is failing the very people that it is supposed to help and is holding our country back.
The facts speak for themselves. One in 10 people of working age are now claiming a sickness or disability benefit. Almost 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training—one in eight of all our young people. Some 2.8 million are out of work due to long-term sickness, and the number of people claiming personal independence payments is set to double this decade from 2 million to 4.3 million, with the growth in claims rising faster among young people and those with mental health conditions. Claims are up to four times higher in parts of the midlands, Wales and the north where economic demand is weakest. These places were decimated in the ’80s and ’90s, written off for years by successive Tory Governments and never given the chances that they deserved.
The consequences of that failure are there for all to see. Millions of people who could work are trapped on benefits, denied the income, hope, dignity and self-respect that we know that good work brings. Taxpayers are paying millions more for the cost of failure, with spending on working-age sickness and disability benefits up £20 billion since the pandemic, and set to rise by a further £18 billion by the end of this Parliament to £70 billion a year. It is not like this in most other comparable countries, where spending on these benefits since the pandemic is either stable or falling, while ours continues to inexorably rise. That is the legacy of 14 years of Tory failure.
Today, we say, “No more”. Since we were elected we have hit the ground running to get more people into good work through our plan for change. We are investing an extra £26 billion into the NHS to drive down waiting lists and get people back to health and back to work.
We are improving the quality of work and making work pay with our landmark employment rights legislation and increases in the national living wage; we are creating more good jobs in every part of the country in clean energy and through our modern industrial strategy; and we are introducing the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation, with our £240 million Get Britain Working plan. Today, our pathways to work Green Paper sets out decisive action to fix the broken benefits system, creating a more proactive, pro-work system for those who can work and so protecting those who cannot work, now and for the long term.
As a constituency MP for 14 years, I know that there will always be people who can never work because of the severity of their disability or illness. Under this Government, the social security system will always be there for people in genuine need. That is a principle we will never compromise on. Disabled people and people with health conditions who can work, however, should have the same rights, choices and chances to work as everybody else. That principle of equality is vital too, because, far from what Conservative Members would have us believe, many sick and disabled people want to work, with the right help and support. Unlike the Conservatives, that is what we will deliver.
Our first aim is to secure a decisive shift towards prevention and early intervention. Almost 4 million people are in work with a work-limiting health condition and around 300,000 fall out of work every year. We have to do far more to help people stay in work and get back to work quickly, because their chances of returning are five times higher in the first year. Our plans to give statutory sick pay to 1 million of the lowest-paid workers and provide more rights to flexible working will help keep more people in work. The WorkWell programme is trialling new approaches, such as GPs referring people to employment advisers instead of signing them off sick. Our Keep Britain Working review, led by former John Lewis boss Sir Charlie Mayfield, will set out what Government and employers can do together to create healthier, more inclusive workplaces. We will therefore help more employers to offer opportunities for disabled people, including through measures such as reasonable readjustments, alongside our Green Paper consultation on reforming Access to Work so it is fit for the future.
Today, I can announce another step. Our Green Paper will consult on a major reform of contributory benefits, merging contributions-based jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance into a new time-limited unemployment insurance paid at a higher rate, without someone having to prove that they cannot work in order to get it. Therefore, if someone has paid into the system, they will get stronger income protection while we help them get back on track.
Our second objective is to restore trust and fairness in the benefits system by fixing the broken assessment process and tackling the perverse incentives that drive people into welfare dependency. Labour Members have long argued that the work capability assessment is not fit for purpose. Going through the WCA is complex, time-consuming and often stressful for claimants, especially if they also have to go through the PIP assessment. More fundamentally, it is based on a binary can-or-cannot-work divide, when we know that the truth is that many people’s physical and mental health conditions fluctuate. The consultation on the Conservatives’ discredited WCA proposals was ruled unlawful by the courts. I can therefore announce today that we will not go ahead with their proposals. Instead, we will scrap the WCA in 2028.
In future, extra financial support for health conditions in universal credit will be available solely through the PIP assessment. Extra income is therefore based on the impact of someone’s health condition or disability and not on their capacity to work, reducing the number of assessments that people have to go through and providing a vital step towards derisking work. And we will do more, by legislating for a right to try, guaranteeing that work in and of itself will never lead to a benefit reassessment and giving people the confidence to take the plunge and try work without the fear that that will put their benefits at risk.
We will also tackle the perverse financial incentives that the Tories created, which actively encourage people into welfare dependency. They ran down the value of the universal credit standard allowance. As a result, the health top-up is now worth double the standard allowance, at more than £400 a month. In 2017, they took away extra financial help for the group of people who could prepare for work, so we are left with a binary assessment of whether people can or cannot work, and there is a clear financial incentive for someone to define themselves as incapable of work—a factor the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others say is likely to be driving people on to incapacity benefits. Today, we tackle this problem head-on.
We will legislate to rebalance the payments in universal credit from April next year, fixing the value of the health top-up in cash terms for existing claimants and reducing it for new claimants, with an additional premium for people with severe, lifelong conditions that mean they will never work, to give them the financial security they deserve. Alongside that, we will bring in a permanent, above-inflation rise to the standard allowance in universal credit for the first time ever. This means a £775 annual increase in cash terms by 2029-30, and it is a decisive step to tackle the perverse incentives in the system.
We will also fix the failing system of reassessments. The Conservatives failed to switch reassessments back on after the pandemic, so they are now down by more than two thirds, and face-to-face assessments have gone from seven in 10 to only one in 10. We will turn these reassessments back on at scale, shift the focus back to doing more face-to-face, and ensure that they are recorded as standard, to give confidence to claimants and taxpayers that they are being done properly.
I can also announce that, for people on universal credit with the most severe disabilities and health conditions that will never improve, we want to ensure that they are never reassessed, in order to give them the confidence and dignity they deserve. We will also fundamentally overhaul the Department for Work and Pensions’ safeguarding approach to make sure that all our processes and training are of the highest quality, so that we protect and support the most vulnerable people.
Alongside these changes we will also reform disability benefits so that they focus support on those in greatest need and ensure that the social security system lasts for the long term into the future. Social and demographic change means that more people are now living with a disability, but the increase in disability benefits is double the rate of increasing prevalence of working-age disability in the country: claims among young people are up 150%; claims for mental health conditions are up 190%; and claims for learning difficulties are up by over 400%, according to the IFS. Every day there are more than 1,000 new PIP awards. That is the equivalent of adding a population the size of Leicester every single year.
That is not sustainable in the long term, above all for the people who depend on that support, but the Tories had no proper plan to deal with it—just yet more ill-thought-through consultations. So today I can announce that this Government will not bring in the Tory proposals for vouchers, because disabled people should have choice and control over their lives. We will not means-test PIP, because disabled people deserve extra support, whatever their incomes, and I can confirm that we will not freeze PIP either. Instead, our reforms will focus support on those with the greatest needs. We will legislate for a change in PIP so that people will need to score a minimum of four points in at least one activity to qualify for the daily living element of PIP from November 2026. That will not affect the mobility component of PIP and relates only to the daily living element.
Alongside that, we will launch a review of the PIP assessment, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability, in close consultation with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts, so that we can ensure that PIP and the assessment process are fit for purpose now and into the future. This significant reform package is expected to save over £5 billion in 2029-30; the OBR will set out its final assessment of the costings next week.
Our third and final objective is to deliver personalised support to sick and disabled people who can work so that they can get the jobs they need and deserve. We know from the last Labour Government’s new deal for disabled people, young people and the long-term unemployed the difference that proper employment support can make. More recent evidence from the Work Choice programme and additional work coach time shows that support can make a significant difference in the number of people getting and keeping work and improving their mental health and wellbeing.
This Labour Government believe that an active state can transform people’s lives. We know that because we have done it before. Today I can announce that we will invest an additional £1 billion a year in employment support, with the aim of guaranteeing high-quality, tailored and personalised support to help people on a pathway to work—the largest ever investment in opportunities to work for sick and disabled people. Alongside that, for those on the UC health top-up, we will bring in an expectation to engage and a new support conversation to talk about people’s goals and aspirations, combined with an offer of personalised health, skills and employment support.
We will go further, because being out of work or training is so damaging for young people’s future prospects. In addition to funding our youth guarantee through the £240 million Get Britain Working plan, we will consult on delaying access to the health top-up in universal credit until someone is aged 22, reinvesting the savings into work support and training opportunities, so that every young person is earning or learning and on a pathway to success.
The Conservatives left a broken benefits system that is failing the people who depend on it and our country as a whole. The status quo is unacceptable, but it is not inevitable. We were elected on a mandate for change to end the sticking-plaster approach and tackle the root causes of problems in this country, which have been ignored for too long. We believe in the value and potential of every single person: we all have something positive to contribute and can make a difference, whether that is in paid work, in our families or in our communities alongside our neighbours and friends. We will unleash potential in every corner of the land, because we are as ambitious for the British people as they are for themselves. Today we take decisive action, and I commend this statement to the House.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. She and I agree on one thing: the welfare bill is too high. Left unchecked, it will rise to £100 billion by the end of the decade. Spending more on sickness benefits than we do on defence is not the sign of a strong country.
This is not just a question of money. We have 3 million people of working-age who are not in work due to ill health, not filling the roles businesses need, not contributing to our economy and not fulfilling their own potential. The best way to get the welfare bill down is to get people off benefits and into work. That is what we did year after year after taking office in 2010. Despite the once-in-a-century pandemic, 4 million more people were in employment when we left office than when we inherited Labour’s mess. Before the pandemic, economic inactivity was at an historic low, but it is true that we then started to see a new phenomenon: growing numbers of people, and—particularly worryingly—young people, claiming sickness benefits. A system set up with good intentions to protect the most vulnerable in society has over time morphed into something broader, driven in part by a well-intentioned but not always helpful medicalisation of life’s ups and downs.
In government, we identified the problem and worked up plans to tackle it, but at every point Labour Members opposed them. In fact, the now Chancellor said that not one single penny could be saved from benefits. When they came into office, not only did they cancel or delay pretty much everything we handed over, but they had no plans of their own. They walked into the Department with empty notebooks. All they had done in opposition was oppose, instead of the hard work of coming up with their own answers. That is why the country has had to wait another eight months for this announcement. In that time, taxpayers have shelled out £7 billion in extra sickness benefits, and nearly half a million people have been signed off sick. In fact, 60 people were signed on to sickness benefits while the Secretary of State was talking.
None the less, I have been looking forward to hearing what the right hon. Lady would announce today and which of the many things briefed to the media her spinning policy wheel would eventually land on. Governing is hard—we know that. In the last few weeks, the Government have made it look really hard, but that is nothing compared with how hard life can be for a severely disabled person, somebody for whom getting up, getting dressed and getting breakfast—things most of us found easy this morning—are hard if not impossible. For some people, the last few weeks have been deeply frightening. They will be glad of the uncertainty finally ending.
I genuinely want the right hon. Lady to succeed, and I welcome her commitment today to increasing the number of reassessments and to having more of them face to face and recorded. I welcome the investment in employment support for disabled people. I welcome, of course, her reannouncing a host of things that we were doing in government. Scrapping the work capability assessment and creating a single assessment is already Government policy that is due to come in in 2026-27. Her big idea seems to be to delay that until 2028. Merging new-style jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance into a new time-limited higher rate is a proposal that we worked up in government. We launched a consultation on tightening up eligibility for PIP and, by the way, we would have gone much further with that. We consulted on ending reassessments for people whose health conditions will not improve, and the right to try guarantee sounds remarkably similar to our chance to work guarantee. Of course, on the Secretary of State’s continued support for WorkWell, I launched that programme with the now shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). In fact, the only original idea I can see in the entire announcement is increasing the rate of unemployment benefits—a Labour policy if ever I have heard one.
This is a now-or-never chance to seize the moment—a now or never for millions of people who will otherwise be signed off for what could end up being a lifetime on benefits—but today’s announcement leaves me with more questions than answers. How many people will be helped back into work and by when? Surely we have not been waiting eight months for just another Green Paper. Where is the fit note reform crucial to stem the flow of people on to benefits? Where is the action on people being signed off sick for the everyday ups and downs of life? Why is the right hon. Lady planning to save only £5 billion when the bill is forecast to rise to over £100 billion? Do the savings she is announcing today include the £5 billion we had already agreed with the OBR for reforming the work capability assessment? If so, she has made virtually no savings of her own. What is the net saving given the additional expenditure planned?
Fundamentally, this is too little, too late. The fact is that £5 billion just does not cut it with a bill so big going up so fast. She needed to be tougher. She should be saying, “No more hard-working taxpayers funding the family next-door not to work, no free top-of-the-range cars for people who do not need them, no more sickfluencers helping people to claim money they do not need.”
Before the right hon. Lady puts on her angry voice and leans across the Dispatch Box to shout at me about “14 years”, I gently say to her that everybody in this Chamber and around the country knows that we lost and Labour won. Her job now is to govern and mine is to hold her to account. Our country needs everybody who can work to do so. That principle should be at the heart of our welfare system. It is good for the taxpayer, good for the economy and good for the individual and their family, who benefit from security, dignity and purpose that work brings, and it means that those who genuinely cannot work get the support that they deserve.
The fact is that fewer people work under Labour. That has happened every time Labour has been in office, and it is already happening now. The Government should have taken their time in opposition to come up with meaningful reforms, but they did not, and the country is already paying the price.
Liz Kendall
I personally like the hon. Lady a great deal, but her entire response seemed to be railing against her own party’s failings and lamenting action that her party failed to take. “Too little, too late,” will indeed be the epitaph of the Conservative party. One thing on which I agree with her that this is a now-or-never moment, and I am proud that this Government are taking it. We are taking decisive action, ducking the challenges that have been ignored for too long.
I am not interested in being tough. This is about real people with real lives, and we must be careful in how we talk about it. I am interested in taking the right steps to change the system in order to transform people’s lives and, crucially, ensure that we have a social security system that lasts. One in three of us will have a health condition in our lifetime, and one in four is disabled. Unless the country, the welfare state, the world of work and all our public services wake up to that fact, the welfare state that the Labour party created will not be there for future generations. That is what we are determined to secure. This is a substantial package of measures that will save around £5 billion by 2029-30. We will have to wait until the OBR comes up with its final costings on all this at the spring statement.
I leave hon. Members with this: a decade ago, former Chancellor George Osborne said:
“Governments…let…unemployed people get parked on disability benefits, and told they’d never work again. Why? Because people on disability benefits don’t get counted in unemployment figures that could embarrass politicians.”
The Labour party is not embarrassed about this situation; we are ashamed of the state the Tories left the country in. We will face up to our responsibilities; it is time that Conservative Members did the same.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I absolutely agree: our social security system is not fit for purpose. The measures, particularly those to increase employment support by £1 billion a year and to increase the standard allowance of universal credit, which the Opposition failed to do in government, will be positively felt.
I appreciate the difficult financial circumstances that we face. Despite the Opposition’s assertion that £5 billion is not a huge figure, this is the largest cut in social security support since 2015. There are alternative and more compassionate ways to balance the books, rather than on the backs of disabled people. I absolutely and fundamentally believe that my right hon. Friend is on the right course, but I implore my party to try to bed in our reforms before we make the cuts, as others have asked.
There is so much evidence of the adverse effects that the Conservative party had through cuts to support and restrictions to eligibility criteria when it was in government, including the deaths of vulnerable people. That cannot be repeated. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend published as a matter of urgency the Government’s analysis of the impacts, particularly mental health impacts, and outlined when we are expected to respond.
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for her response. We will publish the equality and poverty impact analyses alongside the spring statement. I know that she is a lifelong champion of sick and disabled people, and she has rightly raised concerns, including through the Select Committee, of vital issues such as safeguarding. I look forward to receiving the Select Committee’s report on that in order to learn from the evidence that it received. Although this is a substantial package with those estimated savings, spending on working-age sickness and disability benefits will continue to rise over this Parliament. The last forecast was that they would continue to rise by £18 billion. As she says, these are important issues, and we need to work to get this right to ensure that proper support is in place for people. I genuinely look forward to working with the Select Committee to get all these proposals right.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for sharing her statement in advance—that was extremely welcome.
The Liberal Democrats want to see more people in work, including those with disabilities. Sadly, the significant blocker to those people getting into work is the appalling state of the health and social care system left behind by the Tories—to my mind, in more ways than one. We desperately need the new Labour Government to drive forward with reforms to invest in and improve our health service.
The devil is in the detail of these proposals. I fear what we will find as we turn over rocks over the next few days, particularly for the most vulnerable. The Secretary of State has described the system as broken, so how will she drive significant change through the measures? I fear that this is just tinkering around the edges when we need real culture change within the DWP and investment in our NHS. That is absolutely essential.
Liz Kendall
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need extra investment in the NHS and to overhaul the culture of the DWP, and that is precisely what we are doing. We are investing an additional £26 billion into the NHS, an extra £172 million into the disabled facilities grant to help disabled people to live independently, and £3.7 billion into social care, which is such an important issue.
We need a decisive cultural shift in the DWP. That is why our Get Britain Working plans include proposals to overhaul jobcentres. We have also said today that we need to look fundamentally at our safeguarding approach. Our Pathways to Work programme is genuinely just that. For some people, getting out of the house is an achievement; for others, it is maybe going along to a community group, doing voluntary action or getting skills. That is what we mean, and we will work closely not only with the NHS and social care—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—but with voluntary organisations, which have such a vital role in helping people on to a pathway to success.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to ensuring that no one is on the scrapheap when it comes to work and that everyone gets the support that they need. I note that she is consulting on delaying access to the health top-up in universal credit until the age of 22. Will she explain the rationale for that age, and what savings does she expect to make if that consultation goes forward?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. Patience is not my greatest virtue, but Members will need to wait until the spring statement for the OBR’s full assessment of individual measures and the savings they make. On delaying access to the health top-up for people under 22, there will be a specific exemption for those who are never able to work because their disability is so severe. This is all about matching it with our youth guarantee, announced in the Get Britain Working plan, to make sure every young person is earning or learning. If someone is not in education, employment or training when they are young, the impact can be lifelong and scarring on their health, job prospects and earnings, so we have to put that right.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
How precisely will these benefit cuts be realised, given this Government’s anti-business Budget, which has seen businesses close at the fastest rate since Labour was last in office? Of those still standing, 30% are planning to cut staff to cope with the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. Where are the jobs? We know Labour is the party of the magic money tree; is Labour now the party of the magic jobs tree, too?
Liz Kendall
The only party that believes in magic money is the Conservative party, who wrote a cheque that they could not pay. Unlike Conservative Members, we believe that good work and rights at work are of benefit to businesses, because the best businesses know that they help retain people and reduce the costs of recruitment. We are overhauling our approach in the DWP to employers, because only one in six ever uses a jobcentre to recruit. We want to have a single account manager for all businesses. We are going to make sure our jobcentres are much more embedded in their local communities, so that they have detailed knowledge of individual employers. That is the way that we get Britain working and growing again.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
When the Government made the decision to go down this route, did they understand the pain and difficulty that it will cause millions of our constituents who are using food banks and social supermarkets? These people are on the brink. This £5 billion cut is going to impact them more than her Department gives credence to. I would like to be able to look my constituents in the eye and tell them that this is going to work for them. As things stand, my constituents, my friends and my family are very angry about this, and they do not think this is the kind of action that a Labour Government take.
Liz Kendall
I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but let me say this to him. I have spent years chairing Feeding Leicester, the programme to end hunger in my city, and I know that I can look my constituents in the eye and say to them: I know that getting more people into better paid jobs is the key to their future success, and I know that dealing with their mental health problems, which are so prevalent, is essential. If someone can work, we will give them the help to get back on their feet, because that is the long-term route to tackling poverty and tackling inequality, which is what this Labour party is all about.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Like the Secretary of State, I was elected in 2010, and I need to tell her that our recollections differ. When I came into this role, after 13 years of Labour government, 7.5% of young people in the Gosport constituency were not in education, employment or training. That number was down to 3% last year. Since Labour has taken office, 83,000 more people across this country of working age are now unemployed. Businesses in the sectors that take on so many young people across our constituencies, from adult social care to childcare to hair and beauty, are telling me that they are not taking on more staff as a result of her Chancellor’s changes to national insurance contributions. Surely the two are mutually incompatible.
Liz Kendall
Unless we cut waiting times and waiting lists in the NHS, people cannot get back to health and back to work—many employers have said to me that they are deeply concerned about that—and that is the reason we are investing an extra £26 billion into the NHS. We are dealing with precisely those key sectors—health and social care, construction and so on—where employers want people with the skills to do those jobs. We are overhauling our approach in DWP and setting up sector-based work academy programmes specifically tailored to employers’ needs. I know there is more we need to do to work with employers and help them get people back into work, and that is what this Government will deliver.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
After 14 years of Conservative failure, there is a 29% employment gap and a 17% pay gap for disabled people in this country. We must therefore ensure that the social model of disability is central to Government decision making, to achieve inclusive growth that enables disabled people to fulfil their potential. I welcome the Secretary of State’s proactive approach to reasonable adjustments and the £1 billion support package to get disabled people back into work where they can work, as well as her recognition that PIP is designed as an in-work benefit to enable people to live independently. Research shows that supportive, incentive-based approaches massively outperform cuts or sanctions in getting disabled people into sustainable employment. What work has she done to develop inclusive growth strategies across all employment sectors, to close the disability employment gap and the disability pay gap?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. At the heart of our mission is providing equal rights and choices for disabled people to work. We will be working with disabled people and the organisations that represent them to develop our pathways to work employment support so that we get it right, because we will not do that unless we work closely with disabled people. We are also working right across Government—we have disability Ministers in every single Department who are driving this agenda forward—and I know that my hon. Friend will give much valued advice and help to make sure we get it right in every part of Government.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Encouraging and enabling people to get back to work is a laudable aim, but how can the Secretary of State assume £5 billion of success in advance of actually rolling out the programme? Surely the right approach is to let the reforms generate savings naturally by a concrete reduction in need, rather than to set an arbitrary target beforehand.
Liz Kendall
We are not setting an arbitrary target. We are fixing a broken system, and we are taking action immediately, because we believe we have to put in place employment support, health support and social care support at the same time as fixing a broken benefits system. I always start with people—what do we need to do to give people the opportunities they deserve if they can work? What do we need to do to make sure the social security system lasts? We cannot put that off any longer, because it is not good enough for the people we were elected to serve.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
PIP is a devolved benefit, known as the adult disability payment in Scotland. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will work with partners, including the Scottish Government, to ensure that disabled people across the whole UK get the support they need?
Liz Kendall
Absolutely—that is very important for me personally and for the Government as a whole. We want people in Scotland to have the same chances and choices to work if they can as everybody else and to make sure people have proper protections. That is essential for us, and I will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government, as I know other Departments will.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Youth unemployment stood at 642,000 as of the last quarter of 2024—a rise of 136,000 on 2023—with a youth unemployment rate of 14.8%. The Secretary of State talked about earning and learning. Does she agree that one way of attracting some people back into work would be to get more young people into His Majesty’s armed forces—the Air Force, the Navy and the Army—and will she discuss that with the Defence Secretary?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree. Indeed, before I was appointed to this position, as a constituency MP in opposition I discussed with my local jobcentre and the armed forces recruitment team precisely these issues, because the exciting careers and opportunities that are available are really important for young people in my constituency and the right hon. Gentleman’s. I will certainly have more conversations with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to make sure we put this plan into action.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I have heard many people make a moral case for the changes that my right hon. Friend has announced today, but does she agree that over the last 20 years those with large amounts of wealth have done extremely well while average household incomes have stagnated and the standard of living for the overwhelming majority has gone down? So while we make a moral case for changes to the benefits system, should we not also be making the case for how we can tax wealth as opposed to income?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is right that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden, which is why I am very proud that we have closed loopholes in the non-dom tax status, looked at the profits of the energy companies and tackled issues in many other areas. Fairness in the tax system is an absolute principle of the Labour party.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Government say they will not change our fiscal rules because of their manifesto. They say they will not change their tax policies because of their manifesto. They say they will not change their position on the single market because of their manifesto. Perhaps the Secretary of State could outline to me and to people right across the UK where in her manifesto it stated that they were going to take £5 billion away from disabled people?
Liz Kendall
I am very happy to send a highlighted version of our manifesto to the right hon. Gentleman, where we said we would reform or replace the WCA, we said we would make sure we dealt with the backlogs in Access to Work, we said we would make work pay, we said we would invest more in the NHS, we said we would improve employment rights, and we said we would create jobs in every part of the country. I am very proud that we are delivering on it and I just ask the right hon. Gentleman to take a look at what is happening in Scotland and at the Scottish Government’s record, because there is probably more they could do.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend announce additional investment in high quality, tailored and personalised support to help people on a pathway to work and the recognition that for so many it is indeed a pathway, not just a series of referrals that merely lead back to square one. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that joint working with local support services like those in Clwyd North, which are already doing great work, will form part of this reform so that a truly local, person-centred approach can be achieved?
Liz Kendall
Yes. We will not get this right unless we draw on the huge strengths of our voluntary and community organisations. I have never believed that there are hard-to-reach groups; it is just that we need to change what we do. There is a lot we can learn from groups like those my hon. Friend mentions, because it really is a pathway to work. We have got to end this false divide between those who can and cannot work, and instead understand that there are steps towards a better life. That is what this Government want to deliver.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I have two practical questions. First, the Secretary of State said she is joining jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance into a new time-limited unemployment insurance; what is that time limit? Secondly, she said there would be an expectation on people to look for work; what happens when they do not meet that expectation and what discipline is faced if they do not take that up?
Liz Kendall
The time limit is one of the things we are consulting on in the Green Paper and I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s views on that. On the expectation to engage, it is interesting that when we have started to free up our work coach time and offer support on the phone and in person, many people have come forward, because we are trying to change the culture. The Conservatives always leap straight to a position where people refuse to get involved. We have got to change that culture; that is the way that we will get more people on to that pathway to success.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the Secretary of State that many disabled and sick people want to work, but the reality is that cutting PIP will not address the reasons why they do not. She outlined that the reasonable adjustments framework for disabled people is very hard to navigate. It took me six months to navigate it for a member of my staff here in the place where we legislate, so how hard is it going to be for disabled people in the workplace to try to get employers to make those adjustments? Will the Secretary of State outline how she is going to make sure that the workplace is ready for the people who will be accessing it? Can she reassure me about the disability employment gap, which in a sense has nothing to do with benefits, but is to do with the reasonable adjustments that are not being made at the moment?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate of these issues and she is right: we have to do far more to work with employers to ensure that those basic reasonable adjustments are made. That is one of the issues that Sir Charlie Mayfield is looking at in our “Keep Britain Working” review, precisely because we know that good employers understand the need to make these changes. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to go through this in more detail because she is right: we have to get this absolutely nailed.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
First it was the pensioners and their winter fuel allowance, then it was the WASPI women and broken promises, and now it is the sick and the vulnerable. We believe in protecting the taxpayer but also in protecting those who need our support the most, yet there was not a word about abuse or about those who are taking money out of the system when they are not entitled to it. How can the Secretary of State rationalise in her own mind saying in the statement that, on the one hand, she accepts that people’s health and wellbeing can fluctuate but that, on the other hand, she is going to do away with the accumulation of points? To require an applicant to get four points in any one box does away with the ability to recognise that mental ill health in particular manifests itself in many different ways. That accumulation of points has been incredibly important in getting support for those who need it most. If it fluctuates, how come she is doing away with that accumulation?
Liz Kendall
There is very clear evidence that good work is good for mental health. That is the case for people with anxiety and depression, but also for those with more severe conditions such as psychosis and schizophrenia. There is really clear evidence from the NHS individual placement and support programme that if we can help people get into work, that is not only better for them and their incomes, but it reduces their relapses and spending on the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman asks how I rationalise this; I do so because I am not prepared to accept a system that is miserable for people, that traps them in poverty, and that denies them the chances and support they deserve. I am also not prepared to accept an inexorable rise in costs and spending, much of which is on the costs of failure, precisely because I want to ensure that the social security system lasts for the long term.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I think all Government Members understand the scale of the financial bin fire left by the previous Government, but there are those who are worried and are seeking assurances at home. For the 1 million people potentially losing disability support, what guarantees can my right hon. Friend give that those who are unable to feed or toilet themselves will not lose out on personal care? For the 1 million who can and do want to work, of course we welcome that £1 billion of extra support, but how are the Government going to hold unco-operative employers’ feet to the fire in giving disabled people an equal chance of employment and career success?
Liz Kendall
I agree with my hon. Friend: I know people are worried and concerned and that is a really important issue. It is why I disagreed with the Opposition spokesman saying that we need to be tough; I am not interested in that because this is about real people and real lives. The changes to PIP are not coming in immediately; they will be coming in from November 2026 for new claimants. Those with severe conditions who will never work will be protected. If people do have a reassessment, it will be done by a fully trained assessor or a healthcare professional and will be based on their individual needs. In order to ensure there is greater confidence in those assessors and the decisions that are being taken, we will overhaul our safeguarding and training and we will record those assessments as standard, because that is essential.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Because working is so beneficial to mental health, will the Secretary of State require claimants to undertake socially useful work in order to retain their benefits?
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for listening to disabled people and their organisations about ending needless, wasteful and extremely expensive repeat reassessments for those with progressive conditions. I hope that has been welcomed by those who have campaigned for it for many years. Will the Green Paper include plans to tackle the disincentives to work for disabled people and others in supported housing? If they work for more than 15 hours a week, it can result in financial penalties. That system was not only ignored by the Conservatives, but actually put in place by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in coalition, when they fumbled the introduction of universal credit. Will this Government fix tax allowances to ensure that work always pays, including for disabled people in supported housing?
Liz Kendall
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is looking at that. I am sure that he will discuss those issues with my hon. Friend, if he would like that.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I have heard nothing today that shows that the Government have listened to disabled people. Any changes to PIP should have been co-produced, but this week, 25 disabled people’s groups and charities wrote to Ministers begging for their opinions to be included, and not as an afterthought. Will the Secretary for State explain why disabled people are feeling so disregarded and scapegoated, and why impoverishing them to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax?
Liz Kendall
I think that many disabled people felt disregarded and ignored under the Conservative Government. We will be working with disabled people and the organisations that represent them on many—not all—aspects of what I have announced today. If the hon. Lady has particular issues and concerns that she would like to raise, she can write to me, or I would be very happy for her to meet me or the Minister for Social Security and Disability.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
Mr Speaker, you know that there are decisions made in this House that stay with you for the rest of your life. This is one of them. We all agree with the Secretary of State’s objectives of trying to ensure that disabled people have the resources they need for a decent quality of life, and that those capable of work have support to get into work. However, trying to find up to £5 billion of cuts by manipulating the PIP rules and criteria will result in immense suffering and, as we have seen in the past, loss of life. What independent monitoring will take place and be reported to the House, and what threshold of suffering is needed before an alternative route is taken to supporting disabled people?
Liz Kendall
I take the issues relating to the measures I have announced today very seriously. We want to ensure that all the assessment processes and training are properly scrutinised, and we are overhauling our safeguarding processes. My objective is to improve the lives and life chances of sick and disabled people by supporting into work those who can work, and by protecting those who will never work, through switching off reassessments to give them dignity and respect. I believe that the mission to ensure that those who can work do, and to secure the sustainability of the social security system for the long term, is the responsibility of the Labour party that founded the welfare state.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
One of the first acts of this Government was to take away the winter fuel allowance from millions of pensioners on incomes as low as £13,000 a year, including 44,000 who are—or were—terminally ill. Will the Secretary of State reassure all our constituents that in making these changes, she will not be going after those who have a terminal illness?
Liz Kendall
That is absolutely essential for me personally, and for the Government as a whole, and I give that assurance to the hon. Lady. However, I gently say to her that pensioner poverty increased under the Conservatives, and they left 880,000 pensioners not getting the pension credit they deserve. The Conservatives are suddenly converted to caring about pensioners on low incomes. In contrast, we have decided to act.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As a physio, I know that optimising somebody’s function and independence, whether they are in work or not, saves the system so much money, because it prevents dependency. However, I find that incongruous with the cuts of £5 billion and the changes to the eligibility criteria. Will the Secretary of State ensure that before the measures are brought to the House, disabled people are consulted and involved in the decision making? We must ensure that people maintain their independence, psychological safety and dignity, and that they are not pushed further into poverty.
Liz Kendall
I agree with my hon. Friend that keeping older people physically independent for as long as possible is vital. That is one of the reasons why we are investing an extra £26 billion in the NHS. Not only are we rolling out employment advisers in talking therapies and mental health services, but we are starting to do so when it comes to physical health, too, including for people with musculoskeletal conditions, because getting people back to health and back to work is so important. We will legislate for the PIP changes, and the House will have the full ability to debate them. Crucially, we will consult disabled people on the employment support programme and how we get that right, so that it is much more joined up with the health support that many sick and disabled people need.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Many of my Hazel Grove constituents are keen as mustard to get back to work, but they are waiting for either a diagnosis or treatment on the NHS. That is made more difficult because of the capital spending needed at Stepping Hill hospital, and because mental health services across Greater Manchester are stretched too thin. What assurance can the Secretary of State give my constituents that her announcements today will not make an already difficult time in their lives even more difficult?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady is right to champion her constituents’ needs. We recently undertook a survey of people on sickness and disability benefits, and two in five of them said that they were on a waiting list. That really concerned us, and it is why we are putting extra investment in place. We need to go further, faster, on driving waiting lists down. We have already achieved the 2 million extra appointments that we said we would deliver in our manifesto—we did that seven months early—and we will do even more to ensure that her constituents get back to health and back to work.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Nearly 1 million young people leaving school are not in employment, training or education. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) and I both represent St Helens. A couple of weeks ago, we received a letter from college tutors who were having difficulty getting young people to take up employment, training or education, asking if we could we do anything about that. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the guarantee of employment for young people, and how we will get them to accept training? Those young people were afraid of a cut in universal credit. I have to admit that I did not know that young people were on universal credit.
Liz Kendall
I promised I would keep my answers shorter, because so many colleagues want to get in. Our youth guarantee will be rolled out from next month. Mayors and local leaders will bring together work, health and skills support locally. I am very happy to talk to my hon. Friend personally about what more we can do in her constituency, because she is right that we have to get those young people on a pathway to success.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
When I fought the last election, I was honest with my electorate, telling them that we would save £12 billion from the welfare budget. Was the Minister honest with her electorate when she talked about Labour’s plans to cut disability welfare, or is she making this policy on the hoof because the Chancellor has destroyed economic growth?
Liz Kendall
The Conservatives did not have a plan. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), admitted during the general election campaign that the money had already been scored. I will listen more to the hon. Member when the Conservatives put forward a plan that works, instead of having it discredited in the courts.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Too many carers of disabled people end up with physical and mental health disabilities themselves, and end up trapped in the same system as their loved ones. What more can the Secretary of State do with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education to end that trap?
Liz Kendall
I have been a lifelong champion of family carers, who give their all to looking after the people they love. My hon. Friend will know that we have already boosted the carer’s allowance earning threshold by £45 a week to £196, benefiting more than 60,000 carers by ’29-30—the biggest ever cash increase in the earnings threshold for carers. We need to do much more to support family carers, including enabling them to balance their work and caring responsibilities. I look forward to talking to my hon. Friend about that.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Secretary of State says that she will legislate for a change in PIP, so that in future, people must score a minimum of four points in at least one activity to qualify. That means that an individual who needs supervision or assistance with therapy for three and a half hours a week, prompting and assistance with washing, assistance to get into the bath or shower, supervision to manage their toilet needs, and assistance to dress and undress their lower body would no longer qualify for PIP. How many such individuals are there?
Liz Kendall
It does not mean that. Every single case is assessed on individual need. It is really important that the hon. Lady and her constituents understand that we will protect those with severe disabilities who can never work. Anyone who goes through a reassessment will have it done based on their personal needs.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will agree that under the managed decline of the SNP, people in Scotland are more likely to be economically inactive than those in the rest of the UK. She will further agree that we have greater ambitions for the people of Scotland, particularly young people, than the Conservative party. Does she agree that these reforms are absolutely necessary to put more Scots back to work, and back on the road to prosperity?
Liz Kendall
Yes, I would. People in Scotland deserve the same chances and choices to work. They deserve to get skills and training, to not have young people leaving school without the qualifications they need, to have an NHS that is reducing waiting times, and to have overhauled jobcentres—absolutely. We will continue to work with the Scottish Government to put all those problems right, because we want people in every part of this country to benefit.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s shift towards prevention. Last May, my constituent Alexander McRandal was riding his motorbike on the lanes of east Devon when he struck a pothole and was thrown from his bike. His collision resulted in permanent nerve damage. He has had to leave a 40-year career, and his wife Louise has given up work to look after him. While they will be reassured to hear that the Government will not freeze PIP, does the Secretary of State recognise that more investment in local government is needed to prevent situations like theirs?
Liz Kendall
I am really sorry to hear about what has happened to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and his family, and the impact it had on them. There is absolutely more that we need to do to provide local support, which is why the Get Britain Working plan is not all being determined by Whitehall. Local leaders know best what local areas need, which is why we are devolving more resources, powers and responsibilities to local areas to ensure that we shift the focus towards prevention and early intervention and help people get back on their feet.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
When cuts to incapacity support were introduced by the last Government through the work-related activity component, we saw severe rises in poverty, no significant increase in employment, and cases of mental ill health skyrocketing. In the north-east, we already have some of the highest rates of poverty and ill health in the country, so what assurances can the Secretary of State give me that these changes will not push people in areas like mine further into poverty and ill health?
Liz Kendall
This is absolutely about areas like those represented by my hon. Friend—areas that have been written off and denied opportunities for so long. It is really important that we look at this in the round. We are taking action to create more good jobs in every part of the country through the modern industrial strategy, clean energy and building 1.5 million homes. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is sending specific teams into the 20 areas with the highest levels of economic inactivity to drive down waiting lists. There is much more that we need to do to focus this on the areas that need help the most, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to make that happen.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Today, across the United Kingdom and in my constituency of Upper Bann, so many genuine benefit recipients are fearful of what lies ahead—people who are vulnerable and need a compassionate welfare system to assist them in their day-to-day living. Regrettably, no reassurance has been given to those people today, particularly on the four-point minimum requirement. There has been little mention of fraud and the genuine need to tackle it head-on. Does the Secretary of State not believe that equipping our benefit fraud officers with resources and powers to catch and deal with those committing fraud would be a better starting point than sweeping changes that will be unlikely to outsmart the fraudster, but will hit the most vulnerable?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady may not know, but we have a fraud Bill going through Parliament right now, because we believe that £8 billion being wasted on fraud every single year is unacceptable. I am more than happy to write to her to set out the contents of that Bill; we can then have another discussion.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The reality remains that over the last few weeks, thousands of the most severely disabled people in my constituency and millions across the UK have watched in disbelief as politicians debate cuts to the support that enables their very survival, leaving many at breaking point. Does the Secretary of State understand the real fear and distress that that has caused? Will she today commit at the Dispatch Box to ensuring that not a single person who currently receives PIP will be unfairly punished or left struggling by these plans?
Liz Kendall
I do understand the worry and anxiety. I hope I have made it clear to the House today that I do not start from a position of being tough: I start precisely from a position of compassion for people who can work and are being denied opportunities and for severely disabled people who will never work. That is one reason why we are overhauling our safeguarding processes to ensure that those who can never work are never reassessed, to give them the confidence and dignity that they deserve.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I welcome any initiative that will see more people getting back into work. Although I have some concerns about the wrong people being targeted—and the fact that there will not be the jobs for them to go to, because of the national insurance contributions increase—I will press the Secretary of State on the detail. I find it strange that she can tell us that this will save £5 billion, but she cannot give us even a ballpark figure—I do not expect it to the penny—for how much she will spend beyond and above the £1 billion she has already announced. I know that it will come out through the OBR, but can she not give us a rough idea of how much her changes will cost?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman may know that Government Members strongly believe in and support the independence of the OBR and the processes behind it. We can give overall figures today, but he will have to wait until the OBR assessment is published at the spring statement for the individual costings, how many people will be affected and by how much.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Many constituents have contacted me because they are afraid of losing their benefits. After 14 years of Tory neglect and chaos and several months of scaremongering, there is real vulnerability and fear in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State confirm that we on the Government Benches believe that those who cannot work are nevertheless entitled to a decent standard of living? Like her, I believe that good work is good for us; it is good for mental wellbeing, a sense of worth and economic security, and disabled people are entitled to those. Will she write to me and set out in detail the incremental support, including tech support, that disabled people in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West can expect as a result of these measures, and when they can expect them?
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
In her statement, the Secretary of State referred to right-to-try legislation being brought forward and to de-risking work, but the Treasury’s NIC rises make employing more expensive and the Employment Rights Bill makes it more risky. What assessment has her Department made with other relevant Departments of the impact of recent Government policies on job creation and opportunities for sick and disabled people to try work?
Liz Kendall
Labour Members believe that good work and employment rights make it more likely that people will take work, and that they will keep people in work—that is why we are bringing those changes forward. We have a lot of employers who want to work with us to get the people they need because they are struggling to fill vacancies. We are overhauling our approach to that, because we want to serve employers to better meet their needs.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Of course, everyone in our country who can work should work, and should receive appropriate support to do so. It is of the utmost importance to many Labour Members that Labour ensures that disabled people who can never work are supported and protected to live the best possible life in dignity. Can the Secretary of State tell me how an adult who cannot work—however much they would have liked to—because, for example, they have cerebral palsy, a visual impairment and learning difficulties, and who is on enhanced PIP and has limited capability for work and work-related activity, will be affected by these changes? What will be the impact on their finances?
Liz Kendall
I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately about these issues, and I have spoken to her about them many times. I absolutely agree, and we commit that people who will never be able to work because of the severity of their disability or health condition will be protected. In fact, by never going back and reassessing those people, I hope that we will make a positive improvement, giving them the dignity and respect they need and deserve.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Culture matters. Those who have been victims of the carers’ overpayment scandal describe the culture at the DWP as spirit-crushing, but the culture of the Government matters too. Last week, I spoke to my constituent Geoff, who lives in Haywards Heath and is partially sighted. He told me that he and the partially sighted community have been sick with worry about what is being brought forward today. Does the Secretary of State think that the pitch rolling that has gone on over the past 10 days is the right way to make these kinds of announcements?
Liz Kendall
I hope that from now on, hon. Members will focus on the proposals that we are actually putting forward. Culture really matters—that is why we launched an independent investigation into the carer’s allowance overpayments; we want not just to be told that we are putting things right but for independent voices to say that. Many of our work coaches in jobcentres are absolutely wonderful, but I have heard from other hon. Members about work coaches ringing deaf people. We must start changing that, looking at our training processes and putting all these things right so that everyone is treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
In Erewash, there are many disabled and sick people who can never work, but who are forced to jump endlessly through hoops for the benefits they need to survive. I welcome the Secretary of State’s plan to switch off reassessments and end the needless stresses that these people must endure. Will she elaborate on those plans?
Liz Kendall
This is something that is personally important to me and the Minister for Social Security and Disability. We have seen cases in which, unbelievably, people whose disability will never change, or whose health condition will only get progressively worse, are being reassessed. While we switch reassessments back on and make them more face-to-face for people on the health top-up, we really want to ensure that there is dignity and respect for those who can and will never work. I would be more than happy to write to my hon. Friend with more details about that proposal in the Green Paper.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Has the Secretary of State ever been diagnosed with depression? I have—I have been in a situation where just getting up in the morning, having a shower and brushing your teeth feels like the biggest fight. Does she think that putting people who have been diagnosed with a mental health condition through more reassessments will make their mental health condition better or worse?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not talk about any health issues I may or may not have had in the past, although she is brave enough to talk about them in this House. People’s mental health conditions affect them in many different ways; there are people with anxiety and depression who say to me that work has actually given them structure and purpose and helped them deal with the problems, while others have said that sometimes they just cannot get out of bed, let alone out of the house. We need a system that recognises the different and fluctuating nature of these conditions and does whatever is right for that person, to get them back to health and—if they can—back to work.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I was a manager in the employment service. It has always needed reform, whether that is telling people that they have to come back in six weeks to get help or—under the Tory Government—being told to move people from employment benefits on to incapacity benefits in order to say that there are more people in employment. How we go about reforming it is fundamentally important, and I do not think it should be linked to saving money—that is rather crass, and it has caused lots of anxiety for my constituents and for people elsewhere. Patriotic Millionaires has said that a tax of just 2% on assets over £10 million will bring in £22 billion a year. That is a better way to bring money in to help fill the black hole that we have found ourselves in because of the disaster of 14 years of Tory Government. Does the Minister agree that aspiration, compassion, care and fairness will be the hallmarks of this Labour Government?
Liz Kendall
Aspiration, compassion, care and fairness are absolutely the hallmarks of this Government—that is why we are bringing forward these reforms. As I said earlier to the House, I do not start from a spreadsheet; I start from my belief that everybody has a value and a contribution to make, in whatever way, and that we want people to fulfil their potential. That is what these reforms are about.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Given the announced changes to the personal independence payment, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential impact on injured service personnel claiming the personal independence payment as an interim measure while their compensation claims are processed prior to the awarding of the armed forces independence payment, and will the armed forces independence payment also be within the scope of these changes?
Liz Kendall
I will look into that issue in detail, and will respond to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I can.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend co-chairs the child poverty taskforce. Can she tell the House what analysis she has undertaken of the impact on child poverty of the reforms she is announcing today? Will she publish that analysis, and can she assure the House that these reforms will not make child poverty worse for any child living in a family where their parents or carers are in receipt of benefits?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. As I said earlier, we will publish the equality impact analysis and the poverty impact analysis around the time of the spring statement. It is really important that we look at how more people will benefit from being in work and improving their incomes—that is essential. We will also come forward with our child poverty strategy, because we have a clear manifesto commitment to drive child poverty down. Children growing up in poverty could have their life chances damaged for years to come, and we are determined to put that right.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
This whole statement is predicated on saving £5 billion at the expense of people with disabilities in our society. Anyone who has been through the trauma of trying to apply for a personal independence payment knows about the intrusive nature of the questioning, and about the great difficulty of obtaining that payment and then continuing to receive it in future. The Secretary of State’s statement has caused consternation and dismay to many people around the country—particularly those with disabilities—who are understandably alarmed that their benefits will go down and that they will live in greater poverty as a result. Can she say with hand on heart that no disabled person will be worse off after her statement, or will that £5 billion be taken at the expense of those in our society who already live the most difficult lives?
Liz Kendall
This statement is predicated on stopping people being written off—denied opportunities, denied hope and denied a future. It is about making the social security system sustainable for the long term, which is so important to me. When we have 1,000 new PIP awards every single day, many of those driven by mental health and young people, we have got to look at that. We cannot duck this challenge, because I want a social security system that will be there for centuries to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am hoping to try to get everybody in, but I will be finishing the statement at around 2.30 pm. Please help each other by keeping questions and answers short.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
My constituents will welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment today to protecting with dignity those who cannot work because they are so severely disabled or because of illness. There are many sick and disabled people who can work with the right support, so can my right hon. Friend confirm that those people will get the support they need to get into work to build a better life for them and their families?
Liz Kendall
Yes. Members have rightly said that PIP is not a benefit related to work, but a contribution to the extra costs of living with a disability. Actually, 17% of people on PIP are in work. I want to expand opportunities for disabled people who can work to get into work, because the disability employment gap, which actually fell under the last Government, has flatlined. We want to sort that out, because we believe that disabled people should have the same rights and chances to work, if they can, as everybody else.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Can the Secretary of State offer some reassurance to Sue from Wareham about her 45-year-old son, who is permanently disabled through childhood illness? She told me that he has great abilities and works part-time with support, but every time there is a change of circumstance, he has to prove his permanent disability again. The Secretary of State has confirmed that there will be changes to reassessments by DWP, but will that also apply across other Departments, including the Department for Transport, for matters including bus passes and blue badges? Those reassessments cause huge mental health issues.
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady raises an important point. I will look at that and write to her to make sure we address it properly.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
While I accept that it is perfectly possible for people with severe mental health conditions to work with the right support—in Warrington, we already have an employment rate above the Government’s national target—is there not a risk that these proposals are premature and that we are legislating for the mental health services we might hope to have in the future, rather than where these services are today? Does the Secretary of State accept that the issue is not over-diagnosis, but the broken mental health services we inherited?
Liz Kendall
I have always believed we should follow the evidence on this. We have a clear commitment to recruit 8,500 new mental health workers and to have mental health support in every primary and secondary school to prevent problems from happening. We also need to roll out individual placement and support within the NHS. I have seen in my own constituency that it can be life-transforming, but we need to go further and faster to ensure that all people with mental health problems who can work do so.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Wales will be hit hard by these cuts, with the second-highest proportion of disabled people of working age in the UK. Stripping £5 billion from the system will only increase pressure on other services. Has the Secretary of State secured the approval of her Labour Welsh Government colleagues, as they will be the ones who will have to shoulder the cost of these damaging cuts?
Liz Kendall
Welsh Labour wants to see more people having the chances and choices to get good jobs. That is why we have a modern industrial strategy to create good jobs in every part of the country, why we are building 1.5 million new homes and why we want to see clean energy support. All those things will make a huge difference. We do not believe that the status quo is acceptable or inevitable. That is why our plan for change will create more good jobs in every part of the country. I hope that the hon. Lady and her party will welcome that.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I support the measures set out in this statement to get people who can work into work. I have been contacted by constituents who are worried, such as my constituent Lisa, who has a son with a severe disability. He will never be able to work and relies on support. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that people like my constituent, who cannot work and will never be able to work, will not be worse off under these proposals?
Liz Kendall
We absolutely will protect those who can never work. One thing I have not said to the House so far is that we are consulting in the Green Paper on whether we should increase the age until which children get DLA from 16 to 18. That is an important point to give people the reassurance they need and deserve.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Parity in our welfare benefits is a key feature of our Union. When the last Government introduced their welfare reforms, the Northern Ireland Executive saw fit to introduce mitigations for which they had to pay by taking money off health and education out of the block grant. If the Northern Ireland Executive decide to mitigate these cuts on this occasion, can the Secretary of State confirm that that money would again have to come out of needed services, such as health and education?
Liz Kendall
Full details on the impact of these changes on the block grant will be available at the spring statement. The last Budget provided the biggest ever block grant settlement since devolution. I will be working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure we do everything possible to help people in Northern Ireland into work and off benefits, to ensure that they have the same chances and choices as people right across the United Kingdom.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Peterborough is a youth unemployment hotspot. I know not many Members are left on the Opposition Benches, but one of the most shameful parts of their record has been writing off a generation, with one in eight young people not in education, earning or training. There is nothing progressive or good about a Government who write off young people and put them on benefits. I welcome the work that the Secretary of State has announced about employment support services for young people. Will she speak more about my passion, which is the Government’s youth guarantee and how we put into reality youth jobs for the future?
Liz Kendall
Young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency are much more likely to be unemployed than young people in the rest of the country, and I know his passion for the youth guarantee. We are investing extra support into the youth guarantee in his area, and I look forward to launching that youth guarantee very soon.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I of course applaud the intention of getting people back to work, but my inbox—like those of everybody else here, I am certain—is full of emails from petrified disabled constituents. The recurring theme is the absolute disbelief that once again, welfare cuts are being imposed by none other than a Labour Government. What will the Secretary of State say to my constituent, Jason, who lives in our city? He has been told by Leicester city council that it will now consider his PIP payment as income and so has increased the council tax he has to pay. How does the Minister expect Jason to find that additional £900?
Liz Kendall
I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me about that constituent so I can look at the issue.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Three quarters of the people who claim universal credit and disability have gone without essential items in the past six months. The £5 billion cut is likely to make that worse for them. I have had lots of emails from my Liverpool Riverside constituents. As others have asked already this afternoon, will the Minister speak with the Chancellor about looking at a wealth tax? We need a wealth tax and not to be attacking the most vulnerable.
Liz Kendall
I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately about these issues. Her constituents will not only benefit from the £1 billion investment into employment support, but the first ever above-inflation permanent increase in universal credit, if people are on universal credit and PIP. We have already taken action to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders take a bigger burden, including our action on the non-dom tax status and a tax on the profits of utility companies. That principle of fairness is vital to us all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I go on the tube twice a week, and the disability seat in the carriage says “Not every disability is visible”. Bearing that in mind, those with severe mental health issues, such as paranoid psychosis, anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, already fear phone calls from withheld phone numbers. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that they will not be impacted or hounded in the attempt to root out fraudsters? Does she accept that those with severe mental health issues may not understand their illness, or be able to explain it or grasp it? How will these people—my people; our people—be protected?
Liz Kendall
I think that everyone’s situation and condition is individual and personal to them, and that is why it is important that any reassessments are done on an individual case-by-case basis. There will be people with psychosis and schizophrenia who can never work, but I have met people in Leicester with precisely those conditions who have got work through the employment advice provided by the NHS’s individual placement and support service. That is why, as I have said, the pathways to work employment support is personalised and tailored to individual need.
Given the size and complexity of the social security system, it is not easy for me to provide an answer now for the people whom the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. That is why we must have those personal assessments, and I want much more to be done to ensure that they are carried out properly.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Last night I received a response from the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), to a written question that I had asked about the average payment for the daily living component of PIP. It revealed that the average payment was just £12 a day. The purpose of the daily living component is to cover the cost of extra help needed with everyday tasks such as washing, eating, using the toilet and getting dressed, but the Secretary of State’s proposal to tighten the eligibility criteria could mean that even those who are assessed as needing help on every criterion may not be entitled to PIP. Is it not wrong to balance the books on the backs of sick and disabled people in such a way?
Liz Kendall
I can confirm that we will focus PIP on those with the greatest needs by changing the assessment so that people will need to score a minimum of four points to qualify for the daily living component. That will apply to new claimants from November 2026. Reassessments will be conducted on a personal, case-by-case basis, and therefore, while I entirely understand why Members raise issues about individuals, we cannot determine those cases from the Dispatch Box.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I represent the second most deprived constituency in the United Kingdom, where nearly one in two children are living in poverty, and I worry about the impact that these measures could have on child poverty numbers. Moreover, the number of young people in my constituency who are not in work, education or training is double the national average, but they cannot gain access to the mental health support that would enable them to get into work. That is happening throughout Blackpool, but it is also happening across the country. What can the Secretary of State do to turbocharge the health service while also putting representatives of the voluntary sector, the third sector and the charity sector into jobcentres, so that people can find mental health support immediately rather than waiting for us to rebuild the NHS that the Conservatives left in such a terrible mess?
Liz Kendall
We are considering putting jobcentres into GP surgeries and community centres. I believe in a jobs and careers service going to where people are, rather than always expecting them to come to us. I think I am right in saying that authorities in some parts of the country, such as the combined authority in Manchester, have commissioned specific talking therapies for people who are looking for work. That is the direction in which we want to move, and I should be more than happy to discuss it with my hon. Friend in more detail.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Hundreds of disabled people in my constituency want to work, but they often face absolute poverty pay and feel that they would be better off on benefits. On average, disabled workers are paid £2.35 an hour, or £4,300 a year, less than other workers. How will Labour’s commitment in the King’s Speech to a new equality Bill ensure that disabled workers will finally receive equal pay at work, and can choose a good job over being—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call the Secretary of State.
Liz Kendall
I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that today we launched a consultation on equality pay gap reporting, and I hope that that will make a huge difference.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
If we do indeed believe in the social model of disability described earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), may I encourage the Secretary of State, and indeed everyone, to find a different language in which to talk about this? When we describe disabled people as being unable to work, we ignore the fact that most disabled adults are in work, while many of those who are not are desperate to get into work but are held back by low pay and lack of opportunities. Can we look again at Access to Work to ensure that the largest and most profitable employers are bearing more of the costs of adequate—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. May I remind Members that there are a great many more for me to get in? I ask them please to help each other, and keep the questions and answers short.
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is right: there are more disabled people in work than ever before, and we need to recognise that and go further. We are launching a consultation on Access to Work to ensure that more people are able to secure that vital support, and that it goes to the right place at the right time.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I agree with the Government that welfare reform is necessary, but many of my constituents are very worried about the removal of support on which they rely. Fourteen years of austerity under the Conservatives took its toll on our nation, with public service cuts and the cost of living crisis pushing people to the brink. What are the Government doing to address the root causes of people’s inability to work, rather than just focusing on the symptoms?
Liz Kendall
We are focusing precisely on the root causes. We are focusing on what more we can do to change the world of work, get people back to health and back to work and give them the skills that they need, and on tackling the disincentives in the benefits system. I am not interested in tinkering around; it is too important for people, and life is short. I want to get it right, tackle the root causes, and put the country on a pathway to success.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Many organisations, including our own NHS, use punitive capability processes when scoring the illnesses of people who become sick while in work, which causes additional stress to those who need support the most. How will the Government help employers to ensure that their employees are supported properly when they experience ill health?
Liz Kendall
Our Keep Britain Working review, led by the former John Lewis boss Sir Charlie Mayfield, is dealing with precisely that issue: what more we can do to help employers to give sick and disabled people more opportunities to obtain work and stay in work.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
The Resolution Freedom has warned that as a result of cuts in PIP, 62,000 people could lose about £675 a month, with the poorest families hit the hardest. Given that 870,000 children live in PIP-receiving households and 290,000 of them are already living below the poverty line, how can the Government justify pushing more disabled people and children into poverty rather than pursuing fairer alternatives, such as a 2% wealth tax on assets worth more than £10 million, which would raise £24 billion—five times as much as the suggested savings from the proposed cuts? Is “austerity 2.0” really the change that people voted for?
Liz Kendall
Spending on working-age sickness and disability benefits will still rise substantially over the current Parliament. The full assessment of the numbers affected, and by how much, will be published alongside the spring statement.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Cuts in social security for disabled people under the last Government led to their living in poverty with little or no increase in employment rates. What assessments have been made of the impact of these changes on their income, and will the Secretary of State ensure that any reforms are compassionate and disabled people have a voice?
Liz Kendall
Many other Members have asked that question. We will publish the equality impact and poverty impact analyses alongside the spring statement. I believe that we need to treat people with dignity, respect and compassion, but must also face up to the challenges of a failing system that is currently not sustainable, not for the public finances—although that is relevant—but for the very people who will depend on this in future. That is what we are trying to change.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for reassuring my constituents with profound disabilities that they will be protected under these reforms. My niece, who herself has autism and has faced significant barriers to work, is a health coach in a local jobcentre, where she is helping other people with disabilities, neurodiversity issues and mental illnesses to find work. However, she is frustrated by her lack of access to fit notes. Will the Secretary of State ensure that jobcentre staff have the time, information and resources that they need to help people with disabilities and health problems to find suitable and rewarding jobs?
Liz Kendall
As always, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We want to free up our work coaches’ time from tick-box benefit administration so that they can spend more time with sick and disabled people who need support, and can refer them to, for instance, mental health or debt advice services. When we do that, more people get into work, and both their finances and their mental health improve. We have already announced that we will free up 1,000 work coaches’ time to help more than 60,000 sick and disabled people, and that is just the start: we want it to be rolled out throughout the land.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I am one of the 6% to 8% of people living with a serious mental illness in employment, despite 80% of us wanting to work. I am here despite a mental health system that I have always found unsupportive, and because I went out of my way to forge my own pathway of support and care. Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s offer of a package of support, my plea to her is that she work with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that those of us who suffer with a severe mental illness have the true support that we need to access employment.
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is right. One of the things we learned during the pandemic is that a healthy nation and a healthy economy are two sides of the same coin. I believe we need to do much, much more to join up what the DWP does with what the NHS and, crucially, local skills and voluntary organisations do. That is not the way we have worked in the past, but that is what we want to change.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Having worked for all his adult life, my dad had a life-altering stroke in 2013. He was just 55, and PIP kept him alive for 10 further years. As the person who helped to fill in his PIP forms, take him to assessments and make the telephone calls, I can tell the House that, without a doubt, the system is already incredibly difficult to access. Will the reforms help speed up the process for PIP assessments and decisions, which take far too long under the current process?
Liz Kendall
Yes. We have announced in the Green Paper that, alongside the changes for which we will legislate, we will have a review of the PIP assessment process, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability. We will work with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and others to sort this out. One of the great tragedies is that it is a miserable system for everybody. I do not want it to be like that—we need to change it—and I really look forward to talking to my hon. Friend to get more of his ideas.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Labour believes in the value and dignity that having a job gives people, but too many disabled people who want a job are being let down and trapped by the current system. Organisations such as SWEDA—the Skills Work and Enterprise Development Agency—in West Bromwich help people with disabilities and long-term conditions into employment with tailored, local support. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this package of reforms will support people into good, fulfilling work via local organisations, and that we will protect people with long-term conditions who will never be able to work?
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The system is clearly broken, and I welcome the urgent work to get it fixed. What reassurance can the Secretary of State provide to children living in households that receive PIP but are in poverty? What reassurance can she provide to the one in five people in receipt of universal credit and disability benefit, who are reliant on food banks already? What reassurance can she give to my constituents, 6,000 of whom claim PIP, which they need for dignified lives?
Liz Kendall
Having chaired Feeding Leicester for years—unfortunately, I had to give it up when I got this job—I know only too well the issues that people face right across my city and my hon. Friend’s constituency. Our objective is to get those who can work into good work, because that is the sustainable way to tackle poverty and inequality in this country. We are also committed to developing a bold, cross-Government child poverty strategy, which we hope to publish shortly.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Being healthy is shaped by the world around us, from the homes we live in to the air we breathe and the money in our pockets. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a moral case for tackling the social determinants of ill health and the causes of poverty, rather than cutting the benefits of the most vulnerable people in our society?
Liz Kendall
I have worked in health, and one of my first jobs involved tackling health inequalities when I worked at the King’s Fund charity. We are looking at building not only more homes, but more decent homes. We want people not just to get jobs, but to get good jobs. We are looking at raising the income of the poorest people with our new fair repayment rate, which gives an average of £420 a year extra to the 1.2 million poorest families. There is much more that we can do but, right across Government, our purpose is to tackle poverty and inequality by getting more people into good jobs. That is the Labour way.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I strongly congratulate the Secretary of State on the £1 billion package of employment support. Many active labour market policies have been shown to have considerable economic impact. Historically, it has been difficult for the Office for National Statistics to score the positive impacts of active policies, as opposed to the more straightforward impacts of budget reductions. Will the Secretary of State commit to working cross-departmentally to ensure that we have long-term investment in the health of our nation, which is so fundamental to the wealth of our economy?
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I welcome the reforms outlined today and the commitment to make sure that our most vulnerable disabled people are protected from these changes. In Darlington, we know the value of work, but I have come across constituents with learning difficulties who have been out of work for a long time. They have been in work placements and could work, but they were badly bullied and have been scarred by 14 years of rhetoric about how they are workshy. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give that they will be offered safe and secure work placements?
Liz Kendall
I am not interested in blaming people to grab easy headlines; we have had that for too long. I know that many people with autism and neuro-divergent people have been treated badly, which needs to change. If my hon. Friend would like to send more case studies and examples from her constituency, I will look at them to see what we can do. We will try to put things right.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Many will see the removal of £5 billion from the social security system not as reforms, but as the continuation of the failed ideology of Tory austerity, which has already cost thousands of lives. I have had hundreds of disabled constituents tell me that they are absolutely terrified by what the Government are planning to do. Does the Secretary of State really believe that it is fair to balance the books on the backs of disabled people and the poor, rather than introducing a wealth tax on the super-rich?
Liz Kendall
Let us be honest: that is not what we are doing. I do not accept the status quo—it is miserable for people who can work, and miserable for those who cannot. That is what I want to change.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the tone that she has struck today. We are talking about people’s lives, not figures on a spreadsheet, and I hope to see that reflected in the delivery of these plans.
Disabled people’s trust in the system is low following 14 years of a failed punitive approach by the Conservative party, and speculation in recent days has left my constituents feeling fearful. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that those with the most severe disabilities—those who are genuinely unable to work—will be no worse off under these plans?
Liz Kendall
I can absolutely give that commitment. Many hon. Members have raised the issue of culture, which is about how people feel they have been treated and the headlines that they see in the papers. It is really important that we change that. I know that we cannot do so overnight, but the entire team in the DWP—our Ministers and officials—want to change things so that we can get people on a pathway to success.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Welfare reform must ensure that incentivising people into work does not produce unintended health consequences, not least by generating fear and uncertainty, as she rightly points out. Does she agree that we need to address the health inequity issues that are delaying treatment of mental illness, and our underlying public health and inequality issues? Welfare reform and NHS transformation must complement each other, to make sure that no one is left behind.
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree that we need to tackle these issues, but there is more and more evidence that good work is good for the mental health of people with anxiety and depression, and for those with serious conditions, if support is provided in the right way. I have seen it for myself in my constituency, including through the work that the NHS is doing. We have to spread that far more widely.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
We know that helping people to stay well and manage long-term conditions or disabilities is almost always cheaper in the long term. Can the Secretary of State tell me how she will account for the potential wider system costs of changing the amount of money that is available to people with disabilities or long-term conditions?
Liz Kendall
For many years before I was appointed as a shadow DWP Minister, I worked in health and social care, and I know that helping people to manage their long-term conditions is absolutely essential. We must give people power, control and agency over their lives, rather than telling them that a doctor or somebody else always knows best. I deeply believe in that principle, and I will work closely with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, because I know he believes that, too. There is much more we can do, but we will definitely make a start.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I think I will get everybody in at this rate, thank you.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently held a child poverty roundtable in my constituency, and one of the issues raised repeatedly was that many people who want to work find themselves worse off when they lose benefits and find themselves pushed into hardship. What assurances can my right hon. Friend provide for my constituents that under these changes they will be better off in work and will no longer be penalised for wanting to improve their life’s circumstances and those of their families?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend raises a really important point, and it would be really good if she talked to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability, who is reviewing universal credit, as we promised in our manifesto, to tackle poverty and make work pay. We have to make that a reality for everybody in this country, and I am sure that, if she talks to him, he will speak more about what we are doing in this regard.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Last week, my constituent Ellie, who is visually impaired, visited the local jobcentre, but as a full-time student seeking part-time work, she was belittled, spoken over and told that she could not get help because she was on PIP, not on UC. She left feeling devastated by that experience. Can the Secretary of State reassure me and Ellie that such an experience will become a thing of the past for people like her who are desperately seeking work?
Liz Kendall
That is absolutely my intention. I ask my hon. Friend to send me the details, because I will look into that personally.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the clue is in the name of our party? Because we believe in dignity in work and enhanced workers’ rights; dignity and far more support for disabled people and people with health conditions seeking work, particularly with the right to try; and dignity and compassion for those unable to work, especially in ending reassessments. Does she also agree that this Labour Government will get Britain working and get welfare working better, with compassion and support at its heart?
Liz Kendall
I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. I do not pretend that this will change overnight, and I know it is a huge agenda, but we are in politics to make a difference—and a big difference—because, as I have said, life is short, and there is much we need to do.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Many of us in this place have fought alongside parents of severely disabled people, not least against our broken SEND system. Can the Secretary of State reassure those parents, who may be looking at the proposed changes to UC health eligibility for under-22s and feeling deeply dismayed right now?
Liz Kendall
We are consulting on this proposal, and we want to make sure that those severely disabled people who will never work will be protected. However, I also know that there are many young people with special educational needs and learning difficulties who, with the right support, can make a contribution, live independently and get work. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to get this right, because it is really important that we ensure all young people get the support and opportunities they deserve.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will know that the Tory legacy in coastal communities such as mine in East Thanet is a broken welfare system and a broken economy. The number of people claiming PIP has more than doubled in my constituency since 2018, and the statistics on young people claiming for mental health conditions are particularly heartbreaking. However, two things can be true at once: too many people are being written off without a path to wellness and work; and there must be reliable support for those who cannot work. Can my right hon. Friend explain how reducing support for those who struggle to wash and dress themselves will help tackle either of these challenges?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend, as always, speaks passionately about her constituency and the need to make sure that the support for people who can work is there, but also that we protect those who cannot. I would say that every case needs to be judged on an individual basis, and we will make sure that that happens.
I say to the House, and to you, Madame Deputy Speaker, that I know many people would have wanted to ask more questions and to say more, but my door is always open. We want and need to get this right, and we will have more debates about this, but if any hon. Member on either side of the House wants to contact me with more questions, I and the team will do everything we can to address those openly, honestly and quickly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The final question from the Back Benches will come from Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I think we all know that the current system is not only broken, but unsustainable. I welcome her focus on supporting the long-term unemployed, and I would point to some good examples of the work we are doing in my constituency. However, would she agree that we need to support those constituents in Harlow, many with severe disabilities, who cannot work, and end this merry-go-round of constant reassessment?
Liz Kendall
Madam Deputy Speaker, you were saving the best till last, as always, with my hon. Friend.
We absolutely will protect those with severe disabilities who can never work. I do not want to see them having to go through deeply worrying reassessments, and we want to put that right. For people in Harlow who can work but have been denied such opportunities, we will fix the broken system, tackle the perverse incentives left us by the Conservatives, and give people the hope and opportunity that there are better days ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Just to let Members know that about 100 Members have asked questions on the statement.
Dr Caroline Johnson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I asked a question during the statement, the Secretary of State said, “It does not mean that.” I had raised the list on the Government’s website of the descriptors used to qualify somebody for a certain number of points in relation to the daily living component of PIP. Each of the descriptors I mentioned has two or three points associated with it:
“Needs supervision…or assistance to be able to manage therapy that takes…3.5 hours a week. 2 points… Needs assistance to be able to wash either their hair or body below the waist. 2 points… Needs assistance to be able to get in or out of a bath…3 points … Needs supervision…to be able to manage toilet needs. 2 points… Needs assistance to be able to dress or undress their lower body”—
needing the physical help of another person—also
“2 points.”
At the moment, someone with all of those needs would qualify for this component of PIP, but under her new rules they will not. How can I give the Secretary of State the opportunity to correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order, but the hon. Lady has got her point on the record.
Freight Crime
Tuesday 18th March 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberFreight Crime Bill 2024-26 View all Freight Crime Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
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
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the recording and investigation of freight crime; and for connected purposes.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather) for being present on the Front Bench today.
Shortly after being elected in July, I became the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on freight and logistics, because almost a fifth of my constituents work in this vital sector and I wanted to make sure they had a voice in Parliament. The freight and logistics sector has become the backbone of the local economy in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, with businesses located across the constituency. Since becoming an MP, I have had the pleasure of visiting many of these businesses to see how they are providing varied opportunities for people in North Warwickshire and Bedworth. I want the logistics sector to be something young people in my constituency are excited to be part of, and that means we must tackle freight crime so they can feel safe in their jobs.
I am proud that North Warwickshire and Bedworth contributes so much to our national economy by getting goods and medical supplies to the people up and down the country who need them. However, from speaking to drivers and businesses across the country, it is clear that one of the biggest issues facing this industry is organised freight crime. With the Road Haulage Association, the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service and freight businesses, we recently launched our APPG report on freight crime to provide a framework for how the Government can secure our supply chains. Our report highlighted a key misconception. Too many people think theft from a van or lorry is low-level opportunistic crime; this is not true. Freight crime is committed by organised criminal gangs. It is dangerous, and it has cost the UK economy £1 billion since 2020. More action is urgently needed.
I thank the Home Office and the Department for Transport for their engagement with our campaign. I know they understand the need to tackle this critical issue, and statistics show that the investment they have made in safe parking has paid off, with a reduction in the number of crimes at truck stops. I hope that demonstrates to the Government that targeted action to combat freight crime is producing results. I recently met the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, and I welcome her recognition that the challenge of freight crime must be tackled if we are to achieve our mission of economic growth.
We need to see more action on freight crime. The situation is urgent. Between 2023 and 2024, the total value of goods stolen by freight criminals increased by 63% to more than £120 million. I visited Corley services in my constituency to see how it is tackling freight crime. Even though it has introduced measures to make drivers and parked vehicles safer, it is clear that more must be done. I spoke to Dave Hands, the managing director of LTS Global Solutions, based in my constituency, about how freight crime has impacted his business. The company experienced six fuel theft incidents last year, each of which significantly impacted the business—LTS loses a day of deliveries and must replace the stolen fuel, pay a call-out fee to repair the vehicle and supply fuel to get it to the nearest garage.
This has to stop. This type of crime can often be violent, with organised gangs targeting drivers sleeping in lay-bys, as they know that is when they are most vulnerable to theft. In February 2024, five men threatened a driver in an Essex lay-by with a handgun before stealing his cargo, leaving the driver terrified. Despite an extensive area search, the police did not identify any suspects. Similarly, in West Yorkshire, last summer, thieves threatened a driver with a hammer and stole £250,000-worth of products from the vehicle. Once again, no one was caught.
Freight criminals are also becoming ever more sophisticated. They target warehouses where they know high-value goods will be stored and have stolen trailers laden with laptops, household appliances and medical supplies from transport hubs right across the midlands. Organised freight criminals seize opportunities of goods shortages to target cargo that is increasing in value, such as baby formula and personal protective equipment during the pandemic. In a particularly cruel case, freight criminals stole more than £1 million-worth of Government-funded laptops meant for deprived children. Luckily, three men were caught and sent to prison.
As a House, we must understand that organised freight crime feeds into other organised crime, where gangs have a large underground network of handlers who reintroduce large amounts of stolen cargo for the public to buy. Stolen cargo has even ended up on our supermarket shelves.
Staggeringly, in the most extreme and dangerous examples, freight criminals can even steal from moving vehicles. Last year, a heavy goods vehicle was driving to Hinckley, when the driver realised that the lock had been cut while he was driving and that more than £3 million-worth of smartphones, watches and laptops had been stolen. This type of operation, where criminal gangs drive erratically to target and tailgate a moving vehicle, is dangerous to everyone on the road.
Police in Warwickshire know that freight crime is becoming increasingly organised, targeted and dangerous, yet they are struggling to track and tackle it effectively because an organised gang stealing thousands of pounds-worth of goods from a lorry and someone stealing a mobile phone from the passenger seat of a car are coded in the same way. I am sure that that does not make sense to anyone in this House. That is why this Bill is needed.
The Bill would create a separate crime code for freight theft from a vehicle. With this specific code and classification, large-scale thefts of freight goods would be categorised differently, allowing police to respond to them as organised and targeted freight theft, rather than them being lumped together with domestic car break-ins and other car crime. This change would help police to deal with incidents more effectively in real time. Call handlers would be able to ask specific questions and follow responses and procedures specific to freight crime, allowing police to respond to incidents faster and more appropriately, stopping incidents and patterns slipping through the cracks.
It would also mean we could collect meaningful data. At the moment, the majority of data on freight crime is put together by the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Police Service, an organisation that receives no Government funding. Police forces currently do not have to report their freight crime incidents, so there are counties for which we have no data at all on how much freight crime is taking place. A separate crime code would mean all police forces could track freight crime instances, target freight crime hotspots in their county and create a national strategy with other police forces to chase down perpetrators across counties.
The Bill will improve police effectiveness when dealing with organised freight criminals and help us to tackle the problem and come up with a national freight crime strategy. Almost 20% of workers in North Warwickshire and Bedworth work in the freight and logistics sector, and they should not have to feel scared and threatened while doing their jobs. Freight and logistics businesses, which quite literally keep our country running, should not have to shoulder regular losses because of cargo theft; the police should not be hamstrung in tackling serious organised crime because they cannot retrieve the data they need to co-ordinate a national freight strategy; and ordinary consumers should not be left to pick up the bill. Organised freight crime gangs have been left to grow for too long, but this simple change should help to stop them in their tracks. It is time we took tougher action on freight crime, introduced a new freight crime code and put these thieves behind bars, where they belong.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Rachel Taylor, Shaun Davies, Sarah Coombes, David Burton-Sampson, Kirith Entwistle, Catherine Fookes, Christine Jardine, Antonia Bance, Mrs Sureena Brackenridge, Alex Ballinger, Sarah Edwards and Josh Newbury present the Bill.
Rachel Taylor accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 June, and to be printed (Bill 202).
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 77 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 77 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 107 / Noes: 324 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 324 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 382 / Noes: 104 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Free school meals: automatic enrolment of eligible children—
“In section 512ZB of the Education Act 1996 (provision of free school lunches and milk), omit subsection (2)(b).”
This new clause would remove the requirement in the Education Act 1996 for eligible children to request free school meals of their local authority.
New clause 6—Establishment of national school food monitoring scheme—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must institute a scheme for monitoring school food standards in England (‘the national school food monitoring scheme’).
(2) The purpose of the national school food monitoring scheme will be to determine whether applicable food standards duties are being met in the provision of all food in schools in England.
(3) The national school food monitoring scheme may from time to time publish reports containing such information as it sees fit relating to school food standards in England.”
This new clause would establish a national school food monitoring scheme, to ensure that the breakfast club provision included within this bill, along with all other school food, follows school food standards.
New clause 7—Registration of children for free school meals—
“After section 512ZA of the Education Act 1996 (power to charge for meals etc.), insert—
“512ZAA Registration of children for free school meals
The Secretary of State must ensure that free school meals are provided to—
(a) all children in England who are eligible to receive free school meals; and
(b) all children whose household income is less than £20,000 per year.””
New clause 9—Duty of school governing bodies regarding mental health provision—
“(1) Subject to subsection (3), the governing body of a maintained or academy school in England has a duty to make arrangements for provision in the school of a dedicated mental health practitioner.
(2) In subsection (1), “education mental health practitioner” means a person with a graduate-level or postgraduate-level qualification of that name earned through a course commissioned by NHS England.
(3) Where a school has 100 or fewer pupils, the duty under subsection (1) may be satisfied through collaborative provision between several schools.
(4) The Secretary of State must provide, or make arrangements for the provision of, appropriate financial and other support to school governing bodies for their purposes of facilitating the fulfilling of the duty in subsection (1).”
New clause 10—Establishment of a National Body for SEND—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a National Body for SEND.
(2) The functions of the National Body for SEND will include, but not be limited to—
(a) national coordination of SEND provision;
(b) supporting the delivery of SEND support for children with very high needs; and
(c) advising on funding needed by local authorities for SEND provision.
(3) Any mechanism used by the National Body for SEND in advising on funding under subsection (2)(c) should be based on current need and may disregard historic spend.”
New clause 11—National Tutoring Guarantee—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report outlining the steps necessary to introduce a National Tutoring Guarantee.
(2) A “National Tutoring Guarantee” means a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to ensure access to small group academic tutoring for all disadvantaged children who require academic support.
(3) A report published under this section must include an assessment of how best to deliver targeted academic support from qualified tutors to children—
(a) from low-income backgrounds,
(b) with low prior attainment,
(c) with additional needs, or
(d) who are young carers.
(4) In preparing a report under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) headteachers,
(b) teachers,
(c) school leaders,
(d) parents of children from low-income backgrounds,
(e) children from low-income backgrounds, and
(f) other individuals or organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament.
(6) Within three months of a report under this section being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must take steps to implement the recommendations contained in the report.”
New clause 12—VAT zero-rating for certain items of school uniform—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, make provision for certain items of school uniform to be zero-rated for the purposes of VAT.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “certain items of school uniform” means items of school uniform for pupils up to the age of 16.”
New clause 16—Spiritual, moral, social and cultural education in assemblies—
“(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 70 (requirements relating to collective worship)—
(a) for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) Subject to section 71, each pupil in attendance at—
(a) a community, foundation or voluntary school in Wales,
(b) a foundation or voluntary school in England which is designated with a religious character, or
(c) an Academy in England which is designated with a religious character,
must on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.”
(b) in subsection (2), for “community, foundation or voluntary school”, substitute “school to which subsection (1) applies”.
(3) After section 70, insert—
“70A Requirements relating to assemblies
(1) This section applies to schools in England that are—
(a) maintained schools without a religious character;
(b) non-maintained special schools;
(c) City Technology Colleges; and
(d) Academies without a religious character.
(2) Each pupil in attendance at a school to which this section applies must, at least once during the school week, take part in an assembly which is principally directed towards furthering the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education of the pupils, regardless of religion or belief.
(3) In relation to any school to which this section applies—
(a) the local authority responsible for education (in the case of maintained schools) and the governing body must exercise their functions with a view to securing, and
(b) the head teacher must secure,
that subsection (2) is complied with.””
This new clause would remove the requirement for daily collective worship in England for maintained schools and academies without a religious character, non-maintained special schools, and city technology colleges, and introduce a requirement for a weekly assembly furthering spiritual, moral, social and cultural education.
New clause 23—Provision of relationships and sex education and PSHE to persons who have not attained the age of 18 at further education providers—
“(1) The Children and Social Work Act 2017 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 34 (Education relating to relationships and sex)—
(a) at the end of subsection (1)(b) insert “and
(c) relationships and sex education to be provided to persons who have not attained the age of eighteen and who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England”;
(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;
(c) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;
(d) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”.
(3) In section 35 (Other personal, social, health and economic education)—
(a) at the end of subsection (1)(b) insert “and
(c) to persons who have not attained the age of eighteen and who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England”;
(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;
(c) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;
(d) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”.”
This new clause would extend the existing provision of relationships and sex education and PSHE under the Children and Social Work Act 2017 to people under the age of 18 who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England.
New clause 24—Cap on new faith schools’ admissions—
“(1) Any school or academy established more than two months after the passing of this Act which—
(a) is of a religious character, and
(b) is selective on the basis of faith,
must adopt admissions criteria which provide that, where the school is oversubscribed, at least 50% of the places available each year are allocated without reference to faith-based criteria.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an academy established as a result of a maintained school being converted into an academy under section 4 of the Academies Act 2010, except where the converted maintained school was—
(a) of a religious character, and
(b) selective on the basis of faith prior to conversion.”
This new clause would require new schools with faith-based admissions (other than those which were maintained schools that have converted to being academies) to apply a 50% cap on faith-based admissions places when oversubscribed, in line with the cap for new academies and free schools.
New clause 31—Guidance on the admission of summer-born children with EHC plans—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for local authorities and school admissions authorities on the admission of summer-born children with education, health and care plans.
(2) Guidance published under this section must—
(a) detail the factors which must be taken into account when considering a request for a summer born child with an EHC plan to be placed outside of their normal age group;
(b) include a presumption that requests relating to the placement or admission of summer-born children with EHC plans should be considered on no less favourable terms than requests relating to summer-born children without EHC plans; and
(c) outline circumstances when it may, or may not, be appropriate for a child who has been placed outside of their normal age group to be moved to join their normal age group , with a presumption that such a placement should be no less favourable terms than placements relating to summer-born children without EHC plans;
(d) detail how parents may object to the placing of their child with their normal age group, and the process by which such objections will be considered.
(3) In developing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) groups representing the interests of parents;
(b) individuals and organisations with expertise in supporting children with special educational needs and the parents of such children;
(c) other such parties as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “summer-born children” means children born between 1 April and 31 August.”
New clause 32—Collection and publication of data relating to summer-born children—
“(1) A local authority must collect and publish data on—
(a) the number and proportion of summer-born children who started school in the local authority’s area outside of their normal age group—
(i) with EHC plans, and
(ii) without EHC plans
(b) the number and proportion of summer-born children—
(i) with EHC plans, and
(ii) without EHC plans
who started school in the local authority’s area outside of their normal age group and who have been required to join their normal age group;
(c) the number and proportion of summer-born children with EHC plans who started school in the local authority’s area outside of their normal age group and who have been required to join their normal age group in a—
(i) special school;
(ii) mainstream school.
(2) The Secretary of State must annually—
(a) conduct a statistical analysis of, and
(b) publish a report on the data collected by local authorities under subsection (1).”
New clause 34—Provision of free school lunches to all primary school children—
“(1) Section 512ZB of the Education Act 1996 (provision of free school lunches and milk) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (4A)(b), after "year 2," insert "year 3, year 4, year 5, year 6".
(3) In subsection (4C), after “age of 7;" insert—
“Year 3” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 8;
“Year 4” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 9;
“Year 5” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 10;
“Year 6” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 11;”
This new clause would extend free school lunches to all primary school age children in state funded schools.
New clause 38—Power to prescribe pay and conditions for teachers—
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act—
(a) make provision for the power of the governing bodies of maintained schools to set the pay and working conditions of school teachers to be made equivalent with the relevant powers of academies;
(b) provide guidance to all applicable schools that—
(i) pay levels given in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document are to be treated as the minimum pay of relevant teachers;
(ii) teachers may be paid above the pay levels given in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document;
(iii) they must have regard to the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document but may vary from it.”
This new clause would make the pay set out in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document a floor, and extend freedoms over pay and conditions to local authority maintained schools.
New clause 39—Approved free schools and university training colleges in pre-opening—
“The Secretary of State must make provision for the opening of all free schools and university training colleges whose applications were approved prior to October 2024.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to proceed with the opening of free schools whose opening was paused in October 2024.
New clause 40—Duty for schools to report acts of violence against staff to the police—
“(1) Where an act listed in subsection (2) takes place which involves the use or threat of force against a member of a school’s staff, the school must report the incident to the police.
(2) An act must be reported to the police where—
(a) it is directed towards a member of school staff or their property; and
(b) it takes place—
(i) on school property; or
(ii) because of the victim’s status as a member of a school’s staff.
(3) The provisions of this section do not require or imply a duty on the police to take specific actions in response to such reports.”
This new clause would create a duty for all schools to report acts or threats of violence against their staff to the police. It would not create a requirement for the police to charge the perpetrator.
New clause 41—Right to review school curriculum material—
“Where requested by the parent or carer of a child on the school’s pupil roll, a school must allow such persons to view all materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum, including those provided by external, third-party, charitable or commercial providers.”
This new clause would ensure that parents can view materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum.
New clause 48—Review of Impact on Home Educators and Reduction of Unnecessary Reporting—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review and report of the impact of clause 26 on home educators in England.
(2) The review must include an assessment of
(a) the administrative and reporting requirements placed on home educators as a result of clause 26;
(b) the administrative and reporting requirements placed on local authorities as a result of clause 26;
(c) the extent to which such requirements are necessary for safeguarding purposes; and
(d) any data or reporting obligations that can be reduced or removed for home educators where they are not essential for safeguarding.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out the findings of the review, including—
(a) an analysis of the impact of clause 26 on home educators;
(b) a clear outline of any data or reporting obligations that will no longer be required from home educators; and
(c) a timeline for the removal of unnecessary reporting obligations, which must not exceed 12 months from the publication of the report.
(4) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult with representatives of home educators and relevant stakeholders.
(5) The report must be made publicly available.
(6) The Secretary of State must ensure that any reporting obligations identified as unnecessary under subsection (3)(b) are removed within the timeframe specified in subsection (3)(c).”
New clause 49—Provision of free meals and activities during school holidays—
“(1) A local authority must—
(a) provide; or
(b) coordinate the provision of programmes which provide,
free meals and activities to relevant children during school holidays.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “relevant children” means children in receipt of free school meals.
(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument—
(a) specify minimum standards for meals and activities during school holidays;
(b) specify criteria that organisations involved in the delivery of meals and activities during school holidays must meet.”
This new clause would place a duty on local authorities to provide or coordinate free meals and activities for children eligible for free school meals during school holidays.
New clause 51—Flexibility to take into account local circumstances when following the National Curriculum—
“In section 87 of the Education Act 2002 (establishment of the National Curriculum for England by order), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In any revision to the National Curriculum for England, the Secretary of State must ensure that the National Curriculum shall consist of—
(a) a core framework; and
(b) subjects or areas of learning outside the core framework that allow flexibility for each school to take account of their specific circumstances.””
This new clause would clarify that, when revised, the National Curriculum for England will provide a core framework as well as flexibility for schools to take account of their own specific circumstances.
New clause 52—Parliamentary approval of revisions of the National Curriculum—
“In section 87 of the Education Act 2002 (establishment of the National Curriculum for England by order), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) An order made under this section revising the National Curriculum for England shall be subject to the affirmative procedure.””
This new clause would make revisions to the National Curriculum subject to parliamentary approval by the affirmative procedure.
New clause 53—Arrangements for national examinations for children not in school—
“After section 436G of the Education Act 1996, as inserted by section 25 of this Act, insert—
“436GA Arrangements for national examinations for children not in school
Where a child is eligible to be registered by the authority under section 436B, the authority must—
(a) provide for the child to be able to sit any relevant national examination; and
(b) provide financial assistance to enable the child to sit any relevant national examination; where requested by the parent or carer of the child.””
New clause 54—Review of Free School Meal eligibility and Pupil Premium registration—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of—
(a) the number of children in England who are eligible for free school meals but are not claiming them,
(b) the number of children who are eligible for free school meals but are not registered for the purposes of pupil premium funding,
(c) the number of additional children who would be eligible for free school meals if the income thresholds had been uprated in line with inflation since 2018, and
(d) the number of additional children who would be eligible for free school meals if the income thresholds were set at £20,000 per annum after tax.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—
(a) barriers preventing eligible children from claiming free school meals;
(b) disparities in take-up rates across different regions and demographics; and
(c) the financial and educational impact of under-registration on schools and local authorities.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out the findings of the review, including any recommendations for improving registration for and take-up of free school meals and pupil premium funding.
(4) The review and report required under this section must be repeated annually.”
Amendment 219, in clause 22, page 41, line 23, at end insert—
“and for all pupils attending special schools”.
This amendment would require the delivery of school breakfast provision to all pupils in special schools, regardless of their age.
Amendment 2, page 41, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) The appropriate authority must, in securing breakfast club provision, make provision for the needs of qualifying children listed on the school’s Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Register.”
This amendment would require the providers of breakfast clubs to make particular provision for the needs of children on schools’ Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Registers.
Amendment 220, page 42, line 23, at end insert—
““special schools” has the meaning set out in section 337 of the Education Act 1996.”
This amendment defines special schools and is consequential on amendment 219.
Amendment 214, page 43, line 11, at end insert—
“(2A) Before making an application under subsection (1), the appropriate authority of a relevant school must consider whether the duty might be met by other forms of breakfast provision including—
(a) classroom-based provision, or
(b) takeaway provision, either at school or at a proximate site.”
This amendment would require schools to consider other models of breakfast provision before seeking an exemption from the duty to provide breakfast clubs.
Amendment 215, page 43, line 21, at end insert—
“and if the condition in subsection (4A) is met.
(4A) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the appropriate authority of a relevant school has fully considered other forms of breakfast provision in accordance with subsection (2A).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a school had considered other models of breakfast provision before granting an exemption from the duty to provide breakfast clubs.
Amendment 217, page 43, line 29, at end insert—
“551CA Promotion of supplementary models of provision
The Secretary of State must seek to promote and support the development of supplementary models of provision where appropriate, including
(a) classroom based provision.
(b) takeaway provision, and
(c) nurture group services.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to promote supplementary models of provision.
Amendment 218, page 43, line 37, at end insert—
“(d) matters arising from the Secretary of State’s duty under section 551CA.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to develop guidance in connection with the duty to promote supplementary models of provision.
Amendment 216, page 43, line 38, leave out “have regard to” and insert “comply with”.
This amendment would require schools to comply with guidance under section 551D.
Amendment 212, page 44, line 5, at end insert—
“551E Publication of data
The Secretary of State must acquire and regularly publish data on breakfast club provision in schools, including data on—
(a) the characteristics of those receiving breakfast in schools, including their eligibility for free school meals;
(b) uptake levels;
(c) satisfaction levels amongst pupils and parents; and
(d) any assessment of the impact of provision on attendance, behaviour, health and wellbeing.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to acquire and regularly publish data on breakfast club provision in schools.
Amendment 213, page 44, line 5, at end insert—
“551E Advice and support
(1) The Secretary of State must provide to any school to which the duty under section 551B applies advice and support services when requested by the appropriate authority of the school.
(2) Services provided by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (1) should include advice and support from individuals with specialist knowledge of the delivery of school breakfast provision.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make available to schools advice and support services delivered by people with specialist knowledge of the delivery of school breakfast provision.
Government amendments 132 and 133.
Amendment 1, in clause 24, page 44, leave out lines 22 to 29 and insert—
“(1) The appropriate authority of a relevant school may not require a pupil at the school to have to buy branded items of school uniform for use during a school year which cost more in total to purchase than a specified monetary amount, to be reviewed annually.
(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the monetary amount that may apply to—
(a) a primary pupil; and
(b) a secondary pupil.”
Amendment 191, page 45, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) Where the appropriate authority of a relevant school provides second hand items which—
(a) comply with the school’s uniform requirements,
(b) are in an acceptable condition, and
(c) can be purchased for significantly less than the cost of buying the item,
the appropriate authority may require a pupil to have more than three branded items of uniform.
(2B) Where the appropriate authority provides new items which—
(a) comply with the school’s uniform requirements,
(b) are new, and
(c) can be purchased for significantly less than the cost of buying the item non-branded,
the appropriate authority may require a pupil to have more than three branded items of uniform.”
This amendment would allow schools to require more than three branded items of uniform if they are making them available, whether new or second hand, at a lower cost than buying non-branded items.
Amendment 190, page 45, line 15, after “school” insert
“except items of kit required when representing the school in sporting activities”.
This amendment would exclude items of PE kit required when representing the school in sporting activities from the limit on branded items of school uniform.
Government amendments 134 and 135.
Amendment 200, page 47, line 29, at end insert—
“(8A) Where a local authority refuses consent in respect of a child who meets the criteria for Condition A, the local authority must provide the parents or carers of the relevant child with a statement of reasons for the decision.
(8B) A statement of reasons provided under subsection (8A) must include an assessment of the costs and benefits to the child.”
This amendment would require a local authority to submit a statement of reasons when they do not agree for a child who meets Condition A to be home educated.
Government amendment 20.
Amendment 202, in clause 25, page 46, line 22, leave out “condition A”.
Amendment 201, page 46, leave out lines 23 to 28.
Amendment 224, page 46, line 23, leave out subsection (3).
Government amendments 21 to 24.
Amendment 22, in clause 25, page 46, line 25, leave out “337(1)” and insert “337”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 20.
Amendment 173, page 46, line 32, after “action” insert—
“, or has previously taken action”.
This amendment would widen the definition of “relevant child” to include children in relation to whom a local authority has previously taken action under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to safeguard and promote their welfare.
Amendment 192, page 46, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) providing services to the child or their family under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, or
(d) a local authority which has ever provided services to the child or their family under section 47 of the Children Act 1989.”
This amendment would ensure local authorities had to consent to withdrawing children from school if there is a child protection plan in place or if a child is a ‘child in need’, or if there has ever been a child protection plan in place, in relation to the relevant child or their family.
Amendment 4, page 47, line 19, at end insert—
“(6A) For the purposes of subsection (6), “suitable arrangements” in relation to the education of the child otherwise than at school mean arrangements appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child and the existence of any special educational needs.”
This amendment would clarify the meaning of suitable arrangements for the education of a child outside of school, which the local authority must consider when deciding whether to grant consent for withdrawal from school.
Government amendments 25 to 31, 136 to 138, 32, 139, 33 and 140.
Amendment 5, in clause 26, page 49, line 40, leave out “each” and insert “the”.
This amendment would remove the obligation on parents to provide information on the second parent.
Amendment 6, page 49, line 41, leave out “each” and insert “any”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Amendment 193, page 50, leave out lines 1 and 2.
This amendment would remove a requirement for the register of children not in school to include details of how much time a child spends being educated by parents.
Amendment 7, page 50, line 2, leave out
“each parent of the child”
and insert “a parent”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Amendment 194, page 50, line 4, after “parent” insert—
“, in respect of each individual or organisation which provides such education for more than six hours a week”.
This amendment would ensure that information relating to short activities such as those operated by museums, libraries, companies and charities, as well as individual private tutoring activities, would only need to be recorded on the register of children not in school if they are provided for more than six hours a week.
Amendment 175, page 50, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) The requirement to provide information under subsection (1)(b) does not apply where a safeguarding concern in respect of either parent has been identified.”
Amendment 195, page 50, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) The requirements of subsection (1)(e) do not apply to provision provided on weekends or during school holidays.”
Government amendments 34 to 39.
Amendment 196, in clause 26, page 51, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may only require further information about children to be included on the register by introducing regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations, subject to agreement in Parliament, when seeking to require additional information to be included in the register of children not in school.
Government amendments 40 to 45.
Amendment 197, in clause 26, page 53, line 14, after “436B)” insert—
“but does not include any person or provider that is providing out-of-school education to home-educated children on weekends or during school holidays.”
This amendment would mean that providers of out-of-school education would not be required to provide information to local authorities in respect of education they provide on weekends or during school holidays to home-schooled children.
Amendment 198, page 53, line 21, after “way” insert—
“, but may not refer to an amount of time that is less than or equal to six hours a week.”
This amendment would mean that providers of out-of-school education would not be required to provide information to local authorities where they provide education for fewer than six hours a week.
Amendment 221, page 53, line 21, at end insert—
“, but may not refer to an amount of time that is less than or equal to six hours a week.”
Government amendments 46 to 59.
Amendment 199, in clause 26, page 55, line 22, at end insert—
“(9) The Secretary of State shall publish annually the GCSE results of children listed on the register.
(10) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the GCSE results of children on the register are included for each set of outcome data published by the Government.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to record outcome data for children on the register as a subsection of each set of performance data published by the Department for Education.
Government amendments 60 to 67.
Amendment 8, in clause 27, page 58, leave out lines 22 to 24.
This amendment, along with Amendments 9, 10, 11 and 12, would mean that preliminary notices would not be served on a child’s parent for not providing certain information.
Government amendment 68.
Amendment 9, in clause 27, page 58, line 27, leave out “, C or D”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 8.
Amendment 13, page 58, line 32, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), “suitable education”, in relation to a child, means education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child and the existence of any special educational needs.”
This amendment would clarify the meaning of suitable education which the local authority must consider when serving a preliminary notice for a school attendance order.
Amendment 10, page 59, leave out lines 9 to 22.
This amendment is related to Amendment 8.
Amendment 11, page 59, line 24, leave out “to D” and insert “or B”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 8.
Government amendment 69.
Amendment 12, page 59, line 41, leave out “, C or D”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 8.
Government amendment 141.
Amendment 14, in clause 27, page 60, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(i), “suitable education”, in relation to a child, means education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child and the existence of any special educational needs.”
This amendment would clarify the meaning of suitable education which the local authority must consider when serving a school attendance order.
Amendment 15, page 60, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 and insert—
“may consider—
(i) any of the settings outside the home where the child is being educated, and
(ii) where the child lives”.
This amendment would give local authorities the discretion to consider settings where a child is educated when determining whether a school attendance order should be served.
Amendment 16, page 60, line 10, leave out from “consider” to “so” and insert—
“whether the child is being educated in a way which is appropriate to their age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs they may have”.
This amendment would require the authority to have regard to section 7 of the Education Act 1996 in respect of parents’ duty towards their child’s education.
Amendment 17, page 60, line 15, leave out from “visit” to end of line 16 and insert “meet the child”.
This amendment would remove the requirement for the child to be seen in the home.
Amendment 18, page 60, line 17, after “refused” insert “without reasonable grounds”.
This amendment, along with Amendment 19, would, where a request to meet a child has been refused by a parent without reasonable grounds, enable an authority to consider that to be a relevant factor when considering whether to make a school attendance order.
Amendment 19, page 60, line 18, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
Government amendments 70 to 78, 142 to 144, 79 to 81, 145 to 148, 82, 149, 83 to 89, 150, 90, 151 to 153, 91 and 92, and 154 and 155.
Amendment 203, in clause 32, page 72, line 16, at end insert—
“(1B) Powers under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to an academy.”
This amendment specifies that the Secretary of State should rely on the provisions in Funding Agreements as regards to academies.
Government amendments 156 to 158.
Amendment 204, in clause 34, page 87, line 5, at end insert—
“(2D) The Secretary of State must issue guidance for relevant institutions on how subsection (2)(g) is to be understood.”
This amendment to allow independent schools not to have to notify the Secretary of State about change of use for buildings.
Government amendments 159 to 167.
Amendment 205, page 99, line 33, leave out clause 41.
Amendment 222, in clause 41, page 99, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 133 (requirement to be qualified), after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section must have regard to—
(a) the availability of qualified teachers in each school subject, and
(b) the necessity or desirability of specific sectoral expertise for teachers in each school subject””
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to take account of the availability of qualified teachers in each subject, and the desirability of specific sectoral expertise when making regulations under clause 40.
Amendment 206, page 100, line 6, leave out clause 42.
Amendment 207, page 103, line 1, leave out clause 44.
Amendment 208, in clause 44, page 103, line 9, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 11 and insert—
“as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”
This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy breach, or act unreasonably in respect of, the performance of a relevant duty.
Government amendment 168.
Amendment 209, page 103, line 36, leave out clause 45.
Amendment 225, in clause 45, page 104, line 2, at end insert—
“(c) after subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) Before deciding whether to issue an Academy order in respect of a maintained school, the Secretary of State must issue an invitation for expressions of interest for suitable sponsors.
(1C) The Secretary of State must make an assessment of whether or not to issue an Academy order based on the established track record of parties who responded to the invitation issued under subsection (1B) with an expression of interest in raising school standards.””
Amendment 223, page 104, line 21, at end insert—
“(10) Before the amendments made by this section come into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing—
(a) the mechanisms, including Academy Orders, by which improvement of school standards can be achieved, and
(b) guidance on the appropriate usage of these mechanisms.”
Amendment 210, page 107, line 32, leave out clause 51.
Amendment 211, page 109, line 5, leave out clause 52.
Government amendments 169, 170 and 93.
Amendment 3, in clause 60, page 113, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) Section [Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment] comes into force at the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment is consequential on Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment.
Government amendments 94 to 110.
New clause 2—Review of the Act—
“(1) The Secretary of State must from time to time—
(a) carry out a review of the impact of the provisions of this Act; and
(b) publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review.
(2) A first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the passing of this Act, with subsequent reports published at intervals not exceeding 5 years.
(3) A report published under this section must, in particular—
(a) set out the objectives intended to be achieved by the provisions of this Act;
(b) assess the extent to which those objectives are achieved; and
(c) assess whether those objectives remain appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct regular reviews of the impact of this Act and publish reports.
Catherine McKinnell
I start by thanking hon. Members in all parts of the House for their valuable contribution to the debate so far.
The Bill is for children—the clue is in the name. It is for their safety, their education and their future that we bring it forward. This Government are on a mission to break down barriers to opportunity for each and every child, and the Bill is a significant step on that path. I welcome the debate that the Bill has sparked. After a decade in which education was left on the sidelines, Labour is once again bringing it to the fore, and to the centre of national life—the place it always occupies under a Labour Government. Education is at the heart of how we ensure opportunities for the next generation.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On the Minister’s point about the last 10, 12 or even 14 years, would she join me in acknowledging that the schools in Walsall borough—a very diverse borough, with areas of real deprivation—outperformed national figures for the first time at the end of last year, with 91% of Walsall schools being graded good or better? That figure has steadily increased under not just a Conservative Government, but a fantastic Conservative-led council.
Catherine McKinnell
I will always share in the celebration of schools that are doing well, and the right hon. Lady is absolutely right to celebrate the schools in her area. I do question, however, the shameless pride we sometimes see in the record of her Government; when they left office, England’s schools were getting worse, standards in reading, maths and science were down, roofs were crumbling, children were struggling, and a generation of children were absent from school. We are determined to tackle those challenges head-on. The education that we provide for our children is not just for their future, but for all of our futures. It shapes society today and the society that we want for tomorrow.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is good of the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, to give way. As I know her to be an honest person, will she at least share with the House the fact that schools in England are better today than they were in 2010? Picking some tiny subset of time to make out that schools are deprived is not a fair assessment. Schools are demonstrably better in England today than they were in 2010. Please, Minister, at least acknowledge that.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words and his assumption of my honesty. The fact is that one in three children starting school is not school ready. More than a third of children leave primary school without a firm foundation in reading, writing and maths. The disadvantage gap is widening. I will come on to what we want to achieve as a Government, but we are not satisfied, as Conservative Members appear to be, with leaving some of our children without the start in life that they deserve. We want the best for all our children, and that is what our changes will achieve.
Catherine McKinnell
I have given way to the right hon. Member. I will do so again later.
It is essential that every child and family has certainty that they can access a good local school—a school that will set high expectations and standards for all our children, enabling them to achieve and thrive. We are bringing forward legislation to achieve our reforms, but there are reforms that we can make for which no legislation is required. We are designing a school system that supports and challenges all schools to deliver for our children. We want a rich and broad curriculum, delivered by expertly trained teachers, who have a good pay and conditions offer that attracts and retains the staff that our children need.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In that spirit, will the Minister look at my new clause 30, which calls on the Government to review the effectiveness and value of outdoor education and learning for young people in both primary and secondary schools? We have a mental ill health pandemic in this country and are trying to put that right. Will she acknowledge that building young people’s resilience through outdoor education is good not just for dealing with that, but for building young people’s ability to rely on others and themselves? That helps them in situations in which they are not comfortable, and when they go back to the classroom, they are more willing to learn. Does she see this as a moment in which to invest in outdoor education, in every part of the country?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman is incredibly committed to that cause—understandably so, as he comes from a part of the country that boasts incredible outdoor scenery, and activities that many of us, I am sure, have taken part in. He is right to want that for all our children. That forms part of the changes that we are introducing today, which will unlock opportunity for all children up and down the country. We want to create a floor, but no ceiling, for what schools can offer, and to enable healthy competition and innovation beyond a core set of frameworks and standards, so that we can improve all schools, and give them the freedom and ability to deliver the enrichment programme for which he so rightly advocates. We want high and rising standards for all children.
Wendy Morton
Does the Minister not understand that freedom and flexibility can come from allowing a school flexibility over its curriculum?
Catherine McKinnell
Try as the Opposition might to make their straw man argument, this Labour Government will demand high and rising standards for all our children. Recent polls of the profession show that, despite all the scaremongering, trust chief executive officers agree that there is nothing to fear from our sensible, pragmatic and common-sense measures, which will drive standards up in every school. Academies have grown from a Government-backed insurgency in our schools, and now make up well over 50% of our school system. That is not about to change. The shadow Minister will be pleased to hear that conversions to academy status are progressing faster under Labour Ministers than at any time since she joined this House, but it is right to look forward and consider how we will build a system fit for the next 20 years. The Bill is a step on that path. It recognises, in the words of one multi-academy trust leader, that parents deserve clarity and confidence in the standards that their children’s school upholds, and that is what this Government will secure.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), led yesterday’s debate on part 1 of the Bill. I will use my opening remarks to speak to the Government’s amendments to parts 2 and 3. Members commented yesterday on the number of amendments, but the number of substantive amendments is small, and I shall focus on them today.
Many Members have a great interest in city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts, and they have raised with me the excellent practice supported by those institutions. The Government amendments ensure that these schools can be named on school admission orders, and make it clear that families with children attending those schools will benefit from other measures in the Bill, such as those tackling the cost of school uniform.
Just as we are committed to working with all our schools, so too are this Government determined to work with the devolved Governments to deliver higher standards of education and care in all parts of the UK. The majority of today’s amendments concern the extension of the “children not in school” provisions to Wales. The Minister spoke yesterday of our pride in working with the Welsh Government. Labour Governments in both Cardiff and London will deliver our shared ambition for a society where all children receive high-quality education, wherever they grow up. We will build a Britain where children come first. These 91 amendments will extend all the “children not in school” measures to Wales. There is a legislative consent motion on this change, on which we are working very closely with the Welsh Government.
Amendment 140 will include the Scottish definition of schools in the definition of “relevant schools” for the “children not in school” register clause. This amendment ensures that only those children who are intended to be captured by “children not in school” registers are eligible for registration. Without the amendment, a child who lives in England, but who attends school full time in Scotland, would be required to be registered on their English local authority’s “children not in school” register, despite being in school full time.
The previous Government said that there was no space in their King’s Speech to ensure our children’s safety and education, but for this Labour Government, our children are a priority across the whole of the United Kingdom. Amendments 189 and 170 will ensure that the amendments made on corporate parenting extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. Education is an essential protective factor, which can shield our most vulnerable children from harm. The “children not in school” measures include the new requirement for parents of children subject to child protection plans or inquiries to seek local authority consent. However, not every child subject to these inquires will be at risk indefinitely, so it would not be appropriate or proportionate for those home-educated children who are not at risk and who are receiving suitable education to be placed in a school if it is not their parents’ preference. This Government will respect parents’ rights to opt for home education, while keeping children safe from harm and securing their right to education. Amendments 141 to 148 will ensure that this intention is reflected through the school attendance order measures in the Bill.
Graham Stuart
Will the Minister reassure home-educating parents that the requirements in the Bill will not be overly onerous? For instance, there is a requirement to record the time that each parent spends educating their child. Is that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year? How exactly would that work? Can she give us some reassurance that this measure can be made manageable and sensible, and will not be disproportionate?
Catherine McKinnell
Parents who are doing the right thing—home-educating their children and providing a suitable education in a safe environment—have nothing to be concerned about in relation to these measures. They are intended to ensure that no child falls through the cracks, and that is what we are delivering.
Graham Stuart
I am sure that the Minister intends to ensure that this does not happen, but would someone have to record all the hours and places in a week? I do not know how much the Minister knows about home education, but children are educated in all sorts of places. She has an opportunity at the Dispatch Box to say that she will come forward with regulations to ensure that they do not have to write down every time that they stop at an ice cream shop for some education about the vanilla flavour.
Catherine McKinnell
The amendments that I am addressing relate particularly to information sharing, which clearly the right hon. Gentleman has concerns about. Members on both sides of the House will be all too aware of the succession of tragedies that we have seen when children have fallen between the cracks in services that should be there to support them. The changes in the Bill are a reflection of this Government’s determination to bring that era of state failure to a close.
New clause 17 relates to the measures on opening new schools. Part 2 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which the Bill is amending, includes a number of relevant duties and powers where personal data might be processed—for example, where a proposal for a new school includes details of the relevant experience of the individual proposers. It makes clear that these powers and duties to give or publish information do not give anyone the right to give or publish personal data in a way that would breach data protection legislation. It applies a data protection override to the whole of part 2 and schedule 2 to the 2006 Act to cover all the information-related powers and duties in relation to opening, closing and altering schools.
Amendments 166 and 167 will ensure that restrictions on the sharing of data, obligations of confidence and other restrictions do not prevent the sharing of information where it is done to protect the welfare of children at registered independent educational institutions or in accommodation provided by schools or colleges. They empower Ofsted to disclose information to other inspectorates of independent educational institutions or of accommodation in schools or colleges, to enable their inspections and ensure high-quality services for our children. We anticipate that information to be shared for those purposes may include that which is given in confidence—for instance, concerns shared with Ofsted by whistleblowers. However, it is essential that information sharing that would help to protect a child’s wellbeing is not hampered. This imperative should override concerns about breaking confidence.
Amendments 90 and 151 are essential because of the Bill’s new powers for local authorities to share data from their “children not in school” registers with the agencies listed in section 11 of the Children Act 2004 and with Ofsted, in line with well-established practices, and to share information to protect and promote the wellbeing of children. The amendments will ensure that local authorities can have confidence that they are acting in the children’s best interest when doing so. There are well-established processes and existing expectations on these agencies to share information to protect and promote the wellbeing of children. Without these amendments, local authorities and these agencies may be concerned that they will be restricted in the information that they can share or receive from the “not in school” register. This information is relevant to help local authorities undertaking safeguarding, welfare and education relating to children, so it is crucial that it can be shared when appropriate.
These amendments serve to strengthen the Bill and ensure that it works as intended to keep children safe, to secure their education and to ensure that each and every family can access a brilliant local school, which is the cornerstone of opportunity for every child. I thank right hon. and hon. Members again for their scrutiny and challenge to the Bill so far. I look forward to listening to the debate, because there is no subject on which the House feels so passionately as the future of our children, and the steps that we must take to ensure thatsb each and every one of them can achieve and thrive.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The Bill does not set out any kind of clear plan or vision for our schools. It does not address the big challenges that need addressing. It is silent on discipline and behaviour—one of the biggest issues. It comes after the Government scrapped simple Ofsted judgments and will be followed by moves to dumb down the curriculum and lower standards further.
The Secretary of State has no positive vision. She has axed programmes for advanced maths, physics, Latin and computing because she thinks that they are elitist. She has axed behaviour hubs with no replacement, even though schools that went through the scheme were twice as likely to be good or outstanding. Yet, somehow, she is able to find £90 million for advertising. The Bill is the worst of all. We have tabled numerous amendments to it. It takes a wrecking ball to 40 years of cross-party reform of England’s schools. Those reforms worked. There is much more to do, but England has risen up the international league tables even as Labour-run Wales has slumped down.
Under successive Governments of all colours, England’s schools have been improved by the magic formula of freedom plus accountability. The Bill attacks both parts of that formula. On the one hand, it strips academy schools of freedoms over recruitment and curriculum and reimposes incredible levels of micromanagement, taking away academy freedoms now enjoyed by 82% of secondary schools. On the other hand, it strikes at accountability and parental choice, ending the automatic transfer of failing schools to new management, reversing the reforms of the late 1980s, which allowed good schools to expand without permission from their local authority—a reform that ushered in parental choice.
Let me unpack this. First, the Bill takes away academy schools’ freedoms over the curriculum. We have tabled amendments to that. As Sir Dan Moynihan, who leads the incredibly successful Harris schools, explained:
“We have taken over failing schools in very disadvantaged places in London, and we have found youngsters in the lower years of secondary schools unable to read and write. We varied the curriculum in the short term and narrowed the number of subjects in key stage 3 in order to maximise the amount of time given for literacy and numeracy, because the children were not able to access the other subjects… why take away the flexibility to do what is needed locally?”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 71, Q154.]
Likewise, Luke Sparkes from Dixons argued:
“we…need the ability to enact the curriculum in a responsive and flexible way at a local level…there needs to be a consistency without stifling innovation.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 79, Q167.]
Katharine Birbalsingh, the head of Michaela school, which has been top in the country three years in a row, wrote to the Secretary of State:
“Do you have any idea of the work required from teachers and school leaders to change their curriculum? You will force heads to divert precious resources from helping struggling families to fulfil a bureaucratic whim coming from Whitehall. Why are you changing things? What is the problem you are trying to solve?”
Graham Stuart
Like me, my hon. Friend finds these proposals tragic because of the removal of the curriculum freedoms that have allowed schools such as Michaela and Petchey and others all over the country to tailor their curriculum specifically to reach disadvantaged pupils so that they can engage better with their learning and have an achievement that previously they did not have. That door is being closed. I hope that Government Members reflect on this and seek a change of policy, if not in this House, then at least in the House of Lords.
Neil O’Brien
My right hon. Friend is completely correct. Some Government Members have reflected on this: the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said that the proposal to make it compulsory for academies to teach the national curriculum was of particular concern to her, and she is right. Ministers have never explained what they are trying to solve with this change, but the unions like it, so into the Bill it goes.
We have tabled further amendments on qualified teacher status. The Government are getting rid of academy freedoms over recruitment and the freedom to employ non-QTS teachers. Sir Martyn Oliver from Ofsted gave us a good example of how these freedoms are used. He said:
“In the past, I have brought in professional sportspeople to teach alongside PE teachers, and they have run sessions. Because I was in Wakefield, it was rugby league: I had rugby league professionals working with about a quarter of the schools in Wakefield at one point..”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 49, Q108.]
Brilliant. The Government’s own impact assessment to the Bill says of this change:
“some schools may struggle to find the teachers that they need.”
Rebecca Leek from the Suffolk Association of Headteachers gave a good example of how this freedom is currently used. She said that she urgently needed an early years lead, and was able to take on someone who had run an outstanding nursery, even though they did not have QTS and nor did they plan to get it. But in future, she would not be able to do that. Former headteacher David Thomas told us in Committee that this freedom allows them to recruit people who may be at the end of their career, who have a huge amount of experience that they want to give back to the community. They do not want to go through the bureaucracy, and if we put up barriers, they will not end up in the state sector.
Ministers have not produced a single shred of evidence that teachers without QTS are of lower quality, or for why they cannot be a good supplement to QTS teachers. Ministers have never explained why they, sitting in Whitehall, think that they are in a better position to judge who to employ than headteachers on the frontline. Ministers claim that is vital, but a footnote at the bottom of page 24 of the impact assessment reveals it would, in fact, not be applied to lots of different types of schools, including 14 to 19 academies, 16 to 19 academies, university technical colleges, studio schools, further education colleges and non-maintained school early years settings. It is supposedly vital but is not being applied to loads of different types of school. Yet Ministers are imposing it on loads of other schools. As the former head of Ofsted pointed out this week, taking that flexibility out of the system feels like a retrograde step, and she is right.
Under the Bill, Whitehall micromanagement is back, too. Clause 44 allows the Secretary of State to direct academy schools to do pretty much anything. The Confederation of School Trusts is really worried about that and has suggested a way to bring such unlimited power under some limits. They say:
“We do have concerns about the power to direct…It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with Government to restrict it to create some greater limits. Those limits should be around statutory duties…statutory guidance, the provisions in the funding agreement”.––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 81, Q169.]
Yet Ministers voted down our amendment to put that suggestion from schools into effect.
Likewise, as we discovered in Committee, clause 34(5)(2) will require academy schools to get permission from the Secretary of State to make any change to the buildings they occupy. That includes any change to
“(ii) either part of the building, or
(iii) permanent outdoor structure”.
Literally, if an academy school wants to build a bike shed, it will have to go to the Secretary of State. It was clear in Committee that Ministers had not even realised that that would apply to academy schools. Those are just two of the many, many centralising measures in the Bill.
While freedom is being taken away on the one hand, accountability on the other side of the ledger is being watered down too. The Government already got rid of single-word Ofsted judgments and replaced them with something much more complicated that does not seem to have left anybody very happy. Then, clause 45 ends the automatic conversion of failing schools into academies. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has said,
“The current system, in which failing schools automatically become academies, provides clarity and de-politicisation, and ensures a rapid transition. I fear that making that process discretionary would result in a large increase in judicial reviews, pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty, which is in nobody’s interests.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 902.]
She also said,
“the DfE will find itself mired in the high court in judicial review. When we tried to transfer our first failing school to a Harris academy we spent two years in court, and children…don’t have that time to waste.”
She is so right.
Rob Tarn, the chief executive of the Northern Education Trust, has made the same point:
“If there’s no longer a known, blanket reality…There is a risk that, where it’s been determined a school needs to join a strong trust, it will take much longer and we will go back to the early days of academisation when people went to court.”
The Children’s Commissioner makes that point too. She says that she is
“deeply concerned that we are legislating against the things we know work in schools, and that we risk children spending longer in failing schools by slowing down the pace of school improvement.”
She is right.
The Confederation of School Trusts has said that the current system offers struggling schools “clarity” as they
“will join a trust, and that process can begin immediately”.
In contrast, they warn,
“We are not clear on how commissioning part-time support through the RISE arrangements makes that any easier.”
The former national schools commissioner, Sir David Carter, has warned that the
“arguments and legal actions that will arise if a school in Cumbria is told to join a trust while a school in Cornwall just gets arm’s length support will only add delay to delivering a fairer and better offer to children.”
Worse still is clause 51, which attacks school choice and the freedom to go to good schools. It was in 1987 that Mrs Thatcher announced that
“we will allow popular schools to take in as many children as space will permit. And this will stop local authorities from putting artificially low limits on entry to good schools.”
That agenda became known as local management of schools and of it the former Labour Minister Lord Adonis wrote,
“Local Management of Schools was an unalloyed and almost immediate success…school budgets under LMS were based largely on pupil numbers, so parental choice came to matter as never before.”
In contrast, the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill says:
“We want the local authority to have more influence over the PANs for schools in their area”.
It goes on to say:
“It could also limit the ability of popular schools to grow…If a school is required to lower their PAN, some pupils who would have otherwise been admitted will be unable to attend the school. This will negatively impact on parental preference”.
Michael Johnson, the leader of the very successful Chulmleigh trust, warns that that “could be disastrous for successful schools…The Government are not better placed than parents to decide which school a child attends.”
Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend, like me, reflect on the irony that the success from 2010 to 2024, which we on the Conservative Benches would naturally celebrate, was only possible because of the Labour visionaries who drove the academies programme forward, made changes, developed the argument, rolled the pitch and allowed us to lift our schools to much higher levels of performance and our children from deprived backgrounds to much better results. Labour Members were the creators of that, and now this Government are disowning it.
Neil O’Brien
It is tragic. It is not us criticising the Bill; it is the professionals—the people who have given their lives to education. I will give another example. Gareth Stevens, leader of Inspiration Trust, another high-performing trust, gives the example of his local council wanting to halve places at an outstanding school to prop up other schools. He says that
“the idea that we could have the rug pulled out from under us and the number of places in our high performing school cut is the most worrying thing…It will mean fewer places at high performing good or outstanding schools”.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, new clause 2 and amendment 2, all in my name. The amount of time afforded to the Education Select Committee to undertake detailed scrutiny of the Bill was very limited. We were able to undertake just one evidence session on part 2, and we deliberately sought not to duplicate the evidence taken by the Public Bill Committee. We therefore took limited evidence on the changes to the role of local authorities in school place planning and admissions.
I speak, however, as an MP whose constituents have suffered the consequences of the fragmentation of admissions policies and place planning over the past 14 years. That has resulted in school places sometimes being delivered in areas where they were not needed, undermining other local schools; our councils struggling to ensure the delivery of school places that were needed, particularly for children with special educational needs and disabilities; and local places at a very popular local school being allocated not to local families but to children across a wide area of south-east London. I therefore wholeheartedly support the attempts in the Bill to restore coherence to admissions and place planning through the role of local authorities.
I also support the measures to reduce the cost of school uniform for families by limiting the number of branded items, which are a really significant cost of living pressure for families. However, I encourage the Government to keep a careful watch on how this requirement is being complied with, particularly in relation to the cost of blazers, having heard of one appalling example in my constituency of a very vulnerable child who had been allocated a place at a good school but was told she could not attend until she was wearing a blazer, the cost of which was over £100—way beyond the means of her family. I know the Minister will agree that no child should be shut out of the classroom because their family cannot afford the right clothes for them to wear, and that that is the intention of the Bill, but the monitoring of the detail will be important.
I also welcome the measures in the Bill to introduce a register of home-educated children. While home education is the right option for some children who are well supported to receive education at home, the number of children going missing from the education radar, out of sight and without any regulation of the quality of the education they are receiving, and sometimes coming to harm, as in the horrific recent case of Sara Sharif, is deeply concerning. The measures in the Bill will help to address this.
The Education Committee welcomes the introduction of breakfast clubs in the Bill, which will help to ensure that no child has to start the school day hungry, but we also heard compelling evidence of the importance of school lunches for the poorest children. Around one in 10 children who are eligible for free school meals do not claim them because their parents or carers do not complete the administrative process. This can be because of difficulties with the administrative process itself, lack of awareness about the entitlement, or language barriers. Children from non-white backgrounds are more likely to be unregistered.
This under-registration has impacts on schools too, since the ability of schools to draw down pupil premium funding is linked directly to the registration of eligible children for free school meals. I am talking about the existing entitlement, not a new spending commitment. The benefits of free school meals for children’s health and wellbeing and their ability to learn are clear, and are being seen in local authorities that are already auto-enrolling eligible children, including Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and some London boroughs. In London, the benefits are pupil premium receipts for schools because the Mayor of London is already funding universal free school meals.
Research from the Food Foundation found that, while local authorities were successful in their mission to reduce the number of eligible children missing out on free school meals, it was a difficult and resource-intensive task, and the data sharing between relevant authorities necessary to register children automatically was not straightforward. The local authorities piloting auto-enrolment have called for central Government to step in and help. The Committee has recommended that the Government introduce auto-enrolment for children already eligible for free school meals. This recommendation would ensure that between 200,000 and 250,000 additional families with the poorest children in our country, who are already eligible, will receive the meals to which they are entitled. That recommendation is reflected in new clause 1, and I hope the Government will choose to support it today.
I turn to amendment 2. The Committee took evidence on breakfast clubs. We heard about the benefits of them both in ensuring that children do not start the school day hungry, and in relation to the opportunity afforded a child to settle gently into the school day and play with their friends. We also heard about the need for breakfast to be provided on a flexible basis, so that children whose families are unable to get them to school early. who may be among the most vulnerable children, do not miss out on this vital meal.
The Committee has heard extensive evidence in our inquiry on special educational needs and disability about the difficulties that families of disabled children have in finding childcare and accessing extracurricular activities. To that end, it is vital that children with SEND can access breakfast clubs on an equal footing with their peers. This may involve additional costs, particularly in relation to home-to-school transport and the need to have specialist staff on site at the time of the breakfast club. I welcome the fact that the early adopters programme includes about 50 specialist schools, but the inclusion of children with SEND in breakfast clubs in mainstream schools is also essential, and I hope the Government are looking closely at the early adopters and at any additional support that may be needed to ensure that. Amendment 2 would ensure that children with SEND were able to access breakfast clubs, and I hope the Government will support it.
Finally, I turn to new clause 2. This is a very large Bill covering many areas of policy, and it is being taken through this House very quickly and was not subject to any pre-legislative scrutiny. There have been a large number of Government amendments at a late stage, and a number of measures in the Bill will be contingent on Government policies that are not in the Bill for their success, including the curriculum and assessment review, the reforms to the Ofsted assessment framework and the work of the child poverty taskforce.
New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to conduct regular reviews of the impact of this Act and to publish reports. I would anticipate that such reviews would show a positive impact of this legislation. Having a clear monitoring and reporting mechanism is good practice, particularly for a Bill of this size that has been delivered so quickly. I welcome the intention behind this Bill and the measures it contains. I look forward to supporting it this evening, and my Committee looks forward to playing a constructive role in scrutinising its impact in the months and years to come.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
A number of measures in part 2 of this Bill are to be welcomed. However, after a decade of neglect by the Conservatives, I want to ask Ministers this: when our schools are crumbling, when we cannot find specialist teachers, when special needs provision is in crisis and when we have a huge persistent absence problem, why have the Government chosen to tinker with academies and governance arrangements as their priority education policy? The one strong message coming through from education leaders, including those who have no ideological axe to grind, is that the way that the Government have gone about part 2 of the Bill shows a lack of coherent vision for the school system, with no White Paper and no consultation with those on the frontline or in leadership positions across the sector.
I turn to some of the new clauses tabled in my name. With all the pressures on family finances, new clause 7 would ensure that free school meals were available to children from households earning less than £20,000 per year and automatically enrol eligible children into this provision. Liberal Democrats have long believed that this is an effective, targeted intervention that would help children in poverty at both primary and secondary school to concentrate, to learn and to thrive.
New clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to find out exactly how many children were eligible for, but not claiming, free school meals or were not registered for pupil premium funding. It beggars belief that, as spelled out in recent answers to parliamentary questions that I have submitted, the Government are flying blind on this issue, with the last proper study of uptake dating back to 2013. New clause 54 would require regular reviews of free school meal uptake.
As we discussed at length this morning in Westminster Hall, and as the Chair of the Education Committee pointed out, an estimated 230,000 eligible children are missing out on a free school meal. Where local authorities auto-enrol children into free school meals, it makes a real difference. In Liberal Democrat-led Durham, 2,500 additional children now benefit from a hot lunch, and their schools benefit from an additional £3 million in pupil premium funding.
In Committee, the Minister confirmed the Government’s intention to improve uptake by looking at auto-enrolment and data sharing between Departments. However, his suggestion that locally led efforts were more likely to meet the needs of local communities risks patchy action across the country. We believe that this requires a national response, and we therefore strongly urge the Government to look at auto-enrolment as well as increasing the eligibility threshold, to ensure that we are feeding some of our poorest pupils, whether they are at primary or secondary school.
Staying on the theme of the cost of living pressures on families, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches strongly support the objective of bringing down the cost of school uniforms for hard-pressed families up and down the country. However, we remain concerned that the Bill as drafted, in setting a maximum number of branded uniform items, is highly prescriptive for schools and will not actually rein in the costs of those items. As the Chair of the Select Committee has just pointed out, there is nothing to prevent items costing £100 or more each. Furthermore, an answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled stated that, on average, girls’ uniforms cost £25 to £30 more than boys’ uniforms. If we want to tackle these inequalities, the best thing to do is to support our amendment 1.
I want to put on record my thanks to the Clerks, because we picked up a drafting error in our amendment 1. The online version is correct, but the printed version is incorrect. Our amendment 1 actually amends clause 24 and proposes a monetary cap, rather than a cap on the number of items. That would be reviewed and updated in line with inflation through secondary legislation every year. It would also drive down costs as suppliers would have to compete for school contracts.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The hon. Member mentions answers to written parliamentary questions. Would she have been as surprised as I was to see the answer to a written PQ of mine saying that if a school specified that a badge be sewed on to an otherwise generic blazer, that badge would count as an item of branded uniform?
Munira Wilson
I am shocked, because I was about to come to that as a possible solution to staying within the price cap. Apparently that will not be allowed either—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If the statement that the hon. Lady has made about a potential drafting error is indeed the case, has she made arrangements to ensure that the correct version of the amendment has been published?
Munira Wilson
Yes, we have been in touch with the Clerks, who have corrected the amendment online. The printed version is incorrect, but in the online version amendment 1 amends clause 24 instead of clause 23.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We will ensure that that process has indeed taken place.
Munira Wilson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In Committee, the Minister said that a cost cap, rather than an item cap, would be too complex and risked reducing choice for parents by increasing schools’ reliance on specific suppliers. She also suggested that there would be regional variation in uniform pricing. Again, having tabled a PQ, it is clear that there has been no analysis by the Government to show regional variation in uniform prices.
I was going to suggest that schools that wanted more branding on items under a cost cap could sew or stick logos on plain jumpers and other items bought cheaply in supermarkets. I believe the Government want parents to have choice. My suggestion would give parents the choice of going to a well-known supermarket brand and then applying the school logo. I am shocked to hear about the answer to the PQ tabled by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), and I will have a look at it afterwards. Our amendment 1 would put pounds and pennies back into parents’ pockets and avoid top-down meddling from Whitehall on school uniform policy.
Also on school uniforms, new clause 12 concerns a simple matter of fairness. The zero rate of VAT applies only on clothing for children up to the age of 14, and parents have to pay VAT on school uniforms for children who are larger or over the age of 14. In Committee, the Minister cited the cost to the Exchequer of making the change, but if the Government’s stated aim is to bring down uniform prices, I humbly suggest that she presses the Chancellor to look at this amendment, because it is a simple change to make.
Turning to special needs, as I said at the outset, this is probably the biggest burning priority for the school leaders I speak to up and down the country. It certainly is across this House, given the number of Members involved in SEND debates. New clause 10 in my name would establish a new dedicated national body for SEND, which would fund high-needs provision and ensure that children with particularly complex needs receive tailored support. With high-needs spending having tripled since 2015 and, as the Minister herself pointed out, educational outcomes for SEND pupils remaining stagnant, we need to reform the system. I know she is busy working on this, but a national body would help reduce the postcode lottery for those with the highest needs. Indeed, a growing body of experts in the sector are starting to suggest that a national body could gather evidence on the efficacy of various SEND interventions.
Yesterday I said it was surprising that a Bill so entitled had little content on wellbeing. Given the huge and growing mental health crisis among our children and young people, new clause 9 in my name would place a duty on school governing bodies to ensure that every school in England, whether primary or secondary, has a dedicated mental health practitioner on site. The Government have repeatedly said they are committed to providing mental health support in every school, but it was clear when I pressed the Minister in the Chamber during a debate last Thursday that the support the Government are committed to providing will certainly not be the equivalent of a full-time person in every school. Mental health support teams, which the Government are looking to expand, do great work but are spread far too thinly. Our children and our schools are crying out for more dedicated mental health professional time.
Let me turn to the issue of academy schools. I fear that the Government are mostly trying to fix a problem that does not really exist, rather than focusing on the real challenges in education. My biggest concern here is that Ministers are putting the cart before the horse by writing into legislation that all schools must follow a curriculum of which we do not yet know the content because it is under review. New clause 51 in my name would ensure that we have a core common curriculum with local flexibility built in. New clause 52 would ensure parliamentary oversight, given that we do not know the results of the ongoing review. Although we Liberal Democrats have always maintained that the automatic academy order is not a silver bullet for turning around failing schools, until such a time as Ofsted and Government have settled on a swift and robust new accountability and inspection regime to ensure high standards in all our schools, removing the automatic academy order for schools that are causing concern is certainly very risky. Amendments 223 and 225 in my name would ensure parliamentary oversight and attempt to mitigate some of those risks.
Let me turn to home education. On Second Reading, I stated that we Liberal Democrats strongly support a register of children not in school to ensure that vulnerable children do not disappear from the system. We also strongly support the right of parents to choose to home educate where that is the best option for their child. However, in evidence to the Bill Committee, even the Association of Directors of Children’s Services was circumspect about the amount of information that parents will be expected to supply, as set out in clause 26. That level of detail risks becoming intrusive and unnecessary. Ministers must think again.
New clause 48 calls for, at the very least, a review of the register’s impact on home educators to be carried out within six months, to ensure that only reporting requirements that are strictly necessary for safeguarding purposes are retained. Amendment 224 would remove the requirement for carers of children in special schools to secure local authority consent to be home educated. New clause 53 would ensure that home-educated children are not excluded from national examinations because of financial or capacity constraints.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
On home education, does the hon. Lady agree that not only is it a case of getting the balance right between privacy and the right to educate at home, but it is important that home educators do not feel stigmatised by the ability of the state to enter private property under less-than-forthcoming means that enable it subsequently to make an assessment of home education that is completely contrary to the reality experienced by the child in their own home?
Munira Wilson
The hon. Gentleman expresses concerns that those of us on the Bill Committee found in the written evidence we received from families who home educate. My inbox certainly has such correspondence from home educators in my constituency.
There is a real fear that this legislation, which is seeking to safeguard children who go missing from education, will over-police home educators, most of whom are doing a great job. In fact, a lot of them home educate their children not because they want to but because they feel forced to. That comes back to what I was saying about the crisis in our special needs system, and the fact that so much special needs provision just does not meet the needs of children, so parents give up work to be able to home educate their child. By virtue of their children’s needs, parents tend to be much more flexible in how they home educate. The very onerous reporting mechanisms will interfere with the flexibility that parents need to provide to their children.
In conclusion, I say respectfully to Ministers that part 2 of the Bill is a bit of a muddle, because the second half of it was bolted on to some well-trailed measures that largely have cross-party support. I hope Ministers have heard the strength of concern from school leaders about the unintended consequences of some of their measures. If they are serious about helping families with the cost pressures they face, I trust they will listen to cross-party calls on free school meals, whether that is introducing auto-enrolment or raising the eligibility threshold, as well as to the more effective approach to managing the cost of school uniforms that I have set out.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I refer back to the point made by Munira Wilson about the corrected online version of her amendment 1, for the benefit of Members who are in the Chamber. In case there is any confusion, the correct version should begin:
“Clause 24, page 44, leave out lines 34 to line 4 on page 45 and insert”.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate and express my support for the Bill. For far too long, school children have borne the brunt of academisation. Fortunately, the Labour Government in Wales rejected this model, but, having been a teacher on the border for most of my working life and a national executive member of the NASUWT, I have seen at first hand the negative impact of academies becoming the default model, while local authorities have been sidelined.
Since the introduction of the Academies Act 2010, the freedom for academies and free schools to set their own pay, terms and conditions has led to the exploitation of teachers. For example, teachers at Ark schools are expected to work 1,657 hours more annually than a maintained school teacher, while earning £7 less per hour. The lack of national consistency not only allows these schools to undervalue and overwork staff but undermines basic rights such as pension schemes, maternity and sick pay. Our Bill will tackle those disparities by extending the statutory pay and conditions framework to all teachers in academies, ensuring greater consistency and fairness between academies and maintained schools.
There is also the issue of admission policies. Too many schools misuse their control over admissions to break with inclusive local authority policies, selecting what they consider to be a more favourable intake of students. The Bill’s extension of the power to direct admissions to academies will ensure that local authorities can secure places for hard-to-place and vulnerable students, rather than allowing academies to exercise shameful selective admissions. Furthermore, by ending academy presumption, the Bill takes a significant step towards increasing academy accountability, empowering local authorities to better serve the needs of their communities, particularly helping SEND students and reducing reliance on unaffordable independent providers.
I hope to see the severe disparity between teachers’ pay and the high salaries of academy CEOs reviewed and addressed in future education legislation. We must ensure that funding is directed where it is most needed: to teaching and learning. This Bill marks an historic first step towards creating an accountable and fair education system that will benefit all our children.
Graham Stuart
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), who has done us and the nation a great service with the clarity of his speech. The Labour party is often accused of working to serve the producer interest rather than the consumer interest, looking after the needs of the trade unions and not those of the ordinary citizen or, in this case, the child. But rarely does any Labour Member make it quite so explicit as the hon. Gentleman just did, with a total betrayal of the child and a total focus on the needs of the professional, their interests, their pay, their disparities and their conditions. There was nothing about the child, nothing about the standards of education. Never have I seen a Labour Member speak up so honestly about what this Bill is really about. We should be enormously grateful to him for doing that, and for doing it so clearly—and in not many words.
This Bill contains 38 policy proposals all linked by a troubling theme: the misguided notion that the bureaucrat knows best. In advocating for new schools to be opened and controlled by local authorities, the Government choose to ignore the evidence that competition and innovation are what drive up standards, and instead they consolidate power in the hands of bureaucrats.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Under the current system, a third of our children leave school without the basic qualifications to succeed in life, so does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that that shows that the current system is failing and needs change? Furthermore, in the communities with the most disadvantaged—I mean those outside of London—the academisation approach has not made an impact and has not turned around the life chances of children growing up in the most deprived wards. I have worked in those communities and with those schools and seen the impact of trust after trust failing those children. I will not accept that. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is unacceptable and that we have to move forward from this day to make greater improvements to make sure that the most disadvantaged students genuinely get the opportunities they deserve?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her speech, if not intervention, and I certainly applaud her passion for the interests of children, disadvantaged children in particular, and her rage at failings in the system and her desire to see improvements, which might need to be radical, but we have not heard how the mechanics of the changes proposed in this Bill will raise standards. They will in fact dismantle them. The hon. Lady’s intervention comes in the context of my following the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr talking about Wales, and it is clear that the system being created by this Bill is much more akin to that in Wales, exactly as the hon. Gentleman so honestly said. Does the hon. Lady suggest that deprived children in Wales have better outcomes than they do in England? [Interruption.] She moved to stand up but then thought better of it, which was wise because she knows that the situation in Wales—which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is exactly what this Bill is trying to create—is infinitely worse than it is in England. Whatever the failings of the system in England, it is demonstrably better than it was 15 or indeed 25 years ago, and it is demonstrably better than it is in Wales.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short.
Sarah Smith
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way once again. In my most recent conversation with a group of my headteachers, not one of them raised concerns about this section of the Bill and the reforms. For them, the question of academisation and how the amendments have been made will not limit them in their capabilities to do the best for their children. They are concerned about issues that will come forward as a result of the Bill around SEND, which have been mentioned by hon. Members from across the House, and other things that are restricting them from making progress.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady, but she again could not explain anything about the Bill. Her passion for improvement is great—we would all applaud that—but her linkage to anything in the Bill that will improve matters was distinctly missing.
Many people, including Sir Jon Coles of United Learning, have criticised the proposals in the Bill; he said they will effectively destroy the academy system. I could not tell where the hon. Lady is on that, but the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr spoke with great clarity. Where once Labour promised us “education, education, education,” it now promises us bureaucracy, bureaucracy, bureaucracy. Tragically, it is our children who will bear the consequences.
The outcomes of the last Labour Government serve as a stark warning of where the Bill will lead. In 2010, notwithstanding the nascent academy movement, we inherited a country where our children ranked 27th globally in reading. We spent more on education than Germany, yet achieved results that lagged behind nations like Poland. By the time we left office, England’s students were ranked as the best readers in the western world. In 2010, just 68% of schools were rated good or outstanding, but today that figure is 90%. These dramatic improvements did not happen by accident; they are the result of a system that puts freedom, competition and accountability at the centre of education, and equally importantly leaves mediocrity with nowhere to hide.
If the Conservative education reforms were great, it was only because we were standing on the shoulders of giants.
“Academies were introduced in the areas of greatest challenge, harnessing the drive of external sponsors and strong school leadership to bring new hope to our most disadvantaged areas.”
Not my words, but those of the longest serving Labour Prime Minister, Sir Tony Blair, in 2005. To his credit, he recognised the failings of our country’s overly centralised education system and started the reforms that paved the way to make our schools great again.
From tiny acorns do mighty oaks grow, and that is what the Conservatives delivered. In 14 years, the number of children attending academies skyrocketed from 192,000 to 4.9 million. That was transformative for pupils across England, particularly those living in deprived communities. One example is Harris Academy Battersea. Formerly known as Battersea Park school, it was considered inadequate before joining the Harris Federation in 2014. At that time, 68% of students achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C. By 2017, that figure had risen to 83%, and in 2018 Ofsted rated the academy as outstanding, noting that teachers were proud to work there, morale was high, and pupils of all abilities made very strong progress. By putting a strong emphasis on cultural enrichment and academic excellence, the life chances of the working-class pupils that academies predominantly teach and who Labour claims to represent were transformed.
I am pleased that the Government have seen sense on one issue—I congratulate the Minister on that—and have amended the Bill to stop the extension of national pay rules to academies, and only require academies to have due regard to the school teachers’ pay and conditions document, rather than impose a ceiling on pay. That would have undermined the remarkable progress made by these institutions in raising standards, particularly for disadvantaged pupils.
New clause 38 goes one step further, making the pay set out in the school teachers’ pay and conditions document a floor and extending freedoms over pay and conditions to maintained schools. One of the strengths of academies is their ability to respond flexibly to local needs, including offering competitive salaries to attract and retain the best teachers in challenging areas. Limiting that flexibility would ignore the realities of teacher recruitment and retention, especially in communities where the need for high-quality education is greatest, because people respond to incentives. If academies cannot pay the best maths or physics teacher more, the children who would benefit from their skills the most will be left behind.
Building on the need for greater freedom and flexibility to raise standards, we introduced free schools, an initiative that helped to spark a renaissance in English education. Walking hand in hand with its union paymasters, who decry those schools as unaccountable and underfunded, as we heard set out in the previous speech, Labour wants these engines of social mobility to be destroyed. Its proposal to allow local authorities to open new schools, along with its planned review of the free school programme, would shift control of our children’s education away from communities and teachers and back into the hands of bureaucrats.
Unfortunately, the process has already started. In October, Ministers paused plans to open 44 new state schools in England, putting parents who planned to send their children there in limbo, so I am pleased to support new clause 39, which would reverse that pause and allow those schools to open as planned. Let us be clear: in 2024, 21% of GCSE entries from free schools achieved a grade 7 or above compared with 19% in comprehensive schools. Labour may not want to face the facts, but the reality is that sometimes the bureaucrat and the trade union shop steward do not know best. The Secretary of State is Labour’s Miss Trunchbull, putting our teachers in the chokey to satisfy her union paymasters.
This Government are so certain in their belief that they know best that they will not even allow parents the freedom to educate their own children without state interference. Buried within this Bill is a new legal requirement for local authorities to maintain a register of children not in school—a policy that I recognise was in the Conservative party’s manifesto, but which has the potential to be not just unhelpful, but actively harmful to children.
Our country has long upheld the primacy of parents, not the state, in determining the best education for their children, and this proposal seeks to undermine that fundamental covenant. That is why I support amendment 200, which would require a local authority to submit a statement of reasons when it does not agree for a child to be taken out of school to be home educated. It should at least have to account for itself. Compulsory enrolment could have serious consequences, as families may simply refuse to comply and potentially disengage from state involvement altogether because of this overreach, leading to negative unintended consequences that could impact on the child’s wellbeing.
The state thinks that it has a divine right to infringe on every aspect of the child’s life—or, at least, this Government do. They want to know what home-educated children do at the weekends and during the holidays. If that information is not required for children who attend mainstream schools, what is the justification for demanding it for children who are home-schooled? Why, in response to my repeated interventions, could the Minister not provide any reassurance that some sensible and proportionate rules would be put in place? I therefore support amendment 197, which would remove that requirement.
It was John Maynard Keynes who said:
“When the facts change, I change my mind”.
In the same spirit, I ask colleagues across the Chamber what they do. The evidence is clear: freedom and flexibility in education drive up standards and deliver better outcomes for children. In government, we followed the evidence and built on the previous Labour Government’s body of work, and the results speak for themselves. England now has the best readers in the western world, a record number of schools rated “good” or “outstanding” and greater opportunities for working-class children, albeit never at the level we would like, which is why that needs to be built on, not knocked to the ground.
As proud as I am of our record, this debate is not about party politics. At its heart, it is about ensuring that every child, regardless of their background, has access to the highest-quality education that we can provide. I urge the Secretary of State to follow the evidence, not ideology. I will vote against this Bill, but given the Government’s majority, we accept that however misguided these policies are, they will probably pass. All I can do is finish by appealing to colleagues across the Chamber to show courage, stand up for the poorest in society, stop the wreckers and support our amendments this evening when we come to vote.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I commend the Minister on all the excellent work that has taken place so far on the Bill. My representations will be on home education. I recognise the importance of safeguarding and making sure that vulnerable children do not fall through the net; however, the home-educating community is growing, diverse and caring, and those involved are fiercely passionate about their children’s education and learning.
Amendments 4, 13 and 14, which stand in my name, would add to the Bill the definition of “suitable education” that already appears in section 7 of the Education Act 1996. Without these amendments, it would be left to individual local authority officers to decide what they think is suitable education.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The debate on this Bill has been comprehensive. I rise to support a number of amendments to this Bill that hon. Friends have tabled, but I open on a point that has already been much debated, not only yesterday but during the Bill’s earlier stages. The Minister has said from the Dispatch Box that she regards the safety of children as being the Government’s highest priority, but the Government’s absolute refusal to countenance the amendments and proposals on equal protection demonstrates a lack of will to follow most other countries in implementing laws that provide that level of protection to children. That remains enormously disappointing, and will be an outstanding issue, in terms of child protection, for the foreseeable future.
The measures before the House are primarily concerned with schools. I would like to back up a number of colleagues who have set out the long-standing cross-party nature of the measures that underpin the success of the education system in England. I was a governor at one of the first schools to ever become an academy. It was sponsored by a significant Labour party donor, who came forward to support a Conservative local authority that engaged with that programme.
I also pay tribute to the work done by the Liberal Democrat Minister David Laws. He attended Cabinet as the Minister for school standards when the Academies Act 2010, which underpins everything structural that has driven forward academy standards, was implemented under the coalition Government. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) disowning the contribution that the Liberal Democrats made, on a cross-party basis, to driving up school standards in England over the years.
Munira Wilson
I chose my words carefully. I talked about the past decade, during which the Liberal Democrats were not in government. The Conservatives had seven or eight Education Secretaries in that period. That carousel of constant change demonstrates how little those Education Secretaries valued education. The state of our school buildings, and of our special educational needs and disabilities system, tells us all we need to know about how much the Tories value education.
David Simmonds
It is important that we pay tribute to the work that David Laws did. As a key part of that coalition, he shaped the legislation that underpinned all the actions that followed, by the coalition and by Conservative Education Secretaries in majority Conservative Governments. We all need to recognise not only that education is a shared priority, but that all parties contributed to driving things forward and creating these structures over the years.
I have a degree of sympathy with the Government on an issue that they are trying to address. It has always been a legal conundrum that successive education Acts have place detailed, specific legal obligations on local authorities regarding the provision of school places in general, and the provision of education to individual children to whom they owe a duty, but there are times when that is in conflict with the fact that academy schools are their own admissions authorities. That is not new; it has been true of faith schools for many years.
Most of us in this House will have had casework arising from parents being frustrated about the difficulties in their relationship with their child’s school. However, a number of my hon. Friends have made the point that most of the measures in this Bill are not about relieving those issues that can be burdensome for families and children, but are about imposing much more centralised control over what goes on in the education system in England, where school standards have powered ahead of those that we see in other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in Labour-run Wales.
The outset of my journey on this issue was in the dying days of the last Labour Government, when I was a member of, and then chair of, the National Employers’ Organisation for School Teachers. That body, as an employer, provides evidence to determine pay and conditions for school teachers. We might generally conjecture, as members of the public or as members of the political establishment, that that would be a fairly light-touch responsibility—that we would take a strategic interest in the workforce, and occasionally give advice and guidance. I was surprised to discover that we were to attend, with 17 unions, a weekly meeting with the then Secretary of State, Ed Balls, and his deputy Jim Knight, at the then Department for Children, Schools and Families, in which those unions would provide Ministers with a detailed list of their expectations for how every aspect of education policy would be micromanaged. Those regular weekly meetings came to an end with the election of the coalition Government, but I am aware that they have resumed since the election last year.
We have heard admissions from Ministers about how rarely they have engaged with school leaders, and have noted a great reluctance to say how often they engage with those who represent the union interests.
David Simmonds
I invite the Minister to say how often she has been meeting those school leaders.
We have also seen a move to re-establish the school support staff negotiating body. I had the privilege of chairing the employers’ side of that body. Its purpose was not only to give the teaching unions a voice on every aspect of education, but to support staff. One of the big challenges for the last Labour Government was the fact that the teaching unions hated the idea that school support staff would have that voice when it came to what went on in the classroom. It is, again, a cause for concern that the priority for the new Government is not to ask themselves, “How can we build on the progress that we have made with policies that we established and principles that we introduced?”, but to ask themselves, “How can we revert to giving control to those with a vested interest in how much money is spent, rather than those with a vested interest in the attainment of the children in all our schools?”
That is why it is so important for us to support new clause 38. In government, we should have taken the opportunity to
“extend freedoms over pay and conditions to…maintained schools”,
but the present Government, who say that they regard education as a priority, now have that opportunity. They have the opportunity to create a genuinely level playing field, so that, appropriately, the maintained schools that have been some of the main drivers of the progress in reading and mathematics among the youngest children, which is one of the proudest achievements of the past decade, can also secure teachers of the highest quality.
I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the unions’ demand that no one should teach in a classroom without qualified teacher status will not apply to university technical colleges. We know that UTCs have sometimes struggled in the current educational landscape. UTC Heathrow in my constituency, for instance, introduced an educational offer for a group of young people who might otherwise find it difficult to gain access to the type of education that would give them the start in life that they need. That is an example of success and an opportunity on which we could build, but instead it is being overlooked and potentially undermined by measures on the national curriculum.
It is hard to understand how an aviation-focused UTC closely connected with Heathrow airport, providing employment opportunities and a chance to access apprenticeships, gain technical skills and learn about catering and retail, would be well served by our prohibiting the people who know about those matters from doing their work unless they have qualified teacher status. We must ensure that we retain that element of diversity and opportunity in our education system—that diversity of provision and style that was always intended to underpin academisation, but which is now at serious risk of being lost.
There is clearly a need to reconcile the legal impositions on local authorities—for example, the need to balance the local education budget, which is legally part of the council tax, though we are yet to see a solution that would not have an unacceptable impact on local residents, and the legal obligation on local authorities to provide places—with the lack of any legal obligation on the Government to ensure that those elements are properly funded. However, on the substance of the Bill, even with the very sound amendments that we are seeking to pass, it is, essentially, a shopping list of union demands. What the Minister describes as a mission is a mission without a purpose. There is no sense in the Bill of how we are to take forward the progress we have made, what we want to achieve for our disadvantaged children, what targets we might set and how we might go about meeting them, and how we might unleash the sense of aspiration that exists in so many of our communities.
People ask what developments we could be proud of when we left office. When we left office, youth unemployment was half what it had been under the last Labour Government, and there were 4 million more people in work than there were when they left office. Much of that is down to the brilliant progress that was made by so many of our schools in transforming education standards. This Government should hang their heads in shame, because all they can do is come forward with a shopping list of union demands and not for a moment put forward the needs of the children of this country.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
I rise to support this Bill in its entirety, and I will speak about part 2 in particular. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who spoke about people hanging their heads in shame. It is not in scope of the Bill, but I could talk about the fact that more children are coming to school not ready to learn. I could talk about the SEND crisis, the rise in child poverty or the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training. We could talk about the Conservatives’ legacy and hanging our heads in shame, but I do not think he would want to hear that.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
There are good elements in this Bill. In line with Professor Jay’s recommendation, I agree that the House must urgently make it a duty to report abuse. As new clause 50 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) sets out, we also want a new authority established to deliver national and local inquiries into rape gang culture and the like. I fully support breakfast clubs, especially following the invention of free school meals—a few years ago—by a Liberal Government.
These are good measures because they put the interests of the child at the centre of everything, and the Bill goes wrong where it puts ideology ahead of the interests of the child and loses sight of those interests. I do not support adding taxes to education, which is outside the scope of the Bill, and I am concerned about the effects on academies as well.
Any conflation of children being educated other than at a traditional school with safeguarding concerns is not borne out by the evidence. It is also an ideological position that is an insult to the parents and families of the 110,000 children—our constituents up and down the country—who are doing a great job in ensuring that their children are educated, whether they are home tutored or educated otherwise. In fact, according to local authority data published in academic research that has been submitted to the Education Committee, only 11% of section 47 child protection inquiries into home-educated children result in a child protection plan. That rises to 26%—more than double—for the average of all predominantly school-educated children. Child for child, those educated at home are the safest and least in need of protection, so the overwhelming weight of new bureaucracy and legislation tackling home education as a sector is not justified. My hon. Friend’s new clause 48 is therefore quite right, because we should remove the burdensome and highly intrusive sanctions on such families.
Unless amendment 221 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) is agreed to, the Bill will enable grandparents reading to their grandchildren at weekends or in the evenings on a regular basis to be served with a notice, demanding a response on pain of a monetary penalty, by a council officer who chooses to issue one. These powers are really extreme and extraordinary. Instead, we should be supporting the interests of the child.
We should be supporting home-educated children and allowing them to sit exams without charging them hundreds and hundreds of pounds for the privilege. New clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, would do exactly that. Without such a provision, can Ministers conceive of anything in the Bill that supports home-educated children? There is plenty to regulate them, control them and expose them to rigorous inspection, but there is not a single clause in the whole Bill that supports children being educated at home. Why the parsimonious Treasury cannot be persuaded to simply allow them to sit exams without paying hundreds of pounds is beyond me. Forgive me, but I cannot fathom why a Government would not want to provide for children to sit examinations.
In Somerset, our council has much a much better and proportionate approach, and it has developed a protocol in partnership with home-educated families. I am worried that that constructive approach will be swept away by the more confrontational approach that this Bill ushers in. At worst, there is the prospect of a disabled child being forced back to school by a local authority officer when they have good reason to be frightened of going back to that school, which really cannot be right.
Turning to my Taunton and Wellington constituency, I pay tribute to state schools such as those my children attended, and the independent ones in Somerset, where, as I have said, the local authority has a more constructive and positive approach to working with schools and families. I particularly pay tribute to the pupils at West Monkton primary school, who have written to me about their amazing plastics pollution campaign. I completely support their bid to ban single-use plastics, which they have written to me about. For those schools and the 5,254 children with an education, health and care plan who cannot get a school place, such as the family who came to my surgery on Friday, may I urge the Government to do more to help families with children with special educational needs? It is crazy that the system is preventing them from attending school when they want to. We need more projects like the great special educational needs centre being developed at Hatch Beauchamp school, which I visited recently. We need to be driven by the interests of the child, not ideology.
Finally, until the Government address the fact that £2 out of every £3 of council tax in places like Somerset is going on care—a national responsibility, in my opinion—then local services, schools and communities will see less and less investment. Social care funding must be tackled. It affects the whole of local government finance, including schools. That is not good for our environment, not good for jobs and not good for the growth of our economy.
Sarah Smith
It is a privilege to stand again in support of the Bill. If we are to improve our school system for the benefit of all children, regardless of their background or educational needs, their welfare and interests need to be at the heart of any reform. Opposition Members’ suggestions that that cannot be done without sacrificing standards in education could not be further from the truth. It is because the Government are ambitious for all children that the commitment to excellence in education is the driving force behind the measures in the Bill. Labour knows that when standards in schools drop, it is working-class children and those whose attainment levels may already be lower on paper but who are no less impressive due to overcoming additional learning challenges, who will suffer.
The Bill represents a cultural shift in how Government approach educational reform through delivering change in the sector through partnership and child-centred policy. The prioritisation of a child’s wellbeing and a focus on inclusion are not woolly concepts, but the bedrock of stability that will enable all children to thrive educationally.
It is not contentious to say that we currently have a fragmented school system that is letting down far too many children. That needs to change. Children need to feel like they belong in their school. Every setting, regardless of type, must be given the freedom to drive up standards in a way that meets the needs of its pupils and communities. The Bill goes back to the original purpose of academies, which was to share best practice and encourage collaboration in the best interests of our children. Allowing councils to open new schools will ensure not just that more school places are available, but that the places are the best ones for local families and where they are needed. This is a very positive step forward. A focus on school structures alone will not help families, children or teachers.
I support the roll-out of breakfast clubs, which will lead to every child having access to a healthy meal to start the day. As the impact assessment states, clubs will help to boost children’s attendance, attainment, behaviour, wellbeing and their readiness to learn. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for highlighting, through amendment 2, the need for any provision to take into consideration the needs of all children, particularly those with special educational and disability needs. Inclusion is at the heart of this policy, so adjustments will need to be made to provide the food, transport and staffing for pupils in both mainstream and specialist provision. I also support new clause 1 and the auto-enrolment of children for free school meals. The two amendments support the Government’s mission to tackle child poverty.
Unfortunately, special schools fall behind mainstream ones in the offer to parents and pupils outside the conventional school day. Recently, a school close to Hyndburn and Haslingden that serves many of my parents and families has shortened the school day by a whole hour against the wishes of parents. In all honesty, I found the reasoning quite unconvincing. It will cause chaos for families and it would not have been tolerated in a mainstream school. We must do better with SEND schools to ensure that their children get the same school standards and excellent provision that the Government are working to achieve.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
One point that headteachers in my constituency report is that, sadly, too many children with SEND are being offered access rather than inclusion in mainstream settings. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to get to grips with the SEND crisis that, sadly, we inherited from those on the Opposition Benches?
Sarah Smith
I absolutely agree. We look forward to what is going to happen on that, and particularly to what we will do to tackle those challenges and ensure that we offer truly inclusive settings and that the needs of every child are at the centre of all the decisions that we take. I look forward to working with colleagues and discussing with Ministers how we can continue to drive high and rising standards in all our schools.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Today, I will concentrate on the important arguments for new clause 34 and amendment 173. New clause 34 would extend the provision of free school lunches to all primary school children. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), who tabled this important new clause for consideration in Committee, with the backing of 42 hon. Members, and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), who moved it.
To set the context for new clause 34, the children’s charity Barnardo’s is clear that we are seeing epidemic levels of poverty among children in the UK. Across the country, families are facing a desperate struggle to put food on the table, keep the lights on and heat their homes. Nationally, 4.3 million children are in poverty; in my constituency, 3,920 children are growing up in poverty—that is 21% of children. This shocking state of affairs was a political choice made by the previous Government and those who backed austerity, and we should not repeat it. The No Child Left Behind campaign, which underpins new clause 34, is backed by more than 250 civil society leaders, from unions to charities, medical bodies to faith leaders and mayors to councils. This widespread backing is unsurprising because the case for universal free school meals is overwhelming.
The need for free school meals is acute. We all remember Marcus Rashford igniting the campaign during the pandemic, pointing out that we could fill 27 Wembley stadiums with the 2.5 million children who did not know where their next meal might come from. The shameful legacy of child poverty continues. Poverty is embedded, with research from the University of Bristol showing that one in five schools run a food bank—a figure that is, I am told, even higher than the number of community food banks operated outside schools by the Trussell Trust and the Independent Food Aid Network combined.
The National Education Union has explained that its members see the struggles of children in poverty every day, with 80% of teachers asked saying that they have provided food for hungry children out of their own pockets. One NEU member said:
“So many of our children arrive tired and hungry. I find the issue with food so awful. I stock my school kitchen every week with fruit, cereal, milk, biscuits….the number of children who pop in to see me and then ask for food has grown over the last 2 years. It is heart breaking.”
A universal approach is the best policy for three key reasons. First, it is good for children. Universal provision helps children learn, grow and thrive in school. For example, research published in November 2024 evaluating London’s roll-out of free school meal provision to all children attending primary state schools found that the policy helped children’s readiness to learn and ability to concentrate. The Department for Education’s evaluation of the pilot undertaken by the last Labour Government found that pupils in schools where all children received free school meals were found to have made four to eight weeks’ more progress in maths and English over two years. In that pilot, the poorest children made the most progress, reducing the attainment gap. In areas with means-tested provision, the effect on the attainment gap was negligible.
On the health benefits, research published by the British Medical Journal found that less than 2% of packed lunches met school food standards, so this policy is a major opportunity to increase healthy eating. It would also reduce stigma and shame, giving pupils a better sense of belonging in schools. Means-tested provision leads to children feeling singled out and labelled as poor, impacting on their enjoyment of and engagement with school.
Secondly, providing free school meals for all is an effective investment. The evidence shows that universal systems reduce inequality and deliver economic prosperity beyond the classroom. A cost-benefit analysis of expanding free school meals by PricewaterhouseCoopers shows that for every £1 invested in universal free school meals, £1.71 is generated in core benefits, such as increased savings for the NHS and schools and increased lifetime earnings and contributions for young people.
Other expert research shows that the provision of universal free school meals increases pupils’ lifetime earnings, with the biggest increase being for the most disadvantaged children, thereby reducing inequalities for a generation beyond school. Work by the Food for Life partnership demonstrates that when food is sourced sustainably, more than £3 in social, economic and environmental value can be created for every £1 spent, mostly in the form of new jobs in the local economy.
Thirdly, universal provision is more efficient. We know that providing free school meals helps end a situation where children fall through the gaps. Means-testing will always miss some children and families. In England, the draconian eligibility criteria mean that one in three children living in poverty are considered too well off to access free school meals. Restrictive eligibility, complicated registration processes and stigma also block countless families from accessing support.
Universal systems are also more efficient, because they massively reduce administration. By putting an end to means-testing children for food, schools get back administration time, as all children’s meals will be funded together via one mechanism. Free school meals for all also eradicate problems of school lunch debts. Universal policies are also easier to defend and protect from erosion by future Governments who may seek to freeze thresholds or restrict eligibility.
In the UK, Wales and London are leading the way in providing free, universal, healthy meals at lunchtime for every child in primary school as a means of reducing inequality—not just in school but for entire lifetimes. England needs to catch up. I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider building on the excellent progress on breakfast clubs contained in the Bill.
New clause 34 makes the case for free school meals for all primary school children, but I want to be clear that I and my party support the extension of this policy to all children in school, because hunger does not stop at the age of 11. I hope to divide the House on this vital new clause, which builds on the excellent breakfast club provision. I urge all hon. Members to vote for the new clause, because we know that children cannot learn when they are hungry and that free school dinners for all is a winning policy for the economy, for families and for children.
I turn briefly to amendment 173, on local authority consent for the withdrawal of certain children from school. Home education is an option that works extremely well for some families, and indeed many children thrive in this environment. Nevertheless, for vulnerable children, there can be real dangers in dropping out of sight of public agencies. The Bill already rightly mandates that if a local authority has live child protection concerns about a child, because they are suffering or are likely to suffer significant harm, then their parent must obtain the consent of the local authority to withdraw the child from school. Our amendment would extend that mandate to children for whom the local authority has previously had concerns and taken action under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 in order to safeguard and promote their welfare. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, supported by the Children’s Charities Coalition, has called for this strengthening of the Bill’s protections to safeguard the most vulnerable children, for whom withdrawing from school poses a risk to their safety and welfare.
Last year, the child safeguarding practice review panel published its analysis of serious case reviews involving children who have died or suffered serious harm because of abuse and neglect. Those children were not in school at the time, under the proviso of receiving an education at home. Of the 41 serious case reviews, 23 of the children —over half—were previously known to children’s social care, including being subject to a child protection plan prior to the incident. Under clause 25 as it stands, such children would not be safeguarded, which I am sure is not the Government’s intention. I therefore urge the Minister to seriously consider amendment 173 as a proportionate and necessary safeguarding measure.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
As a member of the Bill Committee, I have had detailed oversight of the measures in the Bill. They are vital for safeguarding children across the country, as well as supporting children and families with measures such as free breakfast clubs, reduced school uniform costs and extra support for kinship carers. I am thrilled that three schools in my constituency have been chosen to pilot free school breakfast clubs. They will put more money back in parents’ pockets and ensure that all children start the day right with a healthy meal.
The Bill has been subject to healthy debate, both in this place and in Committee. It is a strong piece of legislation and one that has been strengthened through the parliamentary process. Looking through the amendment paper, I was interested to read new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), on auto-enrolment for free school meals. Parents have contacted me who are eligible for free school meals but are finding the application process difficult and are being passed between the school and the council. Auto-enrolment would help those children and families get the support that they are entitled to from day one.
It is important that children from all backgrounds have the same opportunities in life. I welcome measures aimed at tackling inequalities. I have spoken about the inequalities that arise from faith-based admissions to schools, where children are allocated school places based on the professed faith of their parents. I am pleased that the Government have confirmed the 50% cap on faith-based selection criteria for new academies and free schools. Faith-based schools are shown to be less diverse than their peers on a range of measures, including deprivation levels—measured by free school meals—the number of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and diversity of race and ethnicity compared with their local areas.
The evidence shows clearly that faith selection is social selection by proxy. In my opinion, selection by faith has no place in taxpayer-funded schools at all. The 50% cap on faith selection was brought in the previous Labour Government to address inequality, and at least ensures some regulation of that. However, I am still concerned that new schools opened by local authorities are not subject to the same cap. In cases of oversubscription, they could allow 100% faith-based admission. I have raised concerns about this directly with the Minister, and I thank her for taking the time to discuss it with me.
I am pleased that the Bill takes long-overdue action to tackle illegal schools. At least 7,000 children attend illegal settings—for obvious reasons, that is an estimate. Ofsted has been raising this problem for many years, because it does not have sufficient powers of entry and investigation into illegal schools. The Bill fixes that, granting Ofsted increased powers of entry and providing more powers to bring criminal cases against those schools and the people who run them.
Members may not be aware of illegal schools. They tend to be concentrated in specific local authority areas. Usually, they are run by religious groups, which tend to be fundamentalist, extreme, highly controlling or isolationist in their outlook. We know from former pupils of these schools that in many cases they only study religious texts and receive no other form of education. Instead of having a broad and balanced education, children are subjected to indoctrination. Children attending illegal schools have also been subjected to abuse, both physical and sexual. That is unacceptable and such settings must be regulated. If they are unwilling to be regulated and offer a proper education, they must be shut down.
I refer members to the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) in last week’s Crime and Policing Bill debate for a flavour of the attitude of high-control religious groups towards reporting abuse within their own communities. I also lay on record my thanks to Humanists UK for its work exposing the dreadful practices in illegal schools over the past decade. I welcome this Labour Government’s recognition of the severity of those problems and the swift action taken to safeguard those vulnerable children. I also welcome future discussions on how to manage the problem of part-time settings.
Gideon Amos
Does the hon. Lady accept that, in the tragic case of Sara Sharif, which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) has been pursuing, the murder happened in the school holidays and Sara was already known to social services? There is not much evidence that the parents said they were going to home-educate in the first place. Given all those facts, does the hon. Lady accept that there is actually no correlation in the data between home-educated children and children who are ultimately judged to need a care plan?
Lizzi Collinge
I acknowledge the complexity of that case and that the absolutely unacceptable failings before Sara’s death were abject across many organisations. However, she was removed from school partly so that her parents could prevent the detection of the abuse. I have recognised, and will continue to recognise, that that obviously does not speak to the vast majority of people who home-educate their children. However, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect the most vulnerable, and sometimes that includes regulating the majority, who are decent, honest people.
I want to reassure parents that the new regulations, such as registers for children not in school and the capacity to compel school attendance in certain cases, are not aimed at limiting home education as a whole or about policing how people choose to educate.
Graham Stuart
The intention is not the thing; it is the actual impact that counts. Let us take the example of someone who has taken their child out of school for the reasons that the hon. Lady has mentioned. Perhaps they have an autistic child who is miserable every day, and after letters to the headteacher and the local authority and failure after failure, they are forced to go into home education. Can she understand why parents are fearful of a representative of—as far as the parents are concerned—that failing local authority having the right to enter their home and sit in judgment over the child that they have been forced to home-educate? Can she understand why they would be fearful of the imposition a hard, top-down register, especially after so many years of successive Governments failing to provide any proper support for home educators?
Lizzi Collinge
I accept wholeheartedly the amount of parents of children, particularly with SEND, who have been absolutely failed by our system and by 14 years of Conservative Government. What I do not accept is that the proposal is somehow a major imposition. I do not believe that checking that children are receiving a decent education and are safe and well cared for is a major imposition on parents, and I think all good parents would welcome that.
These measures are being put in place to protect and safeguard vulnerable children. Having no oversight of children not in school is an unacceptable risk to children’s welfare. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is crucial, and cannot come too soon to protect our most vulnerable children and to support families up and down the country with rising costs. It has the welfare of children at its heart, and I am proud to have served on the Bill Committee and to have played a role in shaping this vital legislation.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Like VAT on independent schools and putting up costs through national insurance contributions, this Bill is yet another example of Labour turning children’s education into an ideological battleground. I have said it before, but I will say it again: Labour clearly hates any form of education that is not state-controlled, local authority-run schooling, and this Bill is another example of that. Under the Conservatives, pupils soared up international league tables, ensuring that every child, regardless of postcode—except if they lived in Wales—received the best start in life. Labour is intent on reversing that progress, attacking academic freedoms and dismantling a system that has delivered demonstrable results for young people. Indeed, it was a system that Labour used to champion, but now it has come back to power and is looking to dismantle it.
Most of this Bill is trying to solve a problem that does not exist. Like the Employment Rights Bill last week, it is bodged and being rushed through without proper scrutiny, and behind it all is the cold, dead hand of the union paymasters that fund Labour. I commented on it during debate on the Employment Rights Bill, and we have heard again today—I am afraid the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) has just left his place—that the “Jurassic Park” of the unions is back. Like last week, it is not Jeff Goldblum—
Gregory Stafford
I will finish my analogy. It is not Jeff Goldblum who is going to be savaged by the dinosaurs; it is our children.
Lizzi Collinge
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, to whom he referred and who has actually worked in schools as a teacher, might have a really good grasp of what happens in schools?
Gregory Stafford
It would be totally wrong of me to cast any aspersions on the hon. Gentleman’s teaching ability. I have not sat through one of his classes, but if it was anything like his speech an hour ago, I would perhaps be looking to find some other educational outlet for myself or my child.
While I acknowledge that some of the child protection aspects of this Bill are important, much of it represents a dangerous and unnecessary centralisation of power that will harm schools, teachers and, most importantly, pupils. In recent meetings I have had with the Last Wednesday SEND group, as well as with home education groups across Surrey and Hampshire, there has been overwhelming concern about the proposed legislation. Many of those I have spoken to feel vilified for choosing to remove their children from mainstream education in favour of alternative specialised provision tailored to the individual needs of their children.
I will take this opportunity to highlight five key amendments that I think are particularly important; I urge Members to give them their full consideration. The first is amendment 206, which would remove the requirement for all academies to follow the national curriculum. Clearly, a national curriculum can provide a broad and balanced education, but education is not a one-size-fits-all issue. The Bill seeks to stifle innovation, which is a dangerous and regressive move. It is particularly concerning for faith schools and alternative provision settings such as Pathways school, a SEND provision school in my constituency. Pathways school plays an invaluable role in educating vulnerable children and providing trauma-informed strategies alongside a high-quality, project-based curriculum. Excellent spaces such as those would struggle to continue under state-imposed education strictures.
As a parent, I draw attention to new clause 41, which would give parents the right to review school curriculum materials to ensure their children are fairly exposed to material appropriate for their age group. It is not controversial to say that parents have a unique and intimate understanding of their children’s needs, and it is only right that they have an active role in ensuring the quality and suitability of their children’s education.
Moving on to amendments 200 and 202 regarding home education, a key group in my constituency that have ardently opposed state-controlled education are the home educators. Home education is a provision used by many parents across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook, because it provides a more personalised approach to learning, which in some cases benefits certain children. Amendment 200 would mandate local authorities to submit a statement of reasons when they do not agree that a child can be home-educated. Families are deeply concerned that the Government’s proposals impose excessive state control over home education, failing to recognise the dedication and care that home-educating parents provide. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) said— I think I am quoting her correctly—that “all good parents would welcome” this imposition on education. That is deeply unfair to all the good home-educating parents who have contacted me. They do not feel that this is a proportionate measure; they think it is a deep imposition, and they are good home-educators.
Amendment 200 is a more proportionate way to address concerns while ensuring the accountability that the hon. Lady wanted. That is especially important for families with SEND children awaiting education, health and care plans—a process that can take up to two years. In my local area, 17% of independent school pupils receive SEND support, yet only 6% have a formal EHCP. Therefore, home education, especially in that interim gap between realising a child needs SEND support and receiving an EHCP, is often the best option for them. Amendment 202 would remove the requirement for local authorities to approve and consent to the home education of children with special educational needs. Removing those bureaucratic hurdles would empower parents to make the best decisions for their children and would ensure inclusivity and equity in education.
I want to touch on amendment 192 on neglect and abuse of children that is related to home education. Although I strongly support home education as a valid choice, safeguarding must remain a priority. However, home-educating parents feel vilified by this Government, who treat them as if they were inherently suspect, as the hon. Lady did, rather than recognising their commitment to their children’s education. Amendment 192 would ensure that local authorities may withhold consent for withdrawal from school where there are concerns about neglect or abuse. The entire House was horrified by the tragic case of Sara Sharif, and the amendment is a necessary, balanced and proportionate response—far more so than the Government’s broader proposals, which unfairly target responsible home-educating parents. Instead of a sweeping punitive approach, the amendment focuses directly on children who are genuinely at risk, ensuring that they remain in a monitored environment where safeguarding concerns can be identified and addressed.
The Bill is an ideological attack on academic freedoms which will hurt the very children who Labour claims to support. It imposes unnecessary constraints on schools, weakens parental choice and undermines educational innovation. The poorest pupils will suffer the most. Academic freedoms have driven up standards, allowing schools to tailor their curricula to meet the needs of pupils. Labour’s insistence on enforcing a rigid national curriculum will stifle progress and limit opportunities. Its move to weaken the academy system will leave struggling schools in limbo, harming the very children who need urgent intervention.
The Bill tears down 25 years of progress—progress that has had a demonstrable impact on children, improving their educational outcomes, life chances and business and employment opportunities, and benefiting the country as a whole. I urge the House to reject this damaging Bill and to stand up for the best interests of our children. Let us protect parental rights, uphold educational freedoms and ensure that every child has access to safe, high-quality and inspirational education.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
I rise in support of new clause 23, tabled in my name, which seeks to extend mandatory relationships, sex and health education to all young people aged 16 to 18 in further education, sixth form and apprenticeship settings. RSHE is currently compulsory only to the end of key stage 4, when students are 16 years old, but young people remain in education or training until the age of 18. That creates a dangerous gap, in which thousands of young people are left without the vital education they need to stay safe and informed during a crucial and vulnerable period of their lives.
Government data paints a stark picture. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 16 to 19-year-olds experience the highest rates of domestic abuse of any age group, with 8% reporting incidents in the past year. That is precisely the age when young people are beginning to explore intimate relationships—a time when they need guidance on recognising coercive control, domestic abuse and harmful behaviours.
We all know the tragic consequences of ignoring that gap. The recent case of Kyle Clifford, who murdered Carol, Louise and Hannah Hunt after reportedly being influenced by the misogynistic views of Andrew Tate, reminds us that toxic narratives can take root when young people are unable to access to reliable and positive education about healthy relationships and respect. That topic has also been powerfully explored in the new Netflix series “Adolescence” by Stephen Graham, which addresses the impact of misogynistic and harmful ideologies, particularly among vulnerable young people. The series, which I recommend to everyone, highlights how a lack of proper education in relationships and self-worth can leave young people susceptible to dangerous and controlling behaviour.
Put simply, we cannot allow harmful voices to fill the vacuum that education should occupy. Education is not just important; it is lifesaving. Providing young people with clear lessons on consent, coercive control and domestic abuse would give them the tools to identify harmful behaviour and seek help when they need it. Without that, we leave young people across the country vulnerable to manipulation, abuse and harm.
Survivors have bravely shared their stories, illustrating the tragic cost of inaction. Faustine Petron, a survivor who founded the “Make It Mandatory” campaign, has spoken powerfully about how education could have changed her life. Having experienced domestic abuse at just 16, she said:
“If I had received mandatory education on healthy relationships and coercive control in sixth form, I truly believe I would have recognised the signs of abuse earlier and sought support—before it escalated into four years of serious violence. Those are years I can never get back. Years when I should have just been a child.”
Another parent who supported the 100,000-strong online petition shared their heartbreak:
“My daughter ended her life in January 2022, aged 21, because she was in a coercive and controlling relationship and was abused on every level. The perpetrator was the boy she met at school and had known since she was 12 years old.”
And another signatory said:
“I wish I’d known about coercive control at 16 when I entered an abusive relationship and stayed in it for 9 years. I thought that because there was no physical violence, it couldn’t be abuse. Teenagers need educating about this.”
Those stories are not isolated. Reports from the “Everyone’s Invited” platform highlighted that 142 further education and sixth-form colleges in England were named in testimonies of sexual violence. Those shocking accounts demand urgent action.
New clause 23 has broad support. The Women and Equalities Committee recommended such a change in 2023. The chief medical officer, the Children’s Commissioner and organisations such as Brook, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and the Sex Education Forum have all called for RSHE to be extended to 16-to-18 education providers. Ultimately, the new clause is a matter of prevention and protection. It is about giving young people the tools to identify unhealthy relationships, to know where to turn for help, and to foster respect and understanding in their personal lives. By extending RSHE to all young people in education until the age of 18, we can save lives, prevent harm and build a safer society for everyone. That is not just the right thing to do; it is the necessary thing to do.
I urge Members from across the House to support my new clause, as well as new clause 34 in the name of the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), which would extend free school meals to all primary school pupils—a campaign that I, alongside other Labour Members, have proudly supported for a long time. It is up to us to ensure that no young person is left behind without the necessary education and food that they need to stay safe, healthy and empowered.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I must confess I am worried about the Education Secretary and her future employment prospects. She may share the confusion of the public and wonder whether the Prime Minister is a socialist or a pragmatist, a tax-and-spend lefty or a quango cutter, a human rights lawyer or a war leader, but Education Ministers seem to have missed the latest McSweeney memo.
While the reformer in the Department for Work and Pensions says she wants to get people off welfare and into work, and the reformer in the Department of Health and Social Care holds up school reform and academies as the model for his changes to the NHS, the luddites in the Education Department are taking a hammer to the machinery that has made English schools the best in the west. This Bill—along with the curriculum review, a weakened Ofsted, the threat to SATs in primary schools, the end of free schools and weaker discipline policies—undoes decades of hard-won reform and higher standards.
It should be obvious that the objective for our school system is higher standards. Of course, Ministers pay lip service to that idea, but their actions belie their words, not just with this Bill but with the appointment of an academic to run the curriculum review who has criticised past Governments’ “obsession with academic achievement.” Standards improved through the years of school reform because Governments put their trust in heads and teachers, parents, and the philanthropists and public servants who sponsored free schools and academies. We followed what we understood from neurological science and research about how children learn, from work on cultural literacy to the knowledge that higher-level skills are dependent on the automatic mastery of lower-level activity. We turned to synthetic phonics, maths mastery, a knowledge-rich curriculum, teacher-led instruction and traditional academic subjects, and watched pupils fly.
When I compare my own education with what my children are taught today, the difference is truly staggering, and yet this Government want to go back to the failed policies of the past and the failed policies that continue to this day in Scotland and Wales, where standards are sadly far lower than in England. We know why: this disastrous journey back is what the unions demand, and it is what those on the left, in their hearts, really want. We heard Labour MPs on Second Reading explicitly rejecting the very concept of academies and demand state-run schools.
Some 80% of secondary schools are now academies. Ofsted says that 87% of them are good or outstanding, even though many were previously failing schools that were made academies to turn them around under new leadership. This intervention has been proved to work. Academy freedoms have given heads the space to make bad schools good. According to the fairer schools index, which takes both academic achievement and socioeconomic background into account, the top five state schools in England are all academies: Steiner academy Hereford, Michaela community school, Mercia school, Eden boys’ school, and Eden girls’ leadership academy. Multi-academy trusts have achieved Progress 8 scores far above the national average, with trusts such as the Harris Federation, United Learning, Star Academies, Delta Academies Trust and Ark all performing strongly.
The Government’s disregard for evidence with the Bill has provoked massive anger among school leaders. The Children’s Commissioner has said that the Government are
“legislating against the things we know work in schools”.
Katharine Birbalsingh, the headteacher at Michaela, has called the Bill “catastrophic”. Sir Dan Moynihan, CEO of the Harris Federation, simply asked:
“Why are we doing this?”––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 75, Q160.]
[Interruption] If the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) would like to intervene, he may.
I want to say something about the Bill’s most damaging measures, starting with clause 42, which makes the national curriculum compulsory for all academies. Today, the interim report of the curriculum and assessment review has been published. Just as predicted, the review endorses the Education Secretary’s demand for a curriculum that prioritises non-academic subjects over traditional subjects such as the sciences and geography. Indeed the review throws into doubt the future of the EBacc, which ensures a proper focus on core academic subjects. While there is value to non-academic disciplines, of course, there is only so much time in the school day. Teachers will lose the ability to prioritise what they teach, as well as how, and children risk getting less time in which to learn reading, writing and numeracy skills to an advanced level.
Evidence shows that academies, such as the Laurus Trust, have already found a good balance between academic rigour and extracurricular activities. The Education Policy Institute found that the Laurus Trust’s extracurricular programme led to an attainment 8 score being 6.2 points higher among current pupils than for pupils who attended before the programme began. The point is the trust has the freedom to decide the focus of its extracurricular work.
Centralised control over the curriculum will also undermine school ethos and character. For example, Marine Academy Plymouth has tailored its curriculum around the city’s maritime history and relationship with the sea, and we should be encouraging innovation, not conformity—or “consistency” as I hear Ministers euphemistically call it.
Clauses 41, 46 and 47 remove flexibility over teacher qualifications, pay, and conditions, but giving academies freedom over how they recruit, train, and develop staff has led to impressive results. Michaela hires teachers with little or no experience but then gives them training based on its own ethos. Dixons Trinity Academy and King’s Leadership Academy have done similar. And the Government are not extending the requirement in clause 41 to recruit QTS—qualified teacher status—teachers to further education, university technical colleges, studio schools, non-maintained schools, and early years provision, so why impose it on academies?
I share the concerns expressed earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) regarding clause 50. This new amendment will give local authorities the power to overrule headteachers and block school expansion and even mandate the number of pupils attending an academy. This would give local politicians the power to starve academies of pupils and promote their preferred locally controlled schools. This would cut some school budgets and could even lead to closures. Instead of letting parents decide which schools thrive, this is a return to failed command-and-control statism. As roll numbers fall, clause 50 will put huge power into the hands of often very ideological politicians, and for those who doubt this danger, those of us who worked with free school founders know the games councils have played with land hurriedly sold and planning applications refused to stop new schools opening.
A couple of months ago in this House the Prime Minister called academies a Labour achievement. He said:
“Academies are here to stay, and will continue to drive up standards. That is what the Bill is about.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 998.]
But if he really meant that, I honestly wonder whether he has read, or understood, the Bill at all.
I am afraid the Education Secretary and her team, however, know exactly what they are doing. Their ideology blinds them to evidence and leaves them deaf to advice from those who know what they are talking about. This is why Ministers cannot admit the success of English schools in the PISA and TIMSS international rankings.
Nick Timothy
The Minister gave me a frown but she can intervene and admit the success of English schools in those rankings if she wishes.
It is why, when Michaela was once again selected—[Interruption.] Would the Minister like to intervene? No, apparently not. It is why, when Michaela was once again the best-ranked school in the country for progress, the Secretary of State could not bring herself even to congratulate Katherine Birbalsingh when I invited her to do so from these Benches. It is why the Education Secretary’s special adviser briefed the newspapers that Ms Birbalsingh is a liar, and why he briefed the newspapers against Amanda Spielman, former head of Ofsted, attacking her very personally as a “failure” and a Conservative.
As Margaret Thatcher, not just a former Prime Minister but a former Education Secretary, once said:
“If they attack you personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
And this is the truth: the Education Secretary does not have a single political argument for this disgraceful act of policy vandalism, but she is determined to ignore those who know better than her and push on. And the people who lose out, I am afraid, will be the children, from ordinary working families the length and breadth of the country, denied the best we can give them, unaware that a better and brighter future has been stolen from them thanks to nothing more than vindictive left-wing dogma.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to speak in support of the Bill, which delivers on the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. The Bill will drive high and rising standards in school, cut the cost of sending children to school for my constituents and make life easier for families in my area. Its landmark reforms to safeguarding and children’s social care will stop children from falling through the cracks.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate. It has been an honour to be a member of the Bill Committee. Over many days, we considered the Bill in detail, providing line-by-line scrutiny. Today, there are many amendments before us, many of which I support, and there are important issues to discuss, including elective home education. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) made some excellent points, and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) also made important points.
It is important that we discuss the breakfast club provision. In principle, schools providing breakfast to children is a good thing—why not?—but as we get closer to implementation, colleagues on the Labour Benches may find themselves getting more mail from headteachers in their constituencies, noting that the Government say that the pilot scheme will save parents £450 per child, but the amount of money that the Government are giving to schools goes down as low as £114 per child. That is clearly quite a gap for schools to make up, and we will see how they intend to do that.
We had some good debates on uniform in Committee. I gently say to Labour colleagues that if they think the changes in uniform will automatically result in the cost of sending children to school going down—because everybody will go to Asda and get unbranded clothing, so there will be no pester power or fashion competitions when it comes to sportswear, for example—next time they do a school visit, they should go to a PE lesson and look down at the children’s feet. If they cannot make it to a PE lesson, just wait for the end of the school day, stay at the school gate and look at the children’s bags. It is not automatically the case that not having uniform items for sport, for example, makes things cheaper. I also hope that at some point during the passage of this legislation, the Government will get rid of the bizarre anomaly by which they say it is all right to have a school tie as an additional logoed or branded item in a secondary school, but not in a primary school, for some reason.
There are also important new clauses for us to consider—on free school meal auto-enrolment, for example. We had that discussion this morning in Westminster Hall with the Minister for early education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan). Historically, there have been barriers to auto-enrolment for free school meals to do with IT systems and the legal basis for such a measure. The IT system issues are melting away as technology improves, and I hope that the Government will look at that seriously.
If I were to comment on every clause with which I have an issue, or every amendment on which I have an opinion, I would stretch even your famed patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. Instead, I propose taking a step back. What we are debating is more than just the 84 pages of parts 2 and 3 of the Bill, or the 62 pages of amendments. This is really about the soul and direction of education in England. As other colleagues have mentioned, this new Government have a very solid base on which to build when it comes to attainment in England; we have the best primary school readers in the western world—yes, that bears repeating. Under the last Government, at secondary school, we went from 27th to 11th in mathematics, and from 25th to 13th in reading. Children on free school meals became 50% more likely to go to university. That is the record of the last 14 years. It is not the record of the 13 years before that, when we went down the international comparison tables.
There were stand-out reformers in new Labour, and I pay tribute to them, starting with Sir Tony Blair and his famous epizeuxis, “Education, education, education.” There was also the noble Lord Blunkett, Lord Adonis and others, but they were always swimming against the tide from the left of politics and the Labour party to push through reforms. We should not exaggerate how much was achieved by the end of the last Labour Government. There were a couple of hundred academies, as opposed to many thousands today.
What happened between 2010 and 2024 was not all about academies—far from it. It was really about brilliant teachers—that is always where it starts and finishes in education—in an ecosystem that valued high standards and high quality. Crucially, it was about the combination of autonomy and accountability for schools, a knowledge-rich curriculum, and proven methods, such as synthetic phonics and maths mastery. It was about schools learning from each other, both in the hub-and-spoke network across the country and in academy trusts, which became the primary vehicle for school improvement.
That improvement also needed diversity and parental choice, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, who is on my left—spatially—pointed out. That starts with clear information and knowing how children are doing at school. There was a time, for many decades in this country—going back way before the new Labour reforms, by the way—when nobody knew how many children were just being let down by schools. We took that provision of clear information further, of course—as did the Blair reforms—with clear Ofsted judgments that anybody could access readily, but also much longer judgments that could be read by anybody who could read.
We do not talk nearly enough about Progress 8—it is so much better than the measures that we used to have—either on raw GCSE attainment or the contextual value-added measures of the Labour years. We also knew that if we were to have choice, there needed to be spare capacity in the system. Remarkably, in spite of the fact that there was a known demographic need, in the years up to 2010, the previous Labour Government cut school places by a six-figure number; we added 1.2 million more. We also made the diversity of academies and free schools happen, and welcomed it.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has referred not only to the previous Government, but to the new Labour Government before that. Does he share my concern, and perhaps my confusion? I thought there was consensus on the huge benefits of academies, which were brought in by new Labour and advanced by the previous Conservative Government, but this Government seem to be ripping up that consensus through this Bill.
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is certainly right that over the years, there have been many brilliant, far-sighted people in the Labour party who have overlooked their political tradition and said, “We must just do what is best for the children.” I do not think there has ever been a universally accepted consensus on academies; until very recently, there have been groups actively organising against schools becoming academies, with leading members of the Labour party involved in those movements. There has always been a strand, which turns out to be wider than we realised, of the Labour party that believes that unless there is control from the top, through councils, and unless schools are told what to do, the system is inconsistent. Some consistency in education is very important, but that is not the same as uniformity, and certainly not the same as top-down control.
It turns out that Government Ministers do not want transparency and choice. They do not want diversity. In particular, they seem to want to curtail the improvement in school performance that has been made possible through academy trusts. The Government have already stopped new free schools. This Bill can not only stop academies growing in size, but can stop them staying the same size, even if they are popular with parents.
We all know that the Bill erodes freedoms, starting with the qualified teacher status requirement. It is not as if schools are going around willy-nilly, recruiting people without qualifications off the streets. They are not putting cards up in Tesco saying, “Apply now to teach, no prior experience or qualifications required”—of course they are not. Equally, though, a headteacher who is trying to do the best for his or her school and its children might have a reason to bring in somebody from a profession. They might want to bring in somebody with a sports background, somebody from the private sector, or somebody from another country to help with their school’s language programme, but no, we do not trust headteachers to make those decisions. We have to write something into legislation to stop them doing that.
Turning to the national curriculum, again, it is not as if schools are going around willy-nilly saying, “We’re not going to teach children English, maths, geography and history. We’re just going to make it all up.” In fact, Ofsted-inspected schools—which all state schools are—cannot do that, because they are judged on having a broad and balanced curriculum. The quickest way to achieve that is to follow the national curriculum, but there are schools that want to innovate and to deviate somewhat from the national curriculum. We see no harm in that, so long as those schools maintain that breadth and balance.
It has been said by a few colleagues that it seems to put the cart before the horse to say that all schools must follow the national curriculum rigidly before we have the outcome of the review. Just a few hours ago, we had a publication connected to the review, but not the final report. It is beside the point, however, because whatever the review comes up with—on which we must wait and see—the Government are not obliged to adopt it and could adopt something else. Even if they do adopt it, this Government or any subsequent Government could decide to do something different. Having the ability for schools to deviate somewhat gives us a safety valve against the over-politicisation of schools and what is taught in the curriculum. It also gives some reassurance to faith schools and parents.
Graham Stuart
Has my right hon. Friend seen Tim Leunig’s article in Schools Week talking about Ofsted’s new report card system following the Labour manifesto commitment? One danger is that, if my right hon. Friend is right and we see a reduction in standards, the Bill could switch off the light that allows us to see that, because
“reliability and validity are in tension”,
as Tim Leunig puts it. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that Ofsted must ensure that it continues to put a bright and reliable light on the education system, so that we can see whether the policies in this Bill work?
Damian Hinds
I do, and my right hon. Friend gives me two valuable opportunities. The first is to pay tribute to the great Tim Leunig. We do not often talk about him in this House. He has friends here, and he is a perceptive thinker. I will look up his article.
The other opportunity that my right hon. Friend gives me is to highlight the discrepancy we can get when things appear to be getting better, when in fact they are not. That is what happened under the last Labour Government when, in spite of us falling down the international comparisons, they managed to find 11 different ways in the system to make it look like our GCSE results were improving year after year. We do not want that to happen again. There were those champions in the new Labour years who made these great reforms happen and would want to continue them now, so I say to those on the Government Benches: where are the champions today? Where are those in the modern Labour party who will say, “No, we will not be bound by ideology. We are going to do what is in the best interests of the children”? I hope there will be some of those champions in the other place.
To be fair, I was mildly encouraged this morning to hear the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when questioned on the radio about the fate of this Bill, appearing to be somewhat open-minded, shall we say, about what might happen. To be fair, I have even been slightly encouraged listening to the Secretary of State for Education in recent days and weeks. She has sounded like she might be a little bit open to rowing back from some of the worst excesses of this legislation. There is still time. There will be weeks of this legislation being considered in the other place, so I just ask the Government to please take that time to think carefully about the legacy they will be leaving and to turn those words into deeds.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Ministers for their contributions. It is an honour to have an opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents and my former colleagues in the teaching profession on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Quality of teaching is the single biggest driver of standards in schools. The Bill will ensure that all teachers have or are working towards qualified teacher status. As a former teacher, I welcome that.
It is fair to say from the chuntering I have been doing from this Bench that I feel passionately about education. I find it difficult, listening to Opposition Members—I recognise that they generally care passionately about education, but sadly my experience of teaching under their Government was different from how they describe it. I once again ask the Minister to recognise that she is inheriting a workforce in the education system that is absolutely at rock bottom.
Let me stress, however—I want to make this clear to Conservative Members—that I put the wellbeing and education of children above any politics. When I talk about the education of young people, I talk not just about examinations but what is described in the teaching profession as the hidden curriculum: important life skills. Indeed, I became quite animated when a month ago, on this very spot, I spoke in a debate about the importance of financial education.
As I have said, for me a well-qualified teacher is one who still takes a joy in education that has not been sucked out of him by the endless barrage of comments in the press, and, I must add, a revolving door of Conservative Education Secretaries, although I should offer an olive branch to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds)—[Interruption.] I was about to say something nice about the right hon. Gentleman.
Chris Vince
I was going to say that he was probably one of the better ones.
I should also recognise, as should we all, that the young people who are going through the education system now have been impacted negatively by something even worse than a Conservative Government, namely the terrible pandemic. We know that they are less resilient. We also know that more and more young people are having to be carers for their parents and other family members and loved ones. Members will be aware that I am very passionate about this subject, and I thank the Minister and other Members for attending and contributing to my Westminster Hall debate on it last Thursday. On average, young carers are likely to miss more school than their peers, and I welcome the proposal in the Bill to record absences to ensure that no young people fall through the gaps, including those who are home educated.
I said earlier that I did not want to be too political about this. I went through the education process and became a teacher because of Sir Tony Blair’s remark about “education, education, education”. When he said that teaching was a valuable and noble profession, I thought, “He’s right: it is.” The former Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath did not put it in quite the same way when he said that most teachers were letting young people down.
I want to say something about reform, and to move away from the ideological politics of reform. Sometimes reform is good, sometimes it is bad, and sometimes good reform is bad because of the way in which it is implemented. As a former teacher, I can assure the House that telling a student that they are not doing a very good job does not make them do a better job. When we are considering reform in education, it is hugely important that we take educationists, teachers and support staff along with us, and that, I am afraid, is something that I do not think the last Government did. I believe that the Bill returns us to the original purpose of academies: to share best practice and encourage collaboration in the best interests of children.
I was told that I must talk about the amendments and new clauses, so let me briefly speak in support of Government amendment 156, which focuses on the importance of ensuring that every school is run by a “fit and proper person”, which I think we would all agree is a no-brainer. I also want to refer to—I cannot find the right page in my speech—
Tim Roca
At several points today, we have been transported by Conservative Members to the educational nirvana that supposedly existed under the Tory Government. That is not the memory I have, or the memory that many parents and children have. They, I think, remember the real-terms funding cuts that happened for much of the last 14 years, increasing class sizes, the millions of days lost to industrial action by unions who were fed up with the hectoring nature of previous Conservative Governments, and the 11% of children who were going hungry compared with the 8% OECD average. PISA rankings are all very well and good, but PISA scores were going down; they were just not going down as fast as those in other countries.
Chris Vince
I thank my hon. Friend for painting a better picture than the one painted by Conservative Members.
Shortly after the election, in August, I met a couple of former teacher colleagues who were still in the profession, and they just looked broken. It was really difficult to see, because they have been maths teachers for a long period of time. When I first became a teacher, they inspired me to persevere, to reflect on the bad days and to have better lessons. To see them so fed up and so disenchanted with being a teacher was really difficult, and we have to change that. I emphasise again to the Minister that it is really important that we ensure that we support teachers’ mental health. I was going to intervene on the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) to ask him whether he recognises that happy and supported teachers lead to happy and supported young people, which is really important.
Chris Vince
I will not.
I will briefly mention Government amendments 166 and 167, which talk about data protection never getting in the way of safeguarding. One of my most difficult days as a teacher—the House will be pleased to know that it has nothing to do with the Conservative Government—was when a young person in my class came to me at the end of a lesson and said those terrible words that every teacher dreads: “I need to tell you something.” Despite my explaining to her that it could not be confidential, she made a disclosure—I will not go into it, obviously—and then begged me not to tell anyone, which is not an option for teachers or anyone in a similar position. It was heartbreaking to see how upset she was, but I reported it in the correct and proper way. Clearly, safeguarding is really important, and all professionals—not just those in education—who work with young people take it very seriously. General data protection regulation, or myths about GDPR and data sharing, should not get in the way of ensuring that our young people are safe in education and outside it.
I will finish on a lighter note, because I appreciate that I have got a little bit deep. The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) discussed the educational merits of having an ice cream. I say to him that 1/3πr2h is the volume of a cone.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for schooling me in maths—I am not very good at that.
I begin by expressing my strong support for the Bill, particularly its efforts to enhance child protection and ensure better collaboration between professionals involved in children’s care. I welcome the measures in part 2 that seek to harmonise admissions and provide cost of living support for families, especially those from deprived backgrounds.
Parents whose children are in state-funded education deserve transparency. They should have access to clear information about their child’s education and be assured that schools and trusts are operating fairly, and I look forward to measures coming forward that are not in the Bill but which will really make a difference for children, such as the child poverty strategy, the SEND review and the curriculum review. However, there is one part of this Bill that I believe needs to be amended: the level of unnecessary scrutiny that is being imposed on parents who choose to home-educate their children. Rather than protecting them, elements of the proposed register risk putting such families in danger.
Let me be clear: I support the principle of the register. As corporate parents, local authorities need to know where children are if they are not attending school. Collecting some information and the reasons for elective home education is important, not only for child protection but so that authorities can plan for the future. We know that some children who are home-educated later return to school, and many parents make this choice because local education provision does not meet their child’s needs, either temporarily or permanently. That presents an opportunity for local authorities and multi-academy trusts to work collaboratively with families to ensure that curricula and school offerings are inclusive of their needs.
However, proposed new section 436C of the Education Act 1996, which governs the content and maintenance of the home education register, contains provisions that could have serious unintended safeguarding consequences, as suggested by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed). Under proposed new section 434A, in clause 25, the local authority must serve notice to both parents “unless exceptional circumstances apply”—for instance, in cases of domestic abuse or family estrangement. Yet proposed new section 436C, in clause 26, requires the register to include the name and home address of the child, both parents’ names and addresses, and the addresses of all places where education takes place. Crucially, there is no provision for exceptions in cases where sharing this information could put children at risk.
Gideon Amos
In that vein, does my hon. Friend accept that, as I mentioned, grandparents reading to their grandchildren could be considered as providing home education and should be inspected and reported on, and vital home education groups providing services free of charge could be driven out of business by the scale and weight of reporting they will have to provide?
Vikki Slade
I think a lot of people who do not know anything about home education miss the fact that there is a whole community of home educators, and home-educated children spend plenty of time with their peers, but they are just different peers—others who prefer to have their education outside a school environment—and there is a risk of such organisations being driven underground or lost altogether.
Under section 7 of the Education Act 1996, parents already have a duty to ensure that their child receives a suitable education, whether through school or otherwise, and local authorities can already conduct informal inquires and issue school attendance orders if they believe a child is not receiving an appropriate education, so this is simply overkill. A formal register would help to ensure accountability, but this is overreach. My amendment 221 proposes a more practical solution of requiring only those who provide more than six hours per week of education or activity to be included in the register. That strikes a reasonable balance by ensuring that key educators are identified without overwhelming families or local authorities.
While there are genuine safeguarding concerns, local authorities already have the power to intervene under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. The Victoria Climbié Foundation stated that the provision proposed in the Bill would have done nothing to help Sara Sharif because the local authority had already decided that the child was not at risk.
Graham Stuart
I hope colleagues in the other place will follow up on the hon. Lady’s excellent speech. To focus in on that point, if a register does go ahead—the hon. Lady supports that; I do not—it should start with the minimum requirements, and then it could be expanded if that is needed, rather than be spread out in this way. To reinforce the point she makes, local authorities already have the power to intervene if it appears to them that someone is not having a suitable education, and they have all the powers required if there are concerns about welfare. Conflating welfare and education in the way this Bill does particularly irritates and upsets home educators.
Vikki Slade
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In fact, Kathryn from my constituency wrote me a very long email talking about welfare versus education—two totally separate issues. People are really upset and would have been devastated and distraught to hear the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) effectively make them feel like they were some sort of pariah. I was really upset to hear that, especially as I asked home educators in my constituency to listen to the debate and give me their feedback.
I support amendments 195 and 197, tabled by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), which seek clarity that educational activities outside regular school terms should not be subject to this overreach. My children are not subject to them, and children in home education should not be subjected to anything more than the rest of us. Children receiving education out of school should have the same rights to take their public examinations as their peers. It should not be based on a parent’s ability to fund that. After all, the Treasury already saves many thousands of pounds for every home-educated child. New clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), would provide support for parents by providing for home-educated children to sit any relevant examination and to be fully funded where requested.
I thank the Minister for confirmation on one point: as I sat here this afternoon, I received a letter to say that the challenges faced by summer-born children will now be considered. I would like to pass on the thanks—[Interruption.] Well, I’ll save the rest of it for you.
I was not going to speak about academies, but as I sat here over several hours I received two more emails relating, in particular, to concerns about their governance. I heard the challenge from those on the Conservative Benches about the comments by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on teachers, but I cannot tell the House how many times I hear complaints about the way staff and whistleblowers are being treated in multi-academy trusts. While I have sat here today, I have heard of another who has been suspended by a multi-academy trust. This is not about them getting better treatment; it is about them getting worse treatment. If teachers are treated badly and leave the sector, that has an impact on our children. It is about the children, not just the teachers.
In summary, I support the principles of the Bill, but I urge the Government to consider the amendments on excessive and potentially harmful requirements imposed on home-educated children. They are common sense amendments that would allow children to be protected without placing undue burdens on families.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I rise in support of the Bill and in support of the amendments that seek to increase access to free school meals, a policy that would make a world of difference to the one in two children living in poverty in my constituency, the most deprived in the country. I also want to pay tribute to the amazing teachers in all the schools in Liverpool Riverside who go above and beyond every single day, not only for the children but for their parents.
Research last summer showed that nearly one in five households with children were suffering from food insecurity. That is made worse by cruel and punitive policies, such as the two-child cap on benefits. Universal free school meals would go a huge way towards immediately alleviating the pressures that these families are facing. In the sixth richest country in the world, no child should go to school hungry and all children should be supported to achieve their full potential.
Some 47% of children in my constituency now live in poverty. If those children lived in London, Scotland or Wales, they would have access to universal free schools meals at primary school. However, because they live in Liverpool, many are forced to learn on an empty stomach. That is indefensible and unfair. The Government should take the opportunity presented by the Bill to put an end to that postcode lottery and extend free school meals for all so that no child goes hungry and no child is left behind.
The evidence is clear: the impact of universal free school meals is life changing. Research has found that they ease the financial burden on families, help children to focus in class, reduce stigma and foster stronger school communities. They far outstrip other policies in all those areas, including breakfast clubs and means-tested free school meal schemes.
Teachers in my constituency have told me about the devastating reality that they see every single day, with children coming to school unable to buy lunch and unable to concentrate or learn properly. No matter how bright a child is or how amazing a teacher is, hungry children cannot learn.
The problem is not just who qualifies for free school meals, but how many eligible children are missing out. Up to 250,000 children who should be receiving free school meals are not, due to a system that is inefficient, overly complex and burdensome for parents and schools alike. Families struggle with complicated registration forms, language barriers and a lack of awareness, with some parents avoiding applying due to stigma or embarrassment. The income threshold of £7,500 is incredibly low and has not risen for many years, and too many families living below the breadline are ineligible to access the support they need.
This desperately needs to change. Providing free school meals would not only guarantee at least one hot meal per day, but ease the financial burden on struggling families by saving them approximately £500 per child per year. Studies show that fewer than 2% of packed lunches meet school food standards, whereas a hot school meal ensures that children receive the nutrition they need to grow, concentrate and succeed. Research has shown that well-fed children perform better academically. Early findings suggest that children from non-white communities or single-parent households are disproportionately unregistered for free school meals, despite being entitled to them.
We should also see this policy as an investment in our future. Universal free school meals are proven to tackle health and educational inequalities, providing a long-term boost for our economic productivity and alleviating pressures on our healthcare systems. If we choose today to spend the money and roll out universal free school meals to all children at primary school, for every £1 we spend, we will generate £1.71 in core benefit returns—it is a no-brainer. We must put an end to the economically illiterate models of arbitrary fiscal rules and recognise what the evidence shows: investing in our children’s future is a sensible financial choice, as well as a just one.
After 14 years of Tory austerity, skyrocketing inequality and the lasting effects of the pandemic, now is the time for bold action. If this Government are truly committed to raising the healthiest generation of children ever, we must start by funding universal and nutritious free school meals for all. We have an opportunity to end the scandal of child hunger in our schools and give every child the foundation they need to learn and thrive. I call on the Government to get behind these new clauses and amendments today so that no child in this country is left hungry, and no child is left behind.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
I rise today in support of amendments 27 and 43 and new clause 1, as proposed by the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I agree with her, because the truth of my experience in education over the past 20 years is far different from the experiences and views that we hear from those on the Opposition Benches. At this point, I must refer to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my partner’s interests.
In a previous life, I raised a motion at North Warwickshire borough council to convene a multi-agency meeting to tackle knife crime in our schools. In one school, 17 sharps had been found in a school bag in a search that I am told saw school “bouncers”—large men in black suits and ties—stripping through students’ bags and removing sanitary products from girls’ bags in public corridors. I appreciate that we need strong measures on knives in schools, but what really baffled me, and the reason why we moved a motion at the council, was that there was no police involvement, no oversight and no accountability from school authorities. At that time, the school also had one of the highest rates for exclusion and persistent absenteeism in the country. It is not hard to understand the link.
A friend of mine—I will call her Rosie—went to the school and was thriving. She attended regularly and was getting on well. She was then threatened by a classmate with one of these sharps. The culprit was excluded for three days and then put back in the same class as Rosie. Unsurprisingly, she was quite uncomfortable with the school’s decision. There was no accountability and no changes were made by the school. How on earth can a child be expected to focus on their learning when they are scared for their own safety?
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 6 tabled by children’s food champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and to amendments 212 to 220 in my name. I also put on record my support for new clause 1 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), new clause 7 tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and new clause 49 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). It will come as no surprise that I am also a fan of new clause 34 because, thanks to the last Government, over 4 million children are in poverty, and I will always support anything that makes their little lives and that of their families more bearable.
New clause 6 would introduce a much-needed national monitoring system for school food. Of course, school food standards already exist, but not all schools are meeting them. There is far too much variance. There are some brilliant examples of heart-healthy, nutritious meals that fuel children for the rest of the school day. Then, there are examples where unhealthy fizzy drinks and fried food are the norm. Some 60% of secondary schools have been found not to follow the school standards at all. A study from Impact on Urban Health shows significant differences between what is mandated by the school standards and what is on menus and what ends up on plates. There is far too much free rein. There is no mechanism for school food standards to be checked against what pupils are being served. The new clause would end the postcode lottery of school food so that standards no longer just exist on paper but are on our children’s plates.
The amendments in my name all relate to strengthening school breakfast club provision. After years of pushing my School Breakfast Bill, no one was happier than me when the Labour Government legislated for school breakfasts. It is great to see that three of the pilots are in schools in my constituency. Some 2.7 million children live in food-insecure households. The previous Government’s national school breakfast programme is missing 86% of those children. Most of them will have arrived at school ready to learn, but with a gnawing hunger in their stomachs. Their day is marked with that persistent worry that comes with hunger—a worry that will permeate their entire school day.
Hunger has a significant impact on children’s learning, because hungry children do not learn, no matter how bright and determined they are and no matter how amazing or dedicated their teachers are. Numerous studies have shown the links between nutrition and cognitive development. Hungry children suffer developmental impairments, language delays and delayed motor skills, not to mention the psychological and emotional impact, which can range from withdrawn and depressive behaviours to irritable and aggressive ones.
I have always believed in the transformational power of education. It is certainly not standard for children from my background to end up in this place, so the power of a good education can never be overestimated. The food that fuels that ability to learn and develop should never be underestimated. These clubs will ensure that socioeconomic status is less of a deciding factor in good educational outcomes. My amendments would help realise the full potential of our breakfast clubs.
There is no provision in the Bill to monitor or measure the success of school breakfast provision. It is difficult to scrutinise the efficacy of any policy if there is never any analysis of it. The pupil premium, free school meals eligibility and the income deprivation affecting children index are good indicators of the very children who will need these clubs the most. Any policy should be measured by its impact on these groups, so that we know that those who are most in need are benefiting.
More worryingly, without proper data to prove the success of the policy, a future Government may decide to scrap it altogether. That is why amendment 212 is so important. Not all staff are nutritional experts, and some will have never delivered school breakfast provision before, so it is right that they have the right advice on hand and why a more mixed model and flexible approach is needed from the Government. Amendments 213 and 216 to 218 would achieve that.
The flexibility shown in the models adopted by Magic Breakfast has resulted in a take-up that is 375% higher than in non-Magic Breakfast schools. Yet the Bill requires only one model be delivered: the traditional breakfast club, held in a canteen for 30 minutes before the start of the school day. Many schools already use different models of breakfast clubs, including ones that suit particular schools, such as classroom breakfasts, grab-and-go takeaway models, nurture groups and late provision. A rigid model of delivery will have less success and schools that cannot fit that model will feel that they have to be exempt from delivery. Amendments 214 and 215 would ensure that if a school were to seek exemption from the Government’s school clubs, other models had been considered.
I know that the Minister knows that SEND schools often cater for primary and secondary pupils on the same site. That means that in those schools some children will be excluded from school breakfast clubs. I know from discussions with dedicated teachers and school staff in my constituency that they will not allow their pupils to be disadvantaged in that way, so it is likely they will use their already tight budgets to make sure older pupils also get that nutritious, healthy start to their school day.
Amendment 219 would apply only to approximately 100,000 pupils in England. That would be a modest 2.22% increase in the policy if all those children took up the offer—and we know that that is unlikely, because the children with complex needs do not always require the same food provision accessed by other pupils. For those who do require it, however, it is right that they should have the same nutritious start to their day as other children with whom they share a school site.
I am, of course, pleased that at long last there is legislation for school breakfasts. However, it is essential that we get that right. My amendments will do just that, and I know that the Minister will have carefully considered them. I look forward to her comments at the close of the debate.
Neil O’Brien
With the leave of the House, we have had an excellent debate this afternoon, as we did in Committee. I will pick out only a few of the contributions. We had important words from the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who pointed out how quickly the Bill had been prepared and pushed through. That is why we have so many amendments on Report and, to be honest, one reason that the Bill has run into such trouble.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) gave a great speech, drawing on his experience as the Chair of the Select Committee, and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) gave an excellent speech, laying out why the provisions on home schooling are an excessive burden and go too far. We all agree that it is about making sure that children are not just “not in school”; however, the provisions really are overly burdensome. The hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and lots of Conservative colleagues pointed out the same thing.
I have to say that my jaw hit the floor when I first read the Bill and saw the provisions that treat the parents of children in special schools the same as people who are being investigated by social services. Those people are not criminals, they are not doing the wrong thing and sometimes they need to move to look after their vulnerable children. I hope the Government will think again in the other place.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I agree with the shadow Minister on the point about special schools. Additionally, in Committee in January, he raised the point about local authority consent for some children to be withdrawn from school, and how that should be extended from children who are subject to a child protection plan to children who are regarded as a child in need. Why are the Opposition not pushing that to a vote today?
Neil O’Brien
We have a limited number of things that we can press to a vote, but I hope, as we go to the debate in the other place, that we are in complete agreement on the excessive nature of some of the requirements being made of home schoolers, who we must not treat as illegitimate just because they choose to educate their children in a certain way. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) used his huge experience to take us on a rather bleak journey from the reforming agenda of the early Blair years to the regress that we are seeing now. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) explained why this was such a mistake and took us through the Bill in bleak detail.
I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), but I do agree with her on Andrew Tate, whom I regard as totally abhorrent. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the shadow Justice Secretary, is leading the charge to get the Tates deported to this country so that they can face justice here. I find their work utterly, utterly abhorrent.
My brilliant hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) contrasted the reforming rhetoric that we at least see in other Departments with the rather retro agenda in the Department for Education. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who did so much work in Committee, gave us another brilliant and witty speech. He talked about how Labour reformers had always been swimming against the tide, and I think that is right. He also talked about the free school breakfast numbers that the Government have used and the claim that they are going to save parents £450. This is a mysterious figure, because if we want to give £450 to every primary school child, that will cost north of £2 billion, but the Government are spending £33 million, so they are two orders of magnitude apart. Why will the Government not publish the workings behind this figure? I think the truth is that the source is the back of a spad’s fag packet, to be completely honest.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) gave a good speech, and the thing I absolutely agree with him about is the importance of teaching. It is one of the best and most noble things anyone can do with their life. All of us as MPs do school visits, and we might do an hour of highly energetic chat with people in year 6. We then realise the energy required to be a teacher and to keep that up all day, so I absolutely pay tribute to those who are doing this noble work.
One of the most interesting speeches this afternoon was the one from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden). Various Labour Members said that things under the last Government were not nirvana, and that is right. Various people said that there were more things to fix, and that is right too. We absolutely agree with that. But the hon. Member said that things were so much better in Wales because they had avoided the Blair-era reforming agenda, they had avoided academies, they had got rid of league tables for a time, they were still using other methods such as cueing rather than phonics, and so on and so forth. But let us just have a look at the numbers to see what that has done.
The PISA tables show that, under the last Government, England went from 11th to ninth on science, 19th to ninth on reading and 21st to seventh on maths. That is a huge increase. In Wales, the best bit was on maths, where they went from 29th to 27th. They were flat at 28th on reading and collapsed from 21st to 29th on science. A pretty dismal record, really. I would encourage those who say that things are brilliant in Wales to read the searing report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is known for its mild-mannered work and cautious judgments. The report states:
“PISA scores declined by more in Wales than in most other countries in 2022, with scores declining by about 20 points (equivalent to about 20% of a standard deviation, which is a big decline). This brought scores in Wales to their lowest ever level, significantly below the average across OECD countries and significantly below those seen across the rest of the UK…Lower scores in Wales cannot be explained by higher levels of poverty. In PISA, disadvantaged children in England score about 30 points higher, on average, than disadvantaged children in Wales. This is a large gap…Even more remarkably, the performance of disadvantaged children in England is either above or similar to the average for all children in Wales.”
Disadvantaged children in England are doing better than all children in Wales, and the IFS also points out that the disadvantage gap is bigger in Wales. It concludes that the explanation for lower educational performance is not ethnicity or deprivation, and that it
“is much more likely to reflect longstanding differences in policy and approach, such as lower levels of external accountability and less use of data.”
That is the damning indictment of the IFS.
As Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things”. We have seen what this agenda does in Wales. It is a disaster, and those who are the most deprived are the ones who lose out the most. That is why this afternoon we are going to be pushing our amendments to protect academy freedoms, to protect the ability of good schools to grow and to protect parental choice. This Bill shifts power from parents to politicians, and we will always resist that. We will be moving to a vote now to stop this destructive agenda, which has failed in Wales and will fail in England too.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, some of which have been well considered and delivered powerfully—others less so. This Government’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity by driving high and rising standards. That has to be the right of every child, delivered through excellent teaching and leadership, a high-quality curriculum, and a system that removes the barriers to learning that hold too many children back, all underpinned by strong and clear accountability. This Bill delivers the legislative elements of the broader vision that we are determined to deliver. As part of that, from next term free breakfast clubs will start being rolled out in early adopter schools across the country, including special schools and alternative provision settings. Members who tabled amendments 2, 219 and 220 are right that it is critical that the new breakfast clubs are accessible for children with special educational needs and disabilities. All pupils, including those with SEND and those in special schools, are already in the existing drafting of the clause. The need to get this right is why we are testing, and learning through, the early adopter programme.
On amendments 214, 215, 217 and 218, it is important to be clear on the distinction between food-only options being “alongside” or “instead of” the breakfast clubs. The club is as important as the breakfast. It gives children a settled start to the day and will secure improvements in attendance and behaviour, so the right approach is to legislate to give schools certainty of the minimum they need to provide and to work with early adopters to see how schools can maximise attendance at these clubs. To promote food-only offers may risk undermining the club element.
Let us be clear: we inherited a shameful legacy from the previous Government. Compared with when Labour last left office, 700,000 more children are growing up with their lives and life chances scarred by poverty. Children cannot achieve or thrive if the stressors and strains of growing up in poverty—of seeing their parents worried about putting food on the table, of being concerned about their younger siblings or whether their friends will judge them for not having the basics—are put on their shoulders. I know my hon. Friends share the Government’s concern for those children and their futures. We have set up the child poverty taskforce chaired by my right hon. Friends the Education Secretary and the Work and Pensions Secretary to look at how we can work across Government to tackle the causes and impacts of poverty on children’s lives.
The support the Government provide through their school food programmes to enable families to access healthy, nutritious food is being considered as part of that work. It is right that these considerable reforms, such as extending universal infant free school meals to all primary pupils, are considered through this route in a holistic way. Alongside the work of the taskforce, we are making progress to make it easier for families to access their entitlements, and I recognise the concern that right hon. and hon. Members have for children missing out.
The Government are pressing ahead with making it quicker and easier for families and local authorities to get children signed up for free school meals with our new eligibility checking system, which allows parents to check their eligibility and supports the local efforts we have seen to ensure that children receive that support. Further, I can confirm that our officials are working with the Government Digital Service in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explore options on further data sharing to get more families signed up for their entitlements. We expect to have those provisions in place from next year, well ahead of the academic year beginning in September 2026.
Our officials are working with the Department for Work and Pensions to explore options on supporting enrolment through universal credit. My Department will monitor the impact of those policies and engage with local authorities to assess the impact of the changes on the uptake of free school meals. I would be happy to update the House on that work and write to the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), by way of doing so.
Helen Hayes
The Minister has set out the Government’s commitment to increasing the take-up of free school meals for children who are already eligible, as well as a number of practical measures the Government are taking to make registration easier. On the basis of what she has said today, I am content not to push my new clause 1 to a vote. However, the Select Committee will continue to closely monitor the take-up of free schools meals. Should the progress that the Minister expects to see be lacking, we will come back and press the issue of auto-enrolment again with her and expect that she looks at it again.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for her diligence both in her role as Chair of the Select Committee and on this issue in particular. We want children to receive the entitlements that will transform their life chances. Indeed, we will work closely with her Committee to ensure that we communicate well with the House on those important issues.
Our determination to deliver better life chances for our children does not stop there. As well as free breakfast clubs, we are delivering the holiday activities and food programme, enabling disadvantaged children and children identified by their local authorities to access healthy food and enriching activities in the school holidays. We will go further by supporting every child to achieve and thrive, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, and by putting money back in their parents’ pockets.
Another part of that picture is the sad increase in childhood obesity, which, unfortunately, the Conservative party did very little to address. We must ensure that, alongside clubs and activities, the food that children have at school is healthy and balanced, and embeds healthy eating habits. We must ensure compliance with school food standards. With reference to new clause 6, we are working with the Food Standards Agency to take forward the findings of the 2022-23 compliance pilot on how best to tackle the barriers identified. On new clause 54, I can confirm that the Government will continue to publish comprehensive data on free school meals, and on the holiday activities and food programme, to ensure that our approach is informed by the best available evidence.
Tackling child poverty is imperative for the Government and for our society. It goes beyond the provision of food to putting money back in families’ pockets, giving them choice and agency in ensuring that their children are set up for the future. Our action to cut the cost of school uniform is just another part of that picture. We are taking steps to cut the cost for families and put money back in their pockets. I know that hon. Members share the desire to reduce the cost of sending children to school, but a monetary cap, as proposed in amendment 1, would increase burdens and could create new financial penalties for schools.
For schools, that would mean having to review uniform policies annually to ensure that branded items are still within the cost cap, and, as a result, it could mean that they change their uniforms more frequently to remain within the cap. They would also have to review and possibly renegotiate contracts with suppliers more frequently. For parents, more frequent changes in uniform could increase the overall number of branded items that they have to buy while their child is at school. It could affect their ability to pass uniforms down as second-hand, and could increase their reliance on specific suppliers.
Our proposals provide clarity and certainty for schools and will enable parents to have greater choice in where they buy uniforms. Amendment 191 risks undermining that parental choice. Nothing prevents schools from providing branded items at a lower cost than generic alternatives and offering them as optional items. Under current VAT rules, all children’s clothing and footwear designed for children under 14, including school uniforms, already attracts a zero rate of VAT, which covers the intention of new clause 12.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), we encourage schools to use sew-on badges, with a school name or logo, as a cost-effective way to brand uniform items. We want to give parents absolute clarity on what the limit means for them. That is why we have included those items, plus a tie, in the three-item limit for secondary education.
Let me turn to amendments 4, 13 and 14, and 16. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for her intention to provide clarity on the interpretations of “suitable education” and “suitable arrangements”. It is important that there be consistency across local authorities in how they approach that. However, the amendments are not needed. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 is already clear that education must be suitable to a child’s age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs they have. I want to reassure Members that we will make clear in statutory guidance for local authorities everything that they have to consider under section 7 when they are making decisions about the suitability of education.
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is legislation that belongs to children. The clue is in the name—the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. It is for them. It is because this Government are for them. We are on a mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for each and every child, to sever the link between background and success, and this Bill sits at the centre of that mission.
Let me start by thanking Members from across the House for their contributions, especially members of the Bill Committee for their scrutiny. I say a particular thank you to the ministerial team—my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan)—for guiding the Bill through its Commons stages.
This debate is valuable. Education is back at the forefront of national life and children are back at the centre of our national conversation. Every child in this country deserves a safe childhood and an excellent education.
The action in the Bill cements in legislation the biggest reform of children’s social care in a generation, keeping children with their families wherever it is safe to do so, supporting them to stay together and strengthening kinship care so that vulnerable children can live with the people they know and trust if they cannot continue to live with their parents. It fixes the broken care market so that when children cannot stay with their family, and kinship or foster care sadly is not an option, children have somewhere to live that is safe, secure and supportive.
After 14 years of inaction and our most vulnerable children being pushed to the sidelines, their voices not heard, the Bill puts their life chances front and centre. We have started that reform already, piloting new financial support for kinship carers and investing over £500 million into family help and child protection in the next financial year alone.
This a Bill that protects children based on data, evidence and expertise, laying the groundwork for a single unique identifier for children, enabling sharing of the right information at the right time, creating multi-agency child protection teams and requiring permission before children subject to child protection inquiries or plans can be home educated. It spots early warning signs and stops vulnerable children falling through the cracks. It starts with safety and it builds from there. The Bill legislates for free breakfast clubs in primary schools, so that our children are ready to learn at the start of the school day. It puts money back in parents’ pockets, with breakfast clubs saving them up to £450 a year. Our new limit on expensive branded uniforms will save some parents over £50 per child in the back-to-school shop. This is a Government who support families, parents and children alike.
It is the right of every child to have every opportunity to succeed, and it is the right of every parent to send their child to a great local school. That is what the Bill will do. It will provide the certainty of an excellent local school for every child. Our best schools and trusts are partners and leaders. They have shown the value of collaboration, and how excellence and innovation can flow from one classroom to another. It is time to bring that to the whole country: excellence in every classroom, science lab, art studio and music room in every type of school. The curriculum and assessment review published its interim report just this afternoon. From that review will come the rich and broad curriculum that our children need and deserve, delivered by expert teachers, raising a floor of high standards below which schools must not slip, and above which they can build and innovate with no ceiling on what they can achieve.
When it comes to our children’s safety and life chances, I am always impatient. I ask Opposition Members to put aside their rhetoric and gimmickry, just for one moment, and consider what their constituents actually want—not their friends in high places, in the commentariat and in the Westminster bubble, but parents up and down this country. Parents want qualified teachers at the front of their children’s classrooms. Parents want to know for sure what their child is being taught. Parents want more teachers in our schools, better trained and supported. Parents want free breakfast clubs in their child’s primary school. Parents want cheaper uniforms that do not set them back at the start of every term. Parents want stronger safeguards for children after the horrific incidents that we have sadly seen in recent years.
If Opposition Members oppose the Bill, that is what they are opposing. They may talk in the vaguest of terms about the supposed horror that the Bill will unleash. We have seen it all before. Just months ago, they told us that Labour’s plans to end tax breaks on private schools would send a flood of children into state schools, who would overrun them—scaremongering. I have lost count of all the doom-laden stories. Do they come to pass? Absolutely not. Once again, the Conservatives are on the wrong side of parents, resisting change and protecting privilege. It speaks to a wider point. The Conservatives are just lost. They are so out of ideas, clinging on to the misguided hope that the public will just forget the past 14 years as if they never happened and that it was not all for nothing. But it was.
Labour is cleaning up the mess that the Conservative party left behind, to ensure that every child has a safe, loving home, to put money back into parents’ pockets, to drive high and rising standards in all our schools and to deliver the brighter future that every child in our country deserves. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I had hoped that, during the Commons stages of the Bill, the Government would listen to the vast number of respected voices from the education sector who have warned repeatedly that this ill thought through Bill is nothing short of a disaster for education standards in this country. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State failed to listen to the Children’s Commissioner, who warned that children will spend longer in failing schools because of this Bill; or Katharine Birbalsingh, who argued that if passed—[Interruption.] That is how they treat one of the best headteachers in this country. She warned that if passed,
“the impact on our children, especially our most vulnerable, will be seismic.”
The Secretary of State will not listen to the former chief inspector of Ofsted, who described the Bill as a
“many-pronged assault on school standards”,
or to Lord Harris, who supported the party at the last election and said that the Bill will only harm “the most disadvantaged families.” Even some of her own Back Benchers have asked the Secretary of State to think again. Why does she think she knows better?
Instead of engaging constructively with that criticism, the approach from the Secretary of State has been to resort to personal attacks. In response to Amanda Spielman’s suggestion that there should be an analysis of the impacts of autonomy in schools before a legislation abolishing it is forced through the House of Commons, a Government source went on the record to denigrate a former senior public servant in the most personal of terms. Did the Secretary of State sign off that briefing?
In her own opinion piece in the Telegraph today, the Secretary of State told me and the shadow team to get out of London. She appears not to have noticed the work of Star Academies, Delta Academies Trust, United Learning, Trinity and Inspiration Trust, among many others. Those are brilliant trusts that are changing the lives of young people and she so casually dismisses them.
I have a suggestion for the Secretary of State in return: she should visit Wales. Wales, where the Labour Party have been in charge for 26 years; Wales, the blueprint for her reforms; and Wales, which currently finds itself at the bottom of the rankings for the whole of the UK in maths, English and science. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said today that his party would never do anything to harm social mobility, yet the Bill will be devastating for social mobility.
Labour Members need to understand the consequences of the Bill. The evidence, should they care to read it, is overwhelming. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said very clearly that the differences in policy and approach have led to the terrible outcomes in Wales for disadvantaged young people. Indeed, disadvantaged young people in England do as well as the average child in Wales. Yet these are the policies that the Government want to implement in England. How on earth can they justify imposing the same policies and approach that have been such a disaster in Wales?
The Bill undermines, at a single stroke, all the work that has been done by successive Governments of all parties, headteachers and trusts over so many years. Academy trust heads have been abused during this debate and attacked by unions in this process because they dared to want better for young people under their care. Former Labour and Conservative Education Secretaries, who have driven through reforms in the face of fierce opposition, are being undermined by the Bill.
I cannot believe that the Government will undo all of that for no reason. There is no evidence whatsoever that their proposals will improve a single school. In fact, the evidence is clear that they will make things worse. The Secretary of State is putting ideology and the interests of union bosses over what is best for children and parents. This is a Bill of two halves. The first is on safeguarding, and we absolutely agree with the principle of that, but the second is the policy equivalent of a wrecking ball. It will destroy the consensus built up over two decades on what improves schools. It is discredited, it is disastrous for school standards, and we will never stop fighting it.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
St Patrick’s Day: UK Bank Holiday
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It gives me huge pleasure to call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to actually lead the Adjournment debate for a change, rather than just intervene in it. I thank Mr Speaker in particular for granting the debate. I hoped to have it last night, but that was not possible, so tonight was the night.
I have kept my shamrock from last Wednesday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and I were at the Champ event. We were given shamrocks in a sealed package. Mine is still moist and very fresh, and I have kept it especially for tonight so I could wear it for the occasion.
It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak about the potential merits of making St Patrick’s day a UK bank holiday. I stand as a very proud Unionist who is happy to say that I hope everyone enjoyed St Patrick’s day—they should have. I enjoyed it; I always do. When I started off my life, I was not sure about St Patrick’s day, because it seemed to have been taken over by one section of the community, but when I looked into the issue, I found out that St Patrick clearly was everybody’s. For the last 40 or maybe 50 years of my life, I have been promoting St Patrick for the purpose of why he is here.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I did not think I would have to wait so long to be the first to intervene on my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on securing this debate. He is right to highlight the unifying elements of St Patrick, our patron saint. He mentions that he is a Unionist. Of course, it is the St Patrick’s cross that represents us in our national flag. Does he believe that the St Patrick’s cross needs to be given greater official recognition?
Jim Shannon
I do, and I will probably mention that in my speech. The reason I am here has absolutely nothing to do with politics. This is all to do with the message of St Patrick and the gospel message. I want to be very clear about that.
I love to see the joy on people’s faces and the fun that comes from parades and events throughout the year. It is my desire that we ensure that, rather than turning rivers green for St Patrick, as they do in Chicago and other parts of the world, which is all great fun, we focus on the message of St Patrick and why it is important.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
A few weeks ago, Beckenham was hit by the tragic loss of Graham Murray. A proud Irishman of Cork, Graham was a stalwart of Beckenham rugby club. He was a larger-than-life character and a leader on and off the pitch. He leaves behind a four-year-old son, Tadgh, and wife, Aisling, who I met recently and who is pregnant with their second child. Will the hon. Member join me in sending condolences to Graham’s family and friends in both Beckenham and Ireland, and also pay tribute to John and everyone at Beckenham rugby club, who have rallied round the family and shown the best of our community in recent weeks?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member, who spoke to me beforehand and told me what he was going to say. As a Christian, like others in the Chamber, my thoughts and prayers are with the family. He has outlined clearly what we should be focusing upon. Maybe this St Patrick’s day debate gives us a chance to reassure the family of the promise that St Patrick’s message brings for us all in this Chamber and further afield. I thank him for that. He is a very assiduous MP, and I understand that he has some family in my constituency, in Portaferry to be precise. I thank them for their votes every election, as he tells me—I hope he does not mind me saying that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We may be deviating from the topic of the Adjournment debate.
Jim Shannon
I believe that when we look past the myths to the message of the man, few in this House would disagree that the holiday should be UK-wide, as indeed should all the national saints’ days for each nation. St Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, was born to a Christian family in Wales, in Roman Britain, in the late fourth century AD.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady needs to be sitting in the appropriate part of the Chamber to make an intervention. Mr Shannon, you should continue.
Jim Shannon
Shortly before he was 16, Patrick was captured from the villa of his father, Calpurnius, by a group of Irish raiders who took him to Ireland and forced him into slavery. Six years later, he escaped home to Britain, his religious faith strengthened during his time in slavery. The story of St Patrick is a wonderful one. It is a great story of love, of a missionary and of Christianity.
Patricia Ferguson
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker—my apologies.
The legend of St Patrick is a very famous one. We Scots like to think he was born in Kilpatrick in Scotland, but wherever he was born, the things he represents, as the hon. Member says, are things that we can all gather around. I think the fact that the celebrations around St Patrick’s day are so lively probably does have something to do with the fact that, actually, he was Scottish.
Jim Shannon
Controversial already, Madam Deputy Speaker; my goodness. I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and I will put forward the case that we should all be looking to be as one under St Patrick —Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland.
Believing he had been called by God to Christianise Ireland, St Patrick later returned to Ireland as a missionary. How wonderful it is to see the beauty of the Union at work in St Patrick’s life: a British man who fell in love with the people but, more importantly, whose love for God made him return to the bosom of those who had mistreated him, having been kept in slavery for six years. We all love the story of the little man coming good; we all fight in this House for the wee man and wee woman all the time, and that is the story of St Patrick, a former slave who absolutely changed the nation for God and for good.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Sadly, many now see St Patrick’s day as a time for drinking and excess and that is against everything Patrick stood for. Does my hon. Friend agree that Patrick was in fact ahead of his time, with his exposure of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the fact he told people about their need of salvation, of the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross and their need of repentance? So when we wear our shamrock we need not think of the myths and legends but of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Jim Shannon
I am going to come on to that now—my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have long marvelled at the way St Patrick made theology understandable for those who had no education, no access to holy books, and no ability to read them. He came with a message of love and action. This is the St Patrick I believe we should celebrate and honour: a man who loved Jesus and wanted the world to know Him, not hampered by denomination or doctrine. St Patrick’s message is as applicable today as it was 1,600 years ago. Christ has a plan and a purpose for those who place their trust in Him, and those of us who serve Him have a purpose to glorify God and to help our fellow man.
The cultural history of St Patrick is clear throughout my constituency, with the touches of his message spanning throughout it. Indeed, as we walk through the hallowed halls of Parliament St Patrick’s prominent position is clear in Central Lobby. I glance up daily with pride at his place within this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as symbolised along with St David, St Andrew and St George. It is wonderful to have us all together as one within this great United Kingdom.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I respect the hon. Gentleman, my Celtic brother, in his pride as a Unionist; of course, I am a proud nationalist, and proof perhaps that the Irish will always rise because I represent a Scottish constituency. But does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we were to agree to a UK bank holiday for St Patrick, we might also have to agree for one for St Andrew, St George and St David, and that these matters are more appropriate for the devolved Assemblies to consider?
Jim Shannon
We might have different aspirations—one for unity, one for independence—but none the less the hon. Gentleman and I are good friends and have been for a long time, and will continue to be. May I suggest that the next Adjournment debate should be on that very issue?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is up to the Speaker, Mr Shannon.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. We have already heard the Scottish claim St Patrick—I say that in response to the last intervention—we have heard, I believe, the Welsh try to claim him as well, and we know he is our patron saint. Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman is proposing that St Patrick should be the symbolic head for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon
I could not have put it better. That was brilliant; well done.
It is my firm belief that much good for the self-esteem of our young people comes from instilling in them national pride and identity, but for the benefit of our local economy I would also highlight the good that can come from establishing saints’ days as national bank holidays. St Patrick’s day is celebrated in England, Scotland and Wales, as the beauty of this collection of nations is the strong bond of our shared history. If we travel to Liverpool or Edinburgh we clearly see that there is an appetite to celebrate St Patrick, as there is all over the world and in other parts of Scotland, Wales and England.
Some of my Democratic Unionist party colleagues took the opportunity to head to Washington to meet with the President of the United States recently and enjoyed building that bond that can only be beneficial to our wee nation based on the shared heritage of the US with the UK, and Northern Ireland in particular— we in Northern Ireland use the word “wee” all the time; it is one of those words that we always use. With the US President having Scots roots and Vice-President J.D. Vance having Ulster Scots heritage, what better time for those who care for Northern Ireland and want to see a prosperous relationship built with the Americans, which will be mutually beneficial?
I am aware of US companies that enjoy our skilled workforce, along with our low business rates, good connectivity and high quality of life for staff. The fact that the famous Chick-fil-A’s first UK restaurants are in Northern Ireland speaks volumes about what could be accomplished between our nations. I love chicken, I have to say; I think it is okay to eat that as a diabetic—at least, I think it is.
I thank our Deputy First Minister and the Economy Minister for their visit to the US to solidify that beneficial relationship. They, more than others, understand the value of relationships, rather than pointless grandstanding or point scoring. While the Americans will have no idea or care for those who believe that they are above the US-Northern Ireland trade links, they will have a clear picture of who came and what they have to offer. To me, that is again reminiscent of the message of St Patrick: the hand of friendship to all. That is the hand of friendship that I hand out to everyone in this Chamber, and who in turn hand it back to me.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the extension of his hand of friendship. He touched on the Economy Minister and the Deputy First Minister being in Washington, but will he extend that acknowledgment to the Health Minister, who I believe was also in Washington last week?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I hope that hand of friendship extends to the Speaker.
Jim Shannon
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Health Minister was there as well. I am very respectful of others who were there who I have not named, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I can think of two or three names, but I will not mention them.
I do not believe that we have fully grasped the potential merits in making St Patrick’s day a totally global phenomenon, not just for cities across the world to enjoy, but for people to come and enjoy in each of our four nations. The saint—the man from Britain—who bonds us all could and should be promoted by us all.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the significance of the origins of St Patrick, a British saint born in Roman Britain, possibly near the end of the 4th century, combined with his lasting contributions to religion, culture and history across the United Kingdom, underscore the value of recognising a UK national holiday in his name?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman and I have been friends for many years, long before he was elected to this House and before he was a Member of the Legislative Assembly, back when we were representatives on the council many moons ago. His words have added emphasis to what we are trying to achieve.
I truly believe the first step in recognising the ties that bind are to make St Patrick’s day a UK holiday. With that in mind, I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), in his place. He spoke to me last night and said, “I am looking forward to your debate”, and he has smiled the whole way through. I am quite sure his response will be one that will help us.
I attended the Irish Fest in Milwaukee for some six years as an Ulster Scot.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
May I give the hon. Member the opportunity to correct the record? St Patrick was born in Kilpatrick, in Clydebank, in my constituency of West Dunbartonshire, in the year 387. More importantly, my wife, Alison Patricia McAllister, was born on St Patrick’s day and she celebrated her birthday on Monday. Does the hon. Member agree that she deserves a holiday every year on her birthday? [Interruption.]
Jim Shannon
No, I cannot say that in the Chamber—it would be unfair. But I can say that I wish the hon. Gentleman’s wife many happy returns. I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman is here she is probably more happy than ever—[Laughter.] I say that in jest.
Adam Jogee
The hon. Gentleman is extending birthday wishes to those who celebrate on 17 March. My father has his birthday on 17 March, so may I invite my honourable colleague to send him happy birthday wishes too?
Jim Shannon
Of course I will. I knew the hon. Gentleman long before he became a Member. He and I have been friends for four or five years. We corresponded on an app regularly, I followed his progress as a councillor and I very much welcomed him to the Chamber. I look forward to his friendship throughout our time here. I wish his dad every happiness on his birthday.
Adam Jogee
For the record and as a matter of accuracy, when the hon. Gentleman talks about apps, he means WhatsApp. [Laughter.]
Jim Shannon
I am not technically minded, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I will be clear that St Patrick was not born in Stoke-on-Trent—of that, I think we can all be certain. In genuine sincerity, the fact that we are all here this evening in joyful spirits discussing the potential for St Patrick’s day to be a UK bank holiday demonstrates the importance of the nation’s saints in bringing people together.
The hon. Gentleman talked about teaching our children to help them to understand their identity. Too often, the St George’s cross is misappropriated by people for nefarious means. It is our flag and we own it, just as the St Patrick’s cross is the flag of the hon. Gentleman, and it is important that we use and celebrate them. I think he will agree that by doing so, we can teach our children about their history and their future.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman always brings wise words to any debate. I talked to him on Monday in Westminster Hall, when he got up and said that he had a few comments. I was greatly impressed by his contribution—I went over to him afterwards and said that his words were very wise—and his words now were also wise.
The point I will make about the Milwaukee Irish Fest that I attended for some six years, as an Ulster Scot, is that I did not have any difficulty going there, and they had no difficulty with me going there. What I see in St Patrick is the gospel that he brought for everybody, wherever they are within these Celtic nations, be it Wales, Scotland or England. Those are the things that we very much enjoy.
I will end with these words; I am very conscious that the Minister wants to give me a fulsome response and to reinforce our request. The words of St Patrick are what I leave with everyone now. I want to make the most of the advantages of our heritage of St Patrick, but, more than that, I want the truth of his words to make changes in us all today, and that comes from the love of Christ, which is his message the whole way through. I believe we as Christians should impress and deliver that message to those who we meet in this House. I have a very simple philosophy: be nice to everybody. It is not hard to be kind and to do that in the best way that we can.
St Patrick’s words are these:
“Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ on my right, Christ on my left, Christ where I lie down, Christ where I sit down, Christ where I arise, Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me, Christ in the mouth of every one who speaks of me, Christ in every eye that sees me, Christ in every ear that hears me.”
If we had those thoughts in our minds every day, I believe that we would be better as a nation, better to ourselves as individuals and show the love that St Patrick showed through the gospel that he brought from Wales, to Ireland, back to England and back to us again. He is our patron saint; he always will be. Others may claim him, but they are not getting him—I say that in all kindness and love to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister). Tonight we are asking for something, and I hope that the Minister can give us a good, positive response. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for making the time to come to the Adjournment debate that I did not intervene in—my goodness.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We are waiting for a positive response from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this Adjournment debate. I know that he is not familiar with the operation of Adjournment debates, so I am glad that he has found his way here this evening. If he wants to intervene, he will have about 10 minutes to do so—we would not want that streak to be broken, would we?
I wish the hon. Gentleman and everyone a belated but very happy St Patrick’s day. I enjoyed hearing his contribution on what St Patrick’s day means to him and to his community in Northern Ireland. I know that he has spoken very passionately about this subject on a number of occasions, as we would expect. In preparation for this debate, I contacted my family historian—my mum—to understand my Irish roots. Going back several generations, I have a fair bit over there, so I am pleased to report that I had one pint of Guinness yesterday to mark the occasion.
The Government appreciate the deep cultural and religious significance of St Patrick’s day to many nationalists and Unionists across Northern Ireland, some of whom revere St Patrick for his role in the arrival and growth of Christianity on the island. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, he is for everybody. It is also a cherished day for those who serve and have served in the Irish regiments of the British Army, with the annual presentation of the shamrock to the Irish Guards by members of the royal family. The familial relationship with Ireland and Northern Ireland is so important to people across the UK, as it is to this Government. By way of just one example, our NHS is stronger for the contributions of the many Irish nationals who serve in it today and have done since its founding. The most recent statistics, from June 2023, showed that nearly 14,000 members of NHS staff were Irish, including doctors, nurses, and of course support staff.
Following the recent general election in Ireland, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Tánaiste have discussed the strength of the bilateral relationship, our shared commitment to the Good Friday agreement, and the importance of upholding political stability in Northern Ireland. We have also increased engagement between the two Governments, especially through the new Prime Minister-Taoiseach summits. The first of those summits took place on 5 March, about a mile from where I live in my constituency, although for some reason my invite did not quite reach me—I do not know why that was. It was clear from that summit that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have agreed a joint vision for co-operation through to 2030, which will bring our two countries together like never before. Through the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and the British-Irish Council, we engage regularly with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive on matters of shared concern.
Of course, many people across the world look forward to the annual St Patrick’s day celebrations, which showcase the significant contributions of Irish people. This year, we saw parades through the cities of Belfast, Cardiff, Glasgow, Liverpool and Leeds, and here in London in Trafalgar Square.
Jim Shannon
I thought it was important that I should do so, although I wanted to do so anyway. The diaspora in England, Scotland and Wales is massive. It is not just in the NHS, as the Minister has referred to; it is also in the construction business. Whenever I come over on the plane from Belfast or return, I see workers going over to build in London and then going back on the weekend. The diaspora includes farmers and businessmen. The connections between England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are enormous, and may I say, Minister, that the diaspora wants to have St Patrick’s day as a UK bank holiday as well.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am sure that if I did some polling, there would be support, but I will come on to some of the reasons why we may not be able to grant him his wish on this occasion.
During the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s recent visit to Washington, he participated in the annual St Patrick’s day events and engaged with the US Administration, congressional members, business leaders and key stakeholders. He promoted Northern Ireland as a fantastic place to invest, work and live, highlighting its unique access to both the UK’s internal market and the EU’s single market. I am very pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), is in the Chamber tonight. She has been very active during St Patrick’s season, attending receptions for community and business leaders in Stormont and Westminster.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Lá fhéile Pádraig sona daoibh go léir—happy St Patrick’s day. St Patrick’s day is a time to bring people together, often in our local pubs. Will the Minister join me in thanking Irish pub landlords up and down the country, including Michael Duffy and Joe Duffy, who run the Chancery and the Jolly Woodman in Beckenham?
Justin Madders
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Duffys on operating those pubs. I wonder whether he will be visiting them shortly to remind them of the good publicity he has given to a local business in his constituency.
Turning to the nub of the hon. Member for Strangford’s speech, St Patrick’s day is of course already a bank holiday in Northern Ireland, providing its people with the opportunity to mark that important cultural and religious occasion. The Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 specifies which days in each year are bank holidays, and contains provisions for appointing additional or substitute days. That Act designates 17 March as a bank holiday in Northern Ireland. The decision to create an additional bank holiday in Northern Ireland for St Patrick’s day was taken against the backdrop of Northern Ireland’s economic, social, cultural and legal systems. The current pattern of bank holidays is well established, and I am afraid that the Government do not have any plans to extend the St Patrick’s day bank holiday to other parts of the UK.
Bank holidays are devolved to the Scottish Government, so Scottish Ministers are responsible for decisions about bank holidays in Scotland. I will therefore speak about the merits of a St Patrick’s day bank holiday in Wales and England only.
An additional bank holiday in England and Wales for St Patrick’s day would benefit those who celebrate it, including members of the Irish diaspora in the UK. Certain sectors of the economy, such as pubs and restaurants, might also benefit from increased expenditure on a bank holiday. It is a significant tourism draw to Northern Ireland, too, so I would expect that extending the bank holiday would draw more visitors from England and Wales over there. However, the overall cost to the economy of an additional bank holiday is considerable.
The latest analysis estimates that the costs to the UK economy of a one-off bank holiday is around £2 billion. That estimate is derived from the impact assessment for the platinum jubilee bank holiday weekend held in 2022. An additional bank holiday would also impact on public services. Bank holidays require the closure of schools, courts and tribunals. It may disrupt certain NHS services, such as routine operations. I also point out that there is no statutory right to time off for bank or public holidays specifically. Any right to time off or extra pay for working on a bank holiday depends on the terms of an employee’s contract of employment, and like other terms and conditions of employment, it is a matter for negotiation between employers and workers. Even if the St Patrick’s day bank holiday were extended to England and Wales, not all workers would be able to take it off. For example, many NHS and emergency service workers, many of whom we have already heard are from Ireland, might still be required to work. We regularly receive requests for bank holidays to mark various historical, cultural, religious and sporting events.
Adam Jogee
Many people born on the island of Ireland, whether north or south, like my wife, made Newcastle-under-Lyme their home. Like many of them, I was celebrating St Patrick’s day at the weekend at the Sneyd Arms on Higherland, an excellent local pub. As the Minister has just touched on other bank holidays, will he find time at some other stage to meet me to discuss the benefits of making St George’s day a bank holiday?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend tempts me to talk about another bank holiday, but I am afraid that there would be the same arguments about the economic cost, although I think we should celebrate St George’s day more in this country.
Although we have no plans for a St Patrick’s day bank holiday in England and Wales, the Government strongly encourage employers to respond flexibly to any requests for leave, be that to celebrate St Patrick’s day or any other significant religious or cultural events, whether that is Diwali, Vaisakhi, Magna Carta day, Remembrance Day or St George’s day. It is important that we can take time out to celebrate these events. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this important debate. The message of unity that he came to us with from St Patrick is one that I share with him.
Question put and agreed to.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fourth sitting)
Tuesday 18th March 2025
(2 days, 10 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 18 March 2025 - (18 Mar 2025)
The Chair
Will everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent? Tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee Room.
We are continuing line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I remind Members that interventions should be short and raise points of clarification or questions; they should not be speeches in themselves. Members who wish to make a speech should bob and continue to do so through the whole debate in which they wish to speak, until they are called. When Members say “you”, they are referring to the Chair. “You” should not be used to refer to one another; the debate should be through the Chair.
Clause 13
Confirmation of request for assistance: second declaration
Amendment proposed (12 March): 457, in clause 13, page 9, line 17, after “made,” insert
“and have not voluntarily stopped eating and drinking”.—(Sarah Olney.)
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 471, in clause 13, page 9, line 27, leave out from “if” to “that” in line 28 and insert
“the coordinating doctor is satisfied (immediately before witnessing it)”.
This amendment removes wording which would suggest that a second declaration is made before it is witnessed.
Amendment 316, in clause 13, page 9, line 36, at end insert—
“(5A) If, when making the statement under subsection (5), the definition of “second period of reflection” under subsection (2)(b) applies, the coordinating doctor must make refer the person for urgent specialist palliative care.”
This amendment will ensure that there is an immediate referral to a specialist in palliative care due if the patient is likely to die within a month of the declaration from the Court.
Amendment 374, in clause 13, page 10, line 2, at end insert—
“(8) Where the coordinating doctor has—
(a) witnessed a second declaration, or
(b) made or refused to make a statement under subsection (5),
the doctor must notify the Commissioner and give them a copy of the second declaration or (as the case may be) any statement under subsection (5).”
This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner of witnessing a second declaration, and of having made or refused to make a statement under clause 13(5).
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
As we heard from the hon. Member for Richmond Park, her amendment concerns the second period for reflection under the Bill as drafted. The second period of reflection would take place after the panel had approved a person’s application for assisted death. The Bill states that that period would be 14 days, unless
“the coordinating doctor reasonably believes that the person’s death is likely to occur before the end of the period of one month beginning with the day that declaration was made”;
in that case, the second period is shortened to 48 hours.
Some people who have a strong desire to hasten death might wish to avoid the second period for reflection. If they refused food, there would be a strong possibility that their physical condition would deteriorate, so that a doctor would indeed believe that they were likely to die within one month. That is not a hypothetical possibility. We know that there are people who do refuse food to the point where they become gravely ill with malnutrition.
The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said something that I think is relevant here. He was asking questions of a witness before this Committee, Professor Nicola Ranger of the Royal College of Nursing, on 28 January. To quote Hansard, the right hon. Gentleman said:
“At the moment, within palliative care and palliative nursing generally, you are already dealing with patients who are electing to refuse treatment, food and water, or are supporting patients following an advance directive.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 59, Q70.]
On the same day, the right hon. Gentleman said something similar to another witness, Dr Sarah Cox:
“I want to pursue that point a little with you, Dr Cox. My understanding is that your profession is already taking these decisions, or supporting patients to take these decisions—for example, the withdrawal of ventilation for an MND patient towards the end, or if I decide to decline treatment or food and water to end my life as quickly as I can.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 74, Q91.]
In other words, it is not some remote possibility that patients who are already ill may decide to refuse food. That is one thing I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and I can agree on. We also know from the survey undertaken by a group of specialists in eating disorders that, in countries that have assisted dying laws, at least 60 people have qualified for assisted death because they suffered advanced malnutrition.
Some people who are seriously ill and who wish, in the words of a psychiatric witness, to “hasten death”, may see the 14-day period as intolerable. An alarming possibility is that they might stop eating in order to worsen their physical condition and qualify for the 48-hour period. Amendment 457 would remove that possibility. I strongly recommend that hon. Members support it.
People would qualify for a shortened period for reflection only if they
“have not voluntarily stopped eating and drinking”.
That word “voluntarily” is important. I understand the reason that the Bill’s drafters included a provision for a shorter, second period of reflection, but as with much of the rest of the Bill, I am sorry to say that I do not think that they have provided strong enough safeguards. This is a well drafted amendment that would tighten those safeguards. I urge Members to support it.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I will speak briefly to amendment 316 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). She has tabled a sensible suggestion that if a patient makes a statement after the second period of reflection, there should be an automatic referral to palliative care. We have heard how expected and usual that is anyway, and the hon. Member for Spen Valley has frequently made the point that people who are having an assisted death, or going through the process, are likely to be in palliative care anyway—it is not an either/or. It is important that we clarify that expectation.
It will obviously be the case that the patient is not required to take up the referral, and if the referral already exists, that case is dealt with, but let us be absolutely clear that the decision to take an assisted death is not a fork in the road, as would be my concern. If that is not the case and that, in fact, palliative care and the assisted death process go hand in hand and will be seen as part of an integrated package of support for patients, my view is that we should specify clearly that in the event of a decision to proceed down the road to an assisted death, a palliative care referral should be made.
Bluntly, I want to make this as clear as we can, although I am not sure that we will ever be able to do that fully. It really has to be very plain to healthcare commissioners and managers that there is to be no cost saving as a result of an assisted death referral. I very much doubt that a single commissioner or manager would have that at the forefront of their mind; nevertheless, incentives apply in healthcare decisions. Ultimately, we have a ration system, and resource allocation necessarily is the job of commissioners.
If, as we are saying, a decision to proceed with an assisted death will be in parallel with palliative care, let us make that plain, so that if indeed it is the case that the patient requires the investment of palliative care services—hospice treatment or otherwise, even though, as we know, hospice care is inadequately funded through public money—nevertheless, there is a resource requirement. It is important that we specify to everybody in the system that an assisted death is not a way of avoiding the expense of proper end-of-life care.
I hope that Members will recognise that amendment 316 is consistent with the arguments that have been made consistently by advocates of the Bill, which is that there is not an either/or between palliative care and assisted death, and that, in fact, it is appropriate for patients to be on both tracks simultaneously.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey.
The purpose of amendment 457 is to exclude a person who has less than one month to live from being eligible for the shorter second period of reflection of 48 hours if that person has voluntarily stopped eating and drinking. That person would instead be required to comply with a second period of reflection of 14 days under clause 13(2)(a). The amendment could create uncertainty as to the required length of the period of reflection. It is unclear, for example, if “voluntarily” would include where someone’s appetite has naturally declined as they approach the end of life, and therefore whose decision to stop eating or drinking may not be deliberate.
As I have said previously, the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on certain amendments to bolster the legal and workability sides of the Bill, and the purpose of amendment 471 is to clarify that the co-ordinating doctor needs to be satisfied that, immediately before witnessing the second declaration, the criteria set out at subsection (4) are met, and not at any time before. That also ensures consistency with the duty on the co-ordinating doctor in respect of the first declaration.
Amendment 316 would require that where the co-ordinating doctor reasonably believes that the person seeking assistance has less than one month to live from the court declaration, they must refer that person for urgent specialist palliative care. As the referral must be made whether the patient wants that referral or not, this may result in unwanted referrals. The effect of this amendment is unclear.
As drafted, clause 13(2)(b) sets out that where the person’s death is likely to occur within one month, the period of reflection is then 48 hours. Amendment 316 sets out that the referral to urgent palliative care must be made alongside the co-ordinating doctor making the statement, which is the last step to be completed before the provision of assistance under clause 18. That would mean that in some circumstances, there may be insufficient time to make a referral before the person is provided with assistance to end their life.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I want to emphasise that at the moment the patient reaches that point, they will have had their palliative care options explained to them extensively, under the Bill, and it is highly unlikely at that point, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire said, that anyone would not be in receipt of palliative care, given the very late stage of their disease.
Stephen Kinnock
I happened to be at a hospice in Stafford yesterday on a ministerial visit and was extremely impressed by the work that the hospice staff were doing on family counselling, and advice and engagement both with the patient and family and loved ones, so the right hon. Gentleman is right that the hospice sector, among others, plays a vital role in that holistic engagement with patients throughout the process.
Amendment 374 requires that the co-ordinating doctor must notify the voluntary assisted dying commissioner where they witness a second declaration and where they make or refuse to make the supporting statement under clause 13(5), and that the commissioner must be provided with a copy of the second declaration and any statement. I hope that those observations were helpful to the Committee.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you this morning, Ms McVey. My amendments 374 and 471 serve to clarify that the second declaration must be made before it is witnessed—it is a drafting amendment—and to bring clause 13 in line with the reporting requirements elsewhere in the Bill. For the functions of the commissioner to be carried out effectively, including supervising the assisted dying panels and making annual reports on the legislation’s operation, it is essential that all relevant details and reports are made available.
I am unable to support amendment 457, in the name of the hon. Member for Richmond Park. As I said when we started discussing the amendment, I do not fully understand why it has been positioned at this stage in the process. The shorter period of reflection is a recognition that a person’s death is expected within a month, so they literally have a few weeks left of life.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
That was the hon. Member’s response when I made my speech on the amendment in the previous sitting. I have reflected on that over the weekend. I still think that the issue of the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking is a very serious one that ought to be reflected somewhere in the legislation, but she is correct that, at this particular point, we are talking about the second period of reflection already being at an end, so it cannot be hastened in any way by such a measure. Therefore, I will be withdrawing the amendment.
Kim Leadbeater
I appreciate that; that is helpful and I thank the hon. Member. As the Minister said, a person whose death is approaching may have stopped eating and drinking for a number of reasons. They may simply be too ill. They may be unable to digest food. It may be that they have lost their appetite, or that they will be even more ill if they eat and drink, so it would seem particularly cruel to intervene on that basis at that point, but I appreciate her comments.
Amendment 316 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central seeks to mandate the action a doctor must take if a patient is likely to die within one month. Like other amendments, it goes against the basic principles that underlie the Bill—that the wishes of the person seeking assistance should be respected. Surely that is even more important than ever as they face their final weeks. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, palliative care will have been discussed at length throughout the assisted dying process. It is also worth noting, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said, that evidence from other jurisdictions with similar laws—Australia and America—shows that between 80% and 90% of people who have gone through the assisted dying process are already receiving palliative care, so I am not minded to support the amendment.
Sarah Olney
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 207, in clause 13, page 9, line 20, leave out “Schedule 4” and insert
“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
This amendment provides that the form of a second declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 4).
Amendment 470, in clause 13, page 9, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3)(a) must provide that a second declaration contains—
(a) the following information—
(i) the person’s full name and address;
(ii) the person’s NHS number;
(iii) contact details for the person’s GP practice;
(iv) specified information about the certificate of eligibility;
(b) the following further declarations by the person—
(i) a declaration that they have made a first declaration and have not cancelled it;
(ii) a declaration that they understand that they must make a second declaration in order for assistance to be provided under this Act;
(iii) a declaration that they are making the second declaration voluntarily and have not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it;
(iv) a declaration that they understand that they may cancel the second declaration at any time.
In this subsection “specified” means specified in the regulations.”
This amendment provides that regulations about the form of a second declaration must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).
Amendment 471, in clause 13, page 9, line 27, leave out from “if” to “that” in line 28 and insert
“the coordinating doctor is satisfied (immediately before witnessing it)”.
This amendment removes wording which would suggest that a second declaration is made before it is witnessed.
Amendment 208, in clause 13, page 9, line 38, leave out “Schedule 5” and insert
“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
This amendment provides that the form of a statement by the coordinating doctor following the making of the second declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 5).
Amendment 472, in clause 13, page 9, line 41, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations under subsection (6)(a) must provide that a statement under subsection (5) contains—
(a) the following information—
(i) the person’s full name and address;
(ii) the person’s NHS number;
(iii) the coordinating doctor’s full name and work address;
(iv) specified information about the certificate of eligibility;
(b) the following declarations by the coordinating doctor (in addition to a declaration that they are satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (d))—
(i) a declaration that they are satisfied that a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of the person;
(ii) a declaration that the second declaration was made after the end of the second period for reflection;
(iii) if the second declaration was made before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a), a declaration that they have the belief mentioned in subsection (2)(b);
(iv) a declaration that they are satisfied that neither the first declaration nor the second declaration has been cancelled.
In this subsection “specified” means specified in the regulations.”
This amendment provides that regulations about the form of a statement under subsection (5) must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).
Amendment 374, in clause 13, page 10, line 2, at end insert—
“(8) Where the coordinating doctor has—
(a) witnessed a second declaration, or
(b) made or refused to make a statement under subsection (5),
the doctor must notify the Commissioner and give them a copy of the second declaration or (as the case may be) any statement under subsection (5).”—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner of witnessing a second declaration, and of having made or refused to make a statement under clause 13(5).
Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Cancellation of declarations
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 375, in clause 14, page 10, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Where notice or an indication is given to the coordinating doctor under subsection (1)(a), the doctor must as soon as practicable notify the Commissioner of the cancellation.”
This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner of a cancellation of a first or second declaration.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 376, in clause 14, page 10, line 12, after “doctor” insert “and the Commissioner”.
This amendment requires a practitioner other than the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner (as well as the coordinating doctor) of a cancellation of a first or second declaration.
Clause stand part.
Kim Leadbeater
I hope that these are a couple of nice, simple amendments. The right of the patient to cancel at any time is obviously really important. It is also important that, for the purpose of monitoring and reporting the process, the commissioner, as proposed, is kept informed at every stage. I hope that the whole Committee can see the necessity of these amendments.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady is quite right that there is nothing to object to in these amendments or the clause. It is worth stating at this point, though, that in the context of the debate we are having in this Committee, we are moving at some pace. The likelihood is that there will be opportunity for only a five-hour debate on Report—maybe more, but possibly not. This Committee is the time we have to consider in detail the content of the Bill. My concern is that moving too quickly and trying to do too much too soon means that we will miss the opportunity to debate very important aspects of the Bill.
The hon. Lady says that these are “nice, simple” amendments, as if the only thing being discussed here is the paperwork around the declaration. What should we say to patients who decide to cancel their declaration? My concern—I am unaware of any other point when we could appropriately discuss this question—is what happens in the event of a cancellation. What duty of care do doctors have to patients who have decided not to proceed with an assisted death? The Bill does not currently address that question: it imposes no obligation on doctors to follow up in any way after a declaration has been cancelled.
Danny Kruger
Before I give way to my right hon. Friend, I want to posit the hypothesis of a private provider that has been established explicitly for the purpose of facilitating the assisted death procedure for patients. If that provider steps back when the patient decides to cancel their declaration, the provider is required to notify the GP as soon as practicable, whatever that means—the timeframe there is clearly at the convenience of the provider, not the patient. My concern is what happens when the patient’s GP is not quickly informed that they have decided not to proceed with the assisted death and they are sitting in limbo. Obviously, there are significant concerns about their wellbeing, given their decision and the state they are in. It is not yet fully clear to me what the obligations on the doctors would be at that stage.
Kit Malthouse
I am not entirely certain that my hon. Friend’s remarks are germane to the amendments, but nevertheless. As we discussed when debating clause 13, at the stage he is talking about, the patient will have had all their options—“all appropriate”, as I think we have amended the Bill to say, services that will be available to them—explained to them. If they are cancelling, the presumption has to be, in respecting their autonomy, that they are choosing one of the alternative paths that has been laid out to them. It is quite hard to legislate for a negative.
Danny Kruger
I am speaking to the group as a whole, which includes clause stand part. I have no objection to the amendments. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, the expectation is that the medical professionals involved in the person’s care will have laid out their options clearly. We are to a certain degree trusting in that because amendments to insist on it have been rejected, although I recognise that it will be the clear expectation. He is right that it is hard, as it were, to prove a negative.
Nevertheless, the purpose of my speech at this point is to tease out from the advocates of the Bill what their expectation is. My right hon. Friend has clearly explained his expectation, which is that we are dealing with somebody whose mind is clear, rational, uncluttered by other concerns and entirely free of any undue influences or anxieties about the different choices they might make. Having previously decided in the fullness of their autonomy that they wanted to go through the procedure, they have now decided in the fullness of their autonomy that they want to do the opposite, and we should say, “Fine. We have no further interest in your decision making. It is your choice—you’re on your own.” I am very concerned about the implication of my right hon. Friend’s comments about the sorts of patients who might be involved in the process of assisted dying.
Kim Leadbeater
To allay those fears, perhaps the fundamental answer to the question is that those people do not stop being patients—sadly, they do not stop being terminally ill patients. They have just chosen to cancel the declaration, and they will already have wraparound care. To some degree, the hon. Gentleman answered his own question when he said that doctors have a duty of care. That duty of care does not stop because the person has chosen to take this course of action. They will still be cared for by the professionals looking after them.
Danny Kruger
Well, we certainly hope so. Nevertheless, that is inconsistent with the doctrine of absolute patient autonomy, which in this circumstance allows a patient to withdraw from the medical treatment, or at least from the support of the medics who had been facilitating their assisted death. They are rightly under no obligation to receive any other sort of care.
Of course, one would assume that in most cases medics will be closely involved in looking after these patients, because they are likely to be very ill. Nevertheless, the Bill has nothing more to say about patients who have just stepped back from the brink of suicide; the medics will have no further obligation to ensure that they will be looked after—except by the GP, as soon as it is practicable for the provider who has just been denied the business of looking after the assisted death to get round to emailing them. If that is seen as sufficient to ensure that those patients will be properly looked after, I beg to differ.
Kit Malthouse
I am not sure what compulsion there is in wider legislation for there to be a duty of care to patients who do not choose assisted dying in the first place. For thousands and thousands of patients who die, there is no legislation that imposes certain duties on medics or others to look after them; we rely on the professional standards and overall atmosphere of the healthcare system, as we would in the case of these patients.
As my hon. Friend knows, overseas experience shows that a large proportion of the people who obtain the right to an assisted death—up to a third—do not cancel but do not exercise it. As we have said before, for many people assisted dying is an insurance card that they may choose to use if and when they think their life becomes intolerable.
Danny Kruger
I recognise that, but that is not germane to the debate that we are having, which is about the actual cancellation. There is a question about why there would have been a cancellation. My right hon. Friend is right that there is no obligation to proceed once a patient passes a particular hurdle. Many will not, but when someone decides actively to renounce their decision, a big question should be asked: what is going on, and what further help is needed?
My right hon. Friend suggests that we do not step in and ensure that care is provided—that, in other circumstances, there is no additional obligation in relation to patients. I am afraid to say that he has, as ever, a coldly rationalistic vision of healthcare and of the sorts of patients we are dealing with. As I have said to him, these patients will be acting much as I imagine he would imagine—I think from a position of health and self-confidence—himself acting in that circumstance. In fact, we are dealing with people who have decided to renounce their decision to proceed, and so are by definition in some turmoil.
I crave the indulgence of the Committee, because I am talking at length about a set of amendments that I do not intend to oppose, and I recognise the value and necessity of the clause. However, I draw to the Committee’s attention that we are dealing not simply with a bit of paperwork, but with a human being who, having made one enormous decision—to die—is now making an enormous decision to live, and we are treating it as if it is only a bureaucratic question.
I finish with a question to the hon. Member for Spen Valley or to the Minister, to help me understand something that confuses me in the clause.
Naz Shah
I have not given this matter as much thought as the hon. Member has. My interest is very much in the issue of domestic violence. Does he agree that this could be somebody who has experienced domestic violence? Or children could be at risk. This person may then decide not to take the option, even though they wanted to, because of obligations elsewhere.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady is right, and her point goes to the question that runs through all of these clauses: why? As a Committee, we rejected the obligation on the doctors to ask, “Why are you doing this?” It was suggested by one hon. Member that it was nobody’s business why somebody was trying to take their own life and that if that person qualified, they should be able to summon the agents of the state to provide them with lethal drugs without any question about their motivation.
I agree with the hon. Lady. There is an equal expectation in my mind that doctors should ask the question, “Why are you changing your mind?” I would expect that. The clause could clarify what further referrals would need to be made, if they had not already been; as we have acknowledged, we would expect appropriate care to be provided by doctors anyway.
I conclude with a factual question. Clause 14(1) lets a patient cancel a first or second declaration, but subsection (4) says only that the duties of the doctor stop when a first declaration is cancelled. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Spen Valley would explain what happens if the patient cancels a second declaration. It strikes me that there would be a need for urgency because if a patient decides to change their mind at that point, that is arguably a more dangerous situation. What would be the obligations on the doctor at that point? Should we read across from subsection (4) that their duties stop in the same way? Perhaps that could be clarified in later drafting, if necessary.
To conclude, my general point is that the issue of a cancelled declaration is about more than the paperwork. Although, of course, we respect the autonomy of a patient to make their own decision to cancel a declaration—obviously, I would insist that that right should be in the Bill—it nevertheless raises a question in my mind: why is that happening, and what should we expect the patient’s medical team, or others, to do in that circumstance?
Stephen Kinnock
The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on amendments 375 and 376. The amendments require that where the co-ordinating doctor, or any registered practitioner from the person’s GP practice, receives a notification or indication from the person seeking assistance under the Bill that the person wishes to cancel their first or second declaration, the doctor or practitioner must inform the voluntary assisted dying commissioner as soon as practicable. Where a registered practitioner from the person’s GP practice has received a notification or indication from the person to cancel their first or second declaration, they must also inform the co-ordinating doctor. I hope those observations are helpful to the Committee.
Kim Leadbeater
I repeat what I said earlier about what will happen to the patient if they choose to cancel: their care will continue. From a medical practitioner perspective, it is inconceivable that those patients would be abandoned, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is suggesting. That would not happen.
I understand that cancellation of the second declaration does not need to be included in clause 14(4) because of when in the process it would happen. The first declaration comes much earlier, so clauses 7 to 9 would be applicable; the second declaration comes further down the process, so does not need to be included. However, I am happy to look at that in further detail and come back to the hon. Member on that, if necessary.
Amendment 375 agreed to.
Amendment made: 376, in clause 14, page 10, line 12, after “doctor” insert “and the Commissioner”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment requires a practitioner other than the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner (as well as the coordinating doctor) of a cancellation of a first or second declaration.
Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Signing by proxy
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 321, in clause 15, page 10, line 33, at end insert—
“(d) the reason why the person was unable to sign their name.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 431, in clause 15, page 11, line 1, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
“the donee of Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare decisions, who has the ability to give or refuse consent to life-sustaining treatment, as registered with the Office of the Public Guardian.”
This amendment would restrict proxies to donees of Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare decisions, including to give or refuse consent to life-sustaining treatment.
Amendment 473, in clause 15, page 11, line 3, leave out from “person” to end of line and insert
“of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment provides that persons of a description specified in regulations (rather than persons “of good standing in the community”) may be proxies.
Amendment 253, in clause 15, page 11, line 3, at end insert—
“(6) For the purposes of this section “declaration” includes the cancellation of a declaration.”
This would allow a cancellation of the first or second declaration to be signed by a proxy.
Clause stand part.
Daniel Francis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. Amendment 321 will mean that the proxy’s declaration must also include the reason why the person was unable to sign their name. That would add a vital safeguard for the person and for the proxy.
In this Committee, we have consistently discussed the need to safeguard vulnerable people from being coerced into choosing assisted dying; for those who need a proxy, the risk of coercion might be higher. As the Bill currently stands, the person needs to tell only their proxy the reason why they are needed. I would like to make it clear why the amendment is important. The Bill does not currently specify that the patient’s declaration of the reason for needing a proxy has to be heard by anyone other than the proxy themselves.
I am conscious that, since my amendment was tabled, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has also tabled amendments about the relationship and who the proxy could be, but I do not believe that amendment 321 would be a burden or cause any unnecessary complication. As the Bill currently stands, when a proxy signs the declaration they already have to include their full name and address, the capacity in which they qualify, and a statement that they have signed in the capacity of a proxy.
As we have said before, it is vital to safeguard vulnerable people at every stage of the process; adding the reason why the proxy was required allows other people during the process, including if there were allegations later, to understand why that was required. If the first declaration is signed by a proxy, then the co-ordinating doctor—the independent doctor—would be able to examine that reason, so including the reason for someone being unable to sign their own declaration would improve transparency around the process. I hope that hon. Members will agree that we need to be able to monitor how those requests are made and the reasons that people are giving.
In written evidence, several experts raised the importance of collecting good data to ensure that the assisted dying process is properly monitored, and amendment 321 would assist that; I believe that it would protect both vulnerable patients and proxies. I absolutely appreciate and understand that people may have a very good reason for requiring a proxy—if they are very ill during the process, for example. The amendment would simply mean that, if there were to be concerns or allegations at a later stage, the reason why the proxy was required would be written down.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend is making a really sensible point and a fair argument, and I am very happy to support the amendment.
Daniel Francis
I welcome my hon. Friend’s acceptance of the amendment, and I think she sees the point behind it. It was meant not to be awkward—I do not think I have been at all awkward during this process—but simply to state that, if there were concerns later, the reason why the proxy was required should be there in a transparent way. I commend amendment 321 to the Committee.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I very much support his amendment; it is good to hear that the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, will as well. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford has made his points very powerfully, and it is good that we are in agreement.
I also support amendment 431, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, which would restrict proxies to donees of lasting power of attorney. The point is that somebody who has been through the process of taking on power of attorney has been properly vetted and approved; they are required to demonstrate their fitness for the role and undertake a meaningful duty of care to the person for whom they are a proxy. That strikes me as an appropriate suggestion from the hon. Lady.
Amendment 411, tabled by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, suggests that the phrase
“a person who is of good standing in the community”
should be deleted. I think she is absolutely right to suggest that. I made the point on Second Reading that—
Danny Kruger
I think the hon. Lady is about to say that her own amendment addresses that point.
Danny Kruger
Okay. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Spen Valley, if so. I regret it, because I think amendment 411 had a good suggestion. It would have been my preference if we were just amending the provision, although removing the whole question of a proxy might be the safest thing. Nevertheless, if we are proceeding with the proxy arrangement, it strikes me as dangerous to include a person of good standing in the community. While it sounds like an old-fashioned and sonorous expression, as if it has genuine meaning and recognition, I do not think it is an acknowledged concept and does not appear in English law much, if at all. It obviously begs the question of what on earth it means, and who is to determine who is of good standing.
I labour the point even though the amendment might have been withdrawn, because amendment 473 in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley proposes to delete that phrase and give the responsibility for who the proxies could be to the Secretary of State. That is another important instance of a running flaw in the Bill, and particularly the amendments tabled in Committee, which is the transferring of important decisions beyond the Committee and Parliament to the Government and the Minister of the day.
That matters, because we are trying to ensure that when the Bill passes—if it passes—it is safe, but a blank space is being left on the important question of who can determine who the proxies are. The proxies have enormous power to do the paperwork and to answer the questions—to essentially act on behalf of the patient who, in the scenario envisaged, would be silent. It matters who the proxy is.
The decision of the hon. Member for Spen Valley is not to resolve that question here in Committee but to pass it on to a future Minister. My concern is that the same ambiguity or openness that is currently in the Bill about this person of good standing—a serious-sounding but actually vacuous concept—could be replicated in the regulations specified by the Secretary of State.
I am worried about where we are going here. Instead, I wish that we could restrict the proxy to somebody known to the patient, without the inclusion of the person of good standing or, if we are to do without that phrase and imagine that there will be other criteria and other individuals judged appropriate to be the proxy, that we had the will to determine that now. The hon. Member for Spen Valley, working with the Government, may well have concluded that they did not have enough time to come up with such a list or to think through the various complications involved in deciding who the proxy should be. Again, if that was the case, I regret the pace at which we are moving. I do not see why the decision has to be delayed until the Secretary of State comes up with a plan in a couple of years’ time and why it is not being resolved in the Bill now.
The Chair
I confirm that amendment 411 has been withdrawn. I see no other Members bobbing; I call the Minister.
Stephen Kinnock
Amendment 321 would require a proxy to record, when signing the declaration on behalf of the person, the reason why the person they are acting as a proxy for is unable to sign their own name. The recording of the reason may make the use of a proxy more transparent. It may also assist others involved in the scrutiny of the process to understand why a proxy was used.
Amendment 431 seeks to restrict who can be a proxy under the Bill to attorneys with a lasting power of attorney, or LPA, for health and welfare decisions—that is, those people who are able to consent to or refuse life-sustaining treatment. The amendment raises significant practical issues. First, not everyone has an LPA. Secondly, where a person has made an LPA, they will have decided whether to give the attorney the authority to refuse or consent to life-sustaining treatment. That is not automatic and means that not all attorneys would be able to meet the eligibility requirement of the amendment. Thirdly, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 enables an attorney to exercise power under an LPA only if and when someone has lost capacity.
Kit Malthouse
Does the Minister agree that, unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that there is some reputational test in becoming an attorney? In truth, I can appoint anybody I want to be my attorney. There is no verification or otherwise until there is some form of dispute around the exercise of the power of attorney. In fact, the regulations may mean that we have stronger verification of the bona fides of the person who is a proxy than we would have through the LPA route.
Does the Minister not also find it slightly sad that, given the type of Conservative I know my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire is, he thinks the concept of being of good standing in society is somehow meaningless?
Stephen Kinnock
I am not a lawyer, but thankfully I am sitting next to a very eminent and distinguished one—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green—who has confirmed that everything the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said was correct from a legal standpoint, so I shall leave it at that.
Clause 15(5) of the Bill defines a proxy as
“(a) a person who has known the person making the declaration personally for at least 2 years, or
(b) a person who is of good standing in the community.”
Amendment 473 would remove subsection (b) from the definition of proxy, instead introducing a regulation-making power to specify the persons who may act as proxy. That would avoid any ambiguity around the meaning of a person who is of good standing in the community and retain flexibility to amend the specified list in regulations.
Danny Kruger
Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State could simply reintroduce that ambiguous term at their own discretion? If they are being given the freedom to decide who can be a proxy, they might decide that it should be a term of equal ambiguity. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire is absolutely right that I have great respect for the concept of “standing”; nevertheless, I do not believe that the Government have yet been able to define exactly what that means. Does the Minister agree that there is still the opportunity for ambiguity? We are just leaving it completely blank at this stage and hoping that some future Secretary of State will have more clarity than we do.
Stephen Kinnock
I would not want to pre-empt the regulations, because clearly that is the point of the process. If this Bill gets Royal Assent, we then move on to making regulations, and I have confidence in the good offices of parliamentary counsel, legal advice and the drafting process. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that the purpose of those regulations must be to remove ambiguity, not to increase it. I am confident that the system will produce regulations that address his concern.
Kim Leadbeater
Does the Minister agree that it will be on the record that we have had this conversation, and that many of us—including myself—have expressed our concerns about the concept of good standing in the community? I would like to think that that will be taken into consideration.
Stephen Kinnock
I am acutely conscious that every word we say in this Committee is on the record. My hon. Friend makes a valid point in that context.
The purpose of amendment 253 is to clarify that a person acting as a proxy can both sign and revoke a declaration on behalf of a person seeking assistance under the Bill. This amendment would extend the provisions under clause 15 to a person who is acting as proxy to the person seeking assistance under the Bill, enabling the proxy to act on behalf of the person to cancel their first or second declaration if they are unable to sign their own name by reason of physical impairment, being unable to read or for any other reason. I note that the cancellation of a declaration is governed by clause 14, and the cancellation may be given orally, via writing, or
“in a manner of communication known to be used by the person”.
It does not require the signature of the person seeking assistance under the Bill, so a proxy may not be required for some people in relation to revoking a declaration, even if they have been required under clause 15.
Naz Shah
On the point made by the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, should the issue of proxy end up before a court, what will be relied on—the conversation that we are having here and the intentions stated in Committee, or a future statutory instrument and what the Secretary of State puts in the guidance?
Stephen Kinnock
The regulations will have primacy, and will be shaped by a range of inputs, including the conversation we have just had in Committee. The process is that the Bill gets Royal Assent, then the regulations are drawn up based on a range of consultations and inputs—including the Hansard. The regulations then become the basis on which this proxy process is managed, enforced and executed.
Stephen Kinnock
The Bill, once it becomes an Act, places a legal duty on the Secretary of State to produce those regulations. The Secretary of State would be in breach of the law if he were not to enforce the conclusions of the Act.
Kim Leadbeater
I will speak first to my amendment 473. It is important to be clear that the role of the proxy is very specific and would be used only in a very limited number of cases, where the patient is not able to sign their own name. That is, however, important when we are talking about terminally ill people who may be physically impaired, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford alluded to.
Danny Kruger
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady so soon into her speech. Nevertheless, the clause says that someone can use a proxy when they are unable to sign their name
“by reason of physical impairment, being unable to read or for any other reason”.
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that that is tantamount to saying that somebody can have a proxy for any reason at all? There is literally no restriction in the clause on the reason for why somebody could have a proxy—anybody could have one.
Kim Leadbeater
That is why amendment 321 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford is really important. We have to put the reason down for why there is a proxy. It depends on personal circumstances and what that patient is going through, so we have to have a bit of flexibility, but they have to be unable to sign their name and they have to explain why they are unable to sign their name.
Danny Kruger
I hope that this does not appear pedantic, but we are talking about life and death after all. The patient’s inability to sign their name could be psychological; it is not as if they will have to do a writing test. They simply have to say that they are unable to sign their name, unless the hon. Lady is proposing that there could be some sort of test for that.
I entirely support amendment 321 in the name of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about the proxy being obliged to state the reason why—it is good to finally have the question “Why?” being asked in the Bill. Nevertheless, there is no obligation for anything to be done about that reason; someone could give a reason that would be regarded as irrelevant. I respect the intention behind the amendment, but it does not clarify the point that literally anybody could effectively get a proxy to sign their name, having said to the assessing doctor, “I want my friend to sign for me.”
Kim Leadbeater
That is the sort of thing that the doctor would explore with the patient. It would happen in a very limited set of circumstances. We have to accommodate people who are physically impaired as a result of their terminal illness, and we have to include that there are a range of circumstances where this might apply. The proxy is being asked not to make any kind of judgment or assessment, but merely to act as an intermediary for the patient if they are unable to sign for themselves. They would have to explain why they are unable to sign for themselves, and the proxy has to be satisfied that the person understands the nature and effect of the making of the declaration.
I thought long and hard about who should and should not be accepted as a proxy. As always, I try to imagine how it would be seen by someone with a terminal illness. As we know, no two people are the same, nor are their circumstances. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire said that surely it should be done by someone the patient knows. The clause defines a proxy as someone the patient has known for two years, which is an important inclusion, but not everyone might have known for two years a person who they are comfortable asking to undertake that role.
I also appreciate the challenges with the wording
“of good standing in the community”.
I will let the hon. Member for East Wiltshire and the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire fight that out among themselves. I am sure we all have our own version of what that means.
I have explored various options and, contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, I have spent a huge amount of time on this question, because it is very important. Looking at different lists, there is the list of people who can sign the back of someone’s passport. I do not think that would be appropriate, so I moved away from that. I have also looked at much shorter lists. I do think that this question would be part of a consultation; it is really important to get it right, which is why we must have it as part of a consultation. I am content that having the Secretary of State put it in regulations is the right thing to do.
As I said, I am happy to support amendment 321 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. It is a sensible amendment that makes the reasons for the use of the proxy more transparent. If amendment 253 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) is moved, I am happy to support that too. As the Minister said, a cancellation need not be in writing; it can be made orally or through any other form of communication.
Amendment 321 agreed to.
Amendment made: 473, in clause 15, page 11, line 3, leave out from “person” to end of line and insert
“of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment provides that persons of a description specified in regulations (rather than persons “of good standing in the community”) may be proxies.
Amendment made: 253, in clause 15, page 11, line 3, at end insert—
“(6) For the purposes of this section “declaration” includes the cancellation of a declaration.”—(Sean Woodcock.)
This would allow a cancellation of the first or second declaration to be signed by a proxy.
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Recording of declarations and statements etc
Amendments made: 209, in clause 16, page 11, line 8, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—
“(b) a report about the first assessment of a person is made under section 7;
(c) a report about the second assessment of a person is made under section 8;”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 420 and 421.
Amendment 377, in clause 16, page 11, line 12, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
“(d) a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of a person;
(da) a panel has refused to grant such a certificate;”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment is consequential on NC21.
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 474, in clause 16, page 11, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) In this section ‘recordable event’ means an event mentioned in a paragraph of subsection (1).”
This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 475, in clause 16, page 11, line 19, leave out from second “the” to “in” in line 21 and insert
“occurrence of the recordable event”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.
Amendment 476, in clause 16, page 11, line 24, leave out from “the” to “, and” in line 26 and insert
“occurrence of the recordable event”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.
Amendment 477, in clause 16, page 11, line 27, leave out from “the” to “in” in line 29 and insert
“occurrence of the recordable event”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.
Amendment 478, in clause 16, page 11, line 30, leave out from second “a” to end of line 32 and insert
“declaration, report or statement within subsection (1) must include the original declaration, report or statement.”
This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.
Clause stand part.
Kim Leadbeater
The amendments are designed to streamline the drafting of the Bill. Taken together, they create a new definition of a recordable event, namely those events set out in clause 16(1), where declarations and statements are required at any stage of the process. We can all agree that record keeping is essential, so it is necessary to define the events that should be recorded. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Danny Kruger
I very much respect the hon. Lady’s intention, and I support the amendments. On clause 16, however, I must take the opportunity to express a certain concern. The clause applies if, under subsection (1)(b), the co-ordinating doctor
“refuses to make…a statement”
to be entered into the person’s medical records. That is good but, as I understand it, a statement could be made that complies with the Bill but does not put on record, in relation to subsection (2), which requirements the co-ordinating doctor did not believe were satisfied. We have missed an opportunity to have more clarity about which exact requirements have not been met. There is also the eternal question about the co-ordinating doctor’s reasons for reaching that conclusion. I just note the missed opportunity to be a little safer with the drafting.
My more general point is about the importance of effective record keeping and declaration. I thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley, who throughout the whole Bill process has stressed the importance of good data collection and record keeping, which will be vital so that in later years, if the Bill passes, we can judge whether it is working as intended.
I am concerned about going on the evidence of other countries, which is frequently adduced in support of the Bill, particularly in respect of the absence of evidence of coercion, questions around capacity, proper administration of drugs or the support that patients receive. It is often said that concerns are exaggerated or inappropriate, “because look at what happens in other countries”, but let me briefly run through some evidence from abroad.
The fact is that no other country does adequate record keeping. One ambition of the hon. Member for Spen Valley that I really do share is to have a better system of keeping data than in other countries. In Oregon, the most recent annual report demonstrates a whole series of failures in record keeping. Ingestion status was unknown for 25% of the patients prescribed the drugs, so we do not know whether they took the drugs or what the process was. In 72% of cases, it was unknown whether there were complications; we have been talking about how exaggerated my concerns and those of other Members are about complications, but in 72% of cases in Oregon we do not know. In 30% of cases, it was unknown whether a healthcare provider was present. In 44% of cases, the duration between ingestion and death was unknown.
I very much recognise that the intention of the Bill is not to have those sorts of mistake. Indeed, the intention is to ensure that some of them should be impossible, because a doctor should be present and so on. Nevertheless, there is evidence that in other countries that have inspired the Bill, the data is inadequate. I will give a few more examples.
British Columbia has poor documentation, incomplete assessments, recurrent and excessive delays in reporting. In the debate on the last group of amendments, we spoke about the necessity that a doctor be informed if a declaration is cancelled; I am very concerned that that will not happen quickly and that people could fall through the gaps. That is what happens abroad. We have seen evidence from the former Attorney-General of Victoria, Australia, of all sorts of irregularities, with doctors falsely certifying that patients had signed statements and so on.
Kim Leadbeater
I do not know the details of the individual cases that the hon. Member speaks about, but he makes a powerful point and we absolutely agree on the importance of recording and monitoring. I know that he voted against the changes at clause 12, but I hope he gets some reassurance from the changes that the commission would bring in. Having the commission and the panels would ensure robust monitoring and reporting. I hope he agrees that that is a positive step.
Danny Kruger
I absolutely recognise that the hon. Lady has every intention of insisting that the system works well, that doctors do their job and that good record keeping happens. My concern throughout has been that we have not been robust enough in ensuring that all of that happens.
A huge amount of faith is being placed in the good professional conduct of doctors. Patient autonomy has been stressed, but it often translates into doctor autonomy. We are relying enormously on doctors doing their job well, and we are giving them significant latitude to do their job properly. As we see in other jurisdictions, particularly when assisted suicide becomes normalised and services are established explicitly to provide assisted suicide, we get into a dangerous area in which adequate documentation and reporting might not happen.
I will conclude with evidence from Canada, which is a very comparable country; it has a slightly different mechanism for delivering assisted suicide, but its legal framework is very similar to ours. The Health and Social Care Committee in our last Parliament received evidence from an academic in Canada, Dr Kotalik, who stated that federal regulations had been
“mandating a collection of data from MAID providers”,
just as the Bill will do. However, he noted that
“those legal and regulatory efforts have yet to produce evidence that the program operates as intended. We have no publicly accessible evidence that the eligibility criteria and safeguards prescribed by law were respected and that the Criminal Code has not been transgressed.”
It is fine for us, in this Committee and in Parliament, to specify that all doctors should do their job properly and that all data should be appropriately collected, transmitted and recorded. Nevertheless, as we all know from our casework, the reality is often one of bureaucratic mistakes being made, albeit not with any ill will. Given the volumes that we may well be dealing with, I think it is appropriate to raise significant concerns about the operation of the Bill and the data collection that we seek.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Record keeping is a huge issue in our healthcare system. A huge number of coroners’ reviews have identified that record keeping has been an issue. By specifying only that clinicians need record a “recordable event”, we are leaving it as the responsibility of individual clinicians to decide what a recordable event is.
It is important that a good record be available to prevent future incidents and learn good practice. Leaving it open to a clinician to decide whether something is a recordable event could lead to most issues not getting recorded. For example, if a clinician has identified that there was coercion, it will be for the clinician to decide how much documentation to do. In my view, if they have identified a coercion, that should be recorded as an incident and further investigation should be done, but the Bill leaves it up to the clinician to decide. There is no standard for record keeping across the healthcare system, so a care home’s may be different from an NHS ward’s. I think it is for the Committee to look into what “recordable event” actually means.
Stephen Kinnock
The purpose of amendments 474 to 478 is to improve the drafting of the Bill by creating a new definition of “recordable event”. Recordable events are the events set out in clause 16(1) related to the recording of declarations and statements.
The amendments would also make consequential changes to clause 16, which refer to the occurrence of the recordable event, as per the new definition, and include reference to a report in addition to a statement or declaration. The reference to a report is consequential on the amendments already agreed by the Committee to clauses 7 and 8.
Kim Leadbeater
I have nothing further to add.
Amendment 474 agreed to.
Amendments made: 475, clause 16, page 11, line 19, leave out from second “the” to “in” in line 21 and insert
“occurrence of the recordable event”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.
Amendment 476, in clause 16, page 11, line 24, leave out from “the” to “, and” in line 26 and insert
“occurrence of the recordable event”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.
Amendment 477, in clause 16, page 11, line 27, leave out from “the” to “in” in line 29 and insert
“occurrence of the recordable event”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.
Amendment 478, in clause 16, page 11, line 30, leave out from second “a” to end of line 32 and insert
“declaration, report or statement within subsection (1) must include the original declaration, report or statement.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.
Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Recording of cancellations
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 479, in clause 17, page 11, line 37, leave out “at” and insert “with”.
This amendment clarifies that a cancellation may be given to a practitioner with the person’s GP practice.
Kim Leadbeater
The amendment, which would clarify the drafting, speaks for itself. The important point is that the record of cancellation be with the GP practice as soon as is practicable. It is not necessary for that to take place physically at the practice, as that could potentially delay its delivery.
Stephen Kinnock
Clause 17(2) provides that where a notice or indication regarding a cancellation of a first or second declaration is given to a registered medical practitioner “at” the person’s GP practice, that practitioner must record the cancellation in the person’s medical records as soon as possible. Amendment 479 seeks to clarify that the requirement to record the cancellation applies not just where the cancellation is given to a registered medical practitioner physically at the GP practice, but where the cancellation is given to a registered medical practitioner “with” the person’s GP practice, irrespective of whether the notice was given at the GP practice. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
Kim Leadbeater
I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 479 agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Provision of assistance
Amendment made: 378, in clause 18, page 12, line 9, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of a person,”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment is consequential on NC21.
Danny Kruger
I beg to move amendment 462, in clause 18, page 12, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) When providing a substance under subsection (3) the coordinating doctor must explain to the person that they do not have to go ahead and self administer the substance and they may still cancel their declaration.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 463, in clause 18, page 12, line 34, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendment 497, in clause 18, page 13, line 9, leave out “decides” and insert
“informs the coordinating doctor that they have decided”.
This amendment provides that the duty to remove the approved substance arises on the coordinating doctor being informed that the person has decided not to self-administer the substance.
Amendment 498, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, leave out
“that the substance is not”
and insert
“to believe that the substance will not be”.
This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which the coordinating doctor is under a duty to remove the approved substance from the person.
Danny Kruger
This group of amendments contains two sub-groups that I shall deal with separately. Amendment 462, in my name, and amendments 497 and 498, in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, concern the information given at the provision of assistance and decisions around that. My amendment 463 concerns the question of assistance in the final act.
This is a rather sombre moment in the Bill, because it is somewhere in clause 18, between subsection (9)(a) and subsection (9)(a)(i)—between the self-administration and “the person has died”—that the death happens. The amendments are about making sure that we understand what is happening here and whether it is safe.
Amendment 462 would require the doctor to make it clear to the patient at the final moment that they do not have to proceed. Of course, this is clearly the implication of the Bill. We have stressed autonomy all along. Everybody who is helping us to draft the Bill, all colleagues in the House and all doctors understand that of course the patient is not obliged to proceed at this point. The reason for the amendment is to think about the patient: to put ourselves in the mind of the person who has gone a long way down the road, who has summoned multiple professionals to endorse a decision that they have made and who has, we hope, involved their family and other people in their life, all of whom will be aware of what is about to happen and will, we also hope, be supportive of that decision or at least neutral about it.
That person finds themselves suddenly at the moment when the drugs are due to be set up for self-administration, a point that we will come on to. That is the final opportunity that they have to decline to proceed. Throughout the Bill, hurdles and gateways have been introduced through which a patient must proceed. In many respects I do not think them adequate, but it is acknowledged by the framers of the Bill that it is necessary to pass through certain hurdles and, in what might appear to be quite a formulaic way, require the patient to confirm and reconfirm that they have a clear, settled and informed wish.
What we do not have at this vital moment—in a sense, the only moment that matters, because everything up to this point has been preliminary; it is at this point that they step through the final gateway—is an obligation, expectation or requirement for any conversation to take place. The doctor is expected to satisfy himself or herself that the patient
“has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”
and must be prepared to swear to that. Nevertheless, there is no expectation that they will have a conversation. We can pretend, imagine, hope or surmise that some kind of conversation would happen at that point—“Do you want to proceed?” “Yes, I do”—but we are not requiring it.
I raise this point in the clear and certain knowledge that many people do, at that moment, have second thoughts. We know that from the number of people who contemplate and get very close to the act of unassisted suicide and step back, literally, from the brink. I want to insist that there is an opportunity here to step back from the brink, just as our suicide prevention strategy seeks to ensure that at the moment when and in the places where many people tragically do take their own life, on bridges or on Beachy Head, there are signs saying, “Call the Samaritans” or “You are not alone”. I want to specify clearly that this is that moment, rather than it being assumed that the train has left the station and the person is just on it now. I think it would be a helpful amendment.
I cite written evidence from Dr Philippa Youd, writing in a personal capacity:
“I have witnessed ‘post-euthanasia regret’. I was 18 when my mother took her own life due to ‘interminable suffering’. She knew what she was doing—she had tried before. Just before she slipped into a coma, she told me she was sorry and that she regretted it. The inquest therefore deemed her death an ‘open verdict’. It was suicide, but it was suicide that was regretted, despite true intent and interminable suffering”—
and no doubt capacity and a lack of coercion. Dr Youd continues:
“No one can EVER be sure they want to die until the moment of death. They may still change their mind and then it is too late. No one can know what patients will truly face, emotionally and cognitively, at the point of death. I have witnessed firsthand the tragic circumstance of someone changing their mind after choosing to die. There is no peace in that.”
I hope that hon. Members will not consider that this amendment is unnecessary embroidery or that requiring a simple statement to be made is some kind of imposition on the autonomy of doctors or patients. Someone should still be able to turn back and change their mind at this point.
Kim Leadbeater
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and I thank him for the respectful way in which he is doing so. He has given an example of a very personal story; it is also important to remember the other personal stories we have all heard. We have with us today in the Public Gallery family members who have lost loved ones. Catie’s mum went to Dignitas in Switzerland for an assisted death, and her daughter could not go with her. As a family they have suffered to this day as a result of that experience.
We need to be really careful about the language we use around suicide. We have spoken about this before. The cases we have heard of are not people who want to die. They are people who want to live, but they are terminally ill. We need to be really sensitive to that, having heard so many examples of families who have been through these really difficult situations. But the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I am minded to support his amendment because I think it comes from a good place.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I hear what she has said; we have had this conversation before. I am afraid that I do insist on my right to use the English language accurately. What is proposed in the Bill is a carve-out of the Suicide Act, so I regret to say to the hon. Lady that I will continue to describe it in terms that are appropriate to it. I hope I do so with absolute sympathy and respect for the many families who have suffered from the trauma of seeing their loved ones die badly—loved ones who would have wished for an assisted death under the terms of the Bill. I am very glad to hear that the hon. Lady supports my amendment. I do not think it would be any sort of imposition on families for the doctors to let the patient know at the last moment that they have the opportunity to turn back.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a really powerful speech, and I am minded to support the amendment on the basis that there will be a small but significant group of people who, having gone through the whole process, will feel they have been a burden on the people who have gone to all the effort, through every stage, to get to the end, so if they have doubts at the end, they may be reluctant to change their mind. It will be a very small group, but I do think it is significant. I see it as the re-establishment of autonomy for the patient, which we all believe in; does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Danny Kruger
That is absolutely right. We have to think about the no doubt quite turbulent emotions that people will have as they approach the end of their life, and to reiterate their genuine autonomy. They are not on a conveyor belt that they cannot get off until the very last moment—until they have passed through this gateway. The amendment seeks to remind them and, indeed, their families of that. I am afraid we do hear terrible stories of people who have arranged their assisted death: often family members have flown in from abroad, doctors have been summoned and so on, and then they feel they have to proceed because, as the hon. Gentleman says, they feel a burden as it is and do not want to be an annoyance at the end by making everybody wait. I am afraid that is indeed the reason for the amendment. I am pleased to hear that it sounds like it will be accepted, and I am grateful to Members who will support it.
Amendment 463 is the other, more substantial, amendment in my name in this group. It would leave out paragraph (c) of clause 18(6), which says that the doctor can assist the patient
“to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”
Here we are in a lot of difficulty and a grey area. Let me try to unpack the reasons for objecting to paragraph (c). The hon. Member for Spen Valley argued in an interview that there is a “very clear line” between the Bill and euthanasia, which is someone else doing the deed. She said that the act
“has to be the decision of the individual, and it has to be the act of the individual”,
which
“creates that extra level of safeguards and protections”.
I agree with her—it is right that we introduce the additional safeguard of insisting that the patient performs the final act themselves.
I recognise that there is a distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide, and I support the hon. Lady’s attempt to insist on that distinction in the law. It is another safeguard. But the fact is that there is a blurred line between the two, and I can also understand why many people object to the exclusion of euthanasia—of the fatal act being administered by other people. A doctor from Canada said it was inherently ableist to require the patient to self-administer, and I think that is unarguable. If that is the case, the logical provision would be to enable euthanasia, if one believes in the autonomy of the patient.
I am afraid my strong belief is that the reason why euthanasia has not been proposed in the Bill or by the campaign, which has been led by an organisation that used to call itself the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, is because the campaign has concluded that such a Bill would not pass Parliament and believes—I think correctly—that Members of Parliament and members of the public would object to euthanasia. But the logic of the Bill and of the campaign is actually for euthanasia, if one believes genuinely in autonomy, in equal rights and in not discriminating against people who are physically unable to perform the act themselves.
Despite my efforts, hon. Members have not been able to conceptualise the difference between withdrawing a medical treatment that affects a particular medical condition on the one hand, and administering drugs that annihilate the person on the other. There is a meaningful and important difference between those two things. One is a person declining to use a shield, and the other is the person using a sword against themselves. I think there is a difference there, and I regret that colleagues do not see it.
Where I do not see a difference, however, is between a person injecting themselves and asking someone else to inject them. There are two versions of the death of Saul in the Bible. I think this is the only reference to the Bible that I will make in this whole debate, and I make it partly to show that there is an inconsistency in the Bible—there is not a single Biblical view of these matters. In one account of the death of Saul, having been defeated by the Philistines, he asks his servant to run him through with his sword, but his servant refuses, so he falls on his own sword and kills himself. In the other version, he gets a passing soldier to run him through—to kill him.
To me it does not matter: the inconsistency in the story is interesting historically, but conceptually, logically and morally I do not see the difference. Whether you fall on your own sword or ask someone else to do it to you, it is still a sword, you are still actioning it and you are still responsible, if we recognise that the individual has autonomy. But there is a practical difference. We are talking about assistance to die and the role of another person who supports your decision and helps you to fulfil it, but that results in an obscuring of the practical difference. In practice, as we see in clause 18(6), the assistant comes very close to euthanasia. The role of the assistant, in my view, is closer to that of the soldier who kills Saul than of the servant who refused to do it.
Kim Leadbeater
The hon. Member is making an interesting philosophical point with his biblical references. I think the point he may be making is that there might not be any difference for the individual, as the result is sadly the same, but I put it to him that there is quite a significant difference for the other person. If we think about the autonomy of the medical professionals we ask to be involved in the process, there is a strong argument that it would be very different for them to be more involved in the process. Does that makes sense?
Danny Kruger
I am grateful—I really do thank the hon. Lady, because the effect of this process on the medical professionals who will be involved is a very important consideration, and one that we have perhaps not given enough attention to. That is why we will come to the conscience clause in due course, although we have discussed it a little already. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a difference for the medics in the extent to which they are involved in the administration of the death. I am afraid I do not see a major moral difference between providing the wherewithal—setting things up for, or indeed helping, the patients to ingest or otherwise self-administer the fatal drug—and people performing the act themselves. The distinction is very obscure; there is a significant grey area there.
On the hon. Lady’s point about appropriate consideration of the feelings of the medical profession, if she believes in doctor autonomy, she should believe that doctors ought to have the autonomy to decide for themselves whether to perform euthanasia, if euthanasia were legal. That is what happens in other countries. In Canada, doctors can decline to take part, or they can participate.
Given the question of autonomy, it is worth noting that in countries where euthanasia is legal, it is the overwhelming choice of the patients, as I think it would be for me. If I were facing that terrible moment and choice—we will come in due course to the question of the drugs involved and the process of taking them, but swallowing all these pills is not a pleasant process—it would be far easier, more humane and less painful for a doctor to administer the drugs intravenously. I visited Canada and met a doctor who had been responsible for over 300 deaths, which she herself has performed, because that is the overwhelming choice of the patients. As I am sure the hon. Lady would agree, that doctor is acting with full professional discretion and autonomy.
To go back to my point, I am afraid this is one of the impossible dilemmas that the Bill and the whole concept of assisted dying set up: whether we allow the doctor to do it to us. My concern is that if the stress on self-administration is genuinely felt—not, as I cynically believe, because this is the only way to get assisted dying through the House of Commons—because the Bill’s authors recognise the need to be absolutely sure that the act is voluntary, and if the reason why we insist on self-administration is because we want to be sure that the act is voluntary, what does that say about all the so-called safeguards that exist up to this point? We have been told that those safeguards are sufficient to ensure that we have absolute confidence about the person’s clear and settled wish.
If we are sure that people at this stage in the process have a settled, informed and free wish to end their lives, why should they not be able to ask a doctor to do it to them? The only answer to that question can be that we do not genuinely believe that we are completely sure. We want, subsequent to death, to be sure—in terms of our own moral propriety and sense of amour-propre—that those people did it themselves. It was not our choice; it was not us doing it to them—they did it.
Kit Malthouse
I am a little confused by my hon. Friend’s logic. He has literally just proposed an amendment for the doctor to ask, at the last, whether the person still wants to proceed. Surely self-administration is the ultimate act of consent, which his own amendment requires a doctor to establish right at the last moment.
Danny Kruger
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I support the distinction between self-administration and euthanasia. I am in favour of all possible safeguards and every possible opportunity to give the patient the chance to step back from the brink. The point I am making is that I do not recognise the logic of the distinction that the Bill insists on. Indeed, in the provision that I am concerned about, subsection (6), the distinction in fact does not apply.
If we believe in autonomy and in giving people the opportunity for assisted suicide, we are, naturally enough, concerned that that should be available to people who cannot physically perform the act themselves. I am not trying to argue in favour of euthanasia; I am saying that we will get to euthanasia if we let the Bill through. Even in the Bill as it stands, we are halfway to euthanasia with subsection (6). I am confident that, in due course, the campaign for it will grow. In fact, it already exists: people already object to the restrictions implied in the Bill. The campaign will grow to widen the opportunity for assistance to ensure that we can have physician-administered suicide, as happens in Canada and elsewhere, very logically. Once we have crossed the Rubicon of assisted death, it is a straight road to euthanasia. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stroud is amused.
Sojan Joseph
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something? He is making a valid point, and I have been thinking about it. As a nurse who has worked in many areas, I know that a disabled person may not be able to take medication by themselves, and sometimes a nurse has to administer it with a spoon. There may be occasions on which a person’s medication comes back out and they have to do it a few times. Is that something the hon. Gentleman is concerned about—actually pushing the medication into the person?
Danny Kruger
Once again, we are in an extraordinary no man’s land between medical treatment and something else that we cannot find a word for. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course, it is appropriate in medical treatment for a nurse or doctor to assist in the administration of a treatment. As he suggests, if the person found it difficult to raise a cup to their lips, the nurse would help them. Indeed, if they found it difficult to perform an injection, it would be expected that that would be done by the nurse or doctor anyway. But here we are setting up a strange new method of administering a so-called treatment in which the patient has to perform the physical act themselves.
It is apparent from the clause that it is very unclear what assistance actually looks like, so yes, I absolutely imagine that if the patient were struggling to raise the cup to their lips, a nurse or doctor who was present at the final act in an assisted suicide would help them to do so. Similarly, if the patient were finding it difficult to put their finger on the syringe, it would be appropriate—normally, one would expect—for the medical professional to lift the patient’s finger and put it in the right place. What happens next? Do they then apply a little pressure if the patient is finding it difficult to depress the plunger on the syringe? If the cup is at the lips, do they tip it up and let gravity take its course? These very complicated questions about where assistance ends and autonomy begins are, I am afraid to say, impossible to specify in the Act; therefore, it is apparent that we have a grey area.
I conclude with some evidence that we received from Iain Brassington, professor of applied and legal philosophy at Manchester University. He says:
“how are we to determine how the ‘final act’ of self-administration is to be differentiated from the penultimate act, in which the doctor may assist? How would helping a patient lift the cup to her lips be distinguished from helping her ingest its contents?”—
the hon. Member for Ashford referred to that. He goes on to say that
“the definition of the ‘final act’ is unclear, especially granted the wording of”
subsection (6)(c), and:
“The proposed law says that a doctor may not administer a substance with the intention of causing death, but also that a doctor may help a person self-administer. But how should we draw the boundary between helping a person self-administer, and playing a role in administration?”
I come to the penultimate point—not the final act—of my speech. There is some odd phrasing in subsection (7), and I wonder whether the hon. Member for Spen Valley or the Minister can help to parse the English. It says that
“the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must be taken by the person”.
We understand about the decision being taken by the person, but the phrasing is that the final act “must be taken” by the person. I am not familiar with that construction. Does one take an act? Is that English? You perform an act—an act is not taken, it is done, by a person acting autonomously. The question of whether this is an active or a passive concept runs to the heart of my concern about the clause, and we need to think about redrafting, at least in deference to the English language.
Somewhere in this clause there is a magic moment when assistance gives way to autonomy, and the penultimate act by the doctor yields to the final act, which is supposed to be by the patient. We cannot tell when the responsibility for the action passes from one to the other. In proper medicine it does not matter because the medic works with the patient, but here it does matter. We are insisting that there is a difference between a doctor setting up a death, and the patient performing the action of suicide.
I will end by referencing the case of R v. Kennedy in 2007, a case on which Lord Bingham opined, about the culpability of someone who died from a heroin overdose. Was the person who gave him the drugs and tied the tourniquet around his arm responsible? Was it murder, or indeed assisted suicide? The judge decided that it was not, but made this point:
“It is possible to imagine factual scenarios in which two people could properly be regarded as acting together to administer an injection.”
Given that ruling, we are in a world of difficulty with the suggestion that it is legally possible for a doctor to assist a patient to ingest or otherwise self-administer. To assist someone to self-administer is tantamount to administering. I welcome suggestions from other Members, the Minister, or the hon. Member for Spen Valley about whether it is possible to provide guidance that gives greater clarity on what the clause means, or whether subsequent amendments will help to resolve the problems that I have, but I am afraid I do not think it will be possible to make an adequate distinction between assisted suicide on the one hand—in which full responsibility, not just for the decision but for the performance, rests with the patient—and euthanasia on the other. I do not think there is an adequate logical difference, and the practical difference we are attempting to enshrine here will be very quickly obscured.
Naz Shah
I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for his amendment, and for speaking in the powerful, sensitive way that he did. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley and for Banbury, who made interventions.
I did not intend to speak to this amendment, but having heard the hon. Member for East Wiltshire speak so powerfully and sensitively, it is important for me to share a few things. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said a couple of times that the difference between people who commit suicide and those who will take this route is that the patients have been given less than six months to live, and that was not a choice. I was a Samaritan for years, because I had two failed suicide attempts in my early years, and since then I have battled with mental health demons all my life because of my experiences. To suggest that there is a difference between someone who gets a terminal illness and wants to take this act and people who want to commit suicide, and to suggest that they are doing it out of choice, is wrong. I felt really emotional when that exchange was happening. The reason why I think it is wrong is that, at the time that I wanted to commit suicide, I did not feel that I had a choice. I could not see a way out.
When I was on those Samaritans phonelines, speaking to people who rang in to unpick their feelings about what was driving them to feel suicidal in that moment, it was not because they want to die, but because they were in circumstances that drove them to feel that they had no option but to commit suicide. In some instances, it takes an amount of courage and bravery to even contemplate that option. To diminish that, which I feel is what has, intentionally or unintentionally, happened on occasion, is really wrong, because I have been there, and it was not easy and it was not because I wanted to die.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I certainly have not heard anyone try to diminish the experience of suicidal people. We probably all have our own stories of loved ones who we have either lost to suicide—I know that I do—or who had very severe mental health issues. The point I would make is that the families I have met who have lost loved ones through assisted dying or a harrowing terminal-illness death have said that they desperately wanted to live. That is the distinction I would make, but I appreciate that my hon. Friend is absolutely right that people with suicidal tendencies and ideation also want to live—they just do not feel they have a choice. It is a very delicate debate to have, but please be assured of my sensitivities to it.
Naz Shah
I am genuinely grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, because I do not want the Committee—or our constituents—to feel that there is an equivalence. There is not. People who are in that space, who ring the Samaritans helpline to speak to them, all desperately want to live a brilliant life. That is what brings us here: each and every one of us wants to make this place the best it can be, so that our country is the best it can be and all our communities, people and constituents—all members of society—thrive. It is a sensitive debate, but let us be careful not to draw a parallel where there is not one. It was important for me to put that on the record.
I will support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire because we have already voted down an amendment requiring doctors to simply ask the question why. This speaks to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury raised: I know, through my experience at the Samaritans, as somebody who has attempted suicide and as somebody who has gone on to chair a charity that leads mental health interventions, how difficult it is for a patient has gone through the process of having had that conversation with their family, who might not necessarily agree, and having convinced them that they are going to take this option because they want autonomy, and fear losing it.
I cannot imagine what it must be like for those people, at that moment, saying their final goodbyes, and the level of potential pressure they face right at the last minute, having spoken to everybody and put their family members, and indeed themselves, through the process. Would they not feel internal pressure on themselves to go through with it? Would they really have the option, and not feel, in a sense, obliged to say, “Yes”? Do we really not want to ask that question?
When we debated the amendment requiring doctors to ask the question why, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said that doctors would ask it anyway, but that argument would not work in this instance because doctors would not do this anyway. They would not say, “I am about to give you something—have you changed your mind?”, because by that point they are in a process. The drug, in whatever form it takes, is in the process of being, or will have been, handed over to the person who wants to take that option, so it is not the same. I genuinely hope that the Committee will support the amendment, because it is our last option to make this intervention.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I will speak briefly to this group of amendments, setting out why I support amendments 462, 497 and 498, but oppose amendment 463. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire set out very eloquently the reasons behind amendment 462. On the one hand, there is a cogent argument that it is not strictly necessary in the light of the provisions set out in subsection (4)(b) and (c), which set out that the individual wishing to have an assisted death must have
“a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”
and is
“requesting provision of that assistance voluntarily”.
However, it appears to me a logical and entirely appropriate extension of the intentions behind clause 18(4) to express that in slightly more explicit terms in the Bill by adopting my hon. Friend’s amendment 462. It strikes me that, after doing so, the Bill would provide a further check and balance that creates no greater onus on either the individual seeking an assisted death nor the co-ordinating doctor who is assisting them. In those circumstances, it appears eminently sensible to improve the Bill in that way. From the indications we have already heard, it appears that there is significant support for that amendment.
I struggle with amendment 463, which would remove paragraph (c) from clause 18(6). The effect would be to prohibit the co-ordinating doctor from providing assistance to the person seeking an assisted death, either through ingestion or other self-administration of that substance, in any circumstance. In my view, the amendment would make the operation of the Bill, were it to become an Act, unnecessarily restrictive. Clause 18(7) already stipulates that
“the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must”—
I stress the word “must”—
“be taken by the person to whom the substance has been provided”.
On any interpretation of the construct of that, it is clear that the person seeking an assisted death must be the active participant in the process; it is mandatory. There is no discretion in that, by virtue of the word “must”.
Were we to remove clause 18(6)(c) and the Bill passed into law, it would have the effect, in what is an entirely legal process, that a doctor would be unable to aid a patient in any circumstance. For example, they would not be allowed to hold a glass or steady a straw as a patient moved towards it to imbibe a substance. Those are circumstances that are entirely foreseeable, when through the ravages of an illness, somebody is limited in what they are physically able to do. Of course, assistance could be provided in alternative ways—for instance, through assistive technology, which we have seen being used in other jurisdictions. The Swiss, for example, use a significant amount of assistive technology in administering and assisting the process of self-administration at the end of life.
Danny Kruger
My point is that it is very difficult to draw a line here. I recognise the scenario that my hon. Friend raises: why should a nurse not be able to hold a straw for a person to drink from? I might say that should be acceptable; however, I do not think it should be acceptable for the nurse to tip the pills into the patient’s mouth. Does he think that scenario would be acceptable? Or to give another one, would it be acceptable to actively provide force on top of a patient’s finger to press a syringe? Would he regard that as acceptable assistance?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
That is why clause 18(7) is so important: the final act must be undertaken by the person seeking an assisted death. The example my hon. Friend gives of tipping tablets into a mouth is a final act. Pushing a syringe is a final act. There is a significant distinction between an individual or practitioner holding a cup with a straw and the person seeking an assisted death moving their mouth towards the straw, sucking from it and imbibing the substance and the passive act of a substance being raised to that individual’s lips and poured in without any movement by the individual seeking an assisted death themselves.
Danny Kruger
When we talk about this in future debates, it might be appropriate for this conversation to be referenced. I think my hon. Friend is suggesting that it should be acceptable, and that assisted death would be legal, as long as the patient moved their head towards the straw and cup, and that it would be illegal, according to my hon. Friend’s definition, were a doctor applying a cup to a patient’s lips and the drugs fell in by gravity. Is that right? Is that how judges in future should determine whether assistance has crossed the line?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
It is very clear from subsection (7) that this must be an active step taken by the individual. There is a risk that we go down a rabbit hole in terms of—[Interruption.] I am sure my hon. Friend would like me to finish my point. We risk going down a rabbit hole in drawing examples. I raised the example of a cup, but of course there are much wider assistive technologies that can be used and are used in different jurisdictions. I gave the example to illustrate the point that this is an active act, not a passive act.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman mentions subsection (7). Subsection (8) states quite clearly that it
“does not authorise the coordinating doctor to administer an approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death.”
I think the passive and active roles are quite clear between the two subsections.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I agree entirely with the right hon. Member’s interpretation of the Bill.
There is a further unintended consequence of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, which I am sure is not his intention but would sadly be the effect: were an individual to qualify under the Bill, should it pass and were the amendment to be adopted, they would inevitably be forced to take the final decision at an earlier stage. If there is a restriction that they can have no assistance whatsoever in performing the act, they will end up making the decision when they know that they have the entire physical strength available for them to do it, and that actually brings forward the point at which they choose to die to an earlier stage.
Kit Malthouse
After 10 years of campaigning on this issue and spending so much time with people whose family have gone to Switzerland, one of the things they consistently say is that people went to Switzerland much earlier than they wanted to because they had to go while they were still physically able. I think this is a critical point that people have to realise. We should not compel people to do this earlier than they would otherwise wish to simply because of these restrictions.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My right hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. I think there is a consensus among the Committee that there is no desire for people to take this ultimate step at an earlier stage than is absolutely necessary for them. My very real fear is that, were we to adopt this amendment, we would bring forward that point of decision.
Danny Kruger
The logic of that argument is to allow physician-administered suicide, because there will be a point at which people are physically unable to perform the act but have capacity, and their autonomy should be respected—
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Tuesday 18th March 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesBorder Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 March 2025 - (18 Mar 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct. I also remind Opposition Members that if one of your new clauses has already been debated and you wish to press it to a Division when it is reached on the amendment paper, you should let me know in advance, please.
New Clause 24
Immigration Tribunal: hearings in public
“(1) The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 5, after subsection 5, insert—
‘(5A) All hearings of the Tribunal must be heard in public, and all decisions delivered in public,’”.—(Matt Vickers.)
This new clause would require all rulings in the Lower Tier immigration tribunal to be heard in public.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The Conservative party has tabled the new clause to ensure that proceedings of the lower-tier immigration tribunal will be heard in public. We have seen absurd outcomes in some of the cases heard in the upper tribunal in recent months, and we feel it is important to make sure that the system is transparent and that the public have full access to the tribunal records at both levels.
Examples of recent cases reported by the Telegraph include that of an Albanian criminal who avoided deportation after claiming that his son had an aversion to foreign chicken nuggets, and that of a Pakistani paedophile who was jailed for child sex offences but escaped removal from the UK as it would be unduly harsh on his own children. More recently, it was reported that a Pakistani man was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman but was allowed to stay in Britain after he claimed he was gay. An Albanian criminal also avoided deportation after a judge ruled that long-distance Zoom calls would be too harsh on his stepson.
The absurdity is further emphasised by the case heard recently in which a Ghanaian woman won the right to remain in Britain as the wife of an EU national, even though neither she nor her husband was present at the wedding held in Ghana. The lower-tier tribunal stated that the marriage was not legal, but that was overturned in the upper tribunal, which ruled that the proxy marriage was recognised in law and that registration at the same time as the marriage ceremony was not mandatory.
The continued abuse of our legal system, and the use of human rights as a defence, has gone on for too long. In another case, a tribunal ruled that a convicted Ghanaian pastor who was deported from Britain for using fake documents should be free to return to the country. Despite being jailed for using illegal documentation, the individual in question appealed under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, leading a judge to revoke the deportation order, claiming that it was an “unjustifiable interference” in his human rights.
The number of decisions may be used as an argument against the new clause, but these decisions are important. The first-tier tribunal’s asylum appeal backlog increased from 34,234 outstanding cases at the end of September 2024 to 41,987 by the end of December. That contrasts with 58,000 in the first quarter of this year. That is significantly more than the upper tribunal, but it underlines the importance of us knowing what has happened in these cases. Public trust is pivotal, as it—
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—I suspect that you will be bookending our proceedings, if we make reasonable progress today. Does the shadow Minister acknowledge that increases in appeal backlogs are a result of the legacy process that his Government undertook, because people whose claims were not granted in that process have appealed and added to the backlog?
Matt Vickers
We know that significantly more people are arriving in the country. In fact, since the election, the number arriving illegally is up 29%, as is the number of people staying in hotels. The Government are actually removing fewer people than arrive by small boat now. The more people arrive, the more the backlogs will become an issue. Transparency in these tribunals is essential.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I am really trying to get my head around the new clause. Why would decision making in public be different from decision making in private?
Matt Vickers
Public trust in these decisions is completely and utterly broken. The answer to that is not to allow a good chunk of them to go unseen by the public. The public deserve to see and the people making the decisions deserve to be held to account. We need to ensure that the law is fit for purpose. We need to see the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR. That needs to be there for all to see. Public accountability and transparency are a good thing. The taxpayers out there, who fund all this, have a right to know what is going on, at any level, in the tribunals.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Murrison. I agree that there is a lack of trust in our immigration and asylum system, but does the hon. Member agree that the cause of that is not the conduct of courts in public or private, but the backlogs that have been created and the inability of the Conservatives to tackle the problems in our immigration and asylum system? Will he also reflect on the fact that the Conservatives in government had the opportunity to introduce this change but chose not to? Is he perhaps playing a bit of politics?
Matt Vickers
We have seen what has happened since the election. We will not go into the fact that numbers are up significantly, and whether the number of people arriving by small boat is down significantly, but actually, regardless of when it is changed, here is an opportunity, with a piece of legislation, to change this. The trust that the public have in the system is completely battered by these decisions, so it is right to have that transparency. The answer to the need to build public trust is not to hide a good chunk of what is going on, but to let more people see it. The light of day would be very good at getting rid of some of this toxicity, holding people to account and ensuring that the legislation that we have tomorrow is fit for purpose. As parliamentarians, we should be held to account for the legislation that we are putting forward. We should be held to account for its consequences, including in the tribunals that are making so many decisions on these cases.
Public trust is pivotal when advocating for Opposition new clause 24. It transforms the subject of the debate from a dry procedural tweak into a fundamental issue of democratic accountability. The British public’s faith in the immigration system has been battered by the bizarre tribunal rulings highlighted earlier—decisions hidden behind closed doors that defy common sense and insult victims. By mandating public hearings at the first-tier tribunal, we can signal that justice is not just for claimants but for taxpayers, who fund it.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
The hon. Member has a lot to say in Opposition, but the big question is: why did he not do this when the current Opposition were in government?
Matt Vickers
We were doing lots of things. I am sure we will come on to some of the progress that was being made, including the Albania agreement, which has taken thousands and thousands of people back to Albania and reduced the number of people coming. That deterrent stopped people setting off in the first place. It was real progress.
The Bill—this is the reason why we are sitting here today—is the opportunity to shape what comes next, what impact that will have on the number of people coming across the channel and what impact that will have on public confidence in our courts system. That is what we are here for. It is why we have bothered sitting here for so many hours—to ensure that the legislation that goes forward tomorrow is fit for purpose.
Matt Vickers
Well, we will see how much longer we get to sit. Time will tell, but I will move on.
Tom Hayes
The hon. Member is making a very powerful point about the importance of restoring trust and, to be fair to him, he has been making that point for many years. On 20 July 2021, he said in debate on the Nationality and Borders Bill:
“Our asylum and immigration system is not fit for purpose. It lines the pockets of criminal gangs and people smugglers, and it is not fair on genuinely vulnerable people who need protection. It is also not fair on the British public, who pick up the tab.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 902.]
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about what happened in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and, in fact, the years before that. Does he agree with the 2021 hon. Member for Stockton South, as he then was, that in fact the cause of the mistrust in our asylum system is the management of it, not what he is trying to address here?
Matt Vickers
I am glad the hon. Gentleman is a fan; I made an effort today with the tie. I think I was speaking as much common sense then as I am today. I agree that the system does not work. That is why we are here. It is why I hope these proposals will make a difference. It is why we are trying to improve the system. And that is why I think we should have transparency in these tribunal outcomes.
As I said, we are talking about decisions hidden behind closed doors that defy common sense and insult victims. By mandating public hearings at the first-tier tribunal, we can signal that justice is not just for claimants, but for taxpayers who fund it and citizens who live with its consequences. Transparency exposes these absurdities, has the potential to curtail judicial overreach, and could reassure a sceptical public that the system prioritises their safety and fairness over secretive leniency, because trust, once lost, is hard to rebuild.
It is only right that the general public, who foot the bill for these cases time and again, are allowed to fully understand what their money is being used for. It is only right that the public can see these sessions so that there is a place for scrutiny and accountability. It is only right that such a shameful abuse of the UK’s legal system be exposed to the taxpayers of this country.
Mike Tapp
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The hon. Member for Stockton West has made a creative argument, and I will try to bring some sense to it. First, we have to look at what the new clause would actually do for the country and our judicial system. Public hearings could expose vulnerable individuals, including victims of persecution or trafficking, to undue public scrutiny, which could deter genuine applicants from seeking justice. There are also security risks. Sensitive information about applicants’ backgrounds, including details that could endanger their families in their home countries, could be exposed.
There is also the risk of the legal system being overloaded further, given what we have inherited. Increased public interest in the hearings could lead to more appeals and challenges, which would cause more delays and inefficiencies in the system. Finally, the new clause is simply unnecessary as courts already have the discretion to allow public access when appropriate. It would remove vital judicial flexibility.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. After years of broken promises, it should come as no surprise that the public do not trust politicians in Westminster on immigration. The distrust is compounded by regular reports of individual cases in the immigration system, the most shocking and nonsensical of which are often those of foreign criminals allowed to remain in this country due to human rights laws.
The system is broken. It has been broken for many decades, and that is now plain to see. Our basic decency—our desire to do the right thing—is exploited by paedophiles, rapists, terrorists and hardened criminals, who threaten not just individual members of the public, which is terrifying enough, but the broader social fabric of our country. The news reports that we read are possible only because upper tribunal judgments on asylum and immigration are published at regular intervals. The publication of those judgments allows everyone in the country to see what tribunal judges have decided in asylum, immigration and deportation cases. Crucially, it allows us to scrutinise both their decisions and their reasoning. We can see why the judgments were made and what that says about our laws, and decide for ourselves whether we think that is right. Judges are not accountable to the public, but transparency allows everyone to see our laws in action and to form a view about whether they are the right ones.
However, upper tribunal judgments do not tell the full story. All immigration and asylum cases are first heard by a lower-tier tribunal, the judgments of which are not made available to the public. Unless the initial decision of the lower-tier tribunal is appealed, the public do not ever get access to the details of any given case. Given the absurdity of the cases that we do hear about, many members of the public will rightly be wondering what is happening in the cases that we do not see.
If we want to restore public trust in the immigration system, we must restore transparency. Publishing the decisions of lower-tier tribunals is not the biggest or most consequential change in the grand scheme of our broken immigration system, but it is a meaningful one. The public have a right to know about the way our tribunal system works, to know about the rules judges use to make fundamental decisions about immigration and asylum—about who can be in this country and why—and to see how those rules are applied in practice so they can decide for themselves whether that is right or wrong and whether it serves Britain’s interests. That is why we tabled this new clause, and we sincerely hope that the Government will consider making it part of the Bill.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve on your Committee, Dr Murrison. I do not see how turning border security into public discourse on a case-by-case basis is beneficial to the process, either for those administering or presiding over the hearings, or for those subject to the tribunal process. I accept that there is an argument for greater transparency, but given the circumstances of people’s arrival at our borders—they are fleeing trauma, in a vulnerable state—I feel it is inappropriate to parade the lives of asylum seekers in the public domain.
I have every faith that the Bill will create a robust system that is effective and accountable. The new clause would add nothing to its overall strength. The hon. Member for Stockton West says that trust has been lost in the asylum system. I think it will take this Bill and this Government to bring that trust back.
Dame Angela Eagle
I have to compliment the hon. Member for Stockton West on his tie, since he raised it, and the hon. Member for Weald of Kent seems to have good taste in the colour of her jackets. I promise that that is the last fashion statement that I will make in our proceedings today.
On new clause 24, we agree that accountability and transparency are absolutely vital for building trust and credibility in the immigration system. Under rule 27 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014—note the date—the presumption already is that hearings at the first-tier tribunal must be public unless the first-tier tribunal gives a direction that it or part of it is to be held in private. Indeed, the majority of hearings at the first-tier tribunal are public. However, there are sometimes appropriate reasons for a hearing not to be public. For example, hearings may be held in private to preserve confidentiality in respect of sensitive medical details or to protect the privacy of a victim of a serious crime—for example, of a sexual nature. It may also be done to protect a party or witness from duress.
That is precisely why the Tribunal Procedure Committee has broad discretion to determine what practice and procedure in the first-tier tribunal will best support the overall interests of justice, and why the judiciary has a range of case management powers under the tribunal procedure rules to decide how individual cases should proceed. Those tribunal powers were published and written when the party of the hon. Member for Stockton West was in government, in 2014. It is expected that judges will have a wide discretion in dealing with these sensitive issues.
On making rulings of the first-tier tribunal available to the public, currently judgments of the immigration and asylum chamber of the first-tier tribunal are not routinely published. The decision about whether to publish a judgment is a judicial one. However, members of the public and the media can apply to the tribunal for a copy of the judgment in a specific case. I know that the Lord Chancellor will continue discussions with the judiciary about how we can bolster accountability and transparency to build public confidence, but I cannot help feeling that perhaps certain people who might work for a certain newspaper are getting to the end of their search engines for absurd cases that they can publish, and want a whole new database to search. If they want to bring these issues out into the open at the first-tier tribunal, perhaps they should send some reporters to listen to the case or apply on an individual basis for the judgment to be published. Perhaps that might assuage their ongoing interest in these issues.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for her opinion, but we stand by this new clause. We want greater transparency, and we think this is an opportunity to do just that and allow the public to see what is and is not going on, so we will press it to a Division.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Conservative party is clear that the ability of immigrants to remain indefinitely in the United Kingdom and to acquire British citizenship should be not an automatic right, but an earned privilege, reserved for those who have made a real commitment to the UK. New clause 25 would increase from five to 10 years the period before a person can claim indefinite leave to remain, and add conditions to ensure that those applying for indefinite leave to remain have not claimed benefits or relied on social housing while here on work visas. Those claiming indefinite leave to remain must also be able to demonstrate that their household would be a net contributor and that they do not have a criminal record.
It is only right that individuals prove they have made a positive contribution to the United Kingdom and that their place in society is justified. For too long, the United Kingdom has been seen to have an open door policy, and this has been abused. Enough is enough. The 10-year rule would prove commitment—five years lets you settle; 10 years lets you prove you belong. It is enough time for people to learn our language, adopt our values and pay their dues.
Tom Hayes
This proposal has emerged before the Leader of the Opposition sets in train her new policy commissions, including one on immigration, so it is good to get a teaser today. Under this proposal, will a person who would seek to apply for indefinite leave to remain after 10 years be required to apply for limited leave to remain every 30 months?
Matt Vickers
The hon. Gentleman has got me. I was hoping he was going to spout some more of the common sense that I have contributed to Hansard.
Tom Hayes
I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. The IPPR, which listens to the voices of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees navigating that 10-year process—people who look to settle here legally—and which looks at the data, published a report, “A Punishing Process”, which talks about some of the administrative costs and difficulties of the process. As part of the Leader of the Opposition’s new commission on immigration, will the hon. Gentleman be able to provide an assessment of the true cost to the Home Office of an individual applying for LLR every 30 months? Will he would maintain the requirement that people have to pay £2,608 as an adult and £2,223 for a child in visa fees? One of the concerns of the IPPR report is that poorer people often get pushed into greater poverty by having to apply every 30 months.
Matt Vickers
We have processes in place that determine this, and they do come with a cost. However, the cost to the British taxpayer of allowing this to go on unabated is that much greater. There are processes in place and there are costs attached to them, but there are huge costs attached to allowing people indefinite leave to remain on shorter terms than we are suggesting.
Matt Vickers
There is huge cost. I will come to what the cost will be in the next few years of the number of people who are about to gain indefinite leave to remain.
Matt Vickers
No, I will not give him the name of the report.
Applying the 10-year rule, rather than the five-year rule as now, would prove commitment. As the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) said:
“A British passport is a privilege, one that has been debased by benefit tourism for too long. Our plan gets it right, making sure that those who pay their way get to stay.”
The Prime Minister, bizarrely, does appears to think that British citizenship is not a pull factor, so much so that the Government are seeking to repeal swathes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 passed under the previous Conservative Government. In doing so, this Government will scrap rules that meant that almost all those who entered the United Kingdom illegally would not be entitled to British citizenship, and that asylum seekers who failed to take age tests would be treated as adults. Those were common-sense policies. We are calling on all parties, and especially the Government, to support this new clause. We need to ensure that everyone who comes to this country is willing to contribute and to integrate into our society.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Madeleine Albright, the former US Secretary of State, was first a refugee in the UK, and she said that, in Britain, people would say to refugees, “You’re welcome here…and when are you going home?” whereas, in America, they said, “You’re welcome here…and when will you become a citizen?” Does the hon. Member not think that the problem the last Government created was that they moved to a high-churn model of migration, with huge numbers of people coming in, working in low-paid jobs, not integrating and then leaving, and more people coming in? We want to incentivise people to learn the language, engage with our institutions and follow our rules, which means that pathways such as this are really important, not the model that we have seen for the past 14 years.
Matt Vickers
The principle here is that we are saying, “You will get indefinite leave to remain, not after five years but after 10 years.” We have already had the debate about British citizenship and what that means—all the benefits that come with it and all the costs to the taxpayer that are attached to it. I therefore I think that this principle is right: if someone is going to stay here, they have to have been here longer, earned their keep, contributed and integrated properly. I think that 10 years allows that. I think that this is the way forward, and I stand by it.
Tom Hayes
I thank the hon. Member for his patience in allowing me to intervene again. Is it not fair of the Government to accept only those amendments whose details are actually known and worked up; and is it not, therefore, unfair of the hon. Member to press a new clause when he has not worked out the details of what its implementation would look like?
Matt Vickers
The details and the need for people to engage with the authorities are already in place. This new clause is literally about saying “10 years” instead of “five years”. No part of it amends existing provisions regarding migrants’ responsibility to account for themselves during that period. There is no suggestion of any change to that; it is beyond what we are amending through the new clause. If we wanted to change that, there would certainly be a debate to be had, and there would probably be opportunities to bring forward amendments, but that is not what we are proposing here. We are proposing to increase the period from five to 10 years.
Our country is our home; it is not a hotel. We can guess what the Government’s response to this will be—more deflection and criticism—but they must remember that they are in government now and have a duty to protect the British taxpayer from unnecessary costs. If they do not act, every UK household is forecast to pay £8,200 as a result of between 742,000 and 1,224,000 migrants getting indefinite leave to remain in the next couple of years. The Government must act to ensure that everyone who stays in the country is a net contributor.
It may interest the Government to know that changes to indefinite leave to remain have happened before—and can and should happen again now. In 2006, under the then Labour Government, the Home Secretary extended the time required to obtain indefinite leave to remain from four years to five years, an extension that applied retroactively to those already actively pursuing indefinite leave to remain. It is hoped that this Government will make a similarly bold move and support new clause 25.
Before the accusations start to be thrown around, let me make it crystal clear that new clause 25 is not some cold-hearted exercise in exclusion; it is a robust, principled stand for expectations—a line in the sand that says that if someone wants to live here, stay here, and call Britain their home, that comes with a reasonable cost. That cost is not measured just in pounds and pence, but in commitment, in responsibility, and in proving that they are here to lift us up, not weigh us down.
A recent study undertaken by the Adam Smith Institute found that, according to figures produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the average low-wage migrant worker will cost the British taxpayer £465,000 by the time they reach 81 years of age. It is clear that opening the ILR door to millions of new migrants will impose a considerable and unwanted financial burden on the British taxpayer for decades to come.
The OBR report explores the opportunity to reform indefinite leave to remain rules, which new clause 25 seeks to do, to help mitigate the long-term fiscal burden of low-skilled migrants, who are unlikely to be net contributors to the public purse. A refusal to back new clause 25 is not just inaction, but a choice to prioritise the untested over taxpayers—to keep the welcome mat out while the costs pile up. The Opposition say no, this is our home, and we expect those arriving to treat it as such.
Pete Wishart
It is a pleasure to once again to serve under you as Chair, Dr Murrison. When I look at the Tory amendments in their totality, they are quite frankly an absolute and utter disgrace. It is as if the Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the Rwanda debacle and the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Some of the amendments that we will be debating are simply heinous, lacking in any reasonable standard of compassion and empathy. What a country they would create: one devoid of human rights and international protections, where people are simply othered and deprived of any rights whatsoever. Some of the most desperate and wretched people in the world would be denied and booted out.
I used to say that the Tories would never beat Reform in the race to the bottom, but looking at the collection of amendments that we are debating today, they are going to give it their best shot. It is just possible that they will out-Reform Reform colleagues in the House of Commons. The amendments are not only terrifying but ludicrously unworkable—blatant political grandstanding, designed to appeal to the basest of instincts. We have the grim task of having to debate them one by one; I just hope that the Committee will reject them totally out of hand.
New clause 25 was raised in a blaze of publicity at the end of the self-denying ordinance from the Leader of the Opposition when she announced her new immigration policy, which I understand has been changed and finessed over the course of the past few weeks, but is still as grotesque underneath as it started. The Conservatives do not believe that British citizenship should be a privilege; they believe that British citizenship should be virtually unobtainable, and that the strongest possible tests must be applied before anybody is ever going to get the opportunity to call themselves a British citizen. That is totally and utterly self-defeating.
The provision will apply to work-based visa holders, skilled workers and global talent, who can currently apply for ILR after five years. Extending that period to 10 years could deter highly-skilled workers and investors from coming to stay in the UK. It may lead to workforce instability, particularly in sectors reliant on international talent. It would also disadvantage certain migrants and people who have lived legally in the UK for 10 years but do not hold one of the listed visas. This is an unworkable, crazy proposal that can only be self-defeating and have a massive impact on our economy. It would create a massive disincentive to the very people we need to come into the UK to fill some of our skills gaps. I hope the provision is roundly rejected.
Jo White
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. We should never be surprised by the audacity of the Conservative party, which now exists in a state of amnesia following the previous 14 years of failure, collapse and chaos. Let me take a moment to remind Opposition Members of their failed promises.
A good place to start is the general election campaign of 2010, when David Cameron said that his Government would reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. At that point, net migration stood at 252,000. In 2011, he went further, saying that his target would be achieved by the 2015 general election—“No ifs. No buts.” But when the ballot boxes were opened in that election, numbers had risen to 379,000. Then along came Theresa May. At the snap 2017 general election, net migration stood at 270,000, and she had an election pledge to get net migration down to the tens of thousands, but by 2019 the number had risen to 275,000.
Katie Lam
How can I begin my remarks without repaying the Minister’s kind words about my clothing? This is one of my favourite jackets and I am delighted to see that it might also be one of hers.
It is no secret, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has just set out, that previous Governments of different parties have failed the British public on immigration. The level of immigration to this country has been too high for decades and remains so. Every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce migration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the last Government, like the Governments before them, promised to do exactly that, but again like the Governments before them, they did not deliver. Because of that failure to deliver, the British public may face a bill of more than £200 billion in the years ahead, unless we change the rules on settlement.
Under current rules, after just five years in the UK, migrants on work or family visas will become eligible for indefinite leave to remain. If they are successful, and 95% of ILR applicants are, they are entitled to welfare, social housing, surcharge-free access to the NHS and more. According to the Centre for Policy Studies, some 800,000 migrants could claim ILR over the course of this Parliament. Given the profile of those who are likely to qualify, that could come at a lifetime cost of £234 billion.
Tom Hayes
Sorry, I coughed and laughed at the same time, partly because I think the hon. Member anticipated the point I was about to make. I will put this on the record again, as I have consistently. She may have more information to come back to me with and I will come back to her. The Centre for Policy Studies report is flawed. It has skewed information; it uses assumptions that are unreasonable and the financial modelling that ensues is therefore unreasonable. As a consequence, it feels like the Centre for Policy Studies and the hon. Member are reaching for a very large number to create the impression that there will be a very significant financial burden.
I make two additional points. First, even if that report relied on reasonable assumptions and therefore the modelling was correct, the Boris wave was caused by her party’s Government. She is nodding her head; she affirms that. I welcome that, in her speech, she has so far acknowledged the failings of that Government. Secondly, the report makes some very big assumptions about the future behaviour of the people currently in the migration system in our country. That is not a wise move, particularly when she is extrapolating £235 billion to £240 billion across a very long timeline. In fact, if we were to break it down on an annualised basis, even using the report’s flawed assumptions and flawed modelling, the figure would be far smaller. We need to have some integrity in the data that we use. Does she agree?
Katie Lam
As Professor Brian Bell said in evidence to this Committee—in a session to which the hon. Member for Bournemouth East has referred a couple of times—
“It is actually extremely difficult to work out the fiscal impact of migration.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 59, Q92.]
That is clearly true: forecasting the lives of millions of people over decades will obviously have a substantial margin for error.
The only way to avoid that error would be not to try to forecast in the first place. I have repeatedly asked the Home Office, over several months, whether anyone in that Department or any other—indeed, anyone in Government—is attempting to forecast the cost to the public purse of the ILR grants that will come in this Parliament. I am yet to receive an answer. To me, that clearly says that nobody in Government is thinking about the impact the issue will have and how much it will cost. When they do, I will happily use those numbers. Until and unless that happens, the modelling from the CPS is the best we have—in fact, it is all that we have.
Tom Hayes
This is my last intervention on this matter. I take the hon. Lady’s point entirely, but will she not acknowledge that the modelling has deep, fundamental flaws? Although it may be the only modelling and therefore the best, on the strength of what is in that report it is still not worth considering or using in parliamentary debate.
Katie Lam
I have already acknowledged that the margin for error is massive—that is clearly true. If everything that the hon. Member is saying is correct, I would like to see Government figures to replace the CPS figures. I think that is a reasonable request.
The £234 billion cost is equivalent to £8,200 per household, or around six times our annual defence budget, and this about not just money but capacity. Our public services are clearly already overstretched and this could push them to breaking point. If we accept, as we should, that previous Governments have failed on migration, then we should do everything in our power to limit the long-term impacts of that failure. That is why the Conservatives propose to extend the qualifying period for ILR and reform settlement rules to ensure that only those genuinely likely to contribute will be eligible for long-term settlement. That would give us an opportunity to review visas issued over the last few years. Those who have come to this country legally on time-limited visas and have subsequently not contributed enough, or have damaged our society by committing crime, should be expected to leave.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the levels of immigration under the last Government were wrong and that it was a mistake to allow so many people to come to the UK. This amendment would allow the Government to limit the long-term consequences of that mistake, so why would they oppose it? It is not too late to change our rules around settlement. By refusing to extend the eligibility period for indefinite leave to remain, the Government are actively choosing to saddle the British taxpayer with a likely bill of hundreds of billions of pounds. We must make difficult decisions on this reform and the many others required in our migration system. Those decisions may be painful, especially in the short term, for individual people, families or businesses but they are the only way for any Government’s actions to match their words. The public have had enough and rightly so.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth East talked about LLR, which must be applied for every two and a half years on the existing 10-year route. That is the case only because, as it stands, the 10-year route, by design, is for those not on eligible visas. The five-year route that we here propose to change is exclusively for those on eligible visas. I therefore cannot see why, within the existing rules, there would be any requirement for LLR applications. I hope that reassures the hon. Member.
Margaret Mullane
The new clause is not in keeping with the provisions outlined in the Bill, which primarily focus on border security through new and strengthened law enforcement powers, providing intelligence to address organised immigration crime.
I fundamentally disagree with the context of the new clause. Subsection (2) relates to existing legislation whereby the qualification of indefinite leave to remain applies to people on skilled work visas, scale-up worker visas, entrepreneurial or investor visas, innovation founder visas, or UK ancestry visas, and people with a partner who holds citizenship. Those people are, for the most part, contributing to our society through work. If somebody has been living and working here in a skilled role, or innovating in our country—and possibly even supporting job creation—for five years, that is long enough for them to identify Britain as their home. They will have friends and community networks. In most instances, they are boosting our economic productivity. The increased qualification period set out in the proposed new clause would move the goalposts for skilled workers after years of contribution.
I will bring the conversation back to the purpose of the Bill: the Committee’s focus should be on those entering the UK illegally and those engaged in organised immigration crime, not the construction workers, nurses, doctors, investors and business owners in Britain on work visas.
Tom Hayes
I will speak briefly. I welcome the hon. Member for Weald of Kent’s clarification of the Conservative party’s position on the amendment, but that clarification also raises further questions; I wonder whether the hon. Lady could respond on the spot. If there is no requirement every 30 months in the 10-year period for an individual to pay fees of £2,608—or, for a child, £2,223—to the Home Office, how will the Home Office fund much of its work? The fees paid by adults and children contribute significantly to the Home Office’s budget. The point is particularly important because the Home Office has had to borrow from the official development assistance budget in order to fund asylum hotels. I worry that there is going to be a significant financial gap here, and I wonder if the hon. Lady could clarify what her costings are?
Katie Lam
I think the hon. Gentleman is eliding two different routes. At the moment there is a five-year route, which is for people on eligible visas, and a 10-year route. The 10-year route has LLR requirements that have to be applied for every two and a half years, and is the route that generates the fees that he is talking about. Under the amendment, that would not change; we are proposing changes only to the five-year route. The five-year route at the moment does not have LLR requirements because it is for people on eligible visas. The income for the Home Office from the same people should be no different under the amendment that we are proposing. I hope that that is clear.
Tom Hayes
I am happy to accept that clarification. If that is correct, I look forward to seeing more information about the particular policy, what financial costs would be involved and what the financial benefits would be.
Finally, I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh about the importance of settling. We talk here about the financial costs: it is going to be more costly to our country and public services if somebody is having to go through many years of unsettled status. It is going to be harder for them to have all the infrastructure and anchors that they need within society. As a consequence, I would love to know whether the Conservatives have done any modelling of the impact of increasing the period of limbo, including—as mentioned in the IPPR report that I referenced earlier—the cost to public services when people find themselves homeless, with difficult mental health conditions or unable to take their child to the school that they want and have to travel significant mileage.
The hon. Lady and I share a desire for the integrity of data and its greater availability. In proposing the amendment, does she have access to any of that information?
Katie Lam
He is nodding.
Part of what we are trying to say by extending the time is that we feel that a person’s commitment to the UK before they apply for settlement should be longer than five years. If application numbers go down because people feel that they do not want to commit for 10 years before getting settlement, that is something that we are happy to accept as part of the amendment.
It seems from the numbers that we have at the moment that the number of people who would apply over an extended period would go down because fewer people would qualify under the rules that we are stipulating. The reason why they would not qualify is that they would not be making a sufficiently significant contribution to the public purse over that period. Our calculations are that all of those lost applications would be net fiscally positive.
Tom Hayes
In which case, I will close by saying that the Home Office data shows there is not that drop-off of people—people do not leave the country because they have to wait longer for their status. In fact, those people try to get that status by serving within our country and economy. The Home Office data, which is publicly available on gov.uk, records what the stay and departure rates are each year. I am not sure that the amendment and the policy within it are going to achieve the goal that the hon. Lady is seeking.
Katie Lam
I totally take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think he is answering a slightly different point. What we are saying is that the combination of the extension of time and the change in criteria would lead to lower applications. It is not so much about a choice on the part of the individual migrant, but a structural change within the system.
Tom Hayes
The very last point I will make is that I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but that is not what my point was about. This would not be a deterrent or an incentive for people to leave the country. People would still remain in the country. The health impacts and the limbo that people would experience through their inability to settle would still create a fiscal drag.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and to make a few remarks at the end of this interesting debate. I will make a few general comments first and then make more detailed comments on new clause 25.
It is worth re-stating some of the shadow Minister’s points. He said that, for too long, we have had an open-door policy that is open to abuse. He also said that we should remember that we are in government. He is absolutely right that the Tories lost control over our immigration system. We do not need reminding of that—nor do we need reminding that we are in government clearing up their mess.
The context for a lot of the debate today has been the massive backlogs that have built up in every part of the system, the failure to have controls over our system, the levels of abuse and the fall in returns for those who have no right to be here. It is worth mentioning that the steady increase in settlement grants in 2017 reflects high levels of migration in previous years. It is almost as if the Tories are attempting to close the gates to the field from which the horses have long bolted, and everyone else is now picking up the pieces.
It is worth correcting the impression that the shadow Minister gives about our policy. We agree that settlement in the UK is a privilege; it is not an automatic entitlement. However, we understand that the immigration system needs to account for people in a range of circumstances beyond those specified in new clause 25. We also recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country and believe that the immigration system needs to be much better controlled and managed.
Provisions for settlement are set out in the immigration rules, so the Bill is not the correct legislation for debate about requirements for settlement. What we are doing with this Bill is strengthening our borders, going after the criminal smuggling gangs that have caused so much damage to the lives of migrants already and put lives at risk daily, and securing our borders against systemic abuse.
New clause 25 would restrict settlement in the UK to a handful of economic routes and partners of British citizens. Other routes to settlement in the current immigration system would therefore be excluded from settlement should the new clause be accepted, including settlement for refugees. The shadow Minister may have a view about, for example, a situation facing an Afghan interpreter for the British armed forces who put their life at risk, was evacuated to the UK after the chaos in Kabul in 2020 and was then put up in taxpayer-funded accommodation after arrival in the UK. Correct me if I am wrong, but under clause 25 they would be banned from ever settling in the UK.
It is important that we understand that settlement in the UK is privilege, the argument for which was rightly made. It is right because settlement conveys significant benefits, including the right to live here permanently and to access work, study and public funds, as well as a pathway to citizenship. We also have rules and processes to recognise the expectation that people should serve a period with temporary permission before being eligible to apply for settlement.
There is a range of periods of time that people need to spend in the UK before they can qualify for settlement. Many are five years, but there are shorter periods for exceptional routes. The hon. Member for Stockton West did not lay out his view on some of those specialised routes that may offer a shorter path to settlement, such as the global talent route or the innovator founder route. They allow settlement within three years to help the UK to attract the best talent from around the world, and they reward those working in business who are making some of the greatest economic contributions.
While I want to quote from the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute, as they are the most important references in these debates, the new clause does not really think through the immigration system as a whole. We must think about it being fairer, more controlled and managed, and we must ensure that it recovers from the chaos that the last Government left it in. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Stockton West will know, the Government will also set out our approach to immigration, including how we bring net migration down and how we link skills policy with visa policy, so that we reduce our dependence on recruiting from overseas. We will be setting out that coherent approach to a future immigration system in a White Paper that is coming out later this spring.
Matt Vickers
I am stunned—shocked. In fact, I cannot believe that the SNP is less than enthusiastic about our new clause. The Minister and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw were keen to talk about records, but at the risk of repeating myself, immigration is too high. Previous Governments have failed to solve it. I would love for the Government to succeed in doing so, but I am not convinced that they will, particularly without a robust deterrent. I say it again: since this Government were elected, the number of people arriving here illegally is up 28%, and the number of people in hotels is up 29%. There are 8,500 more people in hotels in communities across the country, and fewer of those people who arrive by small boat are being returned.
Seema Malhotra
Does the shadow Minister also agree that, since we came into government to the end of January, returns were almost 19,000, which is up around a fifth on what they were 12 years before, including an increase of about a quarter on enforced returns? He may want to talk more about that.
Matt Vickers
I am sure the Minister will agree that a large part of those are voluntary returns. I am sure a large part of them may also benefit from some of the agreements made by the previous Government. Actually, when we talk about the people arriving here illegally on small boats, the number is up significantly in the last two quarters, since this Government came into office. That is a fact.
Tom Hayes
I am reading from the Home Office website, which says:
“Comparisons of arrivals between the same months in different years may also be affected by differences in conditions. As a result, we do not make comparisons between shorter periods where arrival numbers…may fluctuate considerably.”
The Home Office also comments:
“Financial, social, physical and geographical factors may influence the method of entry individuals use and the types of individuals detected arriving… These factors may also change over time.”
Therefore, is it not the case that looking at just two quarters, and trying to make a comparison, is not really the most robust way of doing this? Is it not better to reflect on the Bill and the changes it is seeking to introduce, and to realise that it will make a significant difference in the medium to long term?
Matt Vickers
Two quarters is a significant amount of time. This is a record. The hon. Gentleman might not be comfortable with it, but the number of people who have arrived here illegally being returned is going down significantly. It is a fact, and this new clause matters. More than 742,000 people will qualify for indefinite leave to remain in the next couple of years. As we have said, that could cost our constituents £8,200 per household. That is a significant cost to people in my part of the world. Because of that cost to my constituents, I would like to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 43—Age determination by the Home Office—
“(1) A person who claims to be a child must not be treated as an adult by the Home Office for the purpose of immigration control.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where—
(a) the Secretary of State has determined that the circumstances are exceptional, or
(b) a local authority has determined that the person is an adult following a Merton-compliant age assessment.
(3) An age assessment must be undertaken by a social worker who has undertaken training on the conduct of age assessments.
(4) The Home Office must retain a record of the methodology and outcome for each age assessment undertaken for the purpose of immigration control.
(5) The Secretary of State must, through regulations made by statutory instrument, establish a framework for independent oversight of the conduct of age assessments.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) Where a person claiming to be a child is determined by the Home Office to be an adult and is placed in adult accommodation or detention, the Home Office must notify the relevant local authority as soon as possible.”
This new clause would ensure individuals claiming to be children are not treated as adults, except in exceptional circumstances or following a Merton-compliant age assessment. It would provide independent oversight of the age assessment process, and notification to local authorities when a person is placed in adult accommodation or detention.
Matt Vickers
The Bill repeals sections 57 and 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which concern scientific age assessment methods. The Conservative party completely disagree with that decision. Every European country apart from ours uses scientific age assessment techniques such as an x-ray of the wrist, although there are other methods. More than 50% of those claiming to be children were found to be adults after an age assessment in the quarter before the election. Without a scientific age assessment method, it is very hard to determine their age. There have been cases of men in their mid-20s ending up in schools with teenage girls, and that carries obvious safeguarding risks. We have tabled the new clause to ensure that scientific methods for assessing a person’s age are used, and to disapply the requirement for consent for these methods to be used.
Matt Vickers
We have said that there are several methods. If we are unhappy with one, we can use alternatives. This is something that British taxpayers want to see. They want to ensure that our classrooms and social care settings are safe.
Matt Vickers
There are a raft of methods. I am happy to be directed, but every country in the EU uses the method I have mentioned. It is tried and tested. It is easy to criticise, question and find holes in a plethora of methods, but I think this is the right thing to do.
Matt Vickers
We can debate the methods at length, I am sure, but I think we have a responsibility to have a method. The fact that the rest of Europe is doing it means it is something we should be doing.
Tom Hayes
The rest of Europe is doing free trade, but the shadow Minister does not want to do that. We should reflect on Europe and what we want to import into our country.
On the bone age assessment, can the hon. Gentleman tell us with confidence grounded in science that it would be able to determine the range of relevant ages? Can he tell me what the margin of error would be for someone aged 18 or 19, and what an assessment of bone density and bone age would tell us if they posed as 15 or 16?
Matt Vickers
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that these age assessments could go some way to ensuring that a 20 or 30-year-old does not end up in a classroom beside a teenage girl. There is an opportunity to provide a power that can be used, along with all the knowledge that the agencies have, to make an assessment. The science can be determined, and the agencies can look at it in the round. We know that people have turned up without any form of identification. This is an opportunity to draw a line in the sand. Where agencies think this is the right thing to do, they can use the power. Of course, they will use it in moderation and in the context of the question marks around any method that they would use to assess age.
Matt Vickers
I would trust our agencies to use them in context and apply all the other things that they might apply in any given context. This would be another tool that agencies could use, on top of all the knowledge that they might have of people coming in and what their ages might be. This is an opportunity to give our agencies another tool, and it is the right thing to do.
That is why we tabled new clause 26, which would ensure that scientific methods for assessing a person’s age are used, while disapplying the requirement for consent for these methods to be used. That would ensure that adults could not claim to be children. It also gives the Government an opportunity to undo the mistake of repealing the relevant sections of the Illegal Migration Act and allow age assessments for those claiming to be children.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Murrison. Given that the hon. Gentleman’s concern is about children, we should recall the evidence session in which we heard the Children’s Commissioner’s concern that spending extended periods of time in asylum hotels leaves unaccompanied asylum-seeking children vulnerable to organised crime, notwithstanding the mix of ages in those hotels. Why does he still stand by the Illegal Migration Act and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, when they are part of the reason why those children were in asylum hotels for so long?
Matt Vickers
I will stick to the new clause and the age assessments. This is a tool. It would not be used unabated. It is another tool that our agencies could use alongside whatever other assessments they might make. We would be giving them the opportunity to require people to undergo an assessment, and that is a good thing. That is why the rest of Europe is doing it. The agencies and experts—the professionals on the frontline dealing with these very troubling, difficult cases—should have all the tools they could possibly require to handle them. I see no reason why we would prevent them from doing so.
Tom Hayes
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s desire for our frontline staff to have all the tools they need. The Bill will expand the number of tools, but those are the tools that frontline staff are requesting. We could have scientific age assessments, and the Government are certainly not ruling them out entirely; there is work going on in the Home Office to consider their efficacy. Does he agree that we need tools that will help our frontline staff achieve the goals that we set them? The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health says that age determination is an inexact science, and that the margin of error can sometimes be as much as five years either side. I myself am not a scientist or a member of the royal college—I assume that the same is true of the hon. Member—so is it not better that we listen to such expert bodies, and develop policy in line with them, rather than just saying, “Because Europe is doing it, we ought to do it”?
Matt Vickers
That is a safe assessment of my scientific qualifications.
We are not saying that this is the only thing that agencies and experts on the frontline, who deal with these cases day in and day out, will be able to use; it is something that they can use. If we have ended up with adults in classrooms alongside children, that is wrong. We need to give the agencies every tool in the armoury to make the situation work. This is one thing that they can use—with their knowledge and with every other assessment they would make—and it is the right thing to do.
We have talked about kicking this down the road. I think we have a commitment that the Government will do something on this issue some day, or some time. But here is an opportunity to keep the power in the legislation for agencies to use here and now, rather than in six months or a year. I am sure that the Minister will give me a timeframe on whether the Government will come back with such a power.
The SNP’s new clause 43 is almost the polar opposite of our new clause. It states:
“A person who claims to be a child must not be treated as an adult by the Home Office for the purpose of immigration control.”
We know that there are adults coming to this country who claim to be children. Believing them without question would make it harder to control our borders and create significant safeguarding concerns. Why does the SNP think it should be made harder for the Government to determine the true age of those entering this country illegally? How does this best serve the interests of the British people? Given the SNP’s blind adoration for the European Union, we must question why they are happy for the United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a key part, to be the only European nation that does not use medical tests to determine the age of those coming to the country.
Why does this matter? The issue has not decreased in significance. The number of asylum age disputes remains high, particularly in the latest available figures. Of those about whom a dispute was raised and resolved, more than half were found to be over the age of 18. The fact that a record number of asylum seekers pretend to be children should be the wake-up call that we need to ensure that we have the checks in place to verify age and stop those who seek to deceive from entering the UK. As the available figures show, this tactic is becoming commonplace, and action must be taken to stop this abhorrent abuse.
If the figures were not evidence of the need to support new clause 26, perhaps the facts of the cases will be. A 22-year-old Afghan who had murdered two people in Serbia claimed asylum in the UK by pretending to be a 14-year-old orphan, when in fact he was 18. There is the utterly horrific case of the Parsons Green terrorist, Ahmed Hassan, who posed as a 16-year-old before setting off a bomb on a tube train in west London, injuring 23 people. Although the Iraqi’s real age remains unknown, the judge who jailed him for 34 years in 2018 said he was satisfied that the bomber was between 18 and 21. The clock is ticking. The crisis is not slowing; it is surging.
In quarter 2 of 2024 alone, 2,088 age disputes landed on the desk of the Home Office. That is 2,088 claims where someone said, “Trust me, I’m a child.” By the end, 757 were unmasked as adults, and the deception rate was a staggering 52%. That is not a blip, but a blazing red flag. That is more than 750 grown men, and potentially dozens more uncaught, slipping through a system that Labour has crippled by repealing the scientific age checks in the Illegal Migration Act, leaving us guessing in the dark while the numbers climb.
Dame Angela Eagle
I will deal with some of the broader points in my response, but we do age assessments. We do not simply accept—just as his Government did not—asylum seekers’ claims about their age as if they were the truth. I would not like the shadow Minister to give the Committee the impression that that is happening—that we are accepting claimed ages without any kind of check. I will go into much more detail in my response to the debate about precisely what we do, but he must not give the impression that we are not checking; we are.
Matt Vickers
I hope the Minister agrees that we should be doing more, rather than less. We need to give agencies all the opportunities and powers to do so, with or without the consent of people who aim to deceive. That is the right thing to do.
If we rewind to 2022, 490 disputes in quarter 1 ballooned to 1,782 by quarter 4. Now we are at 2,088 and counting. This is not a fading headache; it is an escalating emergency. It is a conveyor belt of fraud clogging our borders and spilling into our schools. Failure to conduct these vital checks would mean that we are not just blind, but complicit in handing traffickers a playbook that says, “Send adults, call them kids and watch us flounder.” The public sees it and parents feel it, and every day we delay, the risk festers. We need science, not sentiment, and we need it now.
Pete Wishart
I rise to speak to new clause 43 on age determination by the Home Office. The one thing we can agree on with the Conservative Front Benchers is that my new clause could not be more different in objective and tone than what we have heard from the shadow Minister. My new clause aims to uphold a simple yet vital principle that no child should be wrongly treated as an adult, subjected to detention or placed in inappropriate accommodation, as happens right now. The new clause would ensure that the Home Office treats as an adult an individual who claims to be a child only in exceptional circumstances or following a Merton-compliant age assessment conducted by local authority social workers. Furthermore, any decision to treat a young person as an adult would have to be made by an appropriately trained official, with reasons recorded and subject to independent oversight. Where such a decision results in the person being placed in adult accommodation or detention, the relevant local authority would have to be notified immediately.
Labour Members are right to have a go at the shadow Minister, but it is imperative that we get this right. This is life-determining and life-shaping for the individuals at the sharp end of these age assessments. The consequences of flawed age assessments at our borders are severe.
Recent data reveals that between January and June 2024 alone, at least 262 children were wrongly assessed as adults and placed in adult accommodation or detention, exposing them to significant safeguarding risks including exploitation, violence and even criminal prosecution. It is worth noting that in many cases, those children endure months of uncertainty before being correctly identified and moved into appropriate care settings. Such errors not only violate child protection principles but undermine the credibility of our asylum system.
The current process of visual assessment, often conducted at the border by immigration officers, is wholly inadequate. Assessments based solely on appearance and demeanour are inherently flawed and have led to serious misjudgments. International and domestic guidance is clear that age assessments should be undertaken only when necessary and should be conducted using holistic, multidisciplinary approaches, yet that is far from the reality.
Concerns about visual assessments have been raised not just by non-governmental organisations, but by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, the Children’s Commissioner, parliamentary Committees and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. In response to those great concerns, the Government have argued that they are improving the age assessment process through the national age assessment board, and by introducing scientific methods of assessing age—we are back to that debate again. It is important to note that neither of those initiatives has any impact on visual assessments made by officials at the border. Biological methods such as dental X-rays and bone age assessment remain highly unreliable, as medical and scientific bodies repeatedly state. I listened to the hon. Member for Stockton West make great play of saying that that is what all of Europe does, but there are countless cases that the EU and other European nations have got wrong. I can send them to him; he can spend most of the day looking at them. They get cases wrong, just as we do with visual assessments.
It is right that in this Bill the Government seek to repeal clause 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which would have meant that children who refuse to undergo these invasive and questionable procedures are presumed to be adults by default—an approach that runs contrary to any safeguarding principles. The previous Government attempted to justify that policy by highlighting the risk of adults falsely claiming to be children to access benefits and services designed for minors. However, the reality is that the greater danger lies in the wrongful treatment of children as adults, which places them in unsafe environments, denies them their rights and can have devastating long-term consequences. The number of children found to have been misclassified as adults outweighs the number of cases where an adult has falsely claimed to be a child, so we have the balance totally wrong.
Crucially, there are greater risks and consequences to placing a child among adults, where there are no safeguards in place, than to placing a young adult in local authority care. It is essential that we restore local authority-led age assessments as a primary mechanism for resolving age disputes. As child protection professionals, local authority social workers are best placed to conduct those assessments in a manner that is thorough, fair and in the child’s best interests. The new clause would ensure that young people who assert that they are children are treated as such unless and until a proper assessment proves otherwise. It also guarantees transparency, independent oversight and accountability in decision making, thereby restoring trust in the system.
Katie Lam
On 23 January 2023, Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai was sentenced to life imprisonment at Salisbury Crown court. Nearly a year earlier, Abdulrahimzai had murdered 21-year-old Thomas Roberts in Bournemouth town centre by stabbing him to death in the street following a dispute over an e-scooter.
Abdulrahimzai was an Afghan asylum seeker who came to this country in December 2019. He entered the UK illegally, claiming to be an unaccompanied 14-year-old. He was placed in school and in foster care, but he was in fact already an adult when he came here. Not only was he an adult, but he was also a murderer, having killed two men in Serbia before coming to the UK. He should never have been allowed to come to this country and he should certainly not have been allowed to masquerade as a child.
Assessing a person’s age is surprisingly difficult, but we have a range of tools to do so—the Home Office is just not using them. If we had acted sooner, using the full suite of tools at our disposal to assess Abdulrahimzai’s age, Thomas Roberts might still be alive today. The case of Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai is particularly shocking, but it is unfortunately far from unique.
Chris Murray
I wonder whether there have been any new scientific discoveries in the last seven months for identifying someone’s age that the Home Office would not have been aware of over the last 14 years. Is it not the case that the methodologies used are very imprecise and do not often actually lead us, in the liminal cases, to draw the distinction that the hon. Lady is advocating for?
Katie Lam
I will come on to precision and the ways of determining age slightly later in my remarks.
Ahmed Hassan, an Iraqi asylum seeker, claimed to be a 16-year-old when he arrived in the UK. In 2017, he set off a bomb at Parsons Green tube station, injuring 23 people. His real age is still not a matter of public record. In 2018, a Home Office probe found that Siavash Shah, an Iranian asylum seeker, spent six weeks as a year 11 pupil in Ipswich despite being 25—the list goes on. In fact, between 2020 and 2023, the Home Office identified almost 4,000 cases of adult migrants claiming to be children—45% of those who originally claimed to be children when they arrived here—and every other person of that cohort was in fact an adult. Some were at least 30 years old. That puts British children at risk, puts genuine child asylum seekers at risk and takes valuable school and care places away from the young people who genuinely need them.
I feel this particularly keenly as a Member of Parliament for Kent, the county into which all small boats arrive. Our laws mandate that the people who come to this country illegally and claim to be under 18 must be prioritised for care equally with Kentish children. That puts enormous pressure on the system and makes it harder for our children to be cared for. That is madness when we know that half of those arrivals are in fact adults, and we must put a stop to it.
It is completely rational, albeit morally wrong, for adult migrants to claim to be children. Under-18s who come here have a greater entitlement to care and support, do not have to live in accommodation with adults, and are not subject to the same rules as adults—or the rules are applied less strictly. Of course, there are people who cross the channel without their parents who are under 18; most, though not all, are male 17 and 16-year-olds, and some are younger children. No one disputes that, and children should be treated as children, but we must be realistic about the scandalous degree to which our system is exploited by the cynical and the sinister.
We have to protect actual children, and we should use every tool in the box to do so, including scientific testing. Where people refuse such tests, the Government should be able to override that refusal. We are acting in the interests of public safety and to protect the security of our children. Labour Members have asked for exact details of the scientific methods. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West set out, there are many methods and several different ways of doing it. The ones that can be implemented in short order are the dental and skeletal tests.
Other methods are currently at an earlier stage of development, such as facial age estimation and DNA methylation, which is a process by which people much cleverer than me can assess how a person’s genes are read by their body, which changes with age. In 2022, the interim Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee stated that the
“teeth, clavicle, and hand/wrist or knee… have been shown to have a significant research and publication credibility and provide a consistent age range over which changes occur.”
Later, the same report states:
“The committee has relied on areas and methods that have been repeatedly tried and tested and shown to have consistency.”
As the report makes clear, and as Government Members have said, scientific age assessment is not perfectly precise and is not magic, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West also correctly says, our proposal is that scientific age assessments should be used not to replace other methods and judgments, but to supplement them.
The situations that my hon. Friend and I have set out are horrifying. We can see no reason why the Government would not want to have the widest possible set of tools available to them to stop such things happening, including the option in future to bring in scientific methods that are currently at a nascent stage.
Tom Hayes
I thank the hon. Member for Weald of Kent for raising the absolutely horrific and awful circumstances involving Thomas Roberts, who would have been my constituent and whose mother, Dolores, is my constituent. She is racked by grief and unable to sleep at night. Her health has worsened because, as she said to the Minister and me last night in the Minister’s office, with her son being murdered, she feels that half of her whole life has completely disappeared.
I do not want to name the murderer in this debate; I name Thomas Roberts, the victim. I want to talk briefly, with your permission, Dr Murrison, about Thomas Roberts, because it is important for the Committee to know who he was. It is important for Dolores, so racked with grief, to know that her MP and the Committee are focused on what happened.
Thomas was 21 years of age when he died on 12 March 2022 in Bournemouth town centre, the victim of a stabbing by an asylum seeker. His mum has told me several times, and she told me again with the Minister last night, that Thomas was known by everyone and, when his mother wanted to go into town, to Littledown or to other parts of the constituency, he would say no, because he was so well known and he did not want to be seen by his friends out with his mum.
Thomas was an aspiring Royal Marine and, in order to become one, he was in the Sea Scouts. He was physically fit—so fit, in fact, that he would actually bench press his mum and his brother. Dolores told me that the passing of his driving test on the first go was one of her proudest moments. It is one of the things that she remembers so fondly and so closely now, as she comes to terms with her grief.
Thomas was also an aspiring drum and bass DJ, and by all accounts a very good one, who was up and coming on the south coast. If he had not made it as a Royal Marine—there was every certainty that he would—he could easily have taken up a drum and bass DJ career. He was a member of the Christchurch boxing club. He was active in his community, and deeply loving and caring about his family.
Thomas lost his life—or rather, his life was taken from him—because an asylum seeker was in our country. That begs the question: why was that person in our country? Why were they able to wield the knife that cut short Thomas Roberts’s life, and that took away all the hopes and ambitions that his mother had for him? It is because we did not have access to the necessary database to track criminality and find out more about who the asylum seeker actually was. I am deeply sad that Thomas is not with his mum, in his community, or with his friends who loved him so much, because the last Government broke our asylum and immigration system, and created the conditions for that tragic killing and other tragic killings that have happened in our country.
Scientific age assessment, as the hon. Member for Weald of Kent said, is not a magic wand; it is imprecise, as we heard from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. We know what works, and that having a functioning asylum and immigration system will make all the difference. I just wish we had had that on 12 March 2022 when Thomas was denied his life opportunities because of the breakages in that system.
I thank the Minister for meeting Dolores yesterday—I know that that provided her with much-needed comfort and clarity. I am absolutely confident that the Bill and its measures will make the difference that is so needed to protect our society. I also note the contribution of Councillor Joe Salmon of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, who has been such a support to Dolores and her wider community, because she will be grieving for a very long time. It is incumbent on all of us in public service to speak the truth, look at the facts and bring forward the measures that will make the biggest difference.
If I may, I will return to the question of scientific age assessments. I referred to the concerns of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and of experts, but I now refer to the House of Lords debate on 27 November 2023, which is worth a read if Opposition Members have not had a chance. It goes into significant detail and depth about the concerns that I had about that as a possible policy at that stage of its development.
The Minister has been clear that scientific age assessments are not off the table; there just needs to be certainty that they are an effective tool. To avoid any further deaths and injustices, we need to have the right tools to protect the people of this country, secure and protect our borders, and make sure that we are truly able to restore confidence and trust in this system and in our ability to manage who comes into our country and who stays here.
Becky Gittins
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and the hon. Member for Weald of Kent for playing a respectful part in quite a heated discussion, which has done honour to Dolores and her family at an incredibly difficult time. It is really poignant that such case studies are discussed in these debates; they show what can happen on the limited and rare occasions that things go incredibly wrong with such systems. It is worthwhile that we have these discussions.
I must say that I was disappointed by Opposition Members’ contributions in support of the new clause, however, because although they successfully focused on occasions where things have gone wrong, they were limited on detail. I was also disappointed by their inability to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh. We need that detail, and we need to understand how that would be different from the tools in the Home Office’s arsenal during the 14 years of their Government.
Katie Lam
It was a privilege to hear about Thomas Roberts’s life. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East did himself great credit in telling us about him so movingly. Thomas’s mother, Dolores, whose pain is impossible for us to imagine, has also done his memory great credit by finding a way in her grief to talk about her son to her Member of Parliament and to the Minister.
Securing the border is a genuinely difficult job, and the Opposition are genuine in our desire to support the Government in doing that. We really believe that the new clause would help the Government to expand their ability to do that job. We deeply hope that they will consider it. I also thank the hon. Member for Clwyd East for her generous words.
Dame Angela Eagle
I start by endorsing what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East said about Dolores, Thomas Roberts’s mum, whom I met last night. She has gone through a searingly awful life experience. It is difficult even to think about that, let alone to offer any comfort. Unfortunately, I do not think that her experience would have changed much had scientific age assessment been in place, although the person in question had been assessed by his local authority as a child and was therefore in a separate environment from that which he would have been in had he not been assessed.
I am determined to see whether we can connect up our information about people coming from Europe, following Brexit and the disintegration of our access to Eurodac and various other pieces of information collected in Europe on asylum seekers and those arriving illegally—not all of them are asylum seekers. Reconnecting, if possible, to those databases would give us more comfort than we have at the moment. However, I emphasise that when people come to this country, we do check them against all our biometric records and the terrorism lists and watch lists that we have. It may be possible for us to do more in future.
We have had a debate about new clause 26 from the Opposition and new clause 43 from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire on behalf of the Scottish National party. That has again demonstrated the wide range of opinion that there is at both ends of the argument whenever we consider such issues. I will deal with both arguments in my response, and I hope to find a middle way.
First, repealing section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which the Bill seeks to do, does not stop our capacity to do age assessments. Listening to some of the contributions from members of the official Opposition, one would have thought that repealing section 58 will take off the table—completely and utterly—all age assessment. That is simply not true. The age assessments in section 58 were about the duty to remove somebody to Rwanda; they were not connected to anything else. As I understand it, the issue with that legislation was that the then Government’s intention was not to remove children to Rwanda, so it became more important to have a way of assessing whether somebody was a child. The Safety of Rwanda Act and the IMA—the previous Government’s approach to this issue—would have created even bigger incentives for people to claim that that they were children, because they would have avoided being sent to Rwanda, not that anyone ever actually ended up there. The previous Government’s approach of deportation permanently to Rwanda actually created even more incentives for people to lie about their age.
The fact is that there are people who are genuine asylum seekers who are children, people who are not genuine asylum seekers who are adults who claim to be children, and children who sometimes claim that they are adults. When that happens, one has to look at modern slavery issues and coercive control. There are safeguarding issues on both sides of the age assessment argument. Children pretend to be adults for reasons that we can imagine, but we will not go into those, because they are not very pleasant. There are also incentives created by the way in which the Children Act 1989 deals with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. As a Kent MP, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent knows exactly what happens with the Kent intake unit and the pressure that her own local authority has been put under. However, she also knows about the Government support that her local authority has been given to disperse unaccompanied asylum-seeking children around the rest of the country so that some of the burden can be shared.
We are dealing with people who arrive without papers. Some of them wish to lie about their age, and some have been told to lie because the people-smuggling gangs perceive it as a way for people to access more resources than they could if they were seen as adults. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire pointed out, the system can get it wrong on both sides. People who are children have been judged to be adults and put in inappropriate places, and people who are adults have been judged to be children and put in appropriate places. There is no guaranteed scientific way of making a judgment. We can make judgments about people who are much older, but we are dealing with that uncertain four to five-year range on either side, which is the difference between 18 and 24 or 17 and 23; you will know about that, Dr Murrison, from your work as a medical doctor.
On new clause 26, I want to reassure Opposition Members that there is already provision in law for the use of age assessment, and our repealing of section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act does not remove that provision. That is because the Immigration (Age Assessments) Regulations 2024, which followed scientific advice from the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee in the Home Office, specify for the purposes of section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 the scientific methods currently recommended for age assessment. We have retained those bits of legislation; neither the 2024 regulations nor section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act have been repealed by the Bill, so the capacity to use scientific age assessments remains on the statute book.
The hon. Member for Stockton West did not seem to know which age assessment methods we were talking about. The 2024 regulations specify the power to use X-rays and MRIs, and that it is possible to take a negative view of the credibility of a person who refuses to consent, where there are no reasonable grounds for refusing that consent.
With those measures on the statute book, the Government continue to explore methods to improve the robustness of age assessment processes by increasing the reliability of the scientific methods being used. At the moment, we do not have enough certainty about the gap that exists in the current assessments, which are still being assessed. The hon. Member for Stockton West and the Conservative party put these things on to the statute book but then did not operationalise them. At the moment, we are doing as much work as we can to see how reliable they are, with a view to operationalising them. But as I wrote in a response to shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South, when he wrote to me about this issue, we are in the middle of that process. I hope that we will soon be in a situation to make announcements one way or the other, and those announcements will be made in the usual way.
Matt Vickers
New clause 26 does not specify the method to be used; it commits the Government to coming back within six months with a statutory instrument. How long does the Minister think it will be before the Government are in a position to do that? Is it six months’ worth of people coming here without our having the ability to assess them without their consent using these methods? Is it a year? Is it 18 months? How long does she think it will be before we are in a position to make these decisions?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are making a scientific assessment of how accurate and effective the methods are that could be used to make age assessments, and I hope to have some results from that work soon. What I do not want is to have a clause in primary legislation telling me that I have to do that by a set time.
I am trying to reassure the hon. Gentleman that despite the repeal of section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which this Bill brings about, the capacity to do age assessments and apply them scientifically is still on the statute book. We are looking closely into how we can operationalise these methods if we feel they will give us a more trustworthy result, but we will not do that if we do not. We are in the middle of getting to the stage where we can make that judgment.
I will also address new clause 43, which says that we should not use age assessments at all, other than in exceptional circumstances. Given what the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire said when he moved it, I think it accepts that we should continue with Merton assessments, which are the other way of dealing with age assessments currently. Those usually involve two social workers and various other experts interviewing the person concerned to try to get a handle on their real age.
Matt Vickers
I welcome the fact that the Government will come back with scientific age assessments that also do not require consent. But if six months is too long, at what point would the Minister expect to be concerned? If we have not been applying these assessments and we have ended up with the wrong people in the wrong classrooms for years, at what point should we be concerned? If six months is too soon, is it 18 months?
Dame Angela Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is being a bit mischievous. We are in the middle of an assessment of whether scientific age assessments work and at what level of capacity and detail we can trust them. I expect reports fairly soon, and once I have them I can make a decision on how we go ahead with them. I will let Parliament know in the usual way when that has happened, but it is not useful or effective to have the hon. Gentleman’s new clause setting a deadline for that in the Bill. I hope he will accept that in the helpful way in which I intend it. We are not in disagreement on principles, but if we are going to use scientific age assessment, we need to ensure that it is as effective and useful as possible, so that it can be taken seriously and play an effective part in the battle that all of us want to be involved in: ensuring that children do not end up in adult settings and adults do not end up in children’s settings.
Matt Vickers
People who arrive here deceptively claiming to be children cannot be allowed to succeed. We should make use of the best scientific age assessment methods available to us, with or without consent. Those will not be used in isolation, but alongside all the other possible assessment methods available to us. We can debate the science all day. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to define those methods within six months through a statutory instrument, using expert advice to do so. One deceptive adult migrant in a classroom or care setting alongside children or vulnerable youngsters is one too many. Giving our agencies the ability to use the best scientific methods available to them to assess age without consent can further their ability to protect children. I would therefore like to press new clause 26 to a Division.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the Minister for her response to my new clause 43, but a lot of what she claims is in it is not actually there—I hope she accepts that. Those of us who visit asylum seekers in our constituencies will recognise that the determination is probably the most contentious issue that asylum seekers bring to us; it is the thing that perplexes and concerns them the most. They are very sensitive to it being done wrong, and it gets done wrong in both directions, as the Minister said.
The number of children found to have been misclassified as adults outweighs quite significantly the number of cases where an asylum seeker has falsely claimed to be a child. Everybody is right that there is no scientific or other method to determine age that is 100% effective—visual assessments certainly are not. Surely, however, the people who are best qualified to make these assessments are people who work with children—whose main business is to make these sorts of judgments about children. That is why we have asked for Merton-compliant age assessments, so that an holistic view is taken of the individual and they are assessed properly by social workers trained to work with children. Surely that is the most effective means to determine these things.
I am not saying that we should not use other things, but where the issue is in dispute—perhaps I should have included that in my new clause; clearly, the people sitting in this Committee could not be classified as children—we must get it right. That is so important as we go forward. It is life-changing, dangerous and damaging to be misclassified. As I said in my initial contribution, this is not an immigration issue, but a safeguarding issue. We must get it right. That is why I will press my new clause to a vote as well.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Tuesday 18th March 2025
(2 days, 10 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 18 March 2025 - (18 Mar 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, and to ensure that all electronic devices are switched to silent. I also remind Members that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. It is going to be a busy morning. Please speak through the Chair, as usual, and refrain from using “you” unless you wish to speak to me.
New Clause 1
Overpayments made as a result of official error
“(1) Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for ‘The’ substitute ‘Subject to subsection (1A), the’.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) The amount referred to in subsection (1) shall not include any overpayment that arose in consequence of an official error where the claimant or a person acting on the claimant’s behalf or any other person to whom the payment is made could not, at the time of receipt of the payment or of any notice relating to that payment, reasonably have been expected to realise that it was an overpayment.’”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would provide that, where universal credit overpayments have been caused by official error, they can only be recovered where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure speak under your chairship again, Mr Western. I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment. In short, it would bring the test for the recovery of universal credit overpayments caused by official error into line with regulation 100(2) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, meaning that they could be recovered only where the claimant could have reasonably been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.
Let me provide some background on why the new clause is needed. According to Department for Work and Pensions data, in 2023-24 the best part of 700,000 of the new universal credit official error overpayment debts entered into the DWP’s debt management system were caused not by fraud or claimant error but by Government mistakes. Unlike for many other benefits, the DWP can recover official error universal credit overpayments from claimants. This power was introduced through the Welfare Reform Act 2012, and represented a significant change to the position that previously applied to most legacy benefits.
When concerns were raised at the time, assurances were provided by the then Employment Minister that the DWP did
“not have to recover money from people where official error has been made”
and that
“we do not intend, in many cases, to recover money where official error has been made.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 May 2011; c. 1019.]
However, Public Law Project research shows that the DWP’s default approach is to recover all official error overpayments. Relief is dependent on individuals navigating a difficult and inaccessible process to request a waiver. In 2022, only 26 waiver requests were granted.
DWP mistakes matter. The financial and psychological impacts of overpayment debt recovery on individual claimants can be severe. The research I have mentioned found that the recovery of debts, including official error overpayments, by deductions from universal credit led to a third of survey respondents becoming destitute. The risk of harm is particularly acute for official error overpayments, which individuals have no way of anticipating, so they can lead to sudden, unexpected reductions in income that impact existing fixed commitments and carefully planned budgets.
The recovery of official error overpayments brought an added sense of injustice, with individuals finding themselves in debt due to a DWP error over which they had no control. For example, one claimant was overpaid universal credit because the DWP had failed to consider income from her widow’s pension. She had informed the DWP that she received it and was assured that it would not affect her claim. She relied on that assurance and spent the money on daily living expenses. Four years later, the DWP told her that it would be recovering the resulting overpayment of £7,258.08. Aside from the significant financial impact, the stress associated with recovery impacted her mental health. She found herself constantly thinking about the overpayment and how she would pay it back, which in turn impacted on her physical health. She was left anxious that mistakes would be made again, leading to her incurring debt that she had no power to avoid.
Recovery often puts individuals who have relied on payments in good faith in financially precarious situations, forcing them to make difficult choices about sacrificing essentials. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that the current standard universal credit allowance is not sufficient to cover the cost of essentials. In this already difficult context, households that are repaying overpayment debt can lose up to 25% of their standard allowance each month.
People often base key life decisions and financial planning on information provided by DWP officials about their entitlement to universal credit. An official error universal credit overpayment can also have a knock-on effect on people’s entitlement to other support, such as council tax reduction. I am sure the DWP does not want to be responsible for pushing someone into further financial hardship. We can prevent this harm from occurring in the first place with my new clause, which would mean that overpayments can be recovered only where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that they had been overpaid.
The new clause is equivalent to an amendment proposed by Labour Front Benchers during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act. Under the new clause, DWP officials would themselves consider the fairness of recovering an official error overpayment before any recovery was initiated. Increasing protections against the recovery of overpayments would also create a strong incentive to reduce the rate of DWP errors in the first instance, thereby contributing to a more accurate and better functioning welfare system from the outset.
The Bill provides the Government with an opportunity to proactively address a harmful and unfair process that affects hundreds of thousands of claimants each year, easing the financial burden of debt on claimants who have done nothing wrong and encouraging the DWP to get payments right first time. I hope that the Minister will respond to my points on new clause 1, and I sincerely hope that we will make progress on the issue as the Bill progresses.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. This is the first time that I have spoken to a new clause in Committee. New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would amend the Bill so that, where universal credit overpayments have been caused by official error, they can be recovered only where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.
I am interested to know how the claimant could reasonably be expected to realise that the amount that they had received was an overpayment, as that would be the test for whether that person becomes liable for repaying the amount. If payments are made to an appointee’s bank account, do they become liable for spotting the overpayment under this new clause? Would the amount have to be repaid only if both the person eligible for the payment and their appointee realised the overpayment?
Are there figures on how much money is lost and recovered due to error? Do we therefore know how much the new clause would cost the DWP? Underpayments in taxes are recovered by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the following months or years even where the individual is not at fault, and it is not clear why universal credit claimants should be any different. It would help if the Minister could explain to the Committee how, in the case of overpayments, a repayment plan will be put in place that is manageable for the person making the payments, and how that will be assessed.
We would be better off focusing on minimising official errors in the first place. What work is the DWP doing to better guard against overpayments, given that the overpayment rate for universal credit was 12.4% or £6.46 billion in the financial year ending 2024, compared with 12.7% or £5.5 billion in the financial year ending 2023? I argue that we need to focus on ensuring that overpayments are not being made, but once the error has been made, particularly because it is so costly to the taxpayer, we should try to ensure that the money is recouped.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. On several occasions over recent weeks, Ministers have gone on the record to describe the DWP and the benefits system as a “broken” system. It is extremely helpful that the hon. Member highlighted the impact that that can have on people who often have chaotic lives and are on the edge.
I have served the people of Torbay in elected office for 30 years. Over that time, I am saddened that, particularly with the recent cost of living crisis, the levels of destitution have become worse, as I hear from people who provide food banks and other support for the people in need in Torbay. Whether it is Scope or the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, many of those good organisations highlight to policy developers that the levels of benefits are really tough and the levels of destitution in our communities are higher than they have been for many years. Therefore, I would welcome some thoughts from the Minister about this proposal, because sadly, recovery will often drive people into destitution and, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, into severe ill health.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Mr Western. Before I come to my general comments on the new clause from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, I will attempt to respond to some of the questions that we have heard.
On how we can assure ourselves that people could reasonably have known, this assessment is made by our specialist investigation teams, who do this day in, day out. There is a balance of probabilities that they would apply to instances such as that. It is a process that has been in place for years. On whether an appointee would be liable for an overpayment, yes, they would. How much is official error? It is approximately 0.3% of all benefit payments. About £800 million is the most recently available annual figure.
On how a repayment plan is agreed—this goes to the point that the hon. Member for Torbay made also—we again have a specialist team who calculate this. We have a vulnerability framework should that be required. All repayment requests are done on an affordable basis. As we heard last week, the specifics around the new debt recovery power make attempts, throughout the process, to agree an affordable repayment plan. The limits that the Bill would put in place would be not more than 40% in the case of an ongoing deduction and 20% in cases of error. On the point about recovery causing destitution, which the hon. Gentleman also made, he will have noted that towards the end of last year, the Department announced its new fair repayment rates, reducing the amount of deduction that can be made from benefits down to 15%. As I have just outlined, further provision is made where we are looking to take these new powers to deduct directly from bank accounts.
To return to the point that the hon. Member for South West Devon made about prevention of overpayments, the eligibility verification measure is intended to help us to identify fraud, particularly in relation to capital, and people who have been abroad longer than they should be, in terms of aligning that with their eligibility for benefits, and we think that it will enable us to identify error overpayments sooner as well. Of course, people are regularly reminded to update their circumstances also. A range of mechanisms are in place already to assist with the identification of overpayments. We are not complacent. We know that there are too many overpayments through official and claimant error, just as there is far too much fraud in the Department. That is why we are taking many of the steps identified and outlined in this Bill.
Before I turn to my comments about new clause 1 specifically, let me just make a correction to something that I told the Committee last week. I said that the minimum administrative penalty that can be offered, which receives a four-week loss of benefit, is £65. I misspoke and I would like to take this opportunity to correct the record and state that the amount is £350.
New clause 1 seeks to amend existing recovery legislation, to limit when overpayments of universal credit and new-style benefits caused by official error could be recovered. Specifically, those official error overpayments would be recoverable only where the claimant could have been reasonably expected to realise they were not entitled to the overpayments in question at the time they received them. This Government are committed to protecting taxpayers’ money and ensuring that we can recover in a fair and affordable way money owed. The debt recovery powers in the Bill apply to all debt that Parliament has determined can be pursued. Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 under the coalition Government, made any overpayment of universal credit, new style jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance in excess of entitlement recoverable. That includes overpayments arising as a result of official error.
Official error can arise for a number of different reasons. Some errors, for example, occur as a result of the flexibility of the universal credit system. Unlike the tax credit system it replaces, UC works on a monthly cycle of assessment periods. It is to be expected that on occasion, corrections or changes take place over assessment periods. The system quickly rectifies these “errors” in the next assessment period and it is vital that this functionality is maintained. In these instances, the customer is not worse off as, over the course of subsequent assessment periods, they receive the correct amount on average. It is also helpful to explain that under existing departmental processes, customers have the right to request a mandatory reconsideration of their benefit entitlement as well as the amount and period of any subsequent overpayment. Following that, they can appeal to the first-tier tribunal, should they still disagree with the Department’s decision.
We recognise that overpayments, however they arise, cause anxiety for our customers. The Department’s policy is therefore to recover debts as quickly and cost effectively as possible without causing undue financial hardship to customers. DWP’s overall approach to recovery balances the need to protect public funds by maintaining recovery levels, while providing a compassionate service to all customers regardless of their circumstances. The Department’s policy is therefore to agree affordable and sustainable repayment plans. The debt recovery measures in the Bill, however, are last-resort powers for debtors who are no longer on benefits or in pay-as-you-earn employment and are persistently evading debt recovery. These powers apply across all types of debt.
All our communications to our customers signpost to independent debt advice and money guidance, and we heard from the Money and Pensions Service in our evidence sessions about how strong the partnership working between the Department and debt sector is. DWP is committed to working with anyone who is struggling to repay their debt and customers are never made to pay more than they can afford. Where a customer feels they cannot afford the proposed rate of recovery, they are encouraged to contact the Department to discuss their repayment terms. The rate of repayment can be reduced or recovery suspended for an agreed period, and the Department may also consider refunding the higher deduction that has been made. The Department’s overpayment notifications have been updated to make sure customers are aware they can request a reduction in their repayment terms. In exceptional circumstances, the Department has the discretion to waive recovery of the debt, in line with the Treasury’s “managing public money” guidance. In doing so a range of factors are considered including the circumstances in which the overpayment arose.
Finally, I have listened to and take seriously the concerns from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. As the Committee is aware, the Minister for Social Security and Disability is looking at the policy design of universal credit to ensure outcomes that tackle poverty and help people to manage their money better. I will pass the concerns raised by the hon. Lady on to him, but having outlined the reasons against it, I will resist new clause 1.
Siân Berry
I thank the Minister for taking seriously the concerns I raised. I will not press the new clause further today, but I hope that it will be looked at seriously in the next stages of the Bill, and that we can discuss this further in the House. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Offence of fraud against a public authority
“(1) A person who—
(a) commits,
(b) assists or conspires in the committal of, or
(c) encourages the committal of
fraud against a public authority commits an offence.
(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.”—(Rebecca Smith.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Offence of encouraging or assisting others to commit fraud—
“(1) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 111A (Dishonest representation for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1G) insert—
‘(1H) A person commits an offence if they—
(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or
(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.’
(3) In section 112 (False representations for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1F) insert—
‘(1G) A person commits an offence if they—
(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or
(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.’”.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 2 seeks to make it a specific offence to commit, assist or encourage others to commit fraud against a public authority. Someone who commits such an offence would be liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both.
The offence of fraud against a public authority in the Bill is a civil offence. The Government argue that civil penalties offer an alternative to prosecution and help to mitigate the burden on the criminal justice system by offering alternative routes for the public sector to manage fraud cases. The Bill introduces a framework of civil penalties for fraud that the Minister can impose, including on behalf of other Government Departments, serving as an important deterrent against fraud in the public sector. We think it is an anomaly for public sector fraud to be a civil offence while benefits fraud is a criminal offence. Will the Minister explain why one type of fraud is seen as less serious than the other?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member for South West Devon in tabling the new clause—that is, to take fraud against the public sector seriously—but the Government plan to resist it, because we believe that the proposals are already covered and that it could lead to unintended consequences that do the opposite of what she wants.
As the hon. Member said, new clause 2 would create a new offence of fraud against a public authority. We believe that that could have a detrimental effect and is unnecessary, because fraud is already an offence, and this is clearly defined in clause 70 as offences under the Fraud Act 2006 and the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud. The Bill uses those offences—they do not need to be written into it to have effect—and we have given assurances on that during a previous debate.
Consequently, there does not need to be a specific fraud offence for public authorities. Assisting and encouraging fraud against a public authority, as is mentioned in the new clause, is already an offence. The offences of “encouraging or assisting”, as set out in sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, apply to fraud offences as they do to other crimes. Again, that does not need to be written into the Bill to have effect.
The Public Sector Fraud Authority will be able to investigate cases in which it appears that someone has encouraged someone else to commit fraud. If we discover encouragement, that would likely form part of the PSFA’s investigation into a fraud case, and the Crown Prosecution Service could pursue that offence using the evidence collected. Whether action can be taken will depend on the facts of the case, the evidence available and whether the necessary standard of proof can be met.
Crucially, new clause 2 would reduce the maximum sentence available for Fraud Act and conspiracy offences from 10 years to seven years, for fraud against public authorities only.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response, but why does she feel that benefit fraud ought to be a specific offence, with maximum sentences under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, but that it is not appropriate for a specific offence to apply to people who deliberately defraud other public authorities?
Georgia Gould
As I set out, these measures are already covered, and the proposals would potentially reduce sentences from 10 years to seven years. I am sure that the hon. Member does not want those who defraud the public sector to get lower sentences than those who would defraud the private sector.
Mike Wood
The Minister is being generous in giving way. Prosecutors have a choice as to which charge to bring. They can still bring a charge under the common law offence, which as the Minister says, has a high maximum sentence—but one that is very rarely imposed—or, as with benefit fraud, they could bring it under a specific offence, as proposed in new clause 2. The Sentencing Council would then develop the guidelines that apply to deliberately defrauding public authorities. Although the Minister is right that the maximum sentence under the new clause is lower than the theoretical maximum for the common law offence, in practice, it is likely to see rather more substantial sentences imposed on conviction.
Georgia Gould
We already have effective fraud legislation. The issue that the Bill seeks to address is that we do not currently have the resources or the powers to properly investigate that or to recover money. We believe that the suggestions that are being made would have the unintended consequences of reducing the seriousness of the offence, in the way that I have set out. The proposals also omit the option available in the Fraud Act offences and the common law conspiracy offence for the Crown court to impose an unlimited fine instead of, or as well as, a term of imprisonment. Again, that weakens the response. That is contrary to the Government’s intention with the Bill that strong action should be taken against public sector fraud.
New clause 15 seeks to introduce an offence of encouraging or assisting others to commit fraud by adding new subsections to sections 111A and 112 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Sections 111A and 112 set out two specific offences related to benefit fraud. Although the intention behind the new clause is commendable, I believe that it is not needed for several reasons, which are similar to those I have set out on new clause 2.
First, the existing legal framework already provides sufficient measures to tackle fraud of this nature. The Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007 make it a criminal offence to encourage or assist any other offence, including when it relates to fraud. There are also existing laws that serve a similar purpose for Scotland. Those existing laws are robust and comprehensive, ensuring that individuals who provide guidance on how to commit fraud, or encourage others to do so, can be prosecuted effectively. Introducing additional subsections to the 1992 Act would therefore be redundant and unnecessary.
Secondly, the new clause could potentially complicate the legal landscape. Adding new subsections to the 1992 Act risks creating overlapping and conflicting provisions that could lead to confusion and inefficiency in enforcement. It is essential to maintain clarity and coherence in our legal system to ensure that justice is served effectively. Moreover, the new clause would mean that those convicted of a new offence would face a less punitive sentence than they would under existing laws. For example, under new clause 15, a conviction related to section 112 would carry a maximum period of custody of three months, compared with a maximum of 10 years under the existing Fraud Act. As a result, and this is similar to what I set out on new clause 2, rather than strengthening our position to respond to such types of fraud, new clause 15 could result in a weakened response.
Although new clauses 2 and 15 are well intended, neither new clause is needed as the existing legal framework already provides sufficient measures to address this issue, and introducing additional subsections would only complicate the legal landscape. However, I very much heard the points about the research being done by the hon. Member for South West Devon and the importance of tackling those who set up sites to try to defraud the public sector. I am more than happy to have a further meeting about how we can take action on that. We believe that we can do that using the existing powers, but we would welcome further discussion. The PSFA and DWP will be concentrating on the provisions in the Bill that are intended to effectively address and combat fraud through them. I therefore ask the hon. Member for South West Devon to withdraw the motion.
Rebecca Smith
I have heard everything that the Minister has said. However, we will still press new clauses 2 and 15 to a vote.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Western. It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair; can I ask you a procedure question before we go any further? We have had the presentation of the new clauses, but we have not had any declarations of interest. Given that there are some notable Conservative party donors facing potential fraud charges under covid issues, I just wonder whether that should have been declared before we got to the change in how people in those situations might be punished.
The Chair
I understand, although I was not present at the time, that all the declarations were made at the time of evidence being presented to the Committee. I thank the hon. Member for his point of order.
Andrew Western
I would like to understand how the Opposition Front-Bench team consider new clause 15 to make any provision that is not already in the Fraud Act 2006 or the Serious Crime Act 2007, which already make it an offence to encourage or assist an offence including fraud. I stress that because I am particularly concerned about sickfluencers, to whom the hon. Lady referred, but I fail to see how new clause 15 offers any provision not contained in that legislation already. It does not mention at any point that it would extend powers to what happens online, presumably because—or I can say actually because—online sickfluencers would already be covered by that legislation. I understand the intent. We have a problem with sickfluencers that we need to deal with, but I would be incredibly appreciative to understand how the new clause offers anything that is not already in that legislation.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for his comments. I have obviously heard what both Ministers have said in response. We are still keen from a principle perspective to push the new clause to a vote because we think more needs to be done to outline specifically what we are doing to tackle the online aspect. I hear what the Minister is saying but, in this particular instance, we would like to take it further.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have tabled the new clause to require the Secretary of State to publish the results of any pilot schemes run with banks to test the provisions of chapter 1 of part 2 of the Bill. We have already discussed how banks will be required to undertake ongoing monitoring work to collect the relevant information as part of eligibility verification. The impact assessment states that two proofs of concept have taken place, including one in 2017, with short summaries provided of each. Given the scale of what is being asked of the banks, however, as well as how technology has moved on in the past eight years, it is reasonable to assume that pilots will also be undertaken to ensure that the system works properly before it is fully rolled out. Can the Minister confirm that this will be the case?
In the interest of transparency, we also need to see the results of the pilots, which is why we have tabled the new clause to ensure that they are published within three months of the Act coming into force. It is regrettable that we needed to table the new clause but, as we have said several times throughout the Bill’s passage, and as we heard from witnesses before the Committee, it is extremely difficult to judge how the legislation will work in practice without seeing the code of practice and understanding what will be required of the banks. As UK Finance said in oral evidence:
“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.”––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 48, Q85.]
The practical implications of how to implement the Bill are not currently clear to the banks.
We also discussed the consequences of getting this wrong. As UK Finance also said in evidence,
“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.”––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 49, Q89.]
The banks are well versed in dealing with fraud, but not so much with error. We need reassurance that there are clear expectations of the banks in delivering their duties under the Bill, that those are compatible with existing obligations regarding financial crime, and that the banks can resource them.
Andrew Western
In my view, the new clause is simply not needed. As the hon. Lady said, to demonstrate the feasibility and potential of the eligibility verification measure, the DWP conducted two proofs of concept, in 2017 and 2022, and the results have been published in the impact assessment for the Bill. Further information on the effectiveness of the measure will, of course, be available following the independent overseer’s annual review and report. No pilot schemes have or will be conducted on information notices specifically, as they are an extension of existing powers. On that basis, I resist new clause 5.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Annual reporting of amounts recovered
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report detailing the amount of money which has been recovered under the provisions of this Act.
(2) A first report must be published no later than 12 months after the passing of this Act with subsequent reports published at intervals of no more than 12 months.”—(Rebecca Smith.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report detailing the amount of money recovered under the provisions of the Bill, with the first report to be published within 12 months of its passage. The main purpose of the Bill is to crack down on error and fraud, and we support that aim. It is reasonable to ask for transparency to understand exactly how much money has been recovered thanks to the measures in the Bill, and to ensure that it is working as hoped. If it is not, further action will be needed, but at least we would know, and a discussion could be had instead of the issue being brushed under the carpet.
An annual report allows the Department enough time to produce it without being an administrative burden, while ensuring that it remains relevant and up to date. Given the large amount of money lost to fraud and error, it is important that we are all able to hold the Government to account for how effectively they are recovering it.
Andrew Western
I share and appreciate the hon. Member’s concern and interest in delivering the proposed benefits of the Bill, including the effective recovery of debt. The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment that this Government will safeguard taxpayers’ money and not tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in public services.
Turning first to part 2 of the Bill, I do not think the new clause is necessary, given the existing routes for external scrutiny and reporting on the DWP’s fraud and error activities, including the new debt recovery powers. The Office for Budget Responsibility provides independent scrutiny of the Government’s costings of welfare measures. The Department estimates that, over the next five years, the EVM will save £940 million and the debt recovery measure £565 million. Those estimates have been certified by the OBR. In total, the Bill is estimated to deliver benefits of £1.5 billion over the next five years. In the published impact assessment, the DWP committed to monitoring and evaluation on part 2 of the Bill, including the new powers to recover debt and the EVM.
Although I understand that the hon. Member is particularly interested in scrutiny of the money recovered under the Bill, I remind the Committee that the Government have committed to the biggest welfare fraud and error package in recent history. The total DWP fraud, error and debt package, with savings from the Bill and other Budget measures, is worth £8.6 billion over the next five years.
In its annual report and accounts, the DWP already reports on the savings made from its fraud and error activities, including savings made from “detect” activity across our counter-fraud and targeted case review teams. In addition, we report on our debt recovery totals and debt stock. I think the annual report and accounts, in particular, will give the hon. Member the information in which she is interested. The Department also publishes annual statistics on the monetary value of fraud and error, including various breakdowns by benefit and type. That is another mechanism by which we can see trends over time and ensure transparency for the public.
Turning to part 1 of the Bill, the PSFA already has a published commitment in its mandate to produce an annual report that makes transparent the levels of fraud in Government and the latest fraud and error evidence base, and an annual report on its performance. Recoveries will be published in the annual report. Paragraph 12 of schedule 2 to the Bill also requires:
“As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year the PSFA,”
when set up as a statutory body,
“must prepare a report on the exercise of its functions during that financial year.”
Recoveries will be published as part of that.
For the reasons I have outlined, I resist the new clause.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Publication of an Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish an Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy.
(2) An Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy published under this section must set out—
(a) how the Government intends to use automated technologies or artificial intelligence to tackle fraud against public authorities and the making of erroneous payments by public authorities, and
(b) a series of safeguards to provide for human oversight of decision making that meet the aims set out in subsection (3);
(c) how rights of appeal will be protected;
(d) a framework for privacy and data sharing.
(3) The aims of the safeguards in subsection (2)(b) are—
(a) to ensure that grounds for decision making can only be reasonable if they are the result of a process in which there has been meaningful human involvement by a human of adequate expertise to scrutinise any insights or recommendations made by automated systems,
(b) to make clear that grounds cannot be reasonable if they are the result of an entirely automated process, and
(c) to ensure that any information notice issued is accompanied by a statement—
(i) setting out the reasonable grounds for suspicion that have been relied on, and
(ii) confirming that the conclusion has been formed on the basis of human involvement.”—(Rebecca Smith.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an anti-fraud and error technology strategy within six months of the Act’s passage. That must include: how the Government intend to use automated technologies and AI to tackle fraud, subsection (2)(a); safeguards to ensure human oversight of decision making, subsection (2)(b); protection of rights of appeal, subsection (2)(c); and a framework for privacy and data sharing, subsection (2)(d).
Members might be asking themselves why we tabled the new clause. In part, it is based on the evidence we received. In written evidence, the Public Law Project expressed concern that, although the impact assessment, the human rights memorandum and the statements from the Secretary of State and the Minister for transformation, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, on Second Reading state that a final decision on benefit eligibility will always involve a human agent, this is not reflected in the Bill itself. In response to the Public Law Project’s concerns, the new clause would provide an audit of technology systems used to tackle fraud, ensuring accountability while addressing the risks posed by automation in decision making.
A report published by the Treasury in 2023, “Tackling fraud and corruption against government”, said:
“Public bodies can better protect themselves…by sharing data and intelligence with other public bodies and working together.”
We therefore believe the technology strategy clause recognises that sharing data is beneficial to stopping and recovering fraud, but includes additional provisions that audit its use.
The strategy must include: how the Government intend to use automated technologies or artificial intelligence to tackle fraud and error against public bodies; what safeguards exist for human oversight of decision making; how rights of appeal will be protected; and a framework for privacy and data sharing.
The safeguards must ensure that grounds for decision making are reasonable only if they are the result of a process in which there has been meaningful involvement by a human of adequate expertise to scrutinise any insights or recommendations made by automated systems. They must also make it clear that grounds cannot be reasonable if they are the result of an entirely automated process. To ensure this, any information notice issued must be accompanied by a statement setting out the reasonable grounds for suspicion that have been relied on, and confirming that the conclusion has been formed on the basis of human involvement.
We know that AI and other technologies have huge potential to improve efficiency and productivity, and they should be used where appropriate, but we cannot rely on it yet to the exclusion of people and human judgment. The strategy we propose would ensure that those points were adequately considered by the Department, ensuring that the taxpayer receives value for money while safeguarding claimants through the decision-making process.
Andrew Western
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the new clause. The Government recognise the opportunities that AI and machine learning can provide, while also understanding the need to ensure they are used safely and effectively. In January 2025, the Government outlined their response to the AI opportunities action plan led by Matt Clifford, which was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. The plan outlined 50 recommendations for how the Government can leverage AI, including recommendations to improve access to data, to make better use of digital infrastructure and to ensure the safe use of AI.
Under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, we have endorsed this plan, and the Government are taking forward those recommendations. As the Government work to implement the action plan’s recommendations, I do not believe that the separate anti-fraud and error technology strategy proposed by the new clause is necessary. I believe the new clause would cut across the work being taken forward under the action plan, so I reject the amendment.
As technology advances, the use of AI and machine learning will play a crucial role in detecting and preventing fraudulent activities. The Government want to make use of technology and data to tackle fraud, as the Department has a responsibility to ensure that fraud is minimised so that the right payments are made to the right people. The Government remain committed to building our AI capability, and at DWP we will take advantage of the opportunities offered by AI while ensuring it is used appropriately and safely.
Rebecca Smith
Sorry, I should have said this earlier. The new clause would make the Government’s AI strategy a statutory requirement, instead of a manifesto commitment not written into law. That is important to us because, in the case of fraud and particularly benefit fraud, we are dealing with individual people. We want to make sure that we do not inadvertently penalise the wrong people or apply something that is disproportionate. A lot has been said about ensuring proportionality and reasonableness.
I am interested in the Minister’s reflections on where else in the strategy something is applied as personally to potentially vulnerable groups of people, thereby suggesting that we do not need this protection to ensure that people are not inadvertently penalised when we use this legislation to tackle the fraud they are committing.
Andrew Western
That is a reasonable question, and clearly the AI framework is not specific to vulnerable groups in the way that the hon. Lady sets out. Decisions regarding benefit entitlement or payments within the Department are made by DWP colleagues who always look at the available information before making a decision. I would not want to make an amendment to restrict that to only the activity within this Bill; I would want it to be Departmental wide.
As I have set out a number of times at every stage and in every area of this Bill, a human is involved in decision making. There is no plan to change that. I can understand the hon. Lady’s anxiousness to see that set out in legislation, but I think it would create an anomaly between the practices within this Bill and in the Department more broadly. For instance, it is outside the scope of this Bill for a human to complete the vulnerability framework when looking at somebody in financial need who has an overpayment. I would not want to make a distinction between these powers and the rest of the Department's activities. If we were to have a broader debate, I would be happy to engage with the hon. Lady on that basis, but I would not want to create a “two-tier”, for want of a better word, description within the Department.
At every stage of model development, as we bring forward the AI opportunities action plan and our work in the AI and tech space, we ensure that checks, balances and strong safeguards are in place. I am proud of our commitment to use AI and machine learning in a safe and effective way.
To provide further assurances to Parliament and the public about our processes, we intend to develop fairness analysis assessments, which will be published alongside our annual report and accounts. These will set out the rationale for why we judge our models to be reasonable and proportionate. This reporting commitment on our fairness analysis assessment further negates the need for the new clause.
Finally, the hon. Lady mentioned the new clause’s role in ensuring reasonable grounds of suspicion when investigating fraud. I remind the Committee that, under the information gathering powers, the DWP may request information only where an authorised officer considers that there are reasonable grounds to suspect a DWP offence and that it is necessary and proportionate to obtain that information. Again, a human is fully baked into the process.
The changes made by the Bill will be reflected in the new code of practice. Updated mandatory training will be provided for staff, who will be accredited to use these new powers. Of course, with the eligibility verification measure in particular, but running throughout the Bill, the principle of independent oversight is very much in place. I hope that will provide the hon. Lady with the necessary information to show that the Government will use the information gathering powers only where there is a reasonable suspicion of fraud, and that this will have considerable human involvement. I agree that there is perhaps a broader conversation to be had about this at an appropriate time.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Impact of Act on vulnerable customers
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on vulnerable customers.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “vulnerable customers” means someone who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care.”—(Rebecca Smith.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 12—Impact of Act on people facing financial exclusion—
“(1) The independent person appointed under section 64(1) of this Act must carry out an assessment of the impact of this Act on the number of people facing financial exclusion.
(2) The independent person must, after 12 months of the passing of the Act—
(a) prepare a report on the review, and
(b) submit the report to the Minister.
(3) On receiving a report the Minister must—
(a) publish it, and
(b) lay a copy before Parliament.”
This new clause would look into the impact of the Act on people facing financial exclusion.
Rebecca Smith
New clause 9 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within six months of the Act’s passage, an assessment of its expected impact on vulnerable customers.
Concern has been expressed in written evidence about the Bill’s impact on disabled people. It is important to ensure that vulnerable people are not inadvertently harmed by the Bill. There was a discussion about vulnerable customers in oral evidence, with Daniel Cichocki and Eric Leenders both supporting the notion of an impact assessment while being concerned about the mental strain of being under suspicion. They said that the FCA is due to publish a thematic review on this imminently. We suggest that this strengthens the case for a comprehensive assessment by the Secretary of State.
We define “vulnerable customers” as those who due to their personal circumstances are especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care, per the definition used by the Financial Conduct Authority, with which the sector is familiar. New clause 9 is necessary because some of the people impacted by the Bill will be vulnerable, and some will be repaying money they acquired not through fraud but through overpayments resulting from DWP error. As we heard from UK Finance, banks have duties when they suspect that financial crime is taking place, and although such errors are obviously not financial crime committed by the person who holds the account into which the payments have been made, there is a risk that the Bill does not sit well with those existing duties on banks.
We need to ensure that communication with vulnerable bank customers is of a sufficient standard, particularly where the DWP is recovering funds in cases where customer is not at fault, because the group of people we are talking about is likely to have high levels of vulnerability. If the Minister will not accept the new clause, I would be grateful for an explanation of the reasons why and, importantly, how the Government intend to undertake monitoring, which we believe is important.
The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 12 would require an independent assessment of the impact of the Bill on people facing financial exclusion. I am interested in whether the Liberal Democrats have a particular individual or organisation in mind which they think would be appropriate to undertake such an assessment, but we do not have a difficulty with the principle of the new clause.
Steve Darling
New clause 12 is about financial exclusion, as the hon. Member for South West Devon said. The Liberal Democrats’ concern is that, as this morning goes on, a number of safeguards are looking to be—for want of a better phrase—baked into the system by legislation, yet according to the Minister the only thing baked into the system is the involvement of human beings. That causes me, and I am sure other colleagues, concerns.
If an annual review were to take place of the Bill’s impact on people facing financial exclusion, conducted by the independent person appointed with the Minister publishing and sharing that with Parliament, we could ensure a level of transparency. While many of us would acknowledge that the Ministers in place at the moment are well-meaning individuals, who knows where we will be in 10 years’ time? This legislation needs to stand the test of time, so baking in these safeguards would be a positive way forward. I hope that the Minister will welcome that. I look forward to his comments.
Siân Berry
I have a lot of sympathy with both new clauses. It is really important that we look closely, as we are mandated to do, at the impact of the Bill on the people whose examples have been raised throughout the debate. The Minister should answer the questions asked by hon. Members, and if the Government will not do what is proposed in the new clauses, he should say what the Government will do instead.
Andrew Western
I begin with new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for South West Devon. I share her view that where the powers in the Bill are exercised, there should be a consideration of the vulnerabilities that customers may have, whether they be the customers of data holders such as banks or customers of Government —for example, DWP customers. However, I do not think that the new clause is necessary given the existing safeguards, oversight and reporting provisions in the Bill.
The Bill includes a number of protections for vulnerable people, including affordability considerations and protections for persons experiencing hardship, rights of review and appeal, and independent oversight. Those provisions have already been debated and considered by the Committee, so I will not labour the point, but I will comment on the provisions in the Bill for independent oversight, as they will play an important role here.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance
“The Secretary of State may not exercise any of the powers of recovery under this Act in relation to a person who has received an overpayment of Carer’s Allowance until such time as—
(a) the Secretary of State has commissioned an independent review of the overpayment of Carer’s Allowance;
(b) the review has concluded its inquiry and submitted a report containing recommendations to the Secretary of State;
(c) the Secretary of State has laid the report of the independent review before Parliament; and
(d) the Secretary of State has implemented the recommendations of the independent review.” — (Steve Darling.)
This new clause would delay any payments being taken from people who the Government may think owe repayments on Carer’s Allowance until the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 11—Audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to Carer’s Allowance overpayments—
“(1) An independent audit of algorithmic systems used in the assessment, detection or recovery of Carer’s Allowance overpayments must be conducted at least once every six months.
(2) Any audit under subsection (1) must be conducted by persons with relevant expertise in data science, ethics and social policy who have no direct affiliation with—
(a) the Department for Work and Pensions, or
(b) any person or body involved in the development or operation of the algorithmic systems under review.
(3) An audit conducted under this section must consider—
(a) the accuracy of the algorithmic systems in identifying overpayments, and
(b) the fairness of the systems’ design, application and operation, including any disproportionate impact on particular groups.
(4) After every audit a report on its findings must be—
(a) published;
(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament within 14 days of publication; and
(c) made publicly available in an accessible format.
(5) If any audit identifies significant inaccuracies, unfairness or biases in any algorithmic systems, the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the publication of the report outlining these findings, present an action plan to Parliament which outlines the steps which the Government intends to take to address the identified issues.”
This new clause would provide for an audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to Carer’s Allowance overpayments.
Amendment 32, in clause 103, page 63, line 26, leave out from start to “following” in line 29 and insert—
“Subject to subsections (1A) and (2), this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may by regulations appoint.
(1A) No part of this Act may come into force until the recommendations of a report commissioned under section [Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance] have been implemented.
(2) Subject to subsection (1A), the”.
Steve Darling
I encourage colleagues to support these proposals about the carer’s allowance. Carers are the backbone of many households across the United Kingdom, and I hope the Minister will support the amendment.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western.
The DWP is making extensive and growing use of algorithms for investigation purposes. Without proper oversight, these systems threaten error, unfairness and bias, which could lead to wrongful debt collection. Our amendment therefore calls for an independent audit of these systems at least every six months, to ensure accuracy and fairness. The audit must be conducted by experts in data science, ethics and social policy with no ties to the DWP or system developers. True independence is key.
The audit look at issues such as accuracy, so whether the algorithms are correctly identifying overpayments; fairness, so whether they unfairly target certain groups or operate with bias; and, above all, transparency and accountability. After each audit, we suggest that a full report must be published, presented to Parliament within 14 days, and made publicly accessible. If serious flaws are found, the Secretary of State must respond within 30 days with a clear action plan to fix these issues. Overall, Liberal Democrats are positive about benefiting from new technology, but we do need to consider whether it offers help, not harm.
In the wider context, what work is the use of AI generating? There are already chronic staff shortages at the DWP, with 20% vacancy rates becoming routine. Disability Rights UK has commented that operational failures now permeate every layer of welfare administration. Fraud investigation teams therefore already lack capacity to address the annual £6.4 billion of overpayments. There are only four fraud advisers per regional office to handle cases flagged by frontline staff, which has created a bottleneck, so that very often 90% of suspected fraud cases go uninvestigated. In other words, one could suggest there is already plenty of fraud to investigate without trawling for more. This amendment ensures regular scrutiny, transparency and fairness. I urge the Minister to consider it.
Andrew Western
It is important that I begin by paying tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across this country. The Government recognise and value the vital contribution made by carers every day in providing significant care and continuity of support to family and friends, including pensioners and those with disabilities. The 2021 census indicates that around 5 million people in England and Wales may be undertaking some unpaid care, and many of us take on a caring role at some point in our lives. Like other hon. Members, through my postbag and at events across my constituency, I see much of the work carers do. Carers are fortunate to have some wonderful advocates, not only their MPs but organisations such as Carers UK, Carers Trust and the Learning and Work Institute, to name but three.
We inherited a system in which busy carers already struggling under a huge weight of responsibility had been left having to repay large sums of overpaid carer’s allowance, sometimes worth thousands of pounds. We needed to understand exactly what had gone wrong so we could set out our plan to put things right. This is why we launched an independent review of earnings-related overpayment of carer’s allowance. We were delighted that Liz Sayce OBE agreed to lead this review, which is now well under way; we anticipate receiving its conclusions this summer.
The review will investigate how overpayments of carers allowance have occurred, what can be done to best support those who have accrued them, and how to reduce the risk of these problems occurring in future, but we are not sitting back and just waiting for the outcome of the independent review. Right now, we want to make it as easy as possible for carers to tell us when something has changed in their life that could affect their carer’s allowance, so we will continue to review and improve communications. From this April, the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit will pegged to 16 hours’ work at national living wage levels, so in future it will increase when the national living wage increases. The earnings limit will be £196 a week net earnings, up from £151 today. As a result, over 60,000 more people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between 2025-26 and 2029-30. That is the largest increase in the earnings limit since carer’s allowance was introduced in 1976.
As the Chancellor said at the Budget, we need to look at the current cliff edge earnings rules. A taper could further incentivise unpaid carers to do some work and reduce the risk of significant overpayments, but introducing a taper to carer’s allowance is not without challenges. It could significantly complicate the benefit, and significant rebuilding of the carer’s allowance system would be required. The DWP has begun scoping work to see whether an earnings taper might be a feasible option in the longer term, but any taper is several years away.
New clause 10 sets out four points. As I have mentioned, an independent review has been commissioned, its terms of reference have been published and it is well under way. It is anticipated that it will report its conclusions in the summer. Both the report from the independent review and the Government’s response will be published, and we will report to the House.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Torbay on two issues. It would not be responsible of us to commit in advance to implementing all and any recommendations from such a review, sight unseen. We need to consider them carefully. In addition, the proposed new clause, as I understand it, would not have the effect he desires. We would still be able to recover overpayments of carer’s allowance from benefits under the powers in the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
The new clause would prevent our recovering debts directly from bank accounts of those not on benefits or PAYE, which is one of the additional powers given in this Bill. Even if the new clause operated as intended, it would be disproportionate to suspend all recovery of carer’s allowance overpayments until after the review is concluded, as those with overpayments are already covered by the usual safeguards of appeal rights, affordable deductions and, in exceptional circumstances, waiver. Given the discrepancy this would create between those on PAYE and benefits and those with other forms of income, I hope the hon. Gentleman acknowledges the need to withdraw the new clause rather than create further unfairness in the system.
Regarding new clause 11, I re-emphasise that we will not speculate on the findings or any potential outcomes of the independent review. All recommendations will be considered when the independent review concludes. It would not be appropriate of the Department to commit to this new auditing requirement until that has happened, when we can take a holistic view of carer’s allowance and how DWP uses data. Nevertheless, it is helpful to set out how DWP currently uses data to verify eligibility for carer’s allowance. Verification of earnings and pensions alerts were introduced to carer’s allowance in October 2018 as part of a wider strategy to identify data sources, to verify information provided by the claimant, or to identify if information has not been provided by the claimant. Like all data we use for that, it is not intended to replace the legal requirement of a claimant to provide information that may change their entitlement to social security.
VEP alerts arise from HMRC payroll data. The alert service provides a notification of new earnings or pensions as they come into payment, or if amounts change during the life of the claim. The Department uses business rules to prioritise those alerts, based on data provided by the real-time earnings system. Since 2019, we have actioned around 50% of the alerts received in the Department as part of our focus on reducing the risk and level of overpayments. Having secured additional funding in the one-year spending review, we will be deploying additional resource in 2025-26,to action the alerts received from HMRC as quickly as possible. The Department is also testing an approach of using text messages to remind customers of the need to report changes in their circumstances.
Finally, I emphasise that the use of VEP alerts does not replace human decision making. If the Department processes an alert that highlights a change in earnings and a customer has not reported the change, DWP officials will contact the customer to confirm details have changed. If any overpayment is identified, it will be referred to debt-recovery teams. DWP remains committed to working with anyone who is struggling with their repayment terms, and will always look to negotiate sustainable and affordable repayment plans.
In the light of the information I have set out, and the ongoing work of the carer’s allowance independent review, I urge the hon. Member for Torbay to withdraw the proposed new clause.
Rebecca Smith
Liberal Democrat new clause 10 would delay any payments being taken from people who the Government think owe repayments on carer’s allowance until the independent review into carer’s allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented. Liberal Democrat new clause 11 would provide for an audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to carer’s allowance overpayments. It would require that, if any audit identified significant inaccuracies, unfairness or biases in any algorithmic system, the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the publication of the report outlining these findings, present an action plan to Parliament that outlines the steps the Government intend to take to discuss the identified issues. I am interested to know why the Liberal Democrats are singling out carer’s allowance for this treatment—namely, the review of the algorithmic systems—rather than any other allowance or benefits. Is there a reason for that?
Liberal Democrat amendment 32 is a commencement block. It specifies that no part of the Bill may come into force until the recommendations of a report commissioned under the clause “Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance” have been implemented. We would suggest that there is more holistic information that should be made public before the Bill can be commenced, and that the focus on carer’s allowance is in danger of missing the bigger picture. For example, we need to see the codes of practice, and we need to know precisely how the banks will deliver their responsibilities under the Bill. I would suggest that those things, which are sadly not yet available to the Committee as we scrutinise the legislation, and that has greatly hindered us, would provide a much more holistic assessment of whether the Government are ready to implement the Bill than the report on recovering overpayments of carer’s allowance. Would the Liberal Democrats consider an amendment at a later stage that goes wider than that?
Andrew Western
I contend that amendment 32 is simply disproportionate given the wide range of benefits that the Bill is expected to deliver to address fraud and error, not just in the social security system but in the public sector more widely. It is essential that all of Government have access to the capabilities and tools required to stop fraudsters stealing from the taxpayer. Tens of billions of pounds are being lost to public sector fraud. These losses are unacceptable, and waste enormous sums of public money, which could be put to good use. Delaying the Bill coming into force will risk £1.5 billion of savings over the next five years. These have been certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Government made a manifesto commitment that we would safeguard taxpayers’ money and not tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in public services. The Bill delivers on that commitment, and delaying its delivery is unfair on taxpayers, who deserve to have confidence that money spent by Government is reaching those who need it, and not those who exploit the system.
Secondly—we have already discussed this point at length—I remind Members that the Bill introduces new, important safeguards, including provisions for independent oversight and reporting mechanisms, to ensure the proportionate and effective use of the powers. New codes of practice will be consulted on and published to govern how new measures will be exercised in more detail. That will include details of further protections. There will be new rights of review and appeal in both parts of the Bill to ensure that there are opportunities to challenge the Government’s approach. A human being will always be involved in decisions about further investigation or the recovery of any debt.
Finally, I return to my earlier point: data and information sharing are crucial when we look at fraud and error. For example, the eligibility verification measure, while it will not be applied to carer’s allowance itself, will improve the DWP’s access to important data to help to verify entitlements, ensure that payments are correct, and prevent the build-up of overpayments. That will enable the DWP to be tough on those who cheat the benefits system and fair to claimants who make genuine mistakes. It is vital that the DWP is equipped with the right tools, and delaying this Bill will only delay these benefits. In the light of that, I hope that Members will not press the amendment.
Steve Darling
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Liability orders
“(1) Where—
(a) a person has been found guilty of an offence under section 1 or section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006, or the offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud,
(b) that offence relates to fraud committed against a public authority, and
(c) the person has not paid the required penalties or not made the required repayments,
the Secretary of State may apply to a magistrates’ court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff, for an order (“a liability order”) against the liable person.
(2) Where the Secretary of State applies for a liability order, the magistrates’ court or (as the case may be) sheriff shall make the order if satisfied that the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid.
(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to England and Wales—
(a) prescribing the procedure to be followed in dealing with an application by the Secretary of State for a liability order;
(b) prescribing the form and contents of a liability order; and
(c) providing that where a magistrates’ court has made a liability order, the person against whom it is made shall, during such time as the amount in respect of which the order was made remains wholly or partly unpaid, be under a duty to supply relevant information to the Secretary of State.
(4) Where a liability order has been made against a person (“the liable person”), the Secretary of State may use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (taking control of goods) to recover the amount in respect of which the order was made, to the extent that it remains unpaid.”—(Rebecca Smith.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Our new clause would provide that, where someone has been found guilty of fraud or conspiracy to defraud and not made the required payments, the Secretary of State can apply for a liability order. It further provides that, where a liability order has been made against a person, the Secretary of State may use the procedure in schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, on taking control of goods, to recover the amount in respect of which the order was made, to the extent that it remains unpaid.
The new clause is intended to give the DWP powers to apply to the courts to seize assets where fraud is probable, with the same burden of proof as for cash seizures. It would bring the DWP into line with the Child Maintenance Service. I know that we have had some debate on the matter, so this is probably more of a probing or tidying-up amendment than anything else, but it would be useful to have that said explicitly. It goes without saying that, if the Minister does not intend to support the new clause, I will be interested to know why. If the DWP is serious about recovering money lost to fraud and the person liable is not making the required repayments, why should the DWP not be able to apply to seize their assets?
Georgia Gould
This is similar to the previous new clause we discussed. We have a lot of sympathy with the points set out. We want to ensure that we recover money, whether it is fraud against the public sector more widely or fraud against the DWP, but we believe that that is already covered in the Bill and I will run through why.
Clause 16 clarifies that the PSFA is able to seek alternative civil recovery through the civil courts, in addition to the direct deduction orders and deduction from earnings orders in the Bill. It confirms that the PSFA will be able to apply to the county court for a recovery order. That is an order providing that the payable amount is recoverable
“under section 85 of the County Courts Act 1984, or…otherwise as if it were payable under an order of the court.”
Section 85 of the County Courts Act also refers to the use of the procedure in schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to recover the money. That would enable the PSFA to seek enforcement of a debt by applying for a warrant of control in the county court, enabling a court enforcement officer to seize and sell goods to satisfy the debt. That ensures that the PSFA is able to pursue recovery through the most appropriate and effective mechanisms. New clause 13 is therefore already provided through the Bill for the PSFA and through existing legislation for the DWP—section 71 and section 71ZE of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to be specific—allowing them operational flexibility to recover money in the most effective and efficient way to return money to the public purse. An amendment is not required to do that.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Inclusion of systems within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard
“(1) For the purposes of this section, ‘system’ means—
(a) algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems; and
(b) artificial intelligence, including machine learning
provided that they are used in fulfilling the purposes of this Act.
(2) Where at any time after the passage of this Act, the use of any system is—
(a) commenced;
(b) amended; or
(c) discontinued
the Minister must, as soon as reasonably practicable, accordingly include information about the system in the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.” —(John Milne.)
This new clause would require the use of algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems, and artificial intelligence, including machine learning, to be included within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.
Brought up, and read the First time.
John Milne
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require that the use of algorithms, algorithmic tools and systems, and artificial intelligence, including machine learning, should be included within the algorithmic transparency reporting standard. That standard, established by the Government, is supposed to be mandatory for all Government Departments. However, last November, The Guardian reported that not a single Whitehall Department has registered the use of AI systems since it was made mandatory.
Throughout debate on this issue, the Government have consistently downplayed the risk of using AI to trawl for suspect claimants, but if it really is that simple, why have so many organisations come out with concerns and opposition? That includes Age UK, ATD—All Together in Dignity—Fourth World, Amnesty International, Campaign for Disability Justice, Child Poverty Action Group, Defend Digital Me and Difference North East. I could go on: I have half a page, which I will spare the Committee from, listing organisations that have expressed concern. It is quite a roll call.
Governments can and will get things wrong. History tells us that if it tells us anything. In June 2024, a Guardian investigation revealed that a DWP algorithm had wrongly flagged 200,000 people for possible fraud and error; it found that two thirds of housing benefit claims marked as high risk in the previous three years were in fact legitimate, but thousands of UK households every month had their housing benefit claims wrongly investigated. Overall, about £4.4 million was wasted on officials carrying out checks that did not save any money. We know that more mistakes will happen, no matter how hard we try to avoid them. I therefore ask the Minister to support the insertion of new clause 14 as a small measure of defence against future institutional failings.
Rebecca Smith
As we have heard, Liberal Democrat new clause 14 would require the use of algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems, and artificial intelligence, including machine learning, to be included in the algorithmic transparency reporting standard. I have obviously just heard the comments of the hon. Member for Horsham, but I would be interested to know precisely what the Liberal Democrats are aiming to achieve with this new clause and how such reporting would better enable the Government to crack down on fraud and error. Is that the intention behind the new clause?
Andrew Western
I share the support expressed by the hon. Member for Horsham for the algorithmic transparency recording standard as a framework for capturing information about algorithmic tools, including AI systems, and ensuring that public sector bodies openly publish information about the algorithmic tools used in decision-making processes that affect members of the public. However, I do not think the new clause is a necessary addition to the Bill, and I will explain why.
First, all central Government Departments, including the DWP and the Cabinet Office, are already required to comply with the standard as appropriate. We are committed to ensuring that there is appropriate public scrutiny of algorithmic tools that have a significant influence on a decision-making process with public effect, or that directly interact with the public. We have followed and will continue to follow the guidance published by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on this to ensure the necessary transparency and scrutiny.
Secondly, I remind the Committee that although the DWP and PSFA are improving their access to relevant data through the Bill, we are not introducing any new use of machine learning or automated decision making in the Bill measures. I can continue to assure the House that, as is the case now, a human will always be involved in decisions that affect benefit entitlement.
Thirdly, although I do not wish to labour the point yet again, I remind the Committee that the Bill introduces new and important safeguards, including reporting mechanisms and independent oversight in the Bill, demonstrating our commitment to transparency and ensuring that the powers will be used proportionately and effectively. The DWP takes data protection very seriously and will always comply with data protection law. Any information obtained will be kept confidential and secure, in line with GDPR.
John Milne
I am content to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
Offence of encouraging or assisting others to commit fraud
“(1) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 111A (Dishonest representation for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1G) insert—
‘(1H) A person commits an offence if they—
(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or
(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.’
(3) In section 112 (False representations for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1F) insert—
‘(1G) A person commits an offence if they—
(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or
(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.’”—(Rebecca Smith.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Rebecca Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 16 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of whistleblowing processes in relation to fraud in the public sector within one year of the Bill passing. The Opposition would like the review to include the appropriateness and efficacy of existing whistleblowing processes, the barriers to reporting fraud, the reasons for the under-reporting of fraud, and recommendations for change.
The Committee has previously discussed the 2023 National Audit Office report that highlighted the difficulties with whistleblowing within the public sector, particularly in respect of whistleblowing on senior colleagues. The NAO also highlighted that of the public sector whistleblowing disclosures it received in 2023-24, 12% related to fraud. I did not get a particularly clear answer from the Minister about the safeguards that have been put in place to ensure that junior civil servants are able to raise concerns about more senior members of staff, so I am interested to see if there is more to be said.
It is a serious issue. One of the reasons I was interested in tabling this new clause is that, as a junior member of staff at a local authority, I saw this happen. I was in a situation where two colleagues were defrauding the local housing authority, and at that stage as a 21-year-old I did not feel able to do anything about it. That is one of the biggest regrets of my life. Having worked significantly in housing since, the fact that I was not able to call them out for essentially purchasing a council house that they were no longer living in, makes me feel that this safeguard —ensuring that Government Departments’ houses are in order as the legislation goes forward—is particularly vital.
John Smart, who sits on the PSFA’s advisory panel, raised the example of the US, which has whistleblower reward legislation in place that is effective at flushing out issues affecting payments made by the Government. The legislation flushes out fraud by incentivising whistleblowers to blow the whistle, so to speak. He recommended that the Government consider such legislation, so could the Minister inform the Committee whether the Government have looked into that option? Would it be possible for us to learn from that legislation? Could the Government consider such legislation in the future, and if not, why not?
Georgia Gould
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the critical issue of whistleblowing. I assure her of how seriously the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston—myself, and both Secretaries of State take the issue of whistleblowing. I hope, as I set out our responses to the NAO report and our wider work, to offer the reassurance that the Opposition are looking for.
When it comes to internal and external fraud against the public sector, Government Departments are responsible for their own whistleblowing arrangements and for overseeing arrangements in their arm’s length bodies. For example, the Department for Business and Trade publishes and regularly updates its guidance, “Whistleblowing: list of prescribed people and bodies”, which details who individuals can raise a concern with. The list comprises bodies and individuals to whom making a disclosure qualifies the individual who makes the disclosure for legal protections under the Employment Rights Act 1996—for instance, protection against being dismissed by their employer for the disclosure.
Whistleblowers can report concerns about public sector fraud to bodies such as the NAO’s Comptroller and Auditor General, the director of the Serious Fraud Office, the Auditors General for Wales and for Scotland, the NHS Counter Fraud Authority and various other bodies listed on gov.uk. The NAO report that the hon. Lady referred to set out that between 2019 and 2022 fraud one of the most common concerns raised—I think it accounted for 40% of concerns.
On the review of the existing processes, the key findings of the recent NAO publication related to the need to increase awareness of the channels for whistleblowing, to improve the experience of whistleblowers and to ensure that lessons are learned, as the hon. Lady set out. In the light of the NAO report, and with the intention of opening up as many avenues as possible for the reporting of public sector fraud, the PSFA will explore with the Department for Business and Trade whether it would be appropriate to add the PSFA to the list of prescribed organisations. That would go alongside the existing ability to raise fraud within a public sector body or Department. We will also use the findings of the report, as well as the NAO’s good practice guide to whistleblowing in the civil service, to inform our approach.
The DWP has established processes by which members of the public and staff can report suspected benefit fraud. Members of the public can report fraud online at gov.uk, by phone or by post, while DWP staff follow clear internal guidance and processes. Given the intent to maintain the focus of this legislation, the recent work by the National Audit Office, the existing DWP processes and the steps the PSFA is taking to continue to improve the whistleblowing offer for public sector fraud, I will resist new clause 16.
Rebecca Smith
I appreciate the Minister’s response. We will withdraw the new clause, but I urge her to go back and look at what more can be done. I appreciate that the PSFA might come in as a prescribed organisation, but I am particularly concerned about how we bridge the gap and enable more junior civil servants to blow the whistle in relation to senior colleagues. Ultimately, that was the focus of the NAO report. If there is a way to look at that ahead of Report stage, I would be grateful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 17
Duty to consider domestic abuse risk to holders of joint accounts
“(1) Before any direct deduction order under Schedule 5 is made, the Secretary of State has a duty to consider its effect on any person (‘P’) who—
(a) is a victim of domestic abuse, or
(b) the Secretary of State reasonably believes to be at risk of domestic abuse,
where P shares a joint account with a liable person believed to be the perpetrator or potential perpetrator of domestic abuse.
(2) In this section ‘domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”—(Steve Darling.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I start by acknowledging the hard work of Surviving Economic Abuse in this policy area. I thank that charity for its briefing, which I am sure it has shared with all Committee members. The charity and the Liberal Democrats are keen to make sure that domestic abuse, particularly where it plays out in relation to joint accounts, is on the face of the Bill, so that it is taken very seriously.
I can almost hear the Minister’s voice saying that DWP officers are well trained to deal with vulnerable claimants, but it is extremely important to put domestic abuse on the face of the Bill. Domestic abuse is a very wicked issue in my Torbay constituency, and I am sad to say that Torbay is not alone in it being a serious challenge in people’s households. I hope the Government will take this seriously and support the new clause, so we would like to press it to a vote in due course.
Rebecca Smith
The Conservatives—the official Opposition—share the Liberal Democrats’ view that it is vital that we use different Departments across Government to tackle domestic abuse and domestic violence. We have a really strong track record of doing that in government.
In principle, the new clause seems like a good idea. I am conscious that we need to ensure that the Bill does not exacerbate or create problems for victims and put them even more at risk. I have done a lot of work on violence against women and girls away from this place, and I am conscious of how tricky it can be to prove some of these things. I wonder whether there might be other ways to achieve the same outcome. I assume that is why the Government are not able to support the new clause.
The new clause includes language such as “potential” and “believed to be”. My gentle challenge is about whether it could be worded differently, as we go forward to other stages, to make it more achievable and deliverable, and something that would have a place in the Bill. As it stands, I am not sure that would be the case, but I am interested to see this issue debated further, because the official Opposition share the commitment to tackling domestic abuse and domestic violence.
Andrew Western
We have reached the stage in Committee at which the hon. Member for Torbay can second-guess my comments. He will be as pleased as I am that this is the last of the new clauses for debate, but it is a very serious one.
New clause 17 seeks to place a duty on Secretary of State to consider the impact of a proposed direct deduction order where a person is a victim of domestic abuse, or officials reasonably believe they are at risk of domestic abuse, and they share an account with a perpetrator of that abuse. I share the hon. Member for Torbay’s view that, where the new recovery powers are exercised, there should be a consideration of whether there is evidence of domestic abuse. However, I do not believe the new clause reflects the right approach. The DWP understands the importance of supporting victims and survivors of domestic abuse, and has existing guidance, processes and operational best practice for supporting them.
The new clause would apply to both debtors and non-debtors, and would not require the DWP to take any steps to identify possible victims. Subsection (1)(a) would place a duty on officials to consider the impact any time a person was a victim, even when the DWP did not and could not have known that that was the case. Subsection (1)(b) would imply a duty to assess whether there was reason to believe the person was at risk of domestic abuse but, as the hon. Member for South West Devon suggested, in many cases the DWP will not be in a position to make that assessment. That would put officials in a difficult, if not impossible, position.
As the direct deduction powers will be used as a last resort where multiple attempts to engage with the debtor to arrange a voluntary, affordable and sustainable repayment plan have failed, we anticipate that the DWP will know very little about the debtor’s current circumstances, unless it had been made aware previously or there were clear identifiable risk factors. We are working closely with charities, some of which the hon. Member for Torbay will have heard from, to help to identify those risks, as I will outline.
Where a joint account holder could be at risk of domestic abuse but is not the debtor, we are unlikely to have ever had direct dealings with them prior to the power being used. Unless we were directly notified, it is unlikely we would have the information necessary to form the reasonable belief that they were at risk, and much less likely that we could identify all the cases where the person was experiencing abuse. I do not, therefore, agree that a placing a legal duty on officials in this way is the right approach.
We are committed to continuing to support victims of domestic abuse whenever they interact with the Department, which is why we are working with charities such as Surviving Economic Abuse, which is dedicated to advocating for women whose partner has controlled their ability to acquire, use and maintain economic resources. SEA is supporting the drafting of the code of practice to ensure that robust safeguards are in place and to encourage engagement specifically from those who are vulnerable, including victims of domestic abuse. Although SEA works with women, the principles will apply to all victims and survivors of domestic abuse.
Frontline debt management staff already receive training for their role, including on assessing affordability, discussing hardship, and identifying and dealing with vulnerable customers. As we have heard, a specialist debt enforcement team will exercise the new recovery powers, and it will be governed by a code of practice. As explained, we will consult on the draft code of practice, and I welcome further views as part of the wider public consultation.
Finally, I note that paragraph 6(1)(b) of schedule 5 already imposes a broad duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the amount of any deduction is
“fair in all the circumstances.”
That would include consideration of the impact on a victim of domestic abuse, as the hon. Member for Torbay seeks in the new clause, where the relevant context and circumstances are known to the Department. I hope that reassures the hon. Member that his concerns are already addressed in the Bill, and that the DWP takes domestic abuse seriously and will continue to do so when exercising the new recovery powers.
Steve Darling
I would like to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Georgia Gould
This is the final group of clauses that the Committee will consider. I give massive thanks to the Committee for our constructive dialogue, which I am sure will continue—I look forward to a long afternoon and Thursday discussing these final clauses.
Clause 99 covers how the Bill will be applied and limited by setting out the retrospective effect of the new powers, and makes some technical amendments to the Limitation Act 1980. There is a significant policy change in the clause, which is the extension of the existing six-year limit for civil claims relating to covid frauds. I think the Committee will agree that is critical. Although the application and limitation of the clause covers the whole Bill, and the powers can be used on existing cases, retrospective effect does not apply for clauses 96 and 97, which relate to non-benefit payment administrative penalties.
Subsection (3) of clause 99 sets out that the time-limit change applies to amounts that an England and Wales public authority is entitled to claim from a person as a result of a fraud the person carried out. Subsection (5) clarifies what is meant by an England and Wales public authority, and explains that Scottish and Welsh devolved authorities are not included. Subsection (7) makes technical amendments to section 38(11) of the Limitation Act 1980.
Clause 100 enables the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for the Cabinet Office to ensure that the Bill works alongside all existing legislation. As is usual for Bills that may have provisions consequential for other Acts of Parliament, the power allows the Secretary of State and the Minister to amend other legislation to ensure that the Bill works effectively with existing Acts of Parliament.
Clause 101 recognises that the Bill requires a money resolution, primarily because it confers new functions on the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Department for Work and Pensions.
Clause 102 sets out the Bill’s territorial extent, while annex A in the accompanying explanatory notes provides a full breakdown of the territorial extent and application of its measures. The provisions in part 1 apply to England and Wales. Legislative consent is required for Wales for some parts of the part 1 provisions. The provisions in part 2 apply to England, Wales and Scotland in relation to reserved matters.
As the Committee is aware, the UK Government do not generally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the relevant devolved Governments. We have written to our counterparts in Scotland and Wales, and engagement with both remains ongoing, to seek legislative consent from Wales on the part 1 provisions that interact with Welsh competence and from Scotland on the part 2 provisions that interact with Scottish competence.
Clause 103 is required to enable the provisions in the Bill to be implemented. It sets out how the Bill’s provisions will be commenced.
Finally, clause 104 is straightforward and confirms that the short title of the Act will be the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025, to summarise the intent of the Bill captured in the long title. Having outlined the main provisions in clauses 99 to 104, I commend them to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
The good news is that the Minister has answered some of my questions, particularly in respect of clause 99 and the extension of the retrospective time limits. Clause 100 is a standard Henry VIII power to make consequential provision as a result of the legislation; does the Minister envisage that the power will need to be used frequently? Clauses 101 to 104 are standard provisions and we do not have any substantive comments to make on them.
Georgia Gould
The Henry VIII power is to ensure that any other legislation is in line with this legislation. We do not expect it to be used on lots of occasions, but it will be used on some. We welcome the Opposition’s support for the extension to the limit for investigating covid fraud. I thank the Committee again for its work on the Bill, which will ensure that we take action against fraud wherever it occurs.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 100 to 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Andrew Western
I place on the record my thanks to you, Mr Western, and all the other Chairs who have supported and guided us through the Bill. I thank the Clerks and officials from the Cabinet Office and DWP for their support. I also thank my co-pilot, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale; the Opposition spokespersons; and all Committee members for their input. I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting)
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The new clause would enable replacements of large portions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 —in particular, sections on asylum, immigration control, age assessments and modern slavery—to ensure the upholding of the refugee convention, to provide for safe and legal routes to sanctuary for refugees and to help prevent dangerous channel crossings.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Liberal Democrat new clause 27 seeks to repeal provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 passed by the previous Conservative Government. By attempting to repeal section 29 of the Act, the Liberal Democrats are seeking to prevent the Government from removing people, including criminals, to a safe third country.
Rewind back to 2022 when 45,000 people crammed into small boats, flimsy rafts teetering on the channel’s unforgiving waves—a swarm, spurred by the hope of slipping through our borders, hammering coastal towns and stretching security to its limits.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
Did the hon. Gentleman really mean “swarm” in that context? That is quite emotive language.
Matt Vickers
Well, hot air is required in this room this afternoon, and I intend to provide it.
We fought back with the Nationality and Borders Act third-country removals, which helped the Government to deter crossings by 36% in 2023 from 45,000 to under 29,000—not by chance, but by design, sending a message to traffickers and migrants alike that Britain is no soft touch or guaranteed prize. Now, the Liberal Democrats barge in with new clause 27, desperate to repeal section 29 to shred that deterrent and plunge us back into chaos, flinging the channel wide open not just to the weary but to every chancer or criminal. That is not tweaking policy; it is torching a firewall, inviting all those to Dover’s cliffs and Deal’s shores and erasing every inch of progress that we have clawed from the crisis. The Lib Dems owe us hard answers. How many boats—50,000 or 60,000?
The Albania deal delivered a masterstroke of border control. That pragmatic triumph has turned a torrent of illegal crossings into a trickle through sheer diplomatic grit. Back in 2022, Albanians dominated the small boats surge. A 12,000-strong, relentless wave of young men were lured by traffickers with promises of easy UK entry for £3,000, clogging Dover’s processing centres and fuelling tabloid headlines of chaos. Then came our 2023 pact with Tirana—a no-nonsense agreement that flipped the script with fast-track returns, joint police operations and a clear signal: Albania is safe and you are going back.
By 2024, the results were staggering. Weekly flights were whisking deportees home, with each jet a nail in the coffin of the smuggling networks that once thrived on our porous borders. That was not luck or loud threats but cold, hard execution, bolstered by UK-funded cameras on the Albania-Kosovo frontier and Albanian officers embedded in Dover.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I think that the hon. Gentleman is somewhat overstating the impact of the Albania policy. After the initial agreement was signed, we saw a massive spike in numbers coming from Albania, and the numbers had already started to fall before the communiqué was signed. The correlation and causation arguments that he is making on the Albania scheme do not add up at all.
Matt Vickers
What is effective? The deal reduced the number of people coming from Albania by more than 90%. If we could get a few more agreements like that, we would be on the way—that would be huge progress. The Albania deal represented huge progress; to suggest otherwise is wrong. It choked off routes before boats had even launched and had a real impact.
Chris Murray
Would the hon. Gentleman at least accept that the Albania returns were largely due to large numbers of foreign national offenders, who are a completely different category of people from those we are talking about in either this clause or this Bill?
Matt Vickers
We would want to return foreign national offenders; that is really positive. But the number of people choosing to cross because of that deterrent effect went down by not 10% or 20%, but by more than 90%. More than 90% fewer people arrived from Albania in small boats. That is huge progress. If we can replicate that elsewhere, I will be a very happy boy because we would see a huge impact on those crossings across the piece.
New clause 27 is hellbent on repealing that backbone, oblivious to how crossings from Albanians were successfully slashed, while the Rwanda threat kept smugglers guessing. If the Liberal Democrats prevail, every bilateral deal will be on the chopping block. Imagine Albanian numbers roaring back to 12,000, with other current surges unchecked. That is not progress; it is sabotage—a reckless bid to unravel a system that is finally biting back at the chaos. Do the Liberal Democrats not want to be able to remove people from this country who have entered illegally? Do they believe that any national of a safe country should be able to seek asylum in the UK? Can Liberal Democrat Members explain why that would not create a massive pull factor and encourage people to cross the channel in small boats?
The Liberal Democrats are also seeking to repeal sections 15 to 17 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which specify that the Secretary of State must declare an asylum claim made by a person who is a national of an EU member state inadmissible. Why would the Liberal Democrats believe that anyone from the EU needs to claim asylum here? Picture this scene, which is so utterly ridiculous that it strains the bounds of credulity: an EU citizen, perhaps some laid-back Amsterdamer, pedalling along the city’s picturesque canals one sunny afternoon, tulips nodding in the breeze, then suddenly deciding to chuck it all, hop on a ferry and pitch up on Dover’s pebbled shores, requesting asylum, as if the Netherlands’ orderly bike lanes and windmill-dotted horizons had morphed into a scene from—
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
We are witnessing some particularly theatrical prose, perhaps for the first time. Has Boris Johnson got a new job as the hon. Gentleman’s speechwriter?
Matt Vickers
His writing seems to be going quite well at the moment. I do not know that I have the cash for him.
What I have described is not asylum. We cannot pretend that the EU’s 27 nations and its vast tapestry of safe, stable and prosperous lands—we can take our pick of France, Italy, Spain, Sweden and so on, each a bastion of peace and plenty—somehow warrant the same desperate lifeline that we reserve for those fleeing real and genuine chaos. This is the same organisation that the Liberal Democrats supposedly want to build closer ties with. They also want the UK to grant asylum to people who come to this country having already been in a country where they have claimed and been granted asylum. Why are the Liberal Democrats encouraging people to cross the channel when they already have asylum or can claim asylum in a safe third country?
Just like the Labour Government, the Liberal Democrats want to remove sections of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 that allow local and public authorities to conduct an age assessment on an age-disputed person. As we discussed before when the SNP did not wish those who claim to be a child to be treated as an adult, every European country apart from ours uses scientific age assessment techniques such as an X-ray of the wrist. As we have said, there are also other methods. More than 50% of those claiming to be children were found to be adults after an age assessment in the quarter before the election. Without a scientific age assessment method, it is very hard to determine age. Given the horror stories in this area, why do Liberal Democrats want to put the people of this country at risk, and blindly allow unverified people into the UK?
Let us now talk about a nightmare unfolding right under our noses: one that the Liberal Democrats seem hellbent on making worse. In the first quarter of 2021 alone, 560 adults—grown men with stubble, receding hairlines and years behind them—had the gall to pose as kids, slipping through the cracks until scientific age checks, such as wrist X-rays and dental scans that every sensible European nation uses, caught them red handed and stopped them cold.
The Lib Dems’ new clause 27 would axe those checks and rip out the one tool keeping us from dumping people who are 25 years old or even older into classrooms alongside children. That is not some abstract risk. It has happened and it is real; it means men in their 20s sitting at desks meant for teens, all because we have let sentiment trump science. That would not protect children, but endanger them—a reckless gamble that would turn schools into hunting grounds and parents into nervous wrecks, all so the Lib Dems can pat themselves on the back for being compassionate. If they get their way, every classroom will have a question mark. How many 25-year-olds will slip through before the damage is done?
What do the Liberal Democrats believe should happen if the authorities believe a migrant who is claiming to be under 18 is actually an adult? Do they believe that such people should be placed in schools with schoolchildren? Again, it seems as though the Liberal Democrats want to strip the Government of any power to control who comes to the country. That would see net migration drastically increase.
The issue cuts deeper than policy, however; it is about what people expect, and the Liberal Democrats’ new clause pulls hard against that grain. Voters have signalled what they want loud and clear, with 68%—nearly seven in 10—backing tougher border controls in surveys: a call echoing from Dover to Folkestone, where residents live with the reality of arrivals day by day. That is not a passing opinion; it is a steady demand—rooted in years of debate, from the 2016 Brexit vote to the 2019 landslide—for a system that prioritises their say.
Dame Angela Eagle
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman had for lunch, but perhaps we should find out and get some of it ourselves. We can then all compete with the poet laureate and the virtuoso performance that we have just heard.
I am going to talk about the new clause, however, which is in respect of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire is proposing that numerous sections of the 2022 Act be repealed under the Bill.
I should start by making it clear that we are determined to restore order to the asylum system, so that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly, and ensures that the rules are properly enforced. That is a financial necessity to deal with the backlogs that we have inherited—the permit backlog in particular, but also others, especially in the appeals space—so that the costs do not continue to mount up at the expense of the taxpayer. Getting the system moving again is an important part of what we have been doing.
Following the election, the Home Secretary acted rapidly to change the law to remove the retrospective application of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which allowed decision makers to decide asylum claims from individuals who arrived in the UK from 7 March 2023. Previously, there was a ban on that, because of the duty to remove, which was never going to be sensibly put into effect.
I am not going to speak to every section of the Nationality and Borders Act, but the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire wants us to repeal very large chunks of the Act under the new clause. I will mention only a few, and I hope that she will forgive me for not talking about every section.
The introduction of the national age assessment board, for example, in March 2023, relies on a piece of the Nationality and Borders Act that the hon. Lady wishes to repeal. In the interim, since that Act has come into being, we have introduced the national age assessment board and made it available across the country. It continues to offer significant improvement to our processes for assessing age, including creating greater consistency in age assessment practices, which can be very inconsistent in the practical delivery of Merton-compliant assessments in different local authorities—some are more experienced and some better at it than others. The national age assessment board creates a standard and a bar below which it is hard to go. It sets important standards in age assessment, improves quality and ensures that ages are recorded correctly for immigration purposes.
The Nationality and Borders Act also placed protections and support under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings on a legislative footing for the first time in the UK. That includes the right to a recovery period in the national referral mechanism, during which potential victims of modern slavery and trafficking are eligible for support and are protected from removal from the UK. The Act provides the means to disqualify individuals—I suspect that this may be the bit that the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire objects to—from protections or support on the grounds of public order or bad faith. However, that is in line with article 13 of the convention; that part of the Nationality and Borders Act put the convention into UK law. I am surprised she is suggesting that we should remove it.
The Act also sets out the circumstances in which confirmed victims of slavery and trafficking may be granted temporary permission to stay in the UK. The Government will be launching a public consultation, before summer recess, on how we can improve the process of identifying victims of modern slavery. We will provide details on that consultation in due course.
Susan Murray
I thank the Minister for her clear outline. The Liberal Democrats want to enable the replacement of large portions of the Nationality and Borders Act and ensure that we uphold the refugee convention. We wish to push the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Susan Murray
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause would make provision for leave to enter or remain the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection. Through the clause the Liberal Democrats seek to support refugee family reunion and to help people to integrate into the community, learn the language, make a home and work to contribute to society, exactly as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh discussed.
Matt Vickers
Liberal Democrat new clause 29 requires that within six months of the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State should lay before Parliament provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to family members of people granted refugee status and of people granted humanitarian protection. In the new clause, family members include: a person’s parent, including adoptive parent; their spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner; and their child or sibling, including their adopted child or adoptive sibling, who is either under 18 or under 25, having been under 18 or unmarried
“at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum”.
Further, it can be taken to mean
“other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to…the importance of maintaining family unity…the best interests of a child…the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person.”
If those provisions were not already incredibly vague, the Liberal Democrats have included a proposal that other persons can be determined by the Secretary of State. That could obviously result in a huge number of spurious claims made by family members who will say that they have a dependency on another person so they must be allowed to come to the UK under the provision. We already have judges completely stretching the definition of “right to family life” under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The Liberal Democrat clause would be subject to even more abuse.
Beyond the vagueness, new clause 29 risks piling unbearable pressure on an economy already creaking under migration’s weight. Each new family member, however loosely defined, brings costs—in housing, where shortages already top 1.2 million units, in healthcare, with NHS waits stretching past 7 million, and in schools, where 9 million pupils squeeze into overstretched classrooms. The costs of supporting asylum for individuals run into the tens of thousands of pounds. Multiply that by thousands of dependants under this elastic clause, and we are staring at billions more siphoned from taxpayers, who have already seen their council tax spike. The Liberal Democrats do not set a cap; they fling the door open ever wider, ignoring how finite our resources are. Britain’s compassion has no bounds, but its resources certainly do. Our generosity must have limits. New clause 29 pretends otherwise, and working families will foot the bill when the system groans under the strain.
The new clause does not just invite claims; it opens a legal floodgate that could drown our courts in precedent-setting chaos by letting the Secretary of State define “family” on a whim. Whether we are talking about emotional ties or financial need, new clause 29 hands judges a blank slate to scribble ever-wider interpretations, building on the already elastic right to family life under article 8.
We have seen what has happened. As has been mentioned, an Albanian stayed because his son disliked foreign chicken nuggets. A Pakistani offender lingered, citing harshness to his kids. Let us now imagine dozens or hundreds of cases stacking up, each further stretching dependency—cousins, in-laws, distant kins—all cementing new norms that bind future policy. The Lib Dems would not just be tweaking rules; they would be unleashing a judicial snowball that would roll over border control for years to come. “Family unity” sounds noble, but the sprawl under new clause 29 could stall integration in its tracks—a challenge we cannot ignore when one in six UK residents was born abroad. Bringing in broad swathes of dependants, potentially with limited English skills or ties, risks clustering communities inward, not outward.
If we look across the channel, we see that Germany tightened family reunification after 1.1 million arrivals, capping it at 1,000 monthly for refugees’ kin, citing overload. We are not outliers for wanting clarity. Other nations prove it works, yet the Lib Dems chase a boundless model, ignoring how allies balance compassion with capacity, leaving us to pick up the pieces when this experiment fails.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire proposes an amendment that seeks to significantly change the current refugee family reunion policy, and to expand the current eligibility to include siblings, children under the age of 25 and any undefined family member.
The Government fully support the principle of family unity and the need to have provisions under the immigration rules that enable immediate family members to be reunited in the UK when their family life has been disrupted because of conflict or persecution. Accordingly, in recognition of the fact that families can become separated because of the nature of conflict or persecution, and because of the speed or manner in which people may be forced to flee their homes, communities and country, our refugee family reunion policy is extremely important and generous. The route enables those granted a form of protection in the UK to sponsor their partner or child to come to the UK, provided that they formed part of that family unit before they sought protection. Increasing numbers of visas have been granted through this route under the current policy, and indeed under the previous Administration. In 2024, 19,710 people were granted family reunion visas—twice the number in 2023, when around 9,300 visas were granted.
On the specific proposals in the new clause, it should be noted that any expansion of the existing approach without careful thought, including where such an expansion would allow an undefined family member to be brought to the UK, could significantly increase the number of people who qualify to come here, and runs the risk of abuse of those routes. That would have an impact on the taxpayer and could result in further pressures on public services and local authorities, which may have to accommodate and support the new arrivals.
We believe that introducing a rule that allows children to sponsor their relatives would risk creating incentives for more children to be encouraged or even forced, as we know can happen, to leave their families and risk hazardous journeys to the UK across the channel in small boats. That is a serious and legitimate concern regarding the best interests of those children.
Susan Murray
I thank the Minister. It is good to hear that the Government support the principle of family reunion, but we will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We believe that the right to remain in this country is a privilege, not a right. We also believe that to be able to stay in this country, a person must contribute to this country. As recent research by the Centre for Policy Studies has outlined, there is a risk that many of those coming to this country are either low-paid workers or have dependants who may or may not be working. Those individuals are likely to represent a long-term burden on the country’s finances rather than be net contributors. That sentiment has been reiterated by liberal publications such as The Economist, which only last week said in one of its leaders that
“governments must also learn from the policy mistakes that lend it credibility.”
Tom Hayes
It was remiss of me not to say earlier that I admire the hon. Gentleman’s tie—it is very nice. On the point he raises, I have said consistently that that particular report by the Centre for Policy Studies is flawed. As we move towards the Government’s new net migration White Paper, which will specify how we can bring labour into the country that is skilled only, rather than the low-wage labour that we saw under the previous Administration, there will not be that kind of burden in the future.
Matt Vickers
I aim to please with my tie. The hon. Gentleman can probably attach as much importance to the policy paper as he sees fit, as he does with anything else I might or might not say; it is for him, and for readers of the debate, to determine the value and weight they add to that. Another proposal we have put forward is on salary thresholds and what someone should be earning in order to remain in this country. I think that is a big deal; I will go on to outline why I think it is important, but yes—it is a big deal.
As I was saying, The Economist said only last week in one of its leaders that
“governments must also learn from the policy mistakes that lend it credibility. It was foolish to admit lots of newcomers without liberalising housing markets. Also, since migration flows to rich countries cannot be unlimited, it makes sense to favour highly skilled economic migrants over lower-skilled ones nearly all the time. Arguments for low-skilled migration built around supposed labour shortages are flawed.”
Interestingly, in countries outside the UK, research has shown the importance of income in long-term migration. A report in the Netherlands, which used detailed microdata on fiscal contributions and benefits to the entire population to calculate the discounted lifetime net contribution of the immigrant population present in 2016, was published in December 2024 and concluded:
“If the parents make a strongly negative net contribution, the second generation usually lags behind considerably as well. Therefore, the adage ‘it will all work out with the second generation’ does not hold true. High fiscal costs of immigrants are not that much caused by high absorption of government expenditures but rather by low contributions to taxes and social security premiums. We also find evidence for a strong relationship of average net contributions by country with cultural distance, even after controlling for average education and the cito-distribution-effect.”
Although we should acknowledge that the Netherlands is a different country with its own unique systems and that its situation does not necessarily apply to the UK, the finding highlights the need to examine the impact of migration decisions in comparable nations. New clause 32 takes steps to do that, ensuring that migrants contribute to our economy.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
This is a very different hon. Member for Stockton West speaking now from the one who spoke last week, when he spoke against and voted against the Liberal Democrat amendment to allow and encourage asylum seekers to work so that they could benefit our economy. Does he not remember last week? Where was his concern for the taxpayer then?
Matt Vickers
I would suggest that that is quite a creative interpretation of last week’s events. This debate is about what people contribute when they are legally able to, rather than creating anything that would draw more people to make that crossing and to turn up in this country.
New clause 32 would revoke indefinite leave to remain in certain circumstances: that a person
“is defined as a ‘foreign criminal’ under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007”;
that the person
“was granted indefinite leave to remain after the coming into force of this Act,”
but has not spent 10 years resident in the UK;
that the person or their dependants
“have been in receipt of any form of ‘social protection’…from HM Government or a local authority”;
or that the person’s
“annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period, or subsequent to receiving indefinite leave to remain.”
Let us be absolutely clear about one thing, because it is a cornerstone of this proposal and speaks volumes about who we are as a nation and what we stand for when the chips are down: anyone who has entered this country under the carefully crafted, well-designed and wholly principled safe and legal routes—those lifelines that we have extended through the Ukraine scheme, the British nationals overseas scheme or the Afghan schemes—would find themselves entirely exempt from the rigours of new clause 32, and rightly so. Those schemes are not just policies, but promises; they are solemn commitments that speak to our national character, and we stand by those we have pledged to protect.
Let us think of the more than 200,000 Ukrainians welcomed since 2022, fleeing Putin’s bombs—families clutching what they had, offered sanctuary through the Ukraine family scheme and Homes for Ukraine.
Chris Murray
Looking at the proposals set out in this new clause, how exactly is the hon. Gentleman proposing to calculate the £38,700? Is software available in the Home Office or in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs? What if someone was found to have overpaid taxes after they were found not to meet the amount? Would the Home Office go and find them overseas and bring them back? This proposal sounds absurdly unworkable.
Matt Vickers
Lots of processes are in place, but we are putting down a principle. It is the same as the skilled worker visa threshold of £38,700. We have to set a line that requires people to be self-sufficient and not a drain on resources. This is the line that we are setting.
There are also Hongkongers. By 2025, nearly 180,000 British national overseas visa holders had escaped Beijing’s iron grip—huge British talent. More than 20,000 Afghans have been resettled since the Kabul airlift. Those were the right things to do, and we would exempt them from this proposal. These are not random arrivals; they are people we invited, whose stories of sacrifice and loyalty resonate with the values that we hold dear, from duty to decency. We would not renege on those commitments and tarnish the trust that we have built.
Let us cast our eyes across the globe, because other nations are not just theorising about this; they are proving that it works, day in, day out, with systems that do not just talk a good game but deliver tangible, measurable results that we would be foolish to overlook. Take Australia, a land of vast horizons and sharper borders, whose points-based residency system does not mess around. If someone is pulling in less than 53,900 Australian dollars—£28,000—and they are dipping into welfare, Australia will show them the door, an approach that is saving taxpayers billions.
These are not quirky outliers or flukes; they are lessons carved in policy stone and shining examples that tying status to contribution is not some pie-in-the-sky dream but a practical, proven playbook that delivers real savings and sharper borders, and stands up to scrutiny. New clause 32 lifts straight from that script, making £38,700 the line in the sand, with no benefits to lean on and no criminal record to tarnish the deal. It is not radical; it is road-tested, and echoes what works elsewhere on the globe.
Critics might cry, “Unworkable!” but the conditions in new clause 32 are trackable. HMRC already logs income for tax. The Home Office flags criminals under the UK Borders Act 2007, and the Department for Work and Pensions tracks benefits down to the penny. We are not reinventing the wheel—just syncing data to enforce the rules, with £38,700 as a clear line, 10 years as a fair test, and exemptions for the Ukraine, Afghan and British national overseas schemes, showing that we can tailor it.
This is a framework that says, “If you’re here for the long haul, you’ve got to bring something to the table, not just pull up a seat.” Australia and Canada have shown us the path with lower costs and tighter controls; we would be stupid not to take it. I would like to know why the Government would disagree with the principles behind the new clause. Why do the Government want foreign criminals to remain in the UK with indefinite leave to remain? If the Government believe in the £38,700 amount for skilled workers to obtain a visa, why would that not apply to people remaining in the UK indefinitely?
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I was not going to speak to the new clause; I was just going to let the hon. Gentleman drone on, in the hope that we could possibly get away on Thursday morning, but I have been irked to my feet. I am not sure whether I prefer the new loquacious hon. Member for Stockton West. I do not know what he has done about his speechwriting, but I preferred the version that we had last week. That was probably more in keeping with the Conservatives’ contributions to this Committee.
This is a horrible new clause, which penalises lower-income workers, deters skilled immigration and harms vulnerable groups. The retrospective nature of some of the provisions is simply absurd, and would lead only to legal challenges and all sorts of administrative complications. The new clause would introduce retrospective punishments, taking ILR away from individuals who had received it under the previous rules simply because a future Government—thank goodness this will never be so—had later decided to raise the bar. People make long-term decisions to buy homes, raise families and contribute to communities based on the stability of ILR. Changing the rules after the fact destroys trust in the whole system.
The proposal sets an arbitrary income threshold of £38,700, meaning that a nurse, teacher or social worker—people the UK depends on—could lose their ILR. Many industries, including healthcare, hospitality and retail have workers earning below that level. Are we really saying that under no circumstances would they be welcome? The proposal also ignores economic realities. People face job losses, illness or temporary hardships. Should losing a job also mean losing the right to live in the UK?
New clause 32 states that ILR should be revoked if a person has received any sort of “social protection”, including housing support. This would punish people who have worked hard and contributed but who need temporary support due to circumstances often beyond their control. It targets families, disabled people and those facing financial hardship, effectively saying, “If you need help, you don’t belong here.” Skilled workers, investors and entrepreneurs want certainty. If they fear that a downturn in income or a short period of hardship could see them lose their right to remain, they will choose other countries over the UK.
As we have also heard, how can this be enforced? Constantly monitoring ILR-holders’ income, benefits and job status would be an administrative disaster; it would be costly, error prone and unfairly target individuals. This new clause is simply cruel. It is unnecessary and unworkable, and I hope that it is rejected out of hand.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
We have spoken already about indefinite leave to remain, which is also referred to as settlement. We have discussed the most basic requirement for eligibility, which is time, and our suggestion that the timeframe be extended from five years to 10. The new clause covers revocation, or the circumstances in which we believe that indefinite leave to remain status should be removed from an individual to whom it has been granted.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West set out, the first of these conditions is whether a person has engaged in criminality. Our definition for criminality is based on that used in section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, under which a person is a “foreign criminal” if they are neither a British nor an Irish citizen; if they have been convicted of an offence, where that conviction takes place in the United Kingdom; and if the period of imprisonment to which they are sentenced is at least 12 months. It also applies to a person who is a “serious criminal”, as defined in section 72(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
It is already the case that individuals with settled status can be deported from the UK by having ILR status revoked at the discretion of the Home Secretary. This new clause makes that process automatic. We can see no reason why a person who has committed a crime—particularly based on the current legislation—that is so serious that they are sentenced to a year in prison should be able to continue to be in this country at all, let alone to retain ILR status and with it all the generosity and safety net of the British welfare state, including social housing, benefits and free healthcare.
Secondly, we have included in this new clause a condition that is effectively a knock-on effect from our earlier new clause 25, which would revoke ILR status conferred after this Act comes into force, where that status would not have been conferred under these new conditions.
Thirdly, the new clause applies to those who have been in receipt of social protection, as defined by the Treasury’s “Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses”, which includes personal social services in various different categories, as well as incapacity, disability and injury benefits, pensions, family benefits, income support and tax credits, unemployment benefits, universal credit and social housing. Social protection is a fundamental part of modern British society, but we should be honest that it is also incredibly expensive. Such generous provision should be available only to citizens. It must be a fundamental principle of our system that those who come to this country contribute fiscally more than they cost. What they pay in tax should more than cover the cost of the public services that they use. That is the opposite of the situation that we have now; only a small proportion of those who have come to this country over the past few years are likely to be net lifetime contributors. That is unaffordable.
That reality also underpins our final condition of income falling below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate. That figure of £38,700 was chosen to sit alongside the general skilled worker threshold, the minimum earnings threshold for skilled worker visas, and the minimum income requirement for a family visa sponsor proposed by the last Government. It was chosen as it represents the 50th percentile, or the median, of earnings for jobs at the skill level of RQF3—level 3 of the regulated qualifications framework—which is perhaps more easily recognisable as the equivalent of A-levels and BTECs.
We believe that the new clause will go some way to addressing the problems that we have set out of very high volumes of people coming to this country in recent years who are not set to be net fiscal contributors to the public purse over the course of their lifetimes. We hope that the Government will consider adding it to the Bill.
We also welcome the comments from the Minister on the fact that she is looking at this issue. Could she tell us specifically whether she is looking at any of these conditions, and, if so, which? How are her discussions coming along, and when does she hope to report back to the House on her plans?
Seema Malhotra
I am pleased to speak about new clause 32, which would mean that people who are settled in the UK had that status automatically revoked in a wide range of circumstances. Irrespective of any other relevant factors, such as how long a person has lived here, settlement could be automatically revoked when a person earns less than £38,700, has received benefits or would not meet requirements for settlement that have subsequently changed.
We have heard important contributions from hon. Members across the Committee about why that is unworkable, for a range of reasons. I understand why the Government are seeking to bring this forward—[Interruption.] Sorry, the Opposition—it was a slip of the tongue. I also understand that the shadow Minister is seeking to continue his run of speeches—with his new tie today—in this Committee sitting, but let me lay out a couple of circumstances that clearly show that the new clause would be unworkable.
The proposals would create injustice in certain cases. People who are settled and have been paying tax and national insurance contributions for decades could have their settlement revoked because they temporarily fall on hard times. Let us imagine, for example, a couple—a British man with his American partner—who have been living together in this country for many years. He gets badly sick and he cannot work. She ends up having to look after him in local authority housing. I guess that under the Opposition’s rules, when he dies, she would be banned from settling in the UK. That is the sort of circumstance that would logically follow.
It is important to note as well that most migrants become eligible to access public funds only at the point at which they gain settlement—mainly ILR. The expectation is that temporary migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and to accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. That approach reflects the need to maintain the general public’s confidence that immigration brings benefits to our country, rather than costs to the public purse. I can understand that as an underlying driver for some of today’s debate, but it is important that we keep this in the context of an immigration system that is fair, controlled and managed. The no recourse to public funds policy is a long-standing principle adopted by successive Governments. There is also an ability to apply for the no recourse to public funds condition to be lifted in certain circumstances, so there are safeguards for the most vulnerable.
Let me turn to the new clause’s other core condition, on revoking the ILR of a “foreign criminal”—the shadow Minister referred specifically to that. As we have said before, and throughout this Committee, settlement in the UK is a privilege, not an automatic entitlement. Settlement conveys significant benefits and provides a pathway to British citizenship. Settlement can be revoked for criminality, deception or fraud in obtaining settlement, or other significant non-conducive reasons. A person’s settlement is also invalidated if they are deported. The Government have been clear—in fact, we could not have been clearer—that foreign criminals should be deported from the UK whenever it is legal to do so. Any foreign national who is convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence is considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity.
I want to emphasise another point—Government Members, in particular, have mentioned this—about the figures from the Centre for Policy Studies. It is worth repeating that figures in that report refer to a period of historically high levels of net migration under the previous Government. For that and many other reasons, they are not a sound basis for an evidence-based discussion.
Seema Malhotra
I will—I expect the hon. Lady to make the point she made earlier.
Seema Malhotra
I just mention that we have the upcoming immigration White Paper, in which we will set out our approach to the immigration system and how to support it to be better controlled and managed for the future. We are clear that net migration must come down. She will know that under the previous Government—to which she was a special adviser—between 2019 and 2024, net migration almost quadrupled. That was heavily driven by a big increase in overseas recruitment. A properly controlled and managed immigration system, alongside strong border security, is one of the foundations of the Government’s plan for change. It is extremely important to have a debate based on tackling those root causes and issues, rather than tinkering around the edges and having a scenario in which the partner of a British citizen, who subsequently falls ill and dies, has her ILR revoked. It is important to understand what the Opposition tabling such amendments means for people’s lives and fairness in our society.
Tom Hayes
Briefly, prompted by the Opposition, we are inching towards a more interesting debate, on how to assess the financial benefits and costs of migration, while grounding that in available and high-quality data. In 2021, in Australia, the Treasury undertook a fiscal assessment and has repeated that annually. I know, too, that the Migration Advisory Committee is looking to improve the quality of data, because over 14 years we have had such poor-quality data on which to make assessments. It is starting to look at different categories of workers in order to assess whether they are net contributors or net drags. That is a really positive step.
One of the reasons why we are relying on “best” or “only” reports is because we had a Government who could have improved the quality of the data to make managed assessments of what controlled immigration that benefits our economy would look like, but instead, unfortunately, we had the borders thrown open with no sense of what our economy ought to be or what the skills ought to be, which is regrettable. Will the Minister comment on the importance of the White Paper to drive forward the immigration system that we actually need, grounded in the data that we need?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend highlights a crucial point about the importance of evidence-based policy and of good data, which was sorely lacking across the whole immigration system when we came into office. The utter chaos, with backlogs in every part of the system, put huge pressure on it and made it much harder to get information about where the backlogs were and who was in them in order to try to exert some control over the system and get that important data to inform future policy.
My hon. Friend is right to point to the Migration Advisory Committee, which continues to do important work to engage with stakeholders and to work across Government. That is an important part of the work that we are doing to use evidence in a much better way to inform how we link skills policy and visa policy. The work to restore order to our immigration system has been under way since we came into office. We will set out our approach, as he has intimated, in our upcoming immigration White Paper. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to explain why we will not support the amendment, and I respectfully suggest that the hon. Member for Stockton West may wish to withdraw it.
Katie Lam
I welcome the Minister’s response, particularly her words about the importance of settlement and citizenship being earned. The Opposition are excited to see the immigration White Paper, and particularly any data and fiscal impact analyses that it may contain. I apologise if this information is already publicly available and I am not aware of it, but can the Minister tell us when the White Paper is due to be published? Can she also set out a scenario in which it would be preferable for a foreign criminal to remain in this country after having been convicted of a crime, and why she considers the new clause to be unworkable?
Seema Malhotra
We have said that we hope to publish the immigration White Paper later in the spring. I have made some remarks in relation to foreign criminals; the Government are clear that they should be deported from the UK whenever it is legal to do so. Any foreign national who is convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence is considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for that point. I have laid out the argument about needing an immigration system that is subject to rules and that can recognise different circumstances. I have also laid out the point about foreign criminals and where it is legal to deport them. Anyone who is convicted of a crime is considered for that.
The hon. Member will also understand that there can be complexity in people’s arrangements. Anything that becomes automatic in the way that she describes needs to be subject to much more debate than a new clause in this Bill Committee. We are not debating immigration; we are debating a system to stop the gangs and improve our border security. It is important that we see the purpose for which this legislation has been designed.
Matt Vickers
We feel strongly about the measures in the new clause, and we wish to press it to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 33 aims to help the Government by providing a way to put securing our borders above spurious human rights claims to frustrate removal. It would disapply the entire Human Rights Act 1998, as well as any interim measures of the Strasbourg court that prevent the effective operation of legislation relating to immigration and deportation. The result would be that those seeking to appeal deportation or other immigration decisions would not be able to make human rights claims under the Human Rights Act in British courts.
The new clause would apply that new power to all aspects of immigration control, including enforcement, deportation, the granting or removal of immigration and asylum status, and any other immigration entitlements. We would expect Parliament to legislate and the Home Office to decide immigration cases based on their reasonable interpretation of the European convention on human rights, but UK judges would be able to use only UK law passed by Parliament to decide appeals, and no longer make expansive and common-sense-defying interpretations of what they claim the ECHR means.
The Human Rights Act would still apply to non-immigration matters, so UK judges could continue to apply the ECHR directly to them. We would still be under the ECHR, so applicants would still be able to go to the Strasbourg court, but the new clause would stop UK judges expanding the definitions. In that scenario, it would be possible to deport people pending a Strasbourg appeal, and it would repeat the measure in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 to give Ministers the power to ignore an ECHR rule 39 interim order. We are not saying that the new clause provides the full answer to controlling our borders. Wider questions such as ECHR membership and wider immigration system reforms are to be addressed in longer-term pieces of work, but the new clause would be a step in the right direction.
The reason the new clause is necessary can be seen in recent decisions about immigration appeals. For example, an Iraqi drug dealer was saved from deportation from the UK after a judge ruled that he was too westernised to be returned to his home country. That man, who was jailed for more than five years after a conviction for dealing cocaine, had lived in Britain for 24 years and has a British-born daughter. Home Office officials attempted to have him deported, but a specialist judge in the asylum tribunal ruled that returning the man to Iraq would violate his human rights as he would be viewed with suspicion. The judge said that the man, who cannot be named, would face persecution in Iraq because he would be seen as westernised.
As we have already mentioned, an Albanian criminal was allowed to stay in Britain partly because his son would not eat foreign chicken nuggets. An immigration tribunal ruled that it would be unduly harsh for the 10-year-old boy to be forced to move to Albania with his father, owing to his sensitivity around food. The sole example provided to the court was his distaste for the type of chicken nuggets available abroad.
Chris Murray
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could just assume that we are familiar with those two cases by now and either not bother citing them or think of some new examples to support his arguments.
Matt Vickers
I think they are relevant; they are things that both the public and I are bothered about. They show the failings of the system and why people are so concerned about the way that it is going.
As a result, the judge allowed the father’s appeal against deportation as a breach of his right to family life under the European convention on human rights, citing the impact that his removal might have on his son. An attempt to deport a Sri Lankan paedophile, who was convicted of assaulting three teenage boys, was delayed over claims that deportation would breach his human rights.
Matt Vickers
I am concerned about the consequences of the Human Rights Act for cases such as this and its role therein.
Matt Vickers
I am concerned, in the context of this new clause, about what the Human Rights Act means for these immigration cases. That is why the new clause proposes to remove its impact and disapply it.
Tom Hayes
I am still not very clear—I apologise, maybe I ate too much at lunch. Does the hon. Gentleman have issues with the Human Rights Act such that he believes that we ought not to be applying it generally? Is this the first step towards its disapplication, or is he more concerned that, while the legislation is fine, we have in what seems a minority of cases judges who are not applying it correctly? Could he also tell me whether what he has here is a snapshot of cases that he is concerned about or the totality of cases that he is concerned about?
Matt Vickers
We have talked about the relevance of disapplying the Human Rights Act with regards to immigration and the impact that it is having on these cases. I think I have been clear, and the hon. Gentleman can read Hansard.
As I was saying, the man was jailed for five offences of sexual activity with a child but has been able to stay in Britain since 2011, owing to a protracted dispute over his asylum case. In 2012, the man, who cannot be named, was branded in court a “danger to the community” over his offences against boys aged between 13 and 15. He then applied for asylum by claiming that his life would be at risk were he to return to Sri Lanka, because he is gay. Since his initial application, his case has been through several court hearings, as judges have assessed whether deporting the 50-year-old would breach his human rights. Those are just three examples of how ever-expanding interpretations of the Human Rights Act have been increasingly frustrating the removal of those who objectively ought to be deported.
Matt Vickers
I think if we allowed first-tier tribunals to go public, we would see a lot more. These things undermine public confidence in the legal framework and the institutions that uphold them, and I think they are terribly wrong. One of these cases is one too many. They are happening in ever-increasing numbers; that is why we have tabled this new clause, and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to vote for it or otherwise.
Our new clause represents a first step to restore some common sense to immigration appeals. New clause 33 steps up to wrest back control from a judiciary that has wandered far from the reservation, turning the Human Rights Act into a sprawling, open-ended blank cheque for immigration status, a carte blanche that has left us all scratching our heads at the sheer audacity of it.
Tom Hayes
That is also a helpful clarification, because the hon. Gentleman’s concern is with the judiciary and its behaviours. Can I clarify what he has just said, exactly as I heard it: his concern is purely about the judge’s application of the Human Rights Act, and he himself is absolutely fine with the Act?
Matt Vickers
We allow our domestic courts to use it. We have created the framework and put it in place, and they do what they can with what is in front of them. I am concerned about the way in which it is applied, and we need to change that if we want to impact the outcomes of those cases and appeals.
Last year alone, we saw far too many appeals built on article 8, the right to a family life, flooding courts with ridiculously broad pleas. This Parliament is elected to decide the laws of the land. Judges are there to uphold that law, yet they have morphed into border gatekeepers, perched on high and second-guessing Home Office decisions with interpretations so elastic they would snap any thread of reason, and family life ballooning to mean whatever they fancy on any given day. The new clause yanks that power back to where it belongs: with MPs, who are answerable to the people who elect them.
New clause 33 is not just a legal tweak; it is a turbocharge for a deportation system bogged down by endless appeals, with removals stalled by Human Rights Act challenges. Each case drags on, costing tens of thousands of pounds per detainee in legal fees and housing, and clogging up detention centres that are already at capacity. Disapplying the Human Rights Act for immigration would fix the logjam, letting Ministers and officials act fast, deporting those our domestic legislation was created to deport and freeing up resources for border patrols and visa processing, which actually keep us secure.
New clause 33 would restore public safety—a lifeline for a priority that has been fraying at the edges and unravelling thread by thread, as dangerous individuals exploit Human Rights Act loopholes to cling to our soil like barnacles on a ship. In 2024 alone, thousands of foreign national offenders—thieves, drug peddlers and worse—languished in UK prisons, costing taxpayers millions to house. Nowhere near enough were bundled on to planes and removed, leaving thousands to stroll out post their sentence, free to roam our streets, because of Human Rights Act claims tying our hands and deviating from Parliament’s intended outcomes.
New clause 33 would cut through that mess. It would mean swift, no-nonsense removal of those who have shattered our laws—not endless hand-wringing debates over some nebulous right to stay that keeps them loitering in our towns. Public opinion, or the view of British law-abiding taxpayers, is clear—nearly three quarters call for foreign criminals to be removed—yet here we are. The current set-up lets threats fester when they should be gone. As the months go by, more of these bizarre judgments emerge, undermining public confidence in the entire system and our legal institutions.
Let us take a tour beyond our shores, because other nations are not fumbling in the dark; they are lighting the way, showing us that this is not some wild, radical leap but a steady, proven path that we would be daft not to tread. For starters, France increased its deportations by 27%, and is also seen to be deftly side-stepping ECHR interim measures, with domestic law overrides. Twenty-seven per cent. sent home—no faffing about with Strasbourg rule 39 edicts; just a clear-eyed focus on keeping France’s borders taut and its streets secure.
Then there is Australia, where the Migration Act does not blink. Rights claims bow to border control, and many are whisked out yearly with minimal fuss. The law, created by those elected to do so, determines who stays and who goes. These are not rogue states; they are democracies—proud and pragmatic, balancing security with sovereignty. New clause 33 strides right into that company. Parliament would lay down the law, not Strasbourg’s fleeting winds, echoing what has clicked abroad, from Paris to Perth.
I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on this proposal—in particular, whether she thinks that some of the recent examples of failed deportations are acceptable. We are apparently very familiar with chicken nugget-gate. If she agrees that some of these outcomes are unacceptable but does not feel that this approach is the way forwards, how will the Government end these cases, which are making a mockery of our justice system and undermining public confidence in our legal institutions?
Pete Wishart
I am compelled again to rise in opposition to what is probably the most egregious of all the new clauses that we are having to consider in today’s marshalled groups. The hon. Gentleman has laid some competition before us, but this new clause is by far the most disgraceful and appalling. The Human Rights Act is an important guarantee. It is what makes us good world citizens and provides rights that are universal. It protects fundamental freedoms such as the right to life, the prohibition on torture and the right to a fair trial—and the Tories do not like it one bit. The right-wing nonsense that we heard from the hon. Gentleman is a fundamental departure from the principle that human rights apply universally, not just to those the Government deem worthy. It is a dangerous precedent that undermines the UK’s long-standing commitment to justice, fairness and the rule of law.
Katie Lam
In November 2024, a Congolese paedophile who sexually assaulted his own stepdaughter was allowed to remain in the UK despite the Government’s attempts to deport him, out of concern that forcing him to leave the country would interfere with his right to a family life. In December 2024, a Turkish heroin peddler was allowed to stay in the UK because it was ruled that deporting him would interfere unduly with his family life, despite the fact that he had returned to Turkey eight times since coming to Britain.
In February of this year, a Nigerian woman who was refused asylum eight times was allowed to remain in the UK because it was decided that her membership of a terrorist organisation might make her subject to persecution in her home country. Earlier this month, a Nigerian drug dealer escaped deportation because he believed that he was suffering from “demonic forces”. Meanwhile, Samuel Frimpong, a Ghanaian fraudster, has been allowed to return to the UK, having being deported 12 years ago, after claiming that he is depressed in his home country.
The list goes on and on. Absurd asylum rulings from our tribunal system seem to emerge on an almost daily basis. What do these cases have in common? In each one, a potentially dangerous person was spared deportation because of our membership of the European convention on human rights, and, crucially, the domestic legislation that enshrines the convention in British law—the Human Rights Act. This legislation is clearly not fit for purpose when it comes to managing and securing the border. It is enabling dangerous foreign criminals to remain in the UK, and putting the British public at risk.
It is time we recognised that decisions about asylum and immigration should be made by politically accountable Ministers, rather than by unaccountable judges and tribunals. That is the purpose of our new clause, which seeks to disapply the Human Rights Act and interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the Bill and other legislation about borders, asylum and immigration.
Pete Wishart
Just to clarify, I think the hon. Lady is saying clearly that what she intends to do is to take decisions about immigration out of the hands of judges, and leave them in the hands of politicians. Is that her intention?
Katie Lam
I will make a little progress.
The concept of universal rights is clearly a good one. It is one of the great gifts to humanity of the Judeo-Christian tradition to recognise that every human life has inherent worth, and every human being should be treated with the dignity that that inherent worth confers. But any set of rules that people might write over time can be distorted or abused, or exploited to take advantage of our society, our kindness and the British impulse and instinct towards trust, tolerance and generosity. Our rules and laws on human rights, and the organisations to which we belong that were created in the name of human rights, should be subject to scrutiny and debate no less than any other rules and laws. Lord Jonathan Sumption, the former Supreme Court judge, said that the United Kingdom’s adherence to the European convention on human rights
“raises a major constitutional issue which ought to concern people all across the political spectrum.”
It is right for us to interrogate our rules. Indeed, that is arguably our main job and the fundamental reason we have been sent here by our constituents. None of our laws should be above repeal, replacement or disapplication, and that must include the Human Rights Act. We are among the luckiest people in the world in that we live in a democracy, and one that I believe has the world’s greatest people as its voters. When the British people see repeated activity that contravenes our national common sense, politicians in Westminster must acknowledge that and do something about it.
If the Government do not wish to disapply the Human Rights Act and interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in matters of asylum and immigration in order to control the border and put a stop to the perverse cases and decisions we are seeing relentlessly arise in the courts, what is their solution? How will they restore common sense, fairness and the primacy of public safety to the security of the border?
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I will just point out that Erskine May urges us not to be critical of judges in UK superior courts. I am sure hon. and right hon. Members will wish to be circumspect in their remarks.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am not sure how much of the debate we could have heard, Dr Murrison, had you made that observation at the beginning of it.
I do not think this Government wish to join Belarus and Russia among those who are not signed up to the European Court of Human Rights. The Government are fully committed to the protection of human rights. When we talk about human rights, that means all people who are human: everybody, applied universally.
As the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the European convention on human rights. The Human Rights Act is an important part of our constitutional arrangements and fundamental to human rights protections in the UK. To start taking those away on a bit-by-bit basis, particularly beginning with people who are very unpopular and have done difficult or bad things, could be the start of a very slippery slope if we are not careful. That is why I am proud that our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill has printed on its front cover that it is compatible with convention rights. This Government will always do things that are compatible with convention rights.
The paradox of some of what has been said in the debate we have just had is that it politicises decisions. That is a very different approach to judicial issues from the one we have seen for very many years, where, in effect, a lot of the powers on particular issues that used to sit with the Home Secretary have been taken by judges who are publicly accountable for their decisions. I do not think that this Government would want to see that reversed. The paradox of new clause 33 is that all those who potentially had a human rights claim, whatever their circumstances, could go straight to the Strasbourg court, which would clog up that court. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire pointed out, that is not taking back control, it is abrogating it, and would flood the Strasbourg court with decisions that could have sensibly been taken here.
That is not to say that any one of us would not be frustrated by particular individual decisions, but I caution against using decisions that have been only partially covered or talked about on the front pages of The Daily Telegraph, which often takes decisions in cases out of context. We have talked a lot about chicken nuggets, and I would just put on the record that that case is being appealed, and judicial activities on that case have not yet finished.
With that commitment to human rights and European convention rights, I hope that Opposition Members will think about some of the potential consequences of what they are suggesting in chopping up human rights and wanting to put us in the same company as Belarus and Russia; about the way convention rights were developed; and about the benefits that adhering to human rights frameworks has given us as a democracy over the years.
Matt Vickers
I am sure that the Minister must disagree with some of the examples that we have seen, and agree that they undermine public trust in the judiciary, legal institutions and the frameworks we have. What is the solution? Must we grin and bear the appalling outcomes of those cases or is there a solution? How does she propose to stop such things happening?
Dame Angela Eagle
I would respectfully say that the hon. Gentleman’s party had many, many years to think of a solution, and most of the cases that Opposition Members have raised today had their genesis in the years that they were in power. Close to the very end, as they became more and more frustrated, they started coming up with more and more outlandish approaches.
Obviously, one wants the entire judicial process to be used, as speedily as possible, and if the Home Office wishes to appeal a particular case, it will do so. We keep a constant eye on the issues and we think about reforms that we could make. Obviously the hon. Gentleman will be the first to hear if we decide to make changes, but we do not wish to abrogate from the Human Rights Act, the ECHR and the human rights framework. That is where we and other Opposition parties differ from him and his party. That is why I do not accept new clause 33 and I hope that the Committee will vote against it if it is pressed to a vote.
Katie Lam
I hope it was clear in my remarks, but for the avoidance of doubt or ambiguity I want to say that the Opposition do not criticise our judges. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West said, they are doing the best they can with the rules and precedents under which they operate. That is why the new clause seeks to change those rules—
Tom Hayes
With the greatest respect, a reading of the Hansard report of what the hon. Member for Stockton West said would be contrary to what the hon. Lady has just asserted. What the hon. Gentleman said could in no way, shape or form be described as complimentary to or supportive of judges. In fact, it was very undermining of judges.
Matt Vickers
The public are appalled by these cases. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire does not want us to change legal frameworks over chicken nuggets: if the Human Rights Act creates a situation in which criminals, rapists and paedophiles are able to stay against domestic law and the intentions of the people charged with making that law, it is unacceptable. We feel strongly about this and wish to divide on the matter.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 42—Removals from the United Kingdom: visa penalties for uncooperative countries—
“(1) The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 70, omit subsections (4) and (5).
(3) In
(4) In section 72—
(a) subsection (1), after ‘A country’, for ‘may’ substitute ‘must’.
(b) In subsection (1)(a) omit ‘and’ and insert—
‘or,
(ab) is not cooperating in relation to the verification of identity or status of individuals who are likely to be nationals or citizens of the country, and’
(c) in subsection (1)(b), after ‘citizens of the country’ insert ‘or individuals who are likely to be nationals or citizens of the country’,
(d) omit subsections (2) and (3), and
(e) in subsection (4), omit from ‘70’ to after ‘subsection (1)(a)’ .
(5) Omit section 74.”—(Matt Vickers.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to use a visa penalty provision if a country is not cooperating in the removal of any of its nationals or citizens from the UK, or in relation to the verification of their identity or status.
Matt Vickers
Currently a prison sentence of one year is required before a foreign national who is a convicted criminal can be deported. Even then, removal can be frustrated by asylum and human rights claims. New clause 34 would prevent a foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK, as well as anyone who has been charged with or convicted of an immigration offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, and would disapply the Human Rights Act from those cases. We believe that the protection of British citizens is paramount and should be the overriding priority for Government. If a foreign national has been convicted of any offence, they should lose their right to remain in the UK.
Dame Angela Eagle
On that point we agree, so why was his Government so tardy at actually deporting foreign national offenders when they were in office?
Matt Vickers
We have just had a lengthy discussion about the Human Rights Act and the impact it has on deportations. However, if she agrees so wholeheartedly on the principle, I am sure she might consider backing our amendment.
There are a number of countries where the UK has a significant number of foreign national offenders currently serving in British prisons. However, we deport only a small number of those foreign national offenders each quarter. Our new clause 42 would require the Secretary of State to use a visa penalty provision if a country is not co-operating in the removal of any of its nationals or citizens from the UK, or in relation to the verification of their identity or status. We have done this by amending the Nationality and Borders Act, so that the ability to impose visa sanctions is not discretionary but mandatory. We know that there are countries that are hard to secure returns to. We believe strongly that that should not be without consequences for those countries.
New clause 34 shifts the lens to where it belongs—on the victims left in the wake of foreign offenders, not the perpetrators gaming the system. In 2024, theft offences alone averaged just 8.1 months—a shopkeeper’s livelihood dented, a pensioner’s purse snatched, or a family’s peace of mind and sense of security destroyed. Public order crimes averaged just 9.6 months, with more huge consequences for the wellbeing of victims who are left with a fear of entering public spaces or unable to go about their ordinary lives. Yet the one year deportation bar enables those culprits to linger, post-sentence, free to reoffend while victims wait for justice that never comes.
This clause says, “Enough.” Any conviction, for shoplifting or worse, triggers removal—no Human Rights Act excuses—because every day a foreign offender is allowed to stay is another day a British victim’s trust in the system erodes. Why are the Government okay with that shadow hanging over our streets? New clause 42 would force nations to play ball uphill. We see too many countries dither and delay in refusing to take back offenders. Mandatory visa sanctions flip that script. No co-operation, no UK visas for their elite. Watch fast how passports materialise when there are real consequences. Why is Labour soft-pedalling when we could wield this stick, clear the backlog and reduce pressure on prison places?
Katie Lam
New clause 34 prevents any foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK. It should be a fundamental principle of our system that immigration never makes the British public any less safe. Unfortunately, however, many of those who have come to the UK in recent years have broken our laws. According to Ministry of Justice figures, a staggering 23% of sexual crimes in the UK—almost one in four—are committed by foreign nationals.
The overall imprisonment rate for foreign nationals is 20% higher than that for British citizens. Of course, the trend is not uniform: some nationalities are more heavily represented than others. Albanian migrants are nearly 17 times more likely to be imprisoned than average; those from Algeria are nearly nine times more likely and those from Jamaica nearly eight times more likely to be imprisoned than average.
Those who seek to harm this country, to break its laws and to undermine what we hold to be fair and right should not be allowed to remain here. As the Government are well aware, our prisons are already overcrowded. We must not allow foreign criminals to continue exacerbating this problem and we must not endanger the British public by allowing foreign criminals to stay in this country.
Under our current system, too many of those who break our laws are being allowed to remain in the UK. Often, Home Office attempts to deport foreign criminals are blocked because of absurd and ever expanding human rights rules. In the interests of public safety, we must not allow foreign criminals to remain in Britain; that includes by making sure that the Human Rights Act cannot be used to prevent us from deporting those who break our laws.
How, specifically, does new clause 34 do that? It amends section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, which we have already mentioned today. Section 32 would be amended from its current form, which defines a foreign criminal as a person who is neither a British nor an Irish citizen, who is convicted of an offence that takes place in the United Kingdom and who is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of least 12 months, or is a serious criminal as defined in section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. What would replace section 32 would be much simpler; it would instead say that a foreign criminal was anyone who is neither a British nor an Irish citizen who is convicted of any offence in the United Kingdom, and explicitly include within that anybody who has been charged with or convicted of an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, which sets out the situations in which a person can be considered to have entered this country illegally. That includes if they do so in breach of a deportation order; if they required leave to enter the United Kingdom and knowingly came here without that leave; or if they required leave to enter the United Kingdom and knowingly stayed here beyond the time conferred by that leave, among other specific conditions.
New clause 34 also seeks to ensure that the rules will be upheld in all circumstances and asserts therefore that the principle of removing criminals from this country is of utmost importance and must be prioritised above other legislation. That includes human rights legislation, for the reasons we have already set out.
I turn to new clause 42, which requires the Secretary of State to use a visa penalty provision if a country proves to be unco-operative in the process of removing any of its nationals or citizens from the UK. Such a lack of co-operation may arise in verifying their identity or status or it may pertain to the process of removing people whose identity and status has not been established. New clause 42 seeks to do that by amending section 70 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. That Act set out the idea of a visa penalty provision, effectively allowing the Home Secretary to suspend visa applications from countries that do not co-operate with the activity that the Government are trying to take to secure and protect the border. The new clause would strengthen that Act by changing that from an option for the Home Secretary to a duty and by adding explicitly the point about countries that are not co-operating with the process of verifying the identity or status of individuals whom we consider likely to be nationals or citizens of the countries in question.
Pete Wishart
I am struggling to understand this new clause. There are a number of reasons why other countries may not be able co-operate with the UK on immigration and visa cases—it could be political instability, or there could be a right-wing despot in charge—but that impacts on ordinary asylum seekers. Does the hon. Lady not accept that there are a number of political or even administrative reasons why they are not always able to co-operate?
Tom Hayes
A volume of information seems to be coming at us now, and it feels as though every 20 words, something absolutely absurd is said. It is a marked contrast with what has gone before. I see the hon. Member for Weald of Kent and the hon. Member for Stockton West standing there, but I hear the voices of other people in their party. It feels very peculiar.
I have a specific question. Quite apart from the fact that the Conservatives effectively decriminalised shoplifting, if an Albanian national is convicted of shoplifting but cannot be deported to Albania, is the hon. Lady saying that she would impose a visa penalty on Albania if it did not accept that shoplifting Albanian national, regardless of what that might do for the wider relationship between Albania and the UK in terms of deportations?
Katie Lam
In that case, I am happy to reassure him that I wrote every word.
The short answer to the question about Albania is yes. We think that would be completely appropriate. Why would Albania refuse to accept one of its own citizens that should, by our rules and our laws, be returned to that country? If it refuses to do so, we would absolutely consider that to an appropriate trigger for that response.
To continue what I was saying, new clause 40 amends section 70 of the Nationality and Borders Act, and it expands the Act to cover both nationals as well as citizens. We consider that it should be a basic and fundamental principle that we should be able to remove from this country those who break our rules. That is harder than it might sound, particularly when individuals are determined to lose their documents and obfuscate their identity and origin in every way they can. What we propose here will align other countries’ incentives with our own. It will create substantial pressure on other nations to co-operate with us to secure our border, and we strongly hope that the Government will consider adding it to the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
New clauses 34 and 42 reprise some of our debate on the last group of new clauses, but they also introduce the idea of the visa penalty that, as the hon. Member for Weald of Kent has just explained, is encompassed in new clause 42. New clause 34 seeks to extend automatic deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK, or charged with an immigration offence, without consideration of their human rights. We dealt with some of that in the last debate. It would remove protections for under-18s and victims of human trafficking, and it seeks to extend the automatic deportation provisions to certain Commonwealth and Irish citizens who are currently afforded exemption from deportation.
I do not believe these new clauses would be workable. They are unrealistic and would undermine our international obligations. We already have the power to deport any foreign national on the grounds that doing so would be conducive to the public good, regardless of whether they have had to serve the 12-month prison sentence that the UK Borders Act 2007 requires. If they are subject to a 12-month prison sentence, it is a duty to deport them.
The hon. Member for Weald of Kent was a special adviser in the Home Office, so she knows about these things, and the hon. Member for Stockton West is a spokesperson in the shadow Home Office team. The Conservatives talk a lot about deportation, but they did not do a lot about it when they had the power to do so.
Matt Vickers
We wish to divide on new clause 34.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 39—Restrictions on visas and grants of indefinite leave to remain—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules provide for all visa grants, including spousal visas, to be conditional on the following—
(a) the requirement that the applicant or their dependents will not apply for any form of ‘social protection’ (including housing) from the UK Government or a local authority, where ‘social protection’ is defined according to the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, subject to any further definition by immigration rules,
(b) the requirement that the applicant’s annual income must not fall below £38,700 (or six months or more in aggregate) during the relevant qualification period.
(2) Immigration Rules made under subsection (1) must ensure that any breach of the conditions set out in that subsection will render void any visa previously granted.
(3) The Secretary of State is not permitted to grant leave outside the immigration rules or immigration acts.
(4) A person is not eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom if any of the following conditions apply.
(5) Condition 1 is that a person is a ‘foreign criminal’ under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.
(6) Condition 2 is that a person, or any of their dependents, has been in receipt of any form of ‘social protection’ (including housing) from the UK Government or a local authority, where ‘social protection’ is defined according to the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, subject to any further definition by immigration rules.
(7) Condition 3 is that a person’s annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period.
(8) A person who has entered the United Kingdom—
(a) under the Ukraine visa schemes;
(b) under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme;
(c) under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy; or
(d) on a British National Overseas visa,
is exempt from the requirements of Condition 2 and Condition 3.
(9) For the purposes of subsections (1)(b) and (7)—
(a) the condition applies only to earnings that have been lawfully reported to, or subject to withholding tax by, HM Revenue and Customs; and
(b) the relevant sum of annual income must be adjusted annually by the Secretary of State through immigration rules to reflect inflation.
(10) The Secretary of State may by immigration rules make further provision varying these conditions, including by way of transitional provisions.”
This new clause would place certain minimum restrictions on the granting of visas or indefinite leave to remain. It would require migrants to be self-sufficient and do not require state benefits, and would deny ILR to foreign criminals.
New clause 40—Cap on number of entrants—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations specifying the total maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually across all non-visitor visa routes, with such regulations subject to approval by both Houses.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations also specify a maximum number of entrants for individual visa routes, subject to the overall total.
(3) No visas may be issued in excess of the total maximum number specified in subsection (1).
(4) Any visas issued in excess of the number specified in subsection (1) must be revoked.”
This new clause would provide a mechanism for a binding annual cap on the number of non-visitor visas issued by the UK.
Matt Vickers
New clause 35 would require the Secretary of State to specify a cap on the number of spouses or civil partners who may enter the UK and on the number who may enter from any one country. It would also amend the immigration rules to set a salary threshold. We know that there is abuse of the current provisions that allow spouses or civil partners to come to the UK. Our amendment is designed to tighten up the rules so as to make abuse less likely.
We believe that it is important for the Secretary of State to set a cap for the number of people who can enter the UK as a spouse or civil partner, and that the number of persons from any one country who enter as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor should not exceed 7% of the maximum number specified. We seek to tighten up that route to entering the UK by ensuring that the applicant provides evidence that the parties under subsection (9)(a) were married or formed a civil partnership at least two years prior to the application; that each of the parties intends to live permanently with the other as spouse or civil partner, and the marriage or civil partnership is subsisting; that the salary of the person who has a right to abode in the UK, or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, equals or exceeds £38,700 per year; and that people cannot sponsor their first cousins under this route.
We believe those changes are necessary to ensure that the relationship is genuine and subsisting, and that the sponsor is able to support their partner once they arrive in the UK. That is part of ensuring that we treat living in this country as a privilege, not a right, and that those coming to the UK to live will contribute to our country.
New clause 39 would place restrictions on the granting of visas and indefinite leave to remain. That is another change to achieve our objective that those who come to the UK are able to contribute. The new clause would ensure that visas were granted only where an applicant or their dependants will not apply for any form of social protection, including housing from the UK Government or a local authority, and where the applicant’s annual income will not fall below £38,700 during the relevant qualification period. If either of those conditions fails to be met, the visa will be revoked.
The new clause also specifies that a person cannot qualify for indefinite leave to remain if they are a “foreign criminal” under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007; if they or any of their dependants have been in receipt of any form of social protection from the UK Government or local authority; or if their annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period. The new clause would not apply to those who have come to the UK through the Ukraine, Afghan or British national overseas schemes.
New clause 40 would introduce some accountability for this place in the overall numbers of migrants coming to the UK per year. It would establish a mechanism whereby Parliament would approve a binding cap on all non-visitor visa routes set out by the Secretary of State. We believe it is important that the House seriously considers the benefits and trade-offs to this country. The new clause is designed to give the House greater accountability for that decision.
New clauses 35 and 39 would build a wall against the quiet epidemic of immigration fraud that has been seeping through our spousal and visa routes—think of sham marriages brokered for £10,000 a pop, or visa overstayers masked by flimsy claims of support. The two-year marriage rule, the £38,700 threshold and the “no first cousin” clause are not just hurdles; they are detectors rooting out paper partnerships before they drain us dry.
The new clauses would anchor immigration to a bedrock of self-reliance, because a Britain that thrives does not prop up newcomers who cannot stand alone. In new clause 35, the £38,700 sponsor salary, which matches that for the skilled worker route, would ensure that thousands of spousal entrants yearly would not tip the welfare scales further. New clause 39 would double down, barring visas and indefinite leave to remain for anyone who dips below that level or taps social housing, for which 1.2 million people are already waiting. This is not exclusion; it is economics, tilting the balance towards those who lift us, not those who lean on us.
New clause 40 is not just a cap; it hands the House the reins of our migration system. The new clause would make Parliament the arbiter, through a binding cap debated here, voted on here, owned here and on which we are fully held to account by the electorate.
Katie Lam
There are few things in life and in human nature more powerful than the desire to be with those we love. To be separated from a husband or wife by a national border is no small thing. Indeed, for those it is happening to, it can feel like everything. But the role of Government is to determine what is right for the country, not for any one person, couple or family. We must place this discussion in its national context. For too long immigration has been too high, and the spousal visa route is increasingly being used by those who would otherwise not be able to come to Britain.
Over the past few years we have seen the number of dependent visas balloon. As of December 2024, 51,000 migrants, bringing 130,000 dependants with them, had come to Britain via the health and social care route over the previous year. That is over 2.5 dependants per health and social care worker—dependants who will access public services in their own right, including our already overstretched NHS. The dependant route for health and social care visa holders has since been restricted, but I mention it because it indicates the huge level of demand and desire there is for family members to come to Britain.
Katie Lam
I think and hope that it has been clear from everything I have said that I make no defence of the previous Government’s activity. It is incredibly important that Conservative Members are able—as is our duty and our responsibility to the public—to talk about the many things that went wrong and, I hope, to help this Government to avoid making the same mistakes.
Katie Lam
As I have set out already, there was never what we are talking about here, which is a formal cap set by Parliament in legislation. However, a number of aims and promises were given to the electorate over the years, and those promises were not kept.
Selective, limited and tailored to our needs—that is the immigration system that the British public have voted for time and again. If we are serious about delivering it, we must take steps to ensure that future Governments do not renege on their promises as previous Governments have. But this is not just about delivering the immigration system that the British people have voted for repeatedly; fundamentally, it is about public trust and accountability.
Put simply, a hard numerical cap on the number of visas issued each year would force Government and Parliament to have accountability for their immigration decisions. If we believe that the overall level of immigration is too high, we should set the cap accordingly, to ensure that technical mistakes do not produce the kind of migration wave that we have seen over the past few years. If we believe that the overall level of immigration is too low, we should be willing to say that publicly, to explain our reasons and to defend our record. Either way, we must be transparent. That will not rebuild public trust in our political system overnight, but it will represent a significant step in the right direction.
Tom Hayes
In a previous sitting, the hon. Lady talked to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire about humanitarian, and safe and legal routes. She highlighted the difficulty that humanitarian events often happen without warning or anticipation. Our country and others will respond as quickly as possible, and one response might be to open a safe and legal route. Do the Opposition new clauses take account of any possible scenarios, recognising that it is hard to anticipate them? Is there any flexibility in the numbers that she provides for the visa category that would support people coming in who are refugees and people in genuine need?
Katie Lam
As the hon. Gentleman can read in the new clause, the wording does not state that the caps have to be set and cannot be revised; it is more than possible to come back to Parliament to change them. If such a situation arises—he is totally right to say that many of them are emergencies and may have been unforeseeable—there is no reason why that case should not be made to the British public and the cap changed. We are talking here about the need for that case to be made to the British public and for there to be transparency.
Some Labour Members have mentioned my time at the Home Office, where I was a special adviser. I worked primarily on national security, not on legal migration, but it was very clear to me from what I could see of the problems that all my colleagues were facing that most of Government—most Departments, and the Minister may be experiencing this now—are geared for higher levels of migration. For example, it is helpful for the Department of Health and Social Care to have high volumes of health and social care visas issued, or for the Treasury, which issues gilts based on our overall GDP, to have as many people here as possible.
The purpose of the cap would be to bring those conversations out into the open. If those Departments and Ministers wished to justify to the public, to the British people, why those numbers needed to be higher, that conversation should be had where the British people can hear it.
Tom Hayes
New clause 40 mentions the Secretary of State making
“regulations specifying the total maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually”
within six months of the passing of this Bill. I assume that the hon. Lady is saying that a statement may be made providing for the annual cap per visa category, over, say, four or five years, and not that the Secretary of State would have to come back each year. Am I right or wrong in thinking that? Could she clarify that?
Katie Lam
The hon. Member asks a good question. I am not sure whether that would be explicitly decided on the face of the Bill; that could be something that the Home Office decided subsequently—whether it wished to set out future years or just the following one. In my initial response to the hon. Member, the point that I was trying to clarify was that that cap can, of course, be changed. Once it is set, it does not need to be set in stone for ever, but it is important that it exists and that the conversation about what it should be is had in front of the British public.
Chris Murray
It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Weald of Kent setting out her argument articulately, and it was good to hear her say that she recognises that the last Government made a lot of mistakes on immigration, and that the evidence shows that. Sadly, although it is good to have that recognition, it does not seem as though very much has been learned from the Conservatives’ experience in office, based on each of the new clauses that they have set out.
First, on the spousal visas, quite a lot of what is in new clause 35 actually exists already. There are already salary thresholds and things like that. It is unlike me to praise the previous Conservative Government on immigration, but, actually, across previous Administrations, both Labour and Conservative, very good work has been done on issues such as sham and forced marriages. What is new in new clause 35, which is a very strange and horrible power to give Ministers, is the ability to either restrict the nationalities that British people can marry or set thresholds on them. I have huge respect for my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, but I do not think that they should be able to choose what nationalities I am allowed to marry. We got rid of anti-miscegenation laws in the 20th century; we do not want returning through the back door, through measures such as this. Most of all, this arbitrary figure of 7% is very strange; if I were to marry, say, an Australian or an American, I would have to hope that I was not in the 8th percentile of people to do that. That would be a very strange way for us to ask British citizens to live their lives and fall in love with people.
Opposition Members also made the point about how the legislation needs to look backwards and make sure that migrants are net fiscal contributors over their lifetimes. I would say, again, that that is not a realistic thing to ask Governments to do. We will only know whether we have been net fiscal contributors when we die, so we cannot really ask people to make those projections.
Finally, there is the numerical visa cap in new clause 40. Again, that is a gimmick that is not addressing the actual structural problems in the immigration system. First, it treats all migrants the same, as one big monolithic whole, yet we know that the impact of migrants on communities is different, whether they are spouses, students, doctors, lorry drivers or refugees.
If we are going to have this kind of cap, how do we prioritise? Will it apply throughout the whole of the year? How will businesses plan if they want to recruit from overseas? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East said, what if emergencies mean that there are more people coming in? The last Conservative Government set a cap for tier 2 visas, then, of course, ended up hitting it and just exempting doctors and nurses from it anyway. Is it not inevitable that we will just be condemned to repeat history if we do that here? We have talked a lot about public trust in the immigration system and how that has been so deeply sapped by failures on immigration policy. The Conservatives had a net migration target of 100,000 a year, which they consistently failed to meet and had to revise. This proposal is just advocating that we repeat that exact mistake, but hoping for a different outcome, which seems bonkers to me.
Seema Malhotra
A number of the issues raised regarding these new clauses have already been debated in relation to other measures, so I will keep my remarks fairly brief on some of the additional issues.
Matt Vickers
We think it is right that there should be limits on the number of people who can arrive here as a spouse or partner, a requirement on those bringing people to be able to support themselves, and a cap on the number of people entering the country. We wish to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is vital to giving immigration enforcement the powers it needs to smash the gangs and tackle any criminality surrounding those who arrive here illegally. It would give immigration enforcement access to asylum accommodation centres. Currently, there are limitations around the detention of those arriving illegally on small boats. These limitations arise from a lack of statutory power, as well as a lack of state capacity to detain those arriving illegally.
In government, the Conservative Administration set up accommodation centres, which provided a plausible alternative to hotels. Because the centres were not used to make immigration decisions, in practice immigration enforcement officers did not find it possible to enter them for the purposes of examining, arresting and detaining persons residing therein for the purposes of refusal and removal.
Tony Smith, the former director general of UK Border Force, has powerfully argued that immigration enforcement teams must have clear authority to enter all places where asylum seekers are residing to examine, interview, arrest or detain them as appropriate. The Opposition agree wholeheartedly, for these would be proportionate powers for the state to use to enforce the law. Currently, centres housing thousands of small boat arrivals are not detention hubs. Instead, they are in effect halfway houses between the point of processing and where decisions can be made. Consequently, there is a substantial asylum backlog, which has created bottlenecks in the system. This is simply inadequate for everyone involved. It cannot continue, and it must stop.
The new clause therefore tries to end this predicament and failure in the system. Enforcement cannot be allowed to be bereft of action, unable to chase absconders who vanish into the ether without a trace. We need to empower officers to go into these sites to interview, arrest and detain where appropriate. That would allow faster decisions, faster refusals and quicker removals. The clause would not only mean a more efficient system that saves hardworking taxpayers’ money, but help decimate the business model of the people-smuggling trade. In just the last two years, traffickers have accumulated hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds in profit. We all know the tragic consequences of people who have made this life-threatening journey.
We must, at all costs, undermine the business model of the people smugglers. That is the truly compassionate thing to do, so I am proud to support clause 36 because it eliminates gaps in our asylum enforcement system, ends centres being off limits and hence makes it much more difficult for people to get lost in the system. So we have to act, and act now. As such, clause 36 appears to be common sense, allowing our enforcement agencies the access that the average person would probably assume they already have. Does the Minister think an amendment or power such as this would be of operational benefit to immigration enforcement, and if not, why not?
Pete Wishart
I do not want to detain the Committee for long with this amendment, but this is just another abhorrent amendment from the warped imagination of the Conservative party. I do not know where they come up with things like this. They would have to be very creative and very cruel to propose something quite like this. The amendment would allow immigration enforcement officers to visit accommodation centres at any time without prior notice. Asylum seekers and other residents at these centres are often fleeing persecution, war and violence and will have suffered severe trauma. The constant threat of unannounced visits from immigration enforcement will create an atmosphere of fear, making it even more difficult for individuals to feel safe.
Allowing immigration enforcement to visit any resident at any time is a clear violation of privacy. It undermines their dignity and wellbeing and could lead to harassment or increased surveillance, further marginalising already vulnerable populations. Vulnerable individuals should not be made to feel constantly watched or threatened by authorities, especially when they are seeking safety and stability. The presence of immigration enforcement officers may discourage asylum seekers and migrants from seeking support or reporting issues of abuse, exploitation or trafficking. All this could do is undermine the very support structures designed to help individuals rebuild their lives in the UK.
The amendment lacks any clear safeguards or accountability mechanisms for how immigration enforcement would operate, and I urge the Committee to reject it. I hope it rejects the rest of the Conservative party’s amendments, too.
Katie Lam
New clause 36 would give access to asylum accommodation centres to our immigration enforcement officers. Members of the public may be surprised to learn that this power does not already exist. It seems to me common sense that when a person has come here illegally and is being housed by the state, immigration enforcement—an arm of that state—should be able to enter that accommodation to carry out their work.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West rightly set out, these accommodation centres exist because the volume of those coming here illegally is such that it is not possible to hold everyone in immigration detention. There are therefore substantial numbers of people on immigration bail, and a reasonable number of those are held in accommodation centres. Immigration decisions are made elsewhere, but this is the criterion set out in current legislation. In our view, this is a quirk of the current system, and not how one would design it if starting from a blank page. These sorts of accommodation centres did not exist when our rules were written, and we think that this corrects that quirk.
I echo the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West: does the Minister think that this would be of operational benefit to immigration enforcement officers? If so, will she include it, and if not, why not?
Dame Angela Eagle
New clause 36 seeks to provide a right of access upon request for Home Office teams working within immigration enforcement to asylum accommodation centres in order to visit those centres and residents at any time.
Matt Vickers
I think the public will be stunned to hear that immigration enforcement officers have challenges in accessing asylum accommodation centres, as outlined by Tony Smith, the former director general of UK Border Force. We will therefore seek to press the new clause to a vote.
Dame Angela Eagle
The new clause talks about accommodation centres, which do not exist. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by accommodation centres?
Martin Vickers
We have had provision for accommodation centres. We have had accommodation centres.
Martin Vickers
I know there are 8,500 more in hotels now, but this was a measure that was put in place to reduce that hotel dependency, to stop us increasing the number of people in those hotels by 29%.
Dame Angela Eagle
I want to put something on the record before we vote. There is a specific meaning in law for the phrase “accommodation centres” under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Since that law was passed, no Government have actually stood up accommodation centres under that specific meaning. Therefore, the shadow Minister in his new clause 36 is asking for powers to enter something that does not exist.
Pete Wishart
While the Minister is on her feet, could she perhaps ask the Opposition spokesperson whether he actually means hotels?
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I was trying to help the shadow Minister, because I thought he might be trying to talk about accommodation generally. If that is the case, we already have the powers we need to enter when and where we wish. This power is much broader, and we would not like to see it put into effect, which is why I hope the Committee will vote against the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 enable asylum seekers to obtain housing and funds to support themselves while they wait to find out whether they will get asylum. Their children can attend state schools and they are entitled to NHS care. We know that asylum seekers crossing the channel in small boats are often given bail and provided with asylum support. Those with no UK address will be allocated asylum housing, or placed in asylum hotels or accommodation centres. The National Audit Office has estimated that the cost of this to the taxpayer was around £4.7 billion in 2023-24.
Matt Vickers
We have had many alternative means of accommodation, including hotels. Accommodation of asylum seekers in hotels is through the roof—it is up 29%, with 8,500 more people staying in them—but the situation I am describing applies more widely than any accommodation centre or hotel.
The £4.7 billion tab for 2023-24 covered beds, meals and NHS visits while the backlog ballooned.
Chris Murray
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that that number has “ballooned”—or gone up highly—not just in the aggregate but per asylum seeker? The hon. Gentleman wants to try to charge people, but his party let the system get completely out of control. Maybe it was the backlog that let it get out of control, rather than the kind of hotels that people were staying in.
Matt Vickers
The reality is that somebody is getting charged for it and paying for it, and at the moment that is the Great British public. There are ballooning costs. There are increasing numbers: illegal arrivals are up 28% since the election, there are 29% more people in hotels, and fewer of the people who arrive illegally are being removed. The number goes up, the cost continues to go up, and somebody has to pick up the tab. Making the person repay those costs once they are working—with, say, £10,000 over a decade—could claw back hundreds of thousands of pounds. That is not small change: it is classrooms built, potholes filled and nurses hired. Why are the Government content to let this sinkhole drain us dry when we could balance the books with a system that asks those who are successful to pay back some of these costs?
In his evidence, Tony Smith highlighted the knowledge that such support is available as a pull factor that encourages people to cross the channel. We share Tony Smith’s view that making it clear that the costs of asylum support and accommodation will be recovered once the applicant is economically active could help to disincentivise future crossings. That is why we have tabled new clause 37.
The proposed new clause would enable the Government to treat asylum support like a student loan, with asylum seekers able to pay back the cost of support when they are in paid employment. We believe that if someone’s asylum appeal is granted and they are allowed to remain in this country and they are able to work, they should be required to pay back to the state the costs of their maintenance, as and when they are able. State support is not a right.
Tom Hayes
This may be our last sitting day; I say this in hopes that it is. Over the last few sittings, having not known the hon. Member for Stockton West, I have grown in admiration for him, because he has had to defend very difficult things from the previous Government. It has felt like he is a goalkeeper standing in front of goal without any gloves on, and balls have been hit at him from every direction, so I do have admiration for him. But this is frankly absurd—it really is bonkers. Is this the hon. Member’s idea, or is it somebody else’s idea that he is having to make a case for? I really hope it is the latter.
Matt Vickers
To the hon. Gentleman’s electors and mine, these things come at huge cost. As we have set out, that money could be used by the people who pay in to the system, and have done for a very long time. We have drawn an analogy with student tuition fees and I think it is very relevant. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s well-hidden admiration in recent times, but I think this is the right thing to do, and I am well on board with it. State support is not a right, and if a person is able to contribute later by paying some of that back, we believe it is right for them to do so.
Katie Lam
We have spoken many times today, and over the course of this Bill Committee’s proceedings, about the fundamental principles of fairness upon which we believe that our immigration system should be built. We have also spoken extensively about the generosity of the British state, and how much it costs to support those who, according to our rules, cannot support themselves. But that generosity, while admirable in what it says about our approach to our fellow man, costs the British taxpayer dearly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West set out, it costs many billions of pounds a year. It also causes additional pressure on infrastructure and public services, which is not covered by what we suggest here.
We consider that new clause 37, which would introduce the asylum support repayment scheme, is a totally fair way of proposing that people who come to this country are responsible for contributing for the services that they receive. That includes the accommodation that they live in. We do not see any reason why that should be viewed as a negative change, and we really hope that the Government include it in their Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
New clause 37 would give the Secretary of State regulation-making powers to set out arrangements for asylum seekers to receive loans towards their maintenance and accommodation—but, as we have discussed in this Committee during scrutiny of the Bill, the costs of accommodating and supporting asylum seekers has grown significantly. The reason for that increase is that the Government inherited an asylum system under exceptional strain, with tens of thousands of cases previously at a complete standstill—the perma-backlog, which we have referred to on many occasions during our proceedings in the past few weeks—claims not being processed, and a record number of people having arrived on small boats in the first half of the year.
While immediate action was taken to restart asylum processing, we cannot resolve the situation overnight. It nevertheless remains our commitment to reduce the cost of asylum accommodation, including by ending the use of asylum hotels. The size of the existing backlog, particularly in appeals, means that we are forced to use hotels in the meantime. That is not a permanent solution, but it is a necessary and temporary step to ensure that the system does not buckle under exceptional strain.
Increasing the speed at which asylum claims can be processed and dealt with is the best way of dealing with this issue of cost, in my view. I think on all sides we want to see the costs come down. We want to see a properly functioning immigration system that delivers fair, timely decisions and manages public funds. Hotel costs have actually dropped from over £9 million a day to under £6 million a day. Overall the Department is planning to deliver £200 million of additional in-year savings in 2024-25, and £700 million of savings against 2024-25 levels during the following financial year, on asylum costs. These measures, taken together, would represent a saving of over £4 billion across 2024-25 and 2025-26 when compared with the previous trajectory of spending.
The Home Office has a legal obligation, as set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, to support asylum seekers—including any dependants—who would otherwise be destitute: “destitute” is the word that people need to remember there. Asylum seekers can apply for accommodation, subsistence, or both accommodation and subsistence support when they are destitute. Once official refugee status has been given, the individual is able to work in the UK.
Although asylum seekers generally do not have the right to work in the UK while they are waiting on a decision about their asylum claim, there are some instances in which they can apply for permission to work. They are eligible to do so if they have waited over 12 months for an initial decision on their asylum claim, or for a response to a further submission for asylum, and they are not considered responsible for the delay in decision making.
In that context, the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Stockton West is an interesting one. I would welcome clarification on how such a loan scheme would operate alongside or instead of the current system, and the details of any assessment of the practical or economic benefit of such a scheme. Further scoping would be necessary in order to establish whether it is a feasible option. As such, its inclusion in this Bill is premature.
Matt Vickers
The big question is “Who pays?”. There is a huge cost here. I would never seek to get political about the political choices made with funding in recent times—I would not go into the winter fuel payment, or the increase in tuition fees. Tuition fees is an interesting comparator, though, because we ask those who are able to do so to contribute to the costs incurred in delivering them their education. We should be asking people who arrive in this country, who could go on to become very successful, to contribute to some of those costs.
Katie Lam
I welcome the Minister’s response. Might she please commit today to a date by which the Home Office at least aims for all migrant hotels to be closed, as per her party’s manifesto commitments? I also welcome what she had to say about bringing down costs. She is right to say that the best way to minimise the Home Office’s bill for asylum accommodation is to process applications as quickly as possible. Where asylum applications are approved, though, most of those costs transfer to the welfare system, so I would be interested to hear her response on who in Government is currently responsible for tracking and understanding that cost.
Dame Angela Eagle
We inherited a system that was very siloed, where work was not really cross-departmental at all. One example that occurs to me is that the system dealing with all the legacy applications, which the previous Government embarked on dealing with at first-tier tribunal in 2023 and then boasted about having achieved. However, that was only the initial decision in the system; if it was granted, I suppose people felt lucky, but those who were not granted appealed the decision. While the Home Office, under the previous Government, congratulated itself publicly on dealing with that legacy system, many people were actually still in the system.
One important thing we have done since coming into government has been to begin working cross-departmentally to develop metrics on how to deal with an end-to-end system. We are not there yet, and we understand that costs can sometimes be transferred to other areas; that is why I am working closely with the Local Government Association, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the MOJ to try to get the system working more effectively end to end.
I cannot give the hon. Member for Weald of Kent a date on when hotels will close, but I can say that we are doing our best. Given the huge cost and the fact that the contracts for providing them that we inherited from the Conservative party are so expensive, it will certainly be in the interests of saving a lot of money to close them as soon as we can, and we certainly aim to do so.
Katie Lam
Again, rightly and reasonably, the Minister talks about lowering costs, but might she say a few words about fairness and the principle that this new clause seeks to speak to: should those who have lived in that accommodation, who have benefited from that provision by the state, ultimately pay it back, if they can afford to?
Dame Angela Eagle
The hon. Lady will have noticed that I have not dismissed the idea completely, but I do not think the idea is anywhere near a position where one could talk about how it might be practicable, and certainly it is not at a stage where one could consider putting it into primary legislation.
Matt Vickers
State support is not a right and, if a person is able later to contribute by paying some of it back, we believe it is right for them to do so. We wish to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 38 would require the Government to make changes to arrangements for leave outside the immigration rules. It would require the Secretary of State, within three months of the passing of this Act, to consult on reforms to arrangements for leave outside the immigration rules. The consultation must consider how best to ensure that leave outside the rules is granted only in the most exceptional circumstances, in which a reasonable person would consider it unacceptable to refuse entry to the United Kingdom. Within 18 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make changes to the immigration rules to implement the required reforms to leave outside the rules.
We have tabled this new clause because we are concerned about the Government’s response to the recent decision in the upper tribunal to allow a family from Gaza to obtain permission to come to this country using the Ukraine family scheme. The appellants were Palestinians who, at the time of the decision under challenge, were residing in al-Mawasi, the humanitarian zone of Gaza.
The first and second appellants were husband and wife, and had lived in Gaza since 1994. They were the parents of the remaining four appellants, who at the time of the decision were 18, 17, eight and seven years of age. The sponsor for the application was the first appellant’s brother, who had moved to the United Kingdom in 2007 and is now a British citizen.
The first-tier tribunal declined the application and the decision was appealed. The main issues to be decided by the first-tier tribunal were whether there was family life under article 8(1) between the appellants and the sponsor in the UK, whether the respondent’s decision interfered with any family life and/or any private life enjoyed by the sponsor, and whether any such interference was disproportionate.
The upper tribunal did not agree with the Home Office’s argument that the first-tier tribunal judge had erred in finding that there was family life between the appellants and sponsor. It found that there was family life and that the Home Office decision not to allow the family leave outside the rules was a disproportionate interference with the family life of the appellants and the sponsor.
When the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Prime Minister about this particular case at Prime Minister’s questions, he responded that he did not agree with the decision of the upper tribunal, and said that the Government were
“looking at the legal loophole that we need to close in this particular case.” —[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 249.]
The new clause makes a suggestion about what that “legal loophole” might be, but it is extremely important that the Minister is able to answer the following questions. Did the Home Office decide not to appeal the upper tribunal decision? If so, why? What is the legal loophole that the Prime Minister said the Home Secretary was closing? Can the Minister be extremely precise about that, please? Can she explain when the House will be updated on this issue? Finally, if there is a legal loophole to close, why is that not being done through this Bill?
Seema Malhotra
I find this a very interesting debate and an important one in a number of respects. New clause 38 would require a consultation on the Government’s approach to the exercise of discretion to grant leave outside the rules in what any reasonable person would consider to be the most exceptional circumstances to warrant such a grant, with a requirement for a change to the rules to follow, to regulate on the basis of what discretion may have been exercised.
The rules set out the main purposes for which a person may enter or stay in the UK, and the requirements to be met for them to be granted permission to do so. Exceptional circumstances are already considered. The rules are intended to apply, and be applied, in most circumstances to ensure transparency and fairness between individuals, but the existing policy approach recognises that there are some circumstances that they simply cannot cater for, and it is in the most exceptional circumstances that consideration is given to leave outside the rules under the Immigration Act 1971.
A period of leave outside the rules would usually be granted for a short, one-off period of permission to stay, suitable to accommodate or overcome the exceptional circumstance, if compassionate or compelling grounds are raised in the individual case. A person may request an exercise of discretion. Factors considered may be related to, for example, emergencies, unexpected events, a crisis, a disaster, an accident that could not have been anticipated, or a personal tragedy. The Government will continue to consider where and when there is need to exercise discretion outside the rules. By its very nature, that is considered only in the most exceptional of circumstances.
It is probably not appropriate for me to go into the case that the hon. Member for Stockton West raised, beyond what has been said in the House. He asked some very specific questions, and I am happy to come back to him with what I can in writing. It is important to say that this is not the correct legislation for a debate about the requirements for discretion to grant leave outside the immigration rules, nor is it the correct place to define the parts of immigration policy on which the Government should consult.
Matt Vickers
On that case and on the loophole, which Minister does not think is relevant to this legislation, what does she identify that loophole as, and why does she not feel that that broader issue is relevant in considering this Bill?
Seema Malhotra
The shadow Minister understands extremely well that the Bill is about ensuring we stop the criminal gangs and that it introduces new powers to do so. On other new clauses that he tabled, I have given the same response in relation to aspects of the immigration rules. This is not the correct legislation to define parts of immigration policy or to try to determine what the Government should consult on.
As I said, the Government continue to consider where and when there is a need to exercise discretion outside the rules. By its very nature, that is considered in only very exceptional circumstances. I have shared what some of those factors might be: unexpected events, a crisis, an accident that could not have been anticipated, or a personal tragedy. I am sure he understands those matters, considering that he has served in office.
Matt Vickers
This is a valuable and important debate because many people felt strongly about this issue. The decision in that case flew in the face of the values of the Ukraine scheme. It could undermine commitments to future such schemes, so it is of great consequence.
Katie Lam
I am a little confused by the Minister’s stating that several of our amendments should not be debated with this Bill. I fully concede that she is more experienced than I am, but my understanding is that any amendment considered in scope can be tabled, debated and voted on. Given the fact that these amendments were considered in scope, I am interested in why she thinks it is not appropriate for us to discuss them today.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the shadow Minister for her comments. I am not disputing that there can be a debate on them. What I am saying is that the Bill has a clear and defined purpose, and it would not be appropriate to extend it to be more than what it is designed to be when there are other mechanisms by which immigration rules are debated in the House.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the shadow Minister for asking what the Bill is about, but we are just at the end of scrutiny of it, so I am sure she is aware that it is about increasing powers, in particular, to be able to better tackle the criminal gangs that are undermining our border security and putting lives at risk. We are making sure that we have bodies such as the Border Security Command on a statutory footing. We have had many other debates in the House about this.
Matt Vickers
Often with amendments we want to bring things out into the light. One thing I have not quite heard is what the Government are doing in the light of the issues with the Ukraine scheme, in particular to prevent what happened in the case I mentioned from happening again. We have this big borders Bill coming through, which will hopefully be the answer to the world’s problems and improve the situation, but are the Government doing anything about the misapplication of the Ukraine scheme to ensure that the case I mentioned will not happen again?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Gentleman is right, and the Prime Minister laid out the view that it was the wrong decision. We do need to find a way to tighten up how Parliament understands the rules and how they are interpreted, but as I say, that scheme is not a matter for this Bill. We are at the very end of debating the Bill and now I am being asked what it is for. I am sure that the shadow Ministers do not want to go all the way through the line-by-line debate again. Suffice it to say that the matters they are seeking to extend the legislation to cover stray into broader aspects of immigration that in our view are not appropriate for inclusion in this Bill. There are other mechanisms for us to seek to debate and change immigration rules.
Katie Lam
I thank the Minister for responding to me earlier. The Opposition’s view is that the various ways by which people come here illegally and stay is fundamentally important to smashing the gangs, and that leave outside the rules and the ways it may be abused are a big part of that. That seems to us to be part of the fundamental point that we are discussing. Will the Minister comment on that?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Lady is right. I have raised a number of times during the debate we have had the ways in which we see routes abused; indeed, the way that routes have been designed has left them open to more abuse. We are now reaping the results of that, in terms of some of the measures and the tightening up that we are doing. She will be aware that we have raised this as a matter that it is important for us to bring under greater control as part of an immigration system that is fit for the future and more controlled, more managed and fairer, and the aspects that we believe can and should be considered for a future immigration system will be the subject of the immigration White Paper. I look forward to debating that with her.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the revocation of asylum or refugee status, or leave to remain, in relation to an applicant who returns to their country of origin, either subsequently or while their application is being processed. It would also apply to people who make an immigration human rights claim.
If an individual has made a claim that being made to return to their country of origin would violate their human rights and put them in danger, then their choosing voluntarily to return to their home country would suggest that something does not add up. Fundamentally, no reasonable person would consider an individual’s returning to their home country to be compatible with their claim for asylum in such circumstances. If a person needs to remain in this country because they have a legitimate fear of persecution in their country of origin, a return to that country of origin fundamentally undercuts that claim.
Pete Wishart
I have studied this measure closely. Conditions change within the countries that people leave, and asylum status and human rights records change accordingly. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that there is no reason whatsoever that an asylum seeker may go back to their country of origin and then come back to the UK? What about family emergencies? Surely the Conservatives are not so callous as to suggest that people cannot go back to their country of origin for a family funeral, for example.
Matt Vickers
People arrive in this country out of fear of persecution. People come from the most awful, extreme circumstances. That is the bar that we put to asylum. We allow people to come here to claim asylum out of fear for their welfare, and if they are happy to pack their bags and pop back for a break, then that is on them. I believe, and I think the public would believe, that if someone comes here claiming fear of persecution in their country of origin then they should not be going back. It is not an opt-in or opt-out—it is not a holiday. If they are coming here out of fear of persecution in that country then they should not be going back.
We have tabled new clause 41 in order to address a loophole that people can and do exploit. The new clause would uphold British fairness—a value that welcomes those in need but rejects exploitation. As Members from across the House know, the United Kingdom has supported over 20,000 Afghans since 2021 through the Afghan relocations policy and over 200,000 Ukrainians since 2022 via visa schemes, alongside our Hong Kong friends with British national overseas visas, backed further by £4.7 billion in asylum costs in 2023-24. These commitments reflect our readiness to help those with genuine cases—those fleeing real danger who have ties to Britain. The value of fairness demands a fair system that is not abused.
Matt Vickers
We are talking about all sorts of circumstances, and I am sure that every one of these things would be pushed to the max, with lots of discussion and debate. The idea here is the principle that if someone cannot be in a country because it would be to their detriment and damage their wellbeing, then they should not be going back. If it is such a security threat that they need to come to the UK for asylum—
Matt Vickers
People who claim asylum arrive here from some of the most terrible, awful circumstances—their life is threatened and they are at real risk. If someone is at that level of risk, on the balance of probabilities, they would not be going back. If someone fears persecution in the way that many of the people who get asylum in this country do, then they would not be returning.
Pete Wishart
We really cannot let them away with this, because it is just cruelty personified. Would the hon. Gentleman not make every effort and take every risk to return to his country of origin if it were the funeral of his mother or father?
Matt Vickers
I hear what hon. Members are saying, but in the current system we allow people to pop back on holiday. Is that acceptable?
Matt Vickers
I am talking about those circumstances. We have heard one extreme; at the other extreme, we have people claiming asylum at huge cost. That is not a cost to well-heeled people, in particular, but to British taxpayers, some of whom are struggling to get by, but are contributing to this country and this system, which pays out for various other things. We want to be generous. We want to support the people who need that help. It is the right thing to do and, I have just outlined, we have done that. But we cannot allow that generosity to be abused; we cannot allow people to pop off on holiday back to wherever they came from and then come back. That is the principle that is at stake here. People out there feel that it is very unfair that people pop back, and use asylum here as something hotel-like. That is the other extreme. That is the abuse that we are seeing, and that is what the new clause aims to end.
Tom Hayes
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Hongkonger population would be very disheartened to hear what he is saying? Does he think it is right for him to stick to what he is saying? Would it not be better to show some sympathy to that particular population who are here?
Matt Vickers
I show lots of sympathy. It is right that we have put all these schemes in place, and it is right that we are supporting these people in the way we are. I also think a little bit about what the British people would think about what I am saying, and the abuse they are seeing of these schemes that allow people to pop back to other countries for various reasons. The hon. Gentleman has given one extreme; I have given the other. I think that is a principle that the British public would be on board with.
Katie Lam
Throughout our long history, Britain has been an unusually compassionate place. From time to time, people have come to this country to seek sanctuary from tyranny and authoritarianism elsewhere in the world. My county of Kent became home to many of the Huguenots who fled religious persecution in France in the 16th century. Indeed, Canterbury cathedral still hosts a French-language service every Sunday, in honour of those who came to this country in search of tolerance and religious freedom.
My grandmother came to Britain in 1937 at the age of 13, as a refugee from Germany. Her grandfather was a state senator and a fierce critic of the Nazis. When Hitler came to power, the whole family were stripped of their citizenship and several were arrested. After years imprisoned and various daring prison escapes, the family first made it over the border to Czechoslovakia, where they set up a resistance radio station broadcasting back into Germany. One night, that was raided by the SS and one of the operators was shot dead. They then fled to England and to freedom.
We should be proud of our history. There are so many Brits like me who would not be here and would never have been born without the past generosity of this great country. But as I said earlier, we must also be realistic about the very many ways in which our system can be exploited by the cynical and the sinister. There are, of course, people who come to these shores legitimately seeking asylum, but we must also be honest about the fact that not everyone who comes to this country and applies for asylum has a legitimate case for doing so. We can see that evidenced in the fact that not all claims are approved.
Too often, asylum is used as an immigration route for those who otherwise would not be able to come here. Our compassion is therefore exploited by those who are in no real danger at all, a sad truth made clear by the fact that many would-be asylum seekers regularly return home without issue. The bar to claiming asylum should rightly be high. People should be in serious danger in their home country to qualify. Government Members are right to say that the new clause might cause difficult and, in some instances, heartrending situations, but that in and of itself does not make it the wrong thing to do.
Last December, as I mentioned earlier when discussing our human rights legislation, a Turkish heroin dealer was allowed to stay in the UK after first seeking asylum here in 1988. Despite claiming that he would be persecuted in his home country, the man had returned to Turkey at least eight times since arriving in Britain. On one of those trips, he even got married to a woman with whom he had been having an affair, despite already being married with children in the UK. Nevertheless, he escaped deportation, as it was ruled that deporting him would interfere with his right to a family life. That kind of scenario is clearly wrong and contributes to the persistent feeling that so many ordinary British people have that our asylum system is broken and unfair.
Dame Angela Eagle
New clause 41 would require the revocation of protection status or leave, or discontinuation of asylum claims, where an applicant returns to their country of origin. The Government are in absolute agreement on the principle behind the new clause. Although we are committed to providing protection to those who genuinely need it for as long as it is needed, in accordance with our obligations under the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, such protection status must be granted only when it is required. As such, I want to reassure Opposition Members that, under our existing policy, where an individual returns to their country of origin, we consider whether they have re-availed themselves of the protection of that country. Where that is the case, we seek to revoke their protection status under the appropriate provision set out in the immigration rules.
We are also clear that asylum claims may be discontinued and withdrawn where the applicant fails to comply with the asylum process, which includes leaving the UK before a decision is made on their claim. I hope Opposition Members are therefore assured that the immigration rules enable protection status to be revoked already and applications to be discontinued where an applicant has returned to their country of origin. As such, new clause 41 is not required.
Matt Vickers
We wish to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Katie Lam
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a probing amendment tabled by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), to tease out what he feels are important issues to discuss in the context of the Bill. I would like to make it very clear that the Opposition are neither supporting nor opposing this new clause. Ideally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire would have spoken to this new clause, but she has Parliament-related business elsewhere today, so I am standing in.
The background to the new clause is that various international treaties impose, or have been interpreted as imposing, an obligation on states not to send people back to a country where they would face harm. This is known as non-refoulement. However, not all non-refoulement obligations are the same, and there are important differences. The new clause seeks to tease out the differences between the ECHR on the one hand, and the refugee convention and torture convention on the other. One key difference is whether there are any exceptions to the principle of non-refoulement, which is to say: are there any circumstances in which someone can be sent back to a country where they would face a real risk of relevant harm?
Under the refugee convention, the obligation not to refoul is not absolute; it is subject broadly to two exceptions. The first of those is the article 1F exclusion from protection of the refugee convention. That exclusion applies to those who have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes abroad and acts contrary to the purposes of the United Nations. The second exception is provided for in article 33(2), which concerns those who pose serious risk to the security of the host country and those who have been convicted of particularly serious crimes, and therefore pose a danger to the community of the host country.
As the UNHCR said in respect of article 1F exclusions, the rationale is that certain acts are so grave as to render their perpetrators undeserving of international protection as refugees. The Court of Justice of the European Union has said that its purpose is to maintain the credibility of the protection system, and as Professors Hathaway and Foster have noted, the realpolitik reason was that the drafters of the refugee convention were persuaded that if states parties were expected to admit serious criminals as refugees, they would simply not be willing to be bound by the convention.
The same is presumably true of the article 33(2) exceptions. It would be surprising if states would have been willing to sign up to a duty not to refoul if there were not that exception for those who were a threat to their countries. In 1987, the UN convention against torture came into force. It now has 173 states parties. Article 3 of the torture convention provided for an absolute non-refoulement rule in cases of torture.
Although the convention also dealt with cruel, inhumane and degrading treatments, states were careful to limit the absolute non-refoulement rule to torture. The result is that even if an individual falls in the scope of article 1F or article 33(2) of the refugee convention but would face a real danger of torture, they cannot be removed. It was felt by states that torture was such an absolute evil that the credibility of the international protection system would be undermined by preventing the removal of such individuals if they faced torture.
While the refugee convention and the torture convention both explicitly addressed non-refoulement, the ECHR did not. It prohibits states from engaging in torture or cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, but it says nothing about refoulement. That is not surprising, as the ECHR was drafted at the same time as the refugee convention, and arguably it was felt that those issues were best addressed by the refugee convention. None the less, in the late 1980s, the Strasbourg court interpreted article 3 as prohibiting refoulement. It did so not just for torture, but for all forms of treatment contrary to article 3, and it held that the rule was absolute. As the court put it:
“The conduct of the person concerned, however undesirable or dangerous, cannot be taken into account.”
The consequence is that the protection afforded by article 3 is broader than that provided for in articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. That interpretation by the Strasbourg court completely negated the careful balance struck by the international community with the refugee convention and torture convention.
The new clause posits that that interpretation threatens the legitimacy of international human rights law and that the conclusion by Strasbourg is the means by which that happens. The KM case provides a good illustration. KM was a police officer in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He entered the UK illegally in 2012 and applied for asylum. His application was refused by the Home Secretary on the grounds that he had been involved in torture. The upper tribunal upheld that finding and held that he should be excluded from protection under article 1F of the refugee convention. However, because of article 3 of the ECHR, as interpreted by the Strasbourg court, he could not be removed.
There are many more cases of serious criminals and terrorists—people who are a threat to those who live in the UK—who could be deported under article 33(2) of the refugee convention but cannot due to article 3 of the ECHR. In Saadi v. Italy, two Strasbourg judges wrote that they would not be surprised if some citizens of Europe
“find it difficult to understand that the Court by emphasising the absolute nature of Article 3 seems to afford more protection to the non-national applicant who has been found guilty of terrorist-related crimes than to the protection of the community as a whole from terrorist violence.”
Indeed, the Father of the House, were he here, would say that he suspects that the vast majority of Britons and Europeans would be baffled by that conclusion. That is also precisely the reason why the drafters of the refugee convention saw fit to include exceptions for criminals and terrorists: they knew that with rights come responsibilities, and that those who act in this way completely violate the social contract and cannot properly claim its protection. The interpretation that Strasbourg has given has, in the view of the Father of the House—at least, he would like us to debate this—weakened the legitimacy of the international humanitarian protection system.
The new clause, tabled by the Father of the House, seeks to find a solution to the problem—one that he says will restore common sense. The first step of the new clause would put a duty on the Secretary of State through careful litigation before our courts to identify cases of individuals who could be deported under the refugee convention and torture convention but would be blocked under the ECHR. He sees cases such as KM, which I discussed, as exemplars of that. The new clause would disapply the duty on the Secretary of State to comply with the Human Rights Act in such cases. That is to ensure that the Secretary of State can proceed to deport such people, and if they want to challenge their deportation, their recourse will be to bring a case to Strasbourg.
I know that the Father of the House would be comfortable with putting a duty on Ministers to still deport such individuals even the face of a Strasbourg judgment or rule 39, but he knows that the firm commitment that the Government have to international law mean that they will refuse to do so—although he also said that we should ask why they would privilege the ECHR over the refugee convention. Instead, the new clause would allow the Government to comply with Strasbourg, while requiring them to argue with Strasbourg that it is wrong to interpret article 3 in a way that negates the provisions of articles 1F and 33(2) of the refugee convention.
Were Strasbourg to apply the principle of lex specialis properly, it should conclude that it cannot be unlawful for states to rely on articles 1F and 33(2) of the refugee convention in order to deport criminals. The Father of the House would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the Government would be interested in running such an argument before the Strasbourg court. Even were we to lose in such efforts to be reasonable, he feels that the new clause would allow the Government still to decide to comply with the flawed jurisprudence from the Strasbourg court; however, it would require that, were they to do so, they must be transparent with the British public and publish a report telling us who the criminals are whom we could have deported under the refugee convention, had the Strasbourg court’s flawed interpretation of the ECHR not prevented us from so doing.
I will not press the new clause to a vote, and I repeat that I did not table it, but I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Dame Angela Eagle
I compliment the Father of the House on his ingenious approach to the slightly different signals, as the hon. Lady set out, that the international conventions, with their judge-made law, have left us with over the years. The new clause would create a duty to remove people who are not protected by the refugee convention, irrespective of our obligations under the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights as it has developed. The hon. Lady set out that issue extremely well.
We will always seek to deport or remove foreign nationals who pose a threat to the UK or whose behaviour is such that they are not entitled to international protection. Where the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights prevent us from doing that, we will consider granting restricted leave, sending a clear message that the person is not welcome in the UK and will be removed as soon as possible. As the hon. Lady will remember, we amended the Bill to allow us to closely monitor people who pose a threat to the public but cannot be deported because of our obligations under domestic and international law. She will remember that that involves such things as curfews, and inclusion and exclusion zones.
The Government are clear: Britain will unequivocally remain a member of the ECHR, and work with international partners to uphold human rights and international law. Leaving would undermine protections for UK citizens and isolate Britain from its closest allies. The new clause would provide a mechanism to disregard a ruling of a court or tribunal that removal from the UK will breach a migrant’s human rights. That would place the UK in direct conflict with the European Court of Human Rights. The law does not permit us to operate with one foot in and one foot out; we are either in, as signatories to the ECHR, or we join Russia and Belarus as countries that do not accept its jurisdiction.
The law does not permit us to operate in that way; nor can it be said that the ECHR takes precedence over the refugee convention. They are distinct treaties of international law that deal with different issues. The new clause would therefore create a situation that would be wholly unworkable. I know that the Father of the House will look at this in due course. He has had a good go. We do not think that the proposal is workable. I therefore hope that it will not be pressed to a vote.
Dame Angela Eagle
It is at this occasion, traditionally, that those who have shouldered the burdens under your expert guidance of the Committee, Dr Murrison, thank all the officials—both the House officials and my own—for their sterling work.
I thank all members of the Committee for their contributions, all of which have come from positions of principle and concern. We have had some robust debates during our time in Committee; we have even had a bit of fashion commentary. I think we will all be pleased to get out of Committee today, because the room is getting colder as the week goes on—goodness knows where we would be if we had to come back on Thursday to finish our deliberations. I hope that members of the Committee have enjoyed scrutinising the Bill and having these debates as much as I have.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting)
Tuesday 18th March 2025
(2 days, 10 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 18 March 2025 - (18 Mar 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 18 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 16 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 17 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 16 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Given the fluidity of matters on the Floor of the House today, my personal view, although it is only my view, is that I should not suspend the sitting at 5 o’clock. Hon. Members may leave the room at any time for a comfort break, but as there is likely to be an interruption and as the Committee may not want to sit too late, my view is that we should bash on, or rather that you should bash on. Mr Dowd will take the Chair at 5 o’clock, so I shall be able to escape. You have your own escape routes.
The Chair
Yes, there may be an escape committee.
Clause 18
Provision of assistance
Amendment proposed (this day): 462, in clause 18, page 12, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) When providing a substance under subsection (3) the coordinating doctor must explain to the person that they do not have to go ahead and self administer the substance and they may still cancel their declaration.”—(Danny Kruger.)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 463, in clause 18, page 12, line 34, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendment 497, in clause 18, page 13, line 9, leave out “decides” and insert
“informs the coordinating doctor that they have decided”.
This amendment provides that the duty to remove the approved substance arises on the coordinating doctor being informed that the person has decided not to self-administer the substance.
Amendment 498, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, leave out
“that the substance is not”
and insert
“to believe that the substance will not be”.
This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which the coordinating doctor is under a duty to remove the approved substance from the person.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire was mid-intervention when the Committee adjourned this morning, and I would not want to pull the rug from underneath him. Does he wish to intervene again?
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was simply asking what causes him to object to physician-administered assistance to die. If he supports the principle of assisted suicide and believes in doctor autonomy, why does he not think that doctors should be able to administer the fatal dose?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
This gets to the root of how the law has operated in another jurisdiction, Switzerland, where Dignitas has managed this scenario over the past 40 years or so. The key—these are the words that its own guidance uses—is ensuring that the power of control remains with the person seeking the assisted death. That provides the individual who is making the choice with the ultimate autonomy at the end in controlling the circumstances and the manner in which they pass.
I have set out why I feel that although amendment 463 arises from good intentions, it would not achieve what is intended. There is a real risk that the constraints that adopting the amendment would create would lead to the regrettable unintended consequence of individuals being forced to have an assisted death at an earlier stage than they would otherwise have wished.
I can deal with amendments 497 and 498 in short order. They would tighten up the Bill by providing greater clarity around the circumstances in which the substance would be removed from the presence of the individual who had previously indicated a wish to have an assisted death. Amendment 497 specifies that the individual would need to set out to the co-ordinating doctor that they no longer desired to go through with the process. In my view, that is eminently sensible. Amendment 498 elaborates on the Bill to provide greater clarity to those who will be operating it. It will make it a much more workable piece of legislation. I support both amendments.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. Before I speak to amendments 497 and 498, on which the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, let me address amendments 462 and 463.
Amendment 462 would amend clause 18 to require the co-ordinating doctor to explain to the person that they do not have to proceed and self-administer the approved substance, and that they may still cancel their declaration. Although it is not specified, it is presumed that the amendment refers to the second declaration that the person will have made. The Committee may wish to note that there is already a requirement in clause 18(4)(b) that,
“at the time the approved substance is provided”,
the co-ordinating doctor must be satisfied that the person
“has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.
The purpose of amendment 463 is to limit what the co-ordinating doctor is permitted to do in relation to providing the person with an approved substance under clause 18. As the clause stands, subsection (6) sets out the activities that the co-ordinating doctor is permitted to carry out in respect of an approved substance provided to the person under subsection (2). It states that the co-ordinating doctor may
“(a) prepare that substance for self-administration by that person,
(b) prepare a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance, and
(c) assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”
Additionally, subsection (7) provides that
“the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must be taken by the person to whom the substance has been provided.”
Amendment 463 would remove subsection (6)(c), which would result in the co-ordinating doctor being unable to assist the person
“to ingest or otherwise self-administer”
the approved substance. The co-ordinating doctor would still be permitted to prepare that substance for self-administration and to prepare a medical device to enable the person to self-administer the substance. This could mean that a co-ordinating doctor may not be able to provide assistance such as helping the person to sit up to help with swallowing, or explaining how the medical device for self-administering the substance works. This could result in practical difficulties in self-administration of the substance and/or place the co-ordinating doctor in a difficult position.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Does the Minister think that it is confusing for health professionals when we say that they can assist the patient to sit up or hold a cup of water or put the medication into their mouth? Is it not confusing for medical professionals that we are giving contradictory statements?
Stephen Kinnock
One of the fundamental principles of the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has prioritised, is self-administration. It is not for me as a Minister to opine on that; it is simply there in the Bill. Once that fundamental principle is established, it is about defining what “assistance” means, compared with what “self-administration” means. As I was setting out, I think “assistance” can mean things like helping the patient to sit up; it does not mean actually administering the substance to the patient. It is about the dividing line between assistance and self-administration—hence the term “assisted dying”, I suppose, which is very different from the doctor actually administering the substance.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I am going to read subsection (6)(c) again. It says:
“assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”
I would interpret that slightly differently from the Minister. It talks about ingesting, which suggests the substance entering the body, so I would not suggest that sitting someone up would qualify. That in itself shows that perhaps there is some ambiguity here. The Minister has set out something that I had not read into the Bill. Will he comment further on that?
Stephen Kinnock
I will pretty much repeat what I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. There is a dividing line, as the Government see it, between assistance and administration. There is a dividing line between making the patient comfortable, enabling the procedure to take place, and the doctor actually putting the substance into the body of the patient. From the Government’s point of view, simply from the position of having a picture of the process in our mind, that dividing line is clear enough in the drafting of the clause.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful that the Minister is allowing us to push him on this, because it is crucial. This is the moment beyond which there is no return. He thinks that helping a patient to sit up would be within the scope of the clause. Does he think that holding the patient’s hand and tipping a cup of pills into their mouth would be consistent with the clause?
Stephen Kinnock
My interpretation is that it would not be, because if someone were actually tipping the pills into the mouth of the patient, they would be going through the act of putting the substance into the patient. This Bill is founded on the principle of self-administration. However, there are acts such as helping the patient to sit up that are not direct administration but assistance enabling it to take place. That is where the distinction lies.
Danny Kruger
That is helpful, but if the patient were holding the cup and the doctor held their hand to help them tip it into their mouth, it is not clear to me at what point assistance would end and self-administration would begin. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that. What about the scenario in which the patient’s finger is on the plunger of a syringe and the doctor assists by putting their finger on top of the patient’s and assists them to press the button, adding a little force to that being given by the patient? Does he regard that as within the scope of self-administration, or does that cross the line into directly administering the procedure?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley pointed out earlier that the scenario that he has just described would constitute more than assistance; it would be moving into administration by the doctor, rather than self-administration. I think that that aligns with the Government’s view, so I refer the hon. Member for East Wiltshire to those comments from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, who has far more clinical experience than I do.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful for that, and I will leave it there, but does the Minister agree that it is incredibly difficult to distinguish who is administering the treatment in that scenario? If both their hands are on the instrument, whatever it is—a cup, a syringe or a button on a computer screen—it is very hard to know who has actually delivered the final act.
Stephen Kinnock
What is hard to do in this Committee is imagine and agree on how many different scenarios there can be. Every circumstance and every individual experience will be different, so it is difficult for us to envision all the different scenarios. Nothing about this is easy, of course. We would not have been sitting in this Bill Committee for hours on end if it were all easy, but from the Government’s point of view there is a clear enough distinction between assistance and self-administration. As long as we are clear on those basic principles, we feel that that gives enough safety to the Bill and enough clarity around the process.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire is perhaps unintentionally creating a lack of clarity where there is clarity? Surely there is complete clarity in the distinction between assisting a patient to be in a position to carry out their final desire and act, and performing or even jointly performing that final act with them. Is it not the case that in overseas jurisdictions there is quite a lot of assistance with technology? It needs to be prepared and put in place, but it can put even those who are the least physically able in a position in which the final act of administration can be clearly theirs. In many ways, our life is made easier by modern technology in that regard.
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Member sets out clearly the difference between self-administration—the concept at the heart of the Bill—and the performance of the act either jointly or by the doctor. The latter is not permitted under the terms of the Bill; the former is. That is where we are.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The lack of an ability to assist in the final process would put medical professionals in a very difficult position. Would carrying the medicine to the room where the patient is count as assistance? I think we have to have assistance in the Bill, but I also feel that, as the Minister has outlined clearly, someone can help a person to self-administer but cannot administer. That is quite clear to me.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks with considerable clinical expertise. It is about exactly that difference between self-administration and administration. If we cleave to those two principles, that is the basis on which we will achieve the stated aim of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.
Sojan Joseph
Does the Minister agree that assisting a person to ingest is different from assisting a person to self-administer?
Stephen Kinnock
In order to ingest, there has to be self-administration. The self-administration is the precondition for ingesting the substance. That is my reading. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.
Rebecca Paul
The Minister is being incredibly patient with our questions. The question from the hon. Member for Ashford raises exactly the point with which I am uncomfortable. To me, the phrase
“assist that person to ingest”
means something else. I am really concerned that it could be interpreted differently from how the Minister has laid it out. I want to place that on the record and raise that issue, which I believe the hon. Member was also raising.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member’s concerns are absolutely noted. I completely understand that hon. Members are not comfortable with this, but what I am trying to do is set out the Government’s view on the workability of what my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley is seeking to achieve and the basic principles on which that is built.
Amendment 497, on which the Government have worked jointly with my hon. Friend, would amend clause 18(11), which states:
“Where the person decides not to self-administer the approved substance, or there is any other reason that the substance is not used, the coordinating doctor must remove it immediately from that person.”
Under the clause as it is currently drafted, there could be difficulties in relation to the duties of the co-ordinating doctor where the co-ordinating doctor does not know what the person has decided. Amendment 497 seeks to resolve that ambiguity by clarifying that the duty on the co-ordinating doctor to remove the approved substance applies where the person
“informs the coordinating doctor that they have decided”
not to self-administer the approved substance.
I turn to amendment 498. At present, clause 18(11) provides that the co-ordinating doctor has the duty to immediately remove the approved substance where the person decides not to self-administer the approved substance, or there is any other reason that the substance is not used. The amendment clarifies that the duty to remove the substance arises when the co-ordinating doctor believes that the substance will not be used. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
The Minister has covered my amendments 497 and 498 very clearly, so I will not speak to them.
I am happy to support amendment 462, tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, about which we had a conversation this morning. I only make the observation that there is already a requirement in clause 18(4)(b) that, at the time the approved substance is provided, the co-ordinating doctor must be satisfied that the person has
“a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.
Nevertheless, I am happy to support the amendment, because the hon. Member made a very valuable point this morning.
I cannot support amendment 463, however. The Bill states that the patient must self-administer the drugs. Clause 18(7) states that “the final act” of self-administering the substance
“must be taken by the person to whom the substance has been provided.”
That is very clear. The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, with his medical background and expertise, has been clear and helpful on this point: it is a question of passive versus active. We have to be clear that the patient must have an active role in self-administration.
Danny Kruger
I propose to press both my amendments to a vote if necessary.
Amendment 462 agreed to.
Amendment made: 496, in clause 18, page 12, line 28, after “professionals” insert “, and such other persons,”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment provides that the coordinating doctor may be accompanied by such persons (other than health professionals) as the doctor considers necessary.
Danny Kruger
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I am sorry if I missed it, but are we not going to debate amendment 496?
The Chair
I put the Question and nobody spoke. I am afraid the moment has passed. Under this Chairman, you have to be fleet of foot.
Danny Kruger
Clearly! Fair enough.
Amendment proposed: 463, in clause 18, page 12, line 34, leave out paragraph (c)—(Danny Kruger.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 350, in clause 18, page 12, line 34, at end insert—
“(d) subject to subsection (6A), provide additional assistance to administer the substance in the presence of an independent witness.
(6A) The coordinating doctor may provide the additional assistance under subsection (6)(d) when—
(a) the coordinating doctor is satisfied that the person is permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance due to—
(i) significant risk of choking as a result of dysphagia, or
(ii) the loss of use of the limbs; and
(b) the person has authorised that the additional assistance be provided.”
This amendment would define the eligibility criteria for those who are permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance and are therefore eligible for additional assistance to administer the substance.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 351, in clause 18, page 12, line 35, after “substance” insert
“or to authorise additional assistance to be provided”.
This amendment would ensure the decision to administer the approved substance remains with the person but would allow those who are unable to self-administer the substance to receive further assistance.
Amendment 352, in clause 18, page 12, line 40, at end insert
“, unless the criteria in subsection (6A) are met.”
This amendment would authorise the coordinating doctor to provide additional support with administration for those who are unable to self-administer the substance.
Tom Gordon
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I speak in support of this group of amendments, which address the issue of fairness and accessibility in the Bill. The amendments seek to ensure that those who are physically unable to self-administer the approved substance due to their condition are not excluded from the choice of an assisted death.
The principle at stake here is equity: making sure that this opportunity would be available to not only those with the physical ability to self-administer but all eligible individuals, regardless of their condition. The Motor Neurone Disease Association made it clear in its written evidence that conditions like motor neurone disease can be cruel, devastating and progressive, locking people inside their own failing bodies. More than 80% of people with MND lose the ability to speak. Many lose all limb function, leaving them unable to lift even a glass of water, let alone self-administer medication.
There is a common theme here that relates to a point I made in an earlier sitting, when we debated the period of time for eligibility. For these individuals, the Bill in its current form creates a barrier. It states that the final act of ingesting or administering an approved substance must be taken by the person themselves. For someone with advanced MND, that may simply not physically be possible. The MND Association’s evidence highlights that in other jurisdictions, such as Queensland in Australia, allowances have been made for people unable to swallow or self-administer. If we fail to include such provision here, we risk excluding some of the most vulnerable people or, even worse, creating a perverse incentive for them to seek an assisted death earlier, possibly abroad, when they may still have physical function.
These amendments are not about lowering safeguards in any way, shape or form. As we know, the Bill has robust safeguards, which these amendments would maintain. It would only be applicable in instances where doctors deem it necessary, and it would not be open to more than those with conditions restricting their ability to self-administer. If the Bill is about compassion, then we must ensure that that compassion extends to everyone; if it is about choice, then we should not deny that choice to those with severe physical limitations; and if it is about justice, then we should not allow injustice to be written into the law.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I rise to oppose amendments 350 to 352, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne). They would allow the co-ordinating doctor to provide additional assistance to administer the substance in the presence of an independent witness, in some circumstances. Those circumstances would be when, as amendment 350 says, the doctor determines that the person is
“permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer”
the lethal substance because of an inability to swallow or the loss of use of the limbs. The amendments do not spell out what the additional assistance would be, but I think it is reasonable to believe that it refers to the doctor injecting the lethal substance into a person’s circulatory system.
My hon. Friend’s amendments comes from genuine concern about the situation that some people may well find themselves in. Some people who might otherwise qualify for assisted dying under the Bill might be unable to swallow or inject the lethal drugs. We should all respect the feeling that lies behind the amendments, but we should reject them. If we pass them, we will have accepted that doctors can help people who have qualified for assisted dying to prepare to inject themselves with lethal drugs or swallow them. The Bill does not say that doctors can do that. I do not know whether the House would have voted for the Bill on Second Reading if it had, but that is beside the point—it was not part of the Bill. If we were ever to consider taking such a radical step, we should only do so after hearing as much evidence as possible on why and how this might be necessary. I urge the Committee to oppose the amendment.
Danny Kruger
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady; I very much agree with her points. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who spoke with his now customary intellectual clarity and moral constituency. He believes in autonomy, and he is doing what he can to resolve the essential contradiction in the Bill, which is designed to enable people to end their lives at their own discretion. He recognises that some of the safeguards in the Bill, which of course I do support, nevertheless represent barriers to what we are now suggesting is a human right, and that that human right will be restricted to a limited number of people, according to the Bill.
It is my view that the pressure, momentum or inherent direction of travel that the Bill sets us on will necessarily result in these sorts of amendments to the legislation in due course, whether in the form of subsequent amendments passed through legislation, the guidance that is issued, or indeed the practice of doctors. As I tried to explain in my comments on the previous group, my concern is that the Bill allows for quite a wide degree of discretion, naturally and necessarily enough, in the form of doctors interpreting their ability to assist in ways that respect the autonomy of patients, but are, in fact, a step beyond what the Bill—quite rightly, in my view—seeks to allow.
Tom Gordon
The hon. Member mentioned that down the line the Bill could be changed through guidance. I do not think there would be any scope or ability to do that. Does he agree that that point might be a little bit beyond what we all think might be possible under the terms of guidance?
Danny Kruger
I hope the hon. Gentleman is right. Nevertheless, one of my concerns about the Bill is that we are leaving enormous areas of clinical practice, and regulated conduct for the professionals involved in assisted suicide, to be performed under guidance that is still to be set out and that it is the job of future Ministers to determine.
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, because he has correctly identified a group of patients for whom the drafted Bill may present obstacles to the fulfilment of their wish for an assisted death. My belief is that the ability to assist will probably cover almost anybody who wants it and has found a doctor who wants to help them, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there are some groups for whom that might be more of a challenge than others. I think the answer we are going to get—it is one made by hon. Members in the debate already—is that technology will fix it, and I fear it will, because I think we are going to find ourselves in a world in which it is perfectly possible for the administration of death to be enabled through some kind of technological device, which somebody with the most limited physical mobility will nevertheless be able to activate.
I fear the insistence that we have on self-administration. Although we can all acknowledge, as referenced in the previous debate, the conceptual difference between administration and self-administration, we do have this idea that we are individuals cut off from each other and that there is an essential gap between us and other people. At the very end of life, though—in the moments that we are considering and legislating for—that distinction is void, because we are intimately connected with other people, as per the clauses that we are debating. I fear that we are going to find ourselves in a world in which a laptop will be set up and even a movement as small as the blink of an eyelid by the patient will be enough to trigger what will be called “self-administration” of the fatal dose.
I oppose this group of amendments, moved by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, because I do not believe in assisted suicide. I do not understand why other supporters of the Bill are not following the hon. Gentleman’s lead, and acknowledging that if we believe in autonomy and assisted suicide, of course we should enable patients to have the final act performed upon them, rather than insisting on this arbitrary distinction that it is possible to insist on self-administration in all cases.
Rebecca Paul
It is clear that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is trying to create equity, which we all understand. We need to think about the patient on the one hand, but also the doctors, nurses and medical practitioners involved. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to think about the obligation and impact of such amendments on them?
Danny Kruger
Yes. We discussed this briefly this morning. There is an important consideration about the effect on medical staff involved in the administration of assisted suicide, and we have to make sure that those who do not want to participate are properly insulated from any sort of obligation, which I know is the intention of the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the knock-on effect of participation in assisted suicide spreading across a practice. I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to be mindful of the impact on doctors. The more we widen the scope—as logic compels us to do, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough suggests—the more it is about not just discretion, but an obligation on doctors to approve.
We need to think about the conversation that doctors will be required to have with patients who are expressing that wish. If the Bill is widely drawn, as it would be if we were to accept these amendments, there is more opportunity for a doctor to feel compelled to assent to a request.
Sean Woodcock
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is clearly trying to right what he believes to be an inherent injustice in the Bill, but is the hon. Member for East Wiltshire concerned, as I am, that if the amendment were to pass, it would take the debate from a place of being about assisted dying towards what many people would term euthanasia? That is not something that the House in any way endorsed by voting for the Bill on Second Reading.
Danny Kruger
I am absolutely certain that if the amendment had been in the original Bill, the Bill would not have passed Second Reading, because it would have validated the argument that many of us made that the implication of assisted suicide is euthanasia. The distinction between them, while valid in the abstract, does not apply in practice, and that distinction will be quickly overridden in time. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Although I have certain sympathies with these amendments, I do not feel that they are necessary or desirable. They are not necessary because of the provisions that are already stipulated in clause 18(6)(b), which provides the co-ordinating doctor with the ability to prepare
“a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance”.
That subsection, in effect, negates the scenario that is put forward in amendment 350 around dysphagia or the loss of a limb. It would permit, for example, the use of a nasogastric tube or a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube to be used for the administration of the substance in the case of dysphagia. In the case of the functional loss of limbs, as was discussed in the debate on the previous group, a range of assisted technologies are available that would remove the barriers that that would present.
Beyond the necessity, or lack of necessity, of these amendments, I fear that they create legal uncertainty, which is clearly undesirable and, in this instance, could have a serious and significant unintended consequence through the amendments’ interaction with clause 24. Subsection (3) of that clause inserts proposed new section 2AA of the Suicide Act 1961, which is an exemption to that Act in respect of the assistance provided under this Bill. In effect, proposed new section 2AA disapplies sections 2(1) and 2A(1) of the Suicide Act where the provision of assistance is done in accordance with the Bill. Those sections specifically relate to an act
“capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person”.
Introducing the concept of additional assistance, as these amendments would, creates a legal uncertainty. The word “additional” creates a further concept that is beyond assistance but is, thus far, ill defined. Would it go as far as, for example, the clinician taking full control of administering the substance? It is entirely unclear. It would therefore place the clinician in an invidious position as to what it would mean for them to provide additional assistance in such circumstances. As I read the interplay between the Suicide Act and the proposed legislation, the clinician would not then be exempt by virtue of clause 24(3), leaving them open to prosecution under the Act.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful for that; I particularly respect my hon. Friend’s concern to protect the doctors from any confusion in the law they might be operating under. Just to take him back to the question of technology resolving what I regard as an insuperable problem—the difference between assistance and administration—is it my understanding that my hon. Friend would oppose a patient’s being able to ask a doctor to administer a lethal drug to him or her, but that he would support a patient’s being able to ask a computer to administer a lethal drug to him or her? Would he accept the computer performing the act at the patient’s request?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, because it is the patient who is driving the decision. They are making that act by activating the electronic device—the computer or whatever it may be in terms of assistive technology—but they have the power and control over that decision-making process, which is completely distinct from a clinician doing that act. It is distinct because it is activated by the patient—by the person making that decision—and that is why I draw the distinction. My hon. Friend may not agree, but that is my rationale for drawing a distinction between the two.
Dr Opher
I agree with all the hon. Gentleman’s points. In terms of assistance, what we are talking about, potentially, if the technology arrives at that, is that the doctor may be able to put a Venflon into the patient’s vein, but they would not put the drug through the Venflon into the vein. That would enable the patient to have control. That is the type of assistance that could be quite useful in this scenario, but it would not involve the doctor actually delivering the drug.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful for that helpful and thoughtful intervention.
For the reasons I have set out, I consider that the amendments create unnecessary and highly undesirable legal confusion, so I shall not support them.
Stephen Kinnock
Currently, clause 18(6) permits the co-ordinating doctor, in respect of an approved substance provided to the person under subsection (2), to undertake the following activities: prepare the approved substance for self-administration; prepare a medical device to enable self-administration of the approved substance; and assist the person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance. Furthermore, subsection (8) expressly provides that subsection (6)
“does not authorise the coordinating doctor to administer an approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death.”
Amendment 350 seeks to enable the co-ordinating doctor, in the presence of an independent witness, to provide “additional assistance” to the person to administer the approved substance. Such assistance can be provided only where the person has authorised it, and where the person is
“permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance”
due to a significant risk of choking due to difficulty swallowing—dysphagia—or loss of the use of their limbs. The term “additional assistance” is not defined in these amendments.
Amendment 351 is consequential to amendment 350 and would require any decision to authorise additional assistance for the self-administration of the substance to be made by the person to whom the substance has been provided. Amendment 352 would create an exception to the condition in clause 18(8), and would have the effect of permitting the co-ordinating doctor to administer an approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death where the criteria introduced in amendment 350 are met—that is, where the co-ordinating doctor is satisfied that the person is permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance, and that the person has authorised that the additional assistance be provided.
Our assessment is that the amendments would enable the co-ordinating doctor to administer the approved substance to the person, rather than merely assisting the person, in the limited circumstances provided for in clause 18(6), to self-administer. That would be a significant change to one of the fundamental principles of the promoter’s Bill—that the final act of administering the approved substance must be taken by the person themselves, and not by a co-ordinating doctor. That is a policy matter and a decision for the Committee.
However, should the amendments be accepted, further amendments may be needed to ensure that this provision is fully legally coherent and workable in several areas. First, amendment 350 does not define who qualifies as an independent witness—for example, whether this would have to be a health professional or whether it could be a family member. Secondly, it does not address whether anyone would be disqualified from being an independent witness, as provided for through clause 36, which is entitled “Disqualification from being witness or proxy”.
Finally, as drafted, amendment 350 does not detail how authorisation of the additional assistance must be obtained and/or recorded in order to be valid. It also does not require that any details about the independent witness be recorded. This could lead to difficulties in complying with and/or evidencing that the requirements to provide the additional assistance have been met. By extension, there will be a lack of clarity over when and how the criminal provisions are to apply. I hope that those observations were helpful.
Kim Leadbeater
I completely understand where these amendments are coming from. In many jurisdictions where assisted dying laws are in place, this would be an accepted part of the process. However, as I have said repeatedly, our Bill stands in its own right, and its safeguards are stronger than those anywhere else in the world. One of those safeguards is that the line cannot be crossed between a person shortening their own death by administering the drugs themselves and by having another person—in this case the doctor—do it for them.
While I am hugely sympathetic to the argument, that is a line that I do not believe the Bill should cross. I concur with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West about Second Reading and what the House voted for, and with those of the hon. Member for Reigate about medical profession levels, which we discussed this morning. I also agree with the Minister’s comments about the concept of an independent witness, and with the comments from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley about the concept of additional assistance. On that basis, I will not be supporting the amendments.
Tom Gordon
I will keep it short and sweet. I had not intended to push the amendments to a vote and will not be doing so. A lot of important points have been raised. Irrespective of whether the amendments were going to be pushed to a vote or would have been successful, it is important that we listen to and take into account the voices of people with different diseases who might wish to access an assisted death. We must also take into account the evidence that organisations have submitted, because it is important that those voices are heard too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Danny Kruger
I beg to move amendment 435, in clause 18, page 13, line 6, at end insert—
“(9A) Where the procedure has failed, the coordinating doctor must escalate the care of the person by making the appropriate referral to emergency medical services.”
This amendment would require the doctor to escalate the care of the person in cases in which the procedure fails.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 429, in clause 18, page 13, line 7, leave out subsection (10).
Amendment 436, in clause 18, page 13, line 8, after “provided” insert—
“(10A) If complications occur as a result of the provision of assistance the coordinating doctor must—
(a) make a detailed record of the complications in the patient’s medical records,
(b) make a declaration on the final statement issued under section 21, and
(c) make a report to the relevant Chief Medical Officer and the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.”
This amendment would require the coordinating doctor to record any complications in the patient’s medical records, to make a declaration on the final statement issued under section 21, and make a report to the relevant Chief Medical Officer and the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.
Amendment 464, in clause 18, page 13, line 8, at end insert—
“(10A) If the person loses consciousness and it appears to the coordinating doctor that the procedure is failing, the coordinating doctor—
(a) must not do anything with the intention of causing the person’s death, and
(b) must seek to revive the person.”
Amendment 532, in clause 18, page 13, line 12, at end insert—
“(12) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about what the coordinating doctor is legally permitted to do if it is determined by the coordinating doctor that the procedure has failed.
(13) The regulations under subsection (12) must include what specific actions can legally be taken by the coordinating doctor if—
(a) there is a greatly prolonged time to death,
(b) the person has been rendered unconscious, or rendered unfit to make a second attempt at self-administration, but has not died, or
(c) the person is otherwise undergoing complications.”
Amendment 533, in clause 18, page 13, line 12, at end insert—
“(12) For the purposes of subsections (2) to (11), the Secretary of State must, by regulations, specify where the provision of assistance under this Act may take place.
(13) Before making regulations under subsection (12), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(14) The persons to be consulted under subsection (12A) may include—
(a) persons requesting or considering requesting assistance to end their own lives, and
(b) professionals working in palliative and end-of-life care, including hospice staff, and
(c) persons from disadvantaged and marginalised communities, and
(d) registered medical professionals and other healthcare professionals.”
Amendment 430, in clause 30, page 18, line 30, at end insert—
“(da) responding to unexpected complications that arise in relation to the administration of the approved substance under section 18, including when the procedure fails;”
Amendment 255, in schedule 6, page 32, line 13, at end insert—
This would add the means of administration to the final statement set out in Schedule 6.
Danny Kruger
I am supportive of all the amendments in this grouping, including amendment 255 in the name of the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) about the importance of recording the means of administration of the substance. We have discussed that a bit, and I think it is important to include it. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford are also important, as they insist on the actual physical presence of a doctor while the treatment is being carried out. His amendments also suggest that there should be a code of practice about what should happen when things go wrong; I want to go further than that, but I do approve of that measure.
On amendments 532 and 533, tabled by the hon. Member for Ipswich, I again support in principle the requirement—although there is a little too much regulation by the Secretary of State, in my view—that we be clear about where the act should take place and make provision about what the co-ordinating doctor is legally permitted to do if they determine that the procedure has failed. That is the point I really want to discuss; the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the amendment that I tabled, would impose an obligation on the co-ordinating doctor to provide assistance if the procedure fails.
Let me take a moment to explain to the Committee how important it is that we recognise the genuine risk of that eventuality in the case of assisted suicide being performed. There is significant evidence—even given the lack of adequate data collection and the paucity of record keeping, with over half of assisted deaths not properly recorded at all in many places—that in places such as Oregon, which is one of the worst offenders when it comes to data collection, there are significant rates of complication. These can be difficulty with ingesting the drugs, regurgitation and seizures. As I said, 72% of deaths do not record whether complications have occurred, but among the quarter that do, there are significant rates of complication.
Sometimes death can take days, and there can be a long time of unconsciousness. The Committee has heard from me and others in previous debates about the extent to which there is real concern about the actual experience of the administration of assisted death. But it is striking how ill-defined the current Bill is on the point about complications, compared to jurisdictions where such laws are in operation. In other countries, there is clear guidance in law for what should be done. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is recommended when assisted suicide seems to be failing; in Canada, doctors are likewise given licence to administer the death themselves if it fails. The Committee has decided not to proceed down that road. Nevertheless, the question arises as to what on earth patients should do.
To the point that we are talking about a small or non-existent population group—those we might have to worry will experience complications after the administration of fatal drugs—I refer back to a previous debate, when the hon. Member for Stroud, referring to me, said:
“The hon. Gentleman is bringing up lots of rather horrible stories about assisted death. That is why, in Australia, Switzerland and Holland, they have decided, instead of using the regime that he is talking about, to use pentobarbital…One of the reasons why Dignitas uses it is that it is so effective and it does not have those effects.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 11 March 2025; c. 925.]
Having looked into the issue and consulted other medics, I am afraid that the fact is that the safety of pentobarbital is highly contested. It has been debated in litigation in the United States because of its use as a death penalty drug. The executioners who used it said that the deaths were peaceful and akin to falling asleep, but lawyers for inmates on death row have said that
“pentobarbital caused flash pulmonary edema, in which fluid rushes through quickly disintegrating membranes into lungs and airways, causing pain akin to being suffocated or drowned.”
That is evidence from professionals who have examined the effect of pentobarbital on deceased people.
The anesthesiologist Joel Zivot of Emory University hospital in the United States testified to the Canadian Senate on the subject of assisted suicide drugs. He said that when he researched the autopsies of those executed by lethal injection, he stumbled on an alarming discovery:
“When I looked at the autopsies, to my surprise, I found that, in most of the cases, the individuals who had been executed by pentobarbital had fluid congested in their lungs. The lungs of these individuals were twice the normal weight, full of water. Now, the only way that this could have happened would have been as a direct consequence of the pentobarbital that was injected into these individuals.”
What is the relevance of that for assisted dying?
Kim Leadbeater
I am not aware of the situation in America, but is the hon. Gentleman not reassured that the evidence from Dignitas, which we all now have access to, says that there have been
“no cases of failure at Dignitas using this medication”?
Danny Kruger
Let me come on to that, because I am not aware of any evidence from Dignitas that disputes the assertion that is being made—certainly none that would meet the concerns raised by the genuine evidence of the effect of pentobarbital on death row patients. Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I do not think that Dignitas has supplied evidence to contradict the point that I am making.
Kim Leadbeater
For the hon. Gentleman’s reference, I believe that the evidence is TIAB 425.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Let me let me look that up later. I am happy to exchange data, because this is clearly something we should be trying to get right.
Nevertheless, I want to try to explain why I am suggesting that we have a problem with the drugs that are used in assisted dying and that it has been suggested we use here. Let me continue the quote from Dr Zivot:
“When one watches an execution, it’s not clear that this is happening”—
meaning that it looks like a peaceful, painless death. He continues:
“There is not much to see. Executions, like, I imagine, medical assistance in dying, are a rather bloodless event; not much can be seen outwardly. But the autopsies revealed a very disturbing and surprising finding.”
He makes the point that that is particularly disturbing, given that assisted dying often uses a paralysing drug, which induces the impression of peace and calm in the patient, when in fact something else might be going on below the surface.
To conclude my quote from Dr Zivot, he says:
“To claim that this is a death that is peaceful, well, it can be nothing else because now a person is unable to move in any way, but whether or not they have any conscious experience of what is happening is unknown…it should be clear to the Canadian public that the kind of death that they will experience…will be something other than the way it is represented. It could be exceedingly painful and more akin to drowning.”
I cannot judge whether Dr Zivot is right, but we should be very wary of any claims that there is a simple answer to the question surrounding lethal drugs. To the point made by the hon. Lady, and I think by the hon. Member for Stroud, there is no evidence in the many reports from Dignitas, which has a regime very similar to the one we are imagining here—I will certainly look at the evidence mentioned made by the hon. Lady—that contradicts the concerns raised by Dr Zivot.
Sojan Joseph
Does this not show that clinical documentation is very important? We debated the issue in Committee earlier, when we talked about professionals being required to complete all relevant documentation. Maybe we are missing certain data because these things are not clearly documented in other places. Should we not take from that the learning that if we go ahead with this proposal, we should have proper documentation and make it clear to the clinician what they should and should not document?
Danny Kruger
I entirely agree that there is great concern about the lack of evidence in countries on which we are constantly relying for evidence of why this proposal is safe. I have suggested that, from the quite limited evidence we have, that it may not be safe. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that if we are to proceed, we need to be extremely strict about data collection.
To the hon. Gentleman’s point about making it clear to clinicians what drugs they are permitted to use, we also need to have a proper regime of clearing and approving those drugs. In earlier clauses, we debated the imperative on the NHS, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Department of Health to properly authorise the specifics of what drugs will be used. It is not clear at the moment what those would be, and I very much agree that we need to be clearer on that.
I finish with a reference to an earlier debate, in which it was suggested, on the basis of the Australian example, that there is no evidence of complications. The hon. Member for Stroud talked about horrible stories from the United States and Canada. He also referred to Australia, where there is apparently no evidence of problems. In fact, I understand that of the six states, only Western Australia records complications, and it does so in relation only to practitioner administration—when the doctor administers the drug—which we do not propose to do here. It does not record complications in relation to self-administration, which is what the Bill proposes. In Western Australia, complications have been reported in 4.3% of cases involving practitioner administration. Again, we are dealing with the great mystery and enigma of how death happens with assisted suicide, and it is certainly unclear what we should do about it.
Naz Shah
Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, I have just looked at some of the evidence, and it does not cite any papers. In effect, the evidence says the effect can be seen in three documentaries. Nor does it explain why Dr Zivot’s concerns are scientifically accurate. Does the hon. Gentleman want to speak to that?
Danny Kruger
There is great anxiety about the validity of much of the evidence in this space. I have great respect for the work of Dr Zivot, because nothing else gets us close to understanding the actual effect of these drugs, once somebody has died.
Kim Leadbeater
In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, the evidence from Dignitas is really clear: there have been no cases of failure when using this medication.
Danny Kruger
My strong suspicion is that this is because the evidence is not being accurately collected or reported. With Dignitas and in all these jurisdictions, as the hon. Lady has acknowledged, there are significant failures of data and record keeping. Obviously, it is very much in Dignitas’s interest not to collect and certainly not to publicise evidence of things going wrong. However, that clearly happens in jurisdictions where data is properly collected.
Naz Shah
I recognise that the written evidence, particularly TIAB 425, says there have not been any failures at Dignitas, but it does not cite any published, let alone peer-reviewed, research, nor does it challenge the analysis of scientists such as Dr Zivot. That remains a grey area.
Dr Opher
Actually, if we did an autopsy on any person who has died, pulmonary oedema would almost certainly be found because that is what happens in death—the heart stops and the lungs fill with fluid. I would also like to correct the idea that there is neuromuscular paralysis with pentobarbital. There is no way that barbiturates act in that way. All they do is sedate and put the person to sleep, and death comes afterwards.
Danny Kruger
I was not suggesting that pentobarbital has a paralytic effect. Often in assisted dying, a paralytic is administered first as part of the cocktail of drugs. Subsequently, we discover that while the patient may have appeared entirely calm, sleeping peacefully, significant trauma may have been occurring beneath the surface.
I defer to the hon. Member’s knowledge, but my understanding from the scientific evidence I have read, and that medics have given to me, is that the extent to which people executed by lethal injection, by pentobarbital, have their lungs fill with fluid is peculiar—it is remarkable. They effectively drown beneath their peaceful exterior.
I intend to press amendment 464 to a vote, and I intend to support other amendments in this group. Although I support the aspiration of amendment 532 to make provision for what to do in the event of a procedure’s failure, I think it gives too much leeway to the Secretary of State, so I will oppose that amendment. I think the amendments that the hon. Member for York Central and I have tabled are preferable.
To make the obvious case for those amendments, and as I said in a previous debate, there are three choices in the event of failure. The first is to ignore the plain signs of distress, of things going wrong and of the patient suffering, which is clearly a failure of the doctor’s duty of care. The second is to expedite the death, which we have decided would be illegal under the Bill. Therefore, the only option is to revive the patient and escalate treatment, rather than actively or passively facilitate their death.
I hope Members will agree that, on the rare occasions when assisted suicide goes wrong, it is right that the patient is immediately revived and taken to hospital, or for the doctor to take whatever action is necessary. I am interested to understand why those amendments should not be supported.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will speak to amendments 429 and 430 in my name. During oral evidence, we discussed the issues in subsections (9) and (10) of clause 18 and whether there is a contradiction. Subsection (9) states that the co-ordinating doctor
“must remain with the person”
and subsection (10) says:
“For the purposes of subsection (9), the coordinating doctor need not be in the same room as the person”.
We also discussed how that works in other jurisdictions. My amendment 429 would deal with that conflict. If the Bill were to become law, that conflict could be queried.
We also need to consider the possibility of complications. Clearly, if there are complications and the doctor is not in the same room, they would not necessarily be aware of those complications. I accept that, in some normal circumstances, doctors and medical professionals are not present in the room at the time of death; at other times, they are present. The amendment would mean that if something were to go wrong and someone was having a painful reaction to the drugs, the doctor would be there to see and help.
I do not understand what the Bill means when it says the doctor does not have to be in the same room. How far away would the doctor have to be? One subsection says the doctor has to remain with the person, and the following subsection says they do not have to be in the same room. If the Bill were to pass, we would be asking doctors to do something that is unprecedented. If the person were to suffer complications such as seizures or vomiting, or if they were exhibiting signs of distress, it appears that the doctor should be present. Members may think this could encroach on a patient’s privacy, but I think there is a discrepancy between the two subsections.
On amendment 430, I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has tabled a similar amendment. The intention of my amendment is to ensure there are regulations in responding to any unexpected complications that arise in relation to the administration of the approved substance, including when the procedure fails. I am conscious that if a doctor intervenes, they could end up in breach of the Suicide Act 1961. I therefore left the wording in that vein, as I understand that we will receive more information in due course.
Again, we received oral evidence from a number of people that what a doctor is meant to do in the event of unexpected complications is a matter of concern from both a legal and a medical perspective. We know from the evidence received from other jurisdictions that—I accept in a small minority of cases—there can be complications or the death can take much longer than expected. We also received evidence that, on rare occasions, death can take days.
Amendment 430 would show we have thought about those circumstances and provided for them by giving doctors a code of practice to refer to, rather than being left in the dark if a difficult situation arises at the time of death. We must not find ourselves in a circumstance in which doctors and patients are unprepared. It is important for us to think through, provide for and safeguard against all possible scenarios, however rare they might be. Of course, we would not want them to happen, but in some circumstances they might, and we would not want there to be a legal hole. Accepting the amendment would mean the Secretary of State has the opportunity to provide a code of practice for such circumstances. I hope hon. Members will be able to support the amendments in my name.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I support amendment 429, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford.
I do not understand how subsection (9) can require the doctor to remain with the person until they have self-administered and died, or until they have decided not to self-administer, while subsection (10) states that the doctor need not be in the same room. The Bill becomes even less coherent when we consider subsection (11), which requires the doctor to remove the substance immediately if the person decides not to self-administer—how can the doctor do so if they are not in the same room? Amendment 429 would make the scheme more coherent and I support it for that reason.
I accept that there are downsides to having the doctor present, especially before the administration, as people have a normal desire for privacy, but that needs to be balanced against the risk of someone else taking the substance or something going wrong in the process of self-administration. In Australia, there is no requirement for the doctor to be present, which has led to some cases of abuse. I understand why the Bill’s promoter has chosen not to go down the Australian route, but the position arrived at in subsection (10) lacks coherence and is unclear.
What does it mean to remain with the person without being in the same room? Does it mean being in the corridor just outside the room, but with the door open? What if it is closed? What if, as a result of the door being closed, the doctor is no longer within earshot? I am not the only one who is confused, as so are the doctors who will have to apply the legislation. For example, Dr Janet Menage, a retired GP, told us in written evidence—TIAB 182—that the provisions
“are mutually exclusive: doctor ‘must remain with the patient’ but ‘not in the same room’…This makes no sense. In any case, if the attending doctor is not in the same room there could potentially be an intervention by another person to the patient’s detriment. Or the patient may wish to cancel the suicide at the last moment and be unsupported in voicing that decision.”
With or without subsection (10), I would like to know whether the Minister has made an assessment of the workforce impact of such a requirement for the doctor to be present. As Dr Rebecca Jones told us:
“As the death may take many hours, I’m uncertain of the practicalities of this”.
Sean Woodcock
The hon. Lady is making an important point about the lack of coherence that amendment 429 is trying to sort out. Throughout these weeks of debate in Committee, we have heard about the importance of clarity for practitioners. This provision introduces severe doubt as to exactly what a practitioner is meant to do. I understand that we do not want to say, “You have to do this and this, and in this order”, and that amendments have been rejected on that basis, but this clause opens a massive loophole in the law and practice, which concerns me. Does the hon. Lady share my concern?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is fundamental that, with this legislation, we provide very clear guidance to the medical practitioners who will be engaged in assisting patients with this matter. This is not only for their peace of mind that what they are doing is acceptable under the law, and accords with what Parliament has decided, but for the protection of patients. It is incumbent on us to be really clear about what we mean, and I do not believe we are as the Bill is currently drafted.
Sojan Joseph
We repeatedly talk about doctors, but nurses, healthcare assistants and other professionals will definitely be involved in a hospital environment. The Bill does not talk about other professionals. Furthermore, within a hospital environment, NHS wards may be bays without individual bedrooms. Does the hon. Lady think we need to be clearer on the procedures that will happen in those areas?
Sarah Olney
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s professional experience, which is extremely helpful. He is absolutely right. Following the point made by the hon. Member for Banbury, we cannot define the circumstances in which a patient will find themselves when this is taking place. That is why it is incumbent on us to make sure we provide very clear guidance on precisely what Parliament intends.
As Dr Rebecca Jones told us in written evidence:
“As the death may take many hours, I’m uncertain of the practicalities of”
doctors remaining with the patient
“for many doctors…have competing demands on their time.”
In written evidence, Dr Chris Ainsworth asked how this will work in cases where death takes several days, as has happened in Oregon, while Dr Trevor Stammers wrote:
“If the doctor is required to be present until the patient’s death, this may require hours of practitioners’ time to fulfil and is unlikely to be adhered to in many cases if the dying process is protracted.”
Dr Rachel Fisher said in her written evidence that for Australian doctors, who are not required to be present at the final act, each assisted death requires around 60 hours of professional time. For British doctors, we will need to add the time it takes for the self-administration to result in death. Dr Fisher also raised the real impact on doctors, writing,
“imagine the practicalities of those who must deliver it. The GP, motivated by a deep desire to preserve life and relieve suffering arrives at the home of the patient with a cocktail of powerful drugs. What if the patient has symptoms? Who will collect their child from nursery or school if the patient takes a long time to die? How will they know when to decide the death was unsuccessful? Will there be counselling for GPs observing and feeling complicit in a potentially drawn out and symptomatic death?”
Finally, Dr Paul Shaw asked in his written evidence:
“How will this service be funded? What support will be required from the NHS when things go wrong or death takes longer than expected? Will this be a 0900-1700hrs service? What will be the out of hours arrangements?”
A lot of the written evidence touches on the practicalities of a doctor being required to remain with the patient until they die. Amendment 429, in the name of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, seeks to clarify whether “being with the patient” requires the doctor to be physically present in the room.
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to conclude my remarks. I support amendment 429 because it is important to provide clarity that when we say “with the patient,” we mean in the room. However, I invite the Minister to expand further on the resource requirement of assisted dying. I want the doctor to remain with the patient, which I think is critical. That is why I support amendment 429, but the implication of the Bill is a considerable resource requirement, particularly for GPs, and I would like the Minister to respond to that.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to amendments 532 and 533, standing in my name, and in support of amendments 429 and 430, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I appreciate that my amendments are similar to amendment 430. They go a little bit further, but probably not as far as we have previously discussed in the Committee.
I totally understand the concerns about the Bill being overly prescriptive about the regulations that could be passed down to the doctors making such decisions. However, it is important that we enable the Secretary of State to provide guidance, in addition to GMC regulations, on what the co-ordinating doctor must do if the procedure has failed. At the moment, the Bill simply states:
“The coordinating doctor must remain with the person until”
that time. However, I appreciate that amendment 429, if passed, would cover that issue.
Clause 9 states:
“The assessing doctor must…discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance under section 18”.
However, the Bill as drafted is not clear about what a doctor is legally permitted to do in the event of such complications. That is particularly important, as the Bill expressly states that the final act of administration must be taken by the person themselves. Therefore, the Bill as it stands stipulates that the doctor must discuss the patient’s wishes in the event of complications without stipulating what actions the doctor can take in such an event and thus what the patient’s options actually are.
There is a gap in the Bill and a lack of clarity on that critical issue, which has been raised frequently in both written and, to an extent, oral evidence. Dr Alexandra Mullock argued that, as
“the Bill would only permit”
a doctor only to assist in the patient’s self-administering a substance,
“administering drugs to end the life of a patient who might be unconscious (but not dying) is not permitted.”
She also raised the possibility that a patient might regain consciousness, but
“be too ill to make a second attempt”
at self-administration. What should a doctor do if that occurs? Unless the Secretary of State clarifies what a doctor can do in that situation—my amendment would not do that; it would merely give the Secretary of State direction to do so—the co-ordinating director could be placed in a difficult position.
Professor Alex Ruck Keene argued that the Bill as it stands could lead to the potential for medical professionals to be “required to stand by”, yet without being able to take steps to respond to complications so as to ensure that the process is completed. I fully appreciate that all doctors would use their good training, common sense and years of extensive practice to make a best-case judgment, and we would always support them in that, but the Bill has the unintended consequence of not giving doctors true cover in that area.
Dr Mullock also asked what should occur if the patient survives a procedure, “but is badly affected”. What treatment should be provided? Should the patient be moved to hospital? Should the patient be sedated or made comfortable until a natural death occurs, or should the doctor be able to take steps for the patient to die following the initial failed attempt? We need answers to those questions. Amendment 532 does not seek to answer them, but it would stipulate that the Secretary of State must do so at a certain point.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, setting out the gap at the heart of the Bill. Does he agree—I think that he does, as he has just explained it—that there are quite straightforward choices: to expedite a death, which is illegal; to do nothing, which is inhumane; or to treat, revive or resuscitate? Why does he think that should not be clearer in the Bill? Why does he want to leave it for the Secretary of State to determine that in the future? Why do we as Parliament not get to decide what the right options should be?
Jack Abbott
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s question. In short, the answer is because we are not medical professionals. [Interruption.] Well, some members of the Committee are medical professionals, but not all of us are. I do not think that it is for the Committee to make a judgment on whether to put that in the Bill. I am happy and comfortable to leave such a directive and further recommendations, in addition to the GMC guidance, as further work to do in the coming months and years ahead of the Bill’s implementation. I think that is a healthy and strong thing to do. This is an important compromise to some of the conversations we have had in this Committee over the weeks. The amendment seeks to give a clear direction that these sorts of regulations and procedures should be stipulated at some point down the line.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman suggests that this is something that should be left to the medics. Nevertheless, here we are legislating for medics to be able to administer lethal drugs to people; we are responsible for what happens subsequent to the administration. Let me put this another way: does the hon. Gentleman foresee any scenario in which the guidance from the Secretary of State could be anything other than that the patient should be revived and helped to live in the circumstances where there are clearly complications under way? What else could be the appropriate direction given by the Secretary of State?
Jack Abbott
I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. We have discussed this point at length, across a range of subject areas, but we cannot legislate for every single permutation that could possibly happen. That could be about the initial conversations, when the patient is given a terminal diagnosis. Where do those conversations leave us? Clearly there will be a number of different scenarios, which could occur to various degrees.
I do not think it is possible to legislate for every single eventuality. I do not believe that whether to revive or not revive will be so black and white; it will completely depend on the scenario at that particular moment in time. Therefore, further work would need to be done over the coming months and years before the final introduction of the Bill. I believe that it is important to allow the time for that work to happen alongside the existing guidance as it stands.
I do not seek in my amendment to stipulate exactly what every single permutation might be—indeed, that could run to many pages and beyond. The amendment seeks to empower the Secretary of State and the Department to make sure that those eventualities, and the concerns that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has raised, are covered by regulations over time.
In my view, the failure to provide a clear answer to these questions is an oversight. Data from Oregon shows that it is unfortunately not totally uncommon for patients to suffer complications following the administration of a lethal substance. In 2023, of the 102 patients for whom we have data on whether they suffered complications—out of a total of 367 patients who died by assisted death in Oregon in that year—10 suffered complications. That is just under 10% of the patients we have data for.
Of those 10, eight had difficulty ingesting the substance or regurgitated it. One suffered a seizure, and for one we have no data of what complications occurred. If I may say so to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, that goes back to the variances that I referred to. It is not as simple as whether to resuscitate or otherwise. There are a number of different factors. Although that is a relatively small sample size, it shows the diversity of the challenges ahead.
In Oregon, information about complications is reported only when a physician or another healthcare provider is present at the time of death, which means that we evidently have less data on this issue than is desirable. However, despite the small sample size, that data would put the complication rate at one in 10. It would not be a completely uncommon occurrence for patients to experience complications following the administration of a lethal substance, although it would be rare.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend is referring to Oregon. Obviously every jurisdiction has its own methodology when it comes to assisted dying. Is he reassured somewhat by the evidence from Dignitas that for not one person did the procedure fail? A survey from Victoria in Australia showed that 1,076 deaths from the self-administration process took place, and 86% of patients died within one hour. There are different models, and it is important to look more broadly at this if we can.
Jack Abbott
I fully accept my hon. Friend’s points, and I agree. To reiterate, complications are not a regular occurrence by any means. They are relatively uncommon. In saying that, there are still 10% of people who did experience them. As she says, these complications are not huge, but there were issues with being able to ingest the substance or with regurgitating it. The figure of 86% that my hon. Friend refers to is absolutely correct, but that would suggest that for 14% of people it took longer than an hour. In my view, that is a relatively high percentage for what we are talking about here.
As I say, my amendment does not seek to stipulate in the Bill exactly what measures have to be taken in every single scenario. I am not suggesting for a moment that we have to legislate about what we must do in the event that, for instance, someone has difficulty ingesting the substance; I am sure that will come naturally with the GMC regulations. I fully appreciate the points made about how this will probably naturally occur, but it is important to provide a reassurance that we are looking at the long-term effects in such scenarios.
Sojan Joseph
Does my hon. Friend think that 10% is a high number? Does he also think that if we informed patients about the side-effects of those medications from the beginning, the number of patients opting out would probably be higher?
Jack Abbott
I thank my hon. Friend for the question; I agree that 10% is a statistically reasonable figure and should be noted, which is part of the reason for my amendment. However, this is still relatively uncommon from the small sample sizes we have. For example, while it is important to refer to the Oregon example, the sample size is only 100 people, so we should always keep that in context. Will fewer people choose to go down that path because they feel, for example, there is potentially a small chance they might struggle to ingest the substance? To be perfectly honest with my hon. Friend, that will completely be their personal choice, and it is really important that, in every stage of the process, we are very clear with those looking to go down this path about what those eventualities might be.
Everyone will take their own personal opinion about that, but we want to be very clear about any risks that might come about, and we have already stipulated that this will be part of the process. Everyone should be very clear about the process—what it will look like and the associated risks. Many people will look at this and still say, “This is the path for me”, but that of course will be their own judgment.
Danny Kruger
I wonder whether, in the hon. Gentleman’s view, it might be appropriate for the Secretary of State, when framing the guidance he requests, to leave it to a doctor’s discretion. Would that be an appropriate outcome that he would be happy with? My concern is that we will end up with a Bill that has a blank space when it comes to what should be done in the event of complications, as it does currently, and that the Secretary of State might find it equally confusing and unclear and might be reluctant to specify too precisely what should be done in the range of different circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Will we not end up with a further passing of the buck to clinicians to make that decision? Given that, is it not even more appropriate at this stage for us to give a direction to the Secretary of State stipulating that, whatever the guidance will be, it is entirely inappropriate for a doctor to expedite the death of the patient in any way?
Jack Abbott
In the case of this Secretary of State, he is more than happy, as we have seen in the last week or so, to take decision making back in-house and make them himself as well, although that is perhaps a separate political point.
Jack Abbott
Absolutely, I know. I am sure the Committee supports him as well.
I would also point the hon. Gentleman to proposed new subsection (13), which my amendment 532 would introduce, saying what “specific actions” can legally be taken, for example, if
“there is a greatly prolonged time to death”,
the person has been “rendered unconscious” or
“the person is otherwise undergoing complications.”
That quite clearly states that we expect the Secretary of State, through this amendment, to take specific co-ordination actions on that. Under proposed new subsection (12) alone, the Secretary of State would have to make provision on that, which could lead to what the hon. Gentleman is alluding to. However, what I propose in proposed new subsection is very clear: that we would expect specific actions from the Secretary of State in that area.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. He talked about percentages earlier. Is he aware of a study in the Netherlands that concluded that 21 people—18% of the cases in the study—were assisted with lethal injection? In five of those cases, that was because the person could not swallow, but in the rest, they were unable to complete.
Jack Abbott
I have used the statistic of 10%; we might find additional statistics from different jurisdictions that put that figure slightly higher or slightly lower. The point I am trying to make is that this is a relatively uncommon occurrence; none the less, this is an area of the Bill that we can make stronger with additional provisions.
I will make some progress on amendment 532. I have made the basis of my point and want to get on to amendment 533. As I have said, amendment 532 seeks to provide clarity on what doctors can do if the procedure fails or is failing by stipulating that the Secretary of State must specify in regulations what actions the co-ordinating doctor can legally take if there is a prolonged time to death; if the person has been rendered unconscious or unfit to make a second attempt at self-administration, but has not died; or if the person is undergoing complications following the initial attempt.
While there is existing GMC guidance, if no further guidance comes forward in the coming years, we risk placing some doctors in an incredibly difficult position. We always say that we should abide by good practice and the experience of many doctors, but additional cover is no bad thing. We need to say what doctors are legally permitted to do in the event of a patient undergoing severe complications. Leaving aside the doctors, that presents a risk to the patient, who may suffer needlessly and intolerably because the co-ordinating doctor does not know what they are legally allowed to do and is thus seeking to avoid legal ramifications of actions. We do not want them to take steps to respond to those complications or support the patient to die in a painful manner.
I will speak briefly to my amendment 533, which is about where assisted dying can take place. The Committee has already touched on that, and I do not want the Bill to be too prescriptive, which is why I have not stipulated exactly where the locations should be. However, this question was raised a number of times in the submitted written evidence. It is incredibly important that we address this question to ensure that assisted dying takes place at a certain location and does not have a detrimental effect on that location or community, and that the implementation of assisted dying does not exacerbate existing healthcare inequalities or deepen the mistrust of the healthcare system that exists among some ethnic minority communities in particular.
We have a duty to ensure that anyone seeking an assisted death under the Bill feels that it is safe to do so, is able to experience the positives of assisted dying and is not traumatised or retraumatised by the process. That is not possible if assisted dying takes place in settings in which people feel unsafe, which they feel unable to control or in which they have no agency. The amendment seeks to ensure that the question of where assisted dying can take place is properly addressed and that the possible impacts of assisted dying taking place at any particular location are fully considered. Only then can we address and mitigate its possible detrimental impacts.
That is a particularly important point because the criterion in the Bill that the doctor must remain with the patient until they have died realistically precludes assisted dying taking place at home, as there may be a prolonged time to death. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said, 86% of patients in Western Australia died within the hour, but 14% took longer than that. To use another comparison, in Oregon, 87.7% of those who died via an assisted death in 2023 did so at home. If we are essentially precluding assisted dying from taking place at home because of the stipulation that a doctor has to be in attendance, we must answer the question of where it can take place.
In written evidence, Sue Ryder and the National Care Forum cited concerns about the impact on the wellbeing of staff and the other residents of hospices and accommodation-based services, should assisted dying take place within those communities. Dr Jamilla Hussain, in arguing that the question of where assisted dying could take place needed to be addressed, stated that her consultations with
“ethnic minority groups across Bradford highlighted the risk that AD could significantly deepen mistrust in healthcare services, including but not limited to palliative care.”
She argued that that needed to be considered when determining where assisted dying would take place, and because of that it would be preferable to avoid
“healthcare settings that these communities rely on, such as hospitals and hospices.”
Again, amendment 533 does not seek to specify where assisted dying should take place—I think further work is possibly needed over the coming months and years before this policy is potentially implemented—or to prohibit any particular location, I must add. The rationale behind the amendment is to ensure that through extensive consultation with relevant parties, the possible impacts of assisted dying taking place at any particular location are fully and comprehensively considered, and thereby any potential harm is addressed and mitigated against.
Jack Abbott
I was just finishing, but the hon. Gentleman has timed it perfectly, so I will.
Danny Kruger
I think the hon. Gentleman is right about this one. Does he agree that the hospices that have written to us have a very valid point of concern that they might be required to facilitate assisted dying on their premises, even if many members of staff or other residents do not wish that to happen? Does he agree that it is important that we protect hospices from having to have anything to do with assisted dying?
Jack Abbott
I appreciate that point. Throughout this process we have spoken about the absolute need to ensure that very good palliative care options are being presented to everybody along this pathway. I do not think you can separate care homes and hospices from the Bill, but I fully appreciate and sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. As I have said, there may be some hospices that are simply not appropriate for this, so although amendment 533 does not seek to put that on the face of the Bill in terms of precluding any particular areas of our healthcare system, it would require the Secretary of State, through consultation, to make sure that the legislation is used properly, and make suitable recommendations.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak to amendment 436, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. The amendment concerns what would happen after a patient has suffered complications while going through the administration of lethal drugs. Let me stress that we know that people suffer complications when they are undergoing assisted deaths. Unfortunately, one thing we do not know is how common those complications are. Another thing we lack is data that would allow researchers to investigate whether certain drugs, perhaps in combination with certain medical conditions, were more likely to cause complications.
The reason that we do not know those things is because of the many gaps in the data collected in places that have assisted dying laws. It has been mentioned before, but very much bears mentioning again, that the Australian states’ reports on assisted dying do not publish data on complications suffered by patients who self-administer drugs, and that is the overwhelming majority of assisted deaths in Australia.
Western Australia’s most recent report does tell us how frequently there were complications in the cases that involved practitioner administration of lethal drugs—4.3% of those deaths were affected. I understand that the Bill does not allow practitioner administration, but that is not the relevant point. What is relevant is that first, the Australian data shows that some people given lethal drugs suffer complications, and secondly, those complications were ones that we would not wish on someone in their last minutes or hours of life. For example, five out of 198 practitioner administration deaths involved “other complications”, which included people coughing and/or reporting a burning throat after they were helped to swallow drugs,
“hiccups with gastric reflux, involuntary muscular contractions, and delayed loss of consciousness.”
Western Australia could be much better than other states on average in avoiding complications, or it could be worse. I am afraid that we really do not have the robust data that would allow us to make those comparisons. I repeat: the Australian state does not publish data on complications affecting the majority of assisted dying cases. They do not because they cannot, since no one is mandated to stay with the patient and observe their condition. We do not know, therefore, how common those complications are.
Record-keeping in other jurisdictions is also concerning. This House’s Health and Social Care Committee examined the records kept by the state health department in Oregon while inquiring into assisted dying. They found that Oregon authorities kept very poor records into how many patients suffered complications and what those were.
Amendment 436, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, would take a very different approach. Under this amendment, the doctor attending the person having an assisted death would have to make “a detailed record” if the person suffered complications. They would then have to declare that the person had suffered complications, on the final statement concerning that case. Finally, they would have to make a report, to both the chief medical officer for either England or Wales and the voluntary assisted dying commissioner.
Dr Opher
I am glad to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. First, I will briefly address the whole area that we are talking about. GPs who are involved in terminal care will go and see a patient as they are slowly dying; we do not know at any point what will happen, and almost anything can happen. I have sat with people who may at any point have a massive pulmonary haemorrhage and drown, for example, or they may just quietly go to sleep—or they may start vomiting.
What those of us in terminal care do is react to what is happening with the patient. For example, if they start to be sick, we would give them an anti-emetic; if they start to become very agitated we would then give them midazolam. What I am saying is that this is normal medical care. We have to be very careful not to stipulate in the Bill what is actually normal medical care.
I understand that what we are proposing is a new option that has not been there before, and we know that there are complications. But in a terminal situation, there would be no occurrence where we would call an emergency ambulance and take them to hospital, for example.
Sean Woodcock
My hon. Friend speaks with a lot of knowledge, and every time he contributes I learn something about the medical profession. My challenge to him is that while he is right that at the end of someone’s life GPs and doctors are used to looking after somebody, and there are lots of different complications from medical treatment, in the situation we are talking about the treatment—if we can call it that—is to end their life. That is a distinct difference. Something has gone wrong if their life has not ended suddenly or peacefully, as they were hoping. That means that they might die hours or days later, potentially in agony, or they will linger on, potentially also in agony. The amendment is to try and clarify what then happens, because I would suggest that this is very different from a normal medical procedure.
Dr Opher
I thank my hon. Friend for his sensitive and clear worry. But it is important to note that we would not in any circumstances try to do something that would finish someone’s life after they had been given their self-take medicine, because that is against the law. In the Bill we have made a clear distinction between the doctor—a euthanasian, if you like—taking the life, and the patient taking medicine that finishes life. What we need to do is simply support the patient. If, as my hon. Friend suggests, they are in pain we would give them a morphine drip, which is in common use in terminal care. I absolutely respect what he says, but the same treatment principles would be in place as in terminal care.
Danny Kruger
Even in terminal care, when it is understood that a patient is close to death, doctors would surely not overlook a patient for whom an assisted death is clearly failing. The hon. Gentleman suggests that it would be inappropriate to—and that he would never—call an ambulance, or send a patient to A&E; I wonder whether he also means that he would never seek to revive a patient or bring them back to life, as it were, if they were experiencing complications. To his often-repeated suggestion that there is no difference between this and normal medical treatment, there is an enormous difference. Doctors administer lethal drugs to a patient, and are then also supposed to be somehow caring for the patient in the traditional way that doctors should. These things are inherently incompatible, and there is a choice between the two : is the doctor helping the patient to die, or is he helping them to live? That questions remains, and does he not acknowledge that there will be circumstances where it would be appropriate to revive the patient, and seek to support them as if they were living?
Dr Opher
I almost agreed with the hon. Gentleman earlier, when he asked at one point, should we not just leave this to doctors?
One of the key things the hon. Gentleman said is that the doctor administers the drug. This is self-administered, first of all, so that is a very clear line. However, also, in a case of terminal care—this is what I am trying to get across to the Committee—we know the patient is dying, and therefore if they are becoming worse we simply do things to make them comfortable, and we do not try to revive them, because they are dying. It is important that we realise that this is a very different medical situation from normal care, and that it actually needs very different skills as a doctor. Here, a doctor is not trying to prolong life, but trying to make a death as comfortable as possible.
That is why I support the Bill—because I think it will enhance a comfortable death. I wanted to make it clear that that is normal practice now in terminal care: we do not revive a patient with a terminal diagnosis who is in terminal care, but we make them comfortable.
Sojan Joseph
This is a very good discussion, and with a clinician as well—maybe my hon. Friend can help here. Are we leaving the Bill to professionals to administer, who might be confused and not clear about what they should be doing? In normal current practice, when somebody has a poor prognosis and is very fragile; we use “do not resuscitate” or “do not attempt CPR” decisions. Why do we not build that into the Bill—that everyone who is going through this process should have a DNR or DNACPR in place?
Dr Opher
I thank my hon. Friend for his experience in a clinical setting. I would remind everybody that in the Bill we are trying to help people die in a comfortable way, and I do not feel it is the Bill’s job to define exactly how we treat nausea or abdominal obstruction and so on. What we would like to do here is ensure that a patient has a pain-free death, and a death that they are in control of.
Dr Opher
I will make a little progress and will then take my hon. Friend’s intervention.
On amendment 436, all medical practitioners are required under their code of practice to record any event they come across. I feel there should be better data and I agree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that we need to collect data. We are actually very good at doing that in the NHS. Under clauses 21 and 22 there are provisions for the Secretary of State to collect data on complications. I am therefore not sure that particular amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central is necessary. I think I have covered amendment 464, from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire.
On amendment 429, about the doctor being in the same room, I totally understand the anxieties presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, but I feel that whether the doctor is there should be the choice of the family and the patient. There may be some confusion about this, but to me, what the Bill implies—I am interested to hear the Government’s opinion—is that the doctor should deliver the medicine to the patient, check that the patient is willing to take the medicine as per amendment 462 from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, give the medicine to the patient, and then ask the family whether they want them to be there or in the next room. They need to be available, but do they need to be in the same room? I think that should be the choice of the family.
Daniel Francis
I hear what my hon. Friend says, but the wording of clause 18(9) and (10) is ambiguous. Subsection (9) says that the co-ordinating doctor must remain with the person until “the person has died”, but subsection (10) says that the doctor
“need not be in the same room”.
I do not want to get into measuring metres, but where exactly is that place? Is it in the same room or is it in the same building? If it is in the same building, you cannot possibly be with the person until they die. Does my hon. Friend have comments on that?
Dr Opher
I am interested to hear what the Government say about the wording around that amendment and whether it is safe. I would defer to the Minister on that.
Amendment 430 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, about a code of practice that must address complications and failures, is quite a strong amendment and I am willing to support it. If as doctors we have a code of practice about how we handle this type of thing, the amendment would potentially help, and perhaps answer some of the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury.
I do not believe that amendment 255 from my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke is necessary. I believe it should be dealt with under clause 21.
I believe that the very well put amendments 532 and 533 from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich could be covered by amendment 430.
Dr Opher
I am in two minds about the doctor being present until the patient dies. In the circumstances, we need to encourage this to happen at home predominantly, because I think that is where most people would prefer to do this action. We perhaps need to look further at whether the doctor needs to stay, in the rare situation where the patient goes on.
Let me conclude by saying that I know that the amendments all come from a good place, and that this is an anxious time, but terminal care is an anxious time for doctors, for patients, for everyone, because we do not know exactly what is going to happen. The Bill allows someone a way of dying, when they have a terminal illness, that has a bit more exactitude than normal practice.
Jack Abbott
I fully understand and am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s point about the family having privacy and space in the last moments. However—this is a genuine question—what happens if things start to go wrong? Although it is uncommon, we know it is possible. Do we expect the family members who are going through the last traumatic moments to have to go out of the room to find the doctor, albeit they might just be behind the door? I do not know that that would necessarily make it less traumatic, and for some people it could make it worse if the doctor is not there and present next to their bed.
Dr Opher
I think there is some truth in that, to be fair, but I believe we should leave it open to the family’s discretion, with the proviso that the doctor should be close at hand, whether that means outside the door or whatever. We need Government advice on whether amendment 429 is safe. I have nothing further to say.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will cover a few of the amendments, and follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, whose points I broadly agree with.
When it comes to the location and, actually, a lot of the elements, I fear we are trying to over-specify practical matters. As in so many cases, this is not about capacity, coercion, assessment and so on; it is about the practicalities of death, and it is right that we allow the healthcare team for dying people and their families to operate with the professional skill with which they currently operate.
On amendment 429, on the doctor being in the same room, I can think of many instances in healthcare in which a healthcare professional is in an adjoining room, potentially even with a door open so there is a line of sight, and that is entirely appropriate. I think of observations, for example, in various settings. That provision is absolutely necessary and allows an appropriateness of proximity without intrusion. I am sure the doctor will be in the room at the point at which the substance is taken, but if someone then goes into unconsciousness fairly quickly, as would happen in the vast majority of cases, and then takes half an hour or so to die, it is entirely unnecessary for a doctor to be standing there in the same room, towering over the family, when they could be near at hand. I just do not think we need to specify that in the Bill.
I have some sympathy with amendments 532 and 533, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, on the Secretary of State setting out regulations, but I fear the hon. Member for East Wiltshire did an excellent job of persuading me that they should not be accepted, because when a “must” is included in that way, we get into saying, “The Secretary of State must tell a doctor exactly what they must do in every situation.” The legal parameters are clearly set out in the Bill as drafted. There is no administration by a doctor on a person’s behalf; it must all be self-done. Additionally, we have not yet mentioned the existing provisions in clause 9(2)(c), which requires, at the point of assessment, a conversation between the assessing doctor and the patient about their wishes in the event of complications or any sort of delay.
Jack Abbott
I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying about the Secretary of State not stipulating every dot of every i and cross of every t in the regulations, but we are talking about something that has not been practised in this country, so we do not have existing guidance anywhere about what to do in this event. My hon. Friend may correct me, but I think it is really important that the Secretary of State has to give some direction through regulations on what a doctor is able or not able to do in these situations. I appreciate that there must remain room for a doctor’s best-case judgment in certain situations but, from a legal perspective and otherwise, the Secretary of State and the Department will have to give some thought to exactly how the regulations work.
Lewis Atkinson
To me, amendment 430, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, strikes the right balance. Under clause 30 the Secretary of State “may” make provision for codes of practice on these matters if that is required; I am uncomfortable with saying that the Secretary of State “must” do so, when it is likely that it will be more appropriate for the GMC or some other body to make those regulations. We get into a difficult precedent if the Secretary of State must specify the reaction in certain medical circumstances but we routinely leave that to medical regulation and practice more widely. I think a “may” power, as set out in amendment 430, would allow that backstop provision, but would not get into the issue of “must”. It is also likely to be more respectful of the conversations as outlined in clause 9.
Sarah Olney
I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and a lot of what he is talking about in terms of giving doctors discretion makes a lot of sense in a routine medical intervention, but this is not a routine medical intervention. This is a very serious point, and the doctor’s judgment in this case could well fall either side of what is permissible by the law. That is why it is so important that it is really clear. Whether we decide in Committee that it must be on the face of the Bill, or whether we want, as per the hon. Member for Ipswich’s amendment 532, to leave it to the Secretary of State, it must be clear and specific.
Lewis Atkinson
I think the Bill is very clear on the legal parameters. A doctor may not act, in terms of administering the substance, in a way to hasten death. Within that, we are back into the realms of normal medical practice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud set out. I am sure that there will be legal guidance, whether that be from the GMC or elsewhere, if and when the Bill were to pass. The Secretary of State would have the powers anyway under clause 30, but for the avoidance of doubt, amendment 430 strikes the right balance in giving backstop permissions to the Secretary of State to clarify anything if needed.
Kim Leadbeater
On the hon. Member for Richmond Park’s point, which a couple of people have made, I do not think anyone is saying that this is not a new situation—of course it is, as we are all aware. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud’s point was that a doctor being with a patient who is dying is not a new situation. That is the important distinction.
Lewis Atkinson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and articulated that better than I was managing to.
Danny Kruger
We are not necessarily talking about someone who is dying right here and now in consequence of the drugs they have taken—we could be talking about someone who is many months away from their death. The scenario we are envisaging is that fatal drugs —poisonous drugs—have been administered to the patient’s body and we are asking doctors to be normal doctors in that scenario. In a genuinely normal scenario of doctors being doctors, they would attempt to revive the patient and to save their life in that circumstance. If the parallel is with the last moments of someone’s natural death, the doctor’s job is simply to make them comfortable, but that it is not the scenario. The scenario is some months away from their natural death, when they have months to live. They may not even be exhibiting extreme illness—they may just have a terminal disease. If they have been given fatal drugs, what on earth is the doctor to do in the scenario where the drugs are not working? Surely that is a question for all of us, rather than just leaving it up to the doctors.
Lewis Atkinson
I disagree. As clause 9 makes clear, the doctor will have had a conversation with the patient about their wishes in advance, in exactly the same way as a surgeon would have a conversation with a patient in advance of high-risk surgery—
Lewis Atkinson
I am not going to take any further interventions; I am going to answer this point and make some progress.
The surgeon would say, “If this procedure fails, would you wish me to attempt resuscitation? Would you wish to be put on a support system?” The hon. Gentleman misunderstands current practice on consultation with patients, in advance of procedures, about their wishes, which is where there is significant established evidence.
Lewis Atkinson
I am going to finish on this point.
On amendment 533, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, I suspect that, in dealing with a later clause, we will have a conversation about issues around hospices and care homes, but again I find the requirements under the amendment unduly onerous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and others have said, often people’s preferred place of death is at home. Are we really saying that the Secretary of State would specify addresses or the nature of places where these procedures should take place?
Jack Abbott
No, is the short answer to that question. Because a doctor has to be present, are we saying that doctors have to go to someone’s home to administer this? Would the Secretary State say, for example—this is not my personal view; it is for discussion—that it would have to take place in a medical facility, or could people choose to have an assisted death at home? The amendment stipulates that the Secretary of State would have to give that guidance at the time. I do not see how we can have doctors going out to individuals’ homes to assist the process.
Lewis Atkinson
It is by no means clear that doctors would not go out to people’s homes, but my hon. Friend asks whether doctors would have to do that—there are no powers of compulsion anywhere in the Bill, because the entire model is an opt-in model at every stage, including the example he gave in respect of hospices. It is a matter between the resident of the home and the treating medical practitioner.
In reality, healthcare procedures do not happen ubiquitously: they happen in appropriate places with appropriate cultural sensitivity. We do not specify in primary legislation for that to happen. Health professionals, and those involved in the management and commissioning of health services, currently have ample opportunities to co-ordinate and consider such matters.
Jack Abbott
I appreciate my hon. Friend giving way again. For people in the Committee and our colleagues across the House, there has to be clarity. Perhaps it is a question for the Bill promoter’s and the Government. As I said, I have no personal problem with it, but is there an expectation that assisted dying will take place at home as well as in medical facilities?
Lewis Atkinson
I cannot speak for the Bill’s promoter or for others, but a significant number of people wish to die at home.
Kim Leadbeater
I can help my hon. Friend out on this point. There is an expectation in the jurisdictions where assisted dying happens that it happens in different locations, very much centred around the patient’s wishes, which is the approach we should take.
Lewis Atkinson
That is exactly right. That will quite possibly include people’s individual homes as well as not in their homes, in places of appropriate care and peace and tranquillity.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Member might be interested to know that many hospices and, in fact, the hospice movement have developed what they call hospice at home, which is for people in the advanced stage of illness who want to die in their own home. Services are provided to them to palliate them as they reach death at home.
Lewis Atkinson
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Another point we have not yet mentioned is that the Care Quality Commission regulates healthcare on the basis of location of delivery. Hospice services cannot just be provided from a random place: the place has to be registered with the CQC as suitable for the provision. I am sure that regime would continue in this instance.
Stephen Kinnock
Amendment 435 would require the co-ordinating doctor to escalate the care of an individual to the appropriate emergency medical services if the assisted dying procedure has failed. Requiring the co-ordinating doctor to make a referral may engage article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to family and private life—if the person has indicated that they do not wish to be referred to emergency services or do not wish to be resuscitated. In a situation where the procedure has failed, doctors would, as in their normal duties, support a person in line with their professional obligations and their understanding of the person’s wishes. This could include the involvement of the emergency services, but it would be unusual to specify a particular approach in legislation.
As currently drafted, clause 18(9) provides that:
“The coordinating doctor must remain with the person”
once the approved substance has been provided, until either
“the person has self-administered the approved substance and…the person has died, or…it is determined by the coordinating doctor that the procedure has failed”,
or, alternatively, until
“the person has decided not to self-administer the approved substance.”
Amendment 429 would remove the clarification currently provided for in clause 18(10) that the co-ordinating doctor does not have to be
“in the same room as the person”
once the approved substance has been provided. However, clause 18(9) requires the doctor only to
“remain with the person”.
It may still be possible that the co-ordinating doctor could remain with the person but in a different room if they decide that is more appropriate.
Amendment 436 would increase reporting obligations on the co-ordinating doctor in cases where complications have occurred. It is not clear in the amendment what would be considered a complication and therefore trigger the reporting requirement. It is also not clear what details should be set out in the person’s medical records or in the report to the chief medical officer and voluntary assisted dying commissioner.
Naz Shah
I am struggling with this. When amendments were tabled last week, there was a concise direction from the Minister that he understood the intention of the amendments. Could that approach not be applied to these amendments—that there is an understanding of the intention, and they can be tidied up in the wash-up process to make them tight? Could that not happen?
Stephen Kinnock
My job and that of my hon. and learned friend the Justice Minister is to defend the integrity and coherence of the statute. The concern that we have with the word “complication” is that it is a wide-ranging term and concept, and its inclusion could potentially undermine the integrity of the legal coherence of the Bill and how it could be interpreted in terms of its implementation. I am simply flagging the risk that if the Committee chooses to accept the amendment, there could be a muddying of the waters in terms of its meaning in law.
Rebecca Paul
Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford West, has the Minister taken into account the guidance on private Members’ Bills? It says exactly what the hon. Member has just set out: the spirit of amendments should be taken, and it is for the Government to ensure that the integrity of the statute is respected with the final version. That is to allow a free-flowing discussion and to ensure that we capture everything we need to in the Bill, in the light of the fact that many of us are not lawyers or experts.
Stephen Kinnock
Absolutely, if the Committee chooses to accept the amendment, it goes into the Bill. If the Bill gets Royal Assent, it becomes the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the Bill, as passed by Parliament, is implemented in the best possible way.
The hon. Lady is right that the Government’s responsibility is to take on whatever passes through Parliament and implement it to the best of our ability. My job in this Committee is to raise concerns about risks of amendments that could potentially muddy the waters more than other amendments, or more than the Bill as it currently stands. It is a balanced judgment about whether we are better off with the Bill as it currently stands, whether the amendment would improve the Bill, or whether it could lead to concerns about the integrity of the statute if it were included.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the Minister for that explanation. I suggest it would also be appropriate for him to set out the changes that could be put in place in order for the amendment to work in that way. To my mind, that would give the true neutrality that he is seeking to achieve. Rather than set out why something does not work, he could set out how it could work in order to deliver the spirit of the change.
Stephen Kinnock
I think what I am saying is that the word “complication” contains a multitude of potential interpretations and meanings. The work that would need to be done by the Government to unpack it and understand what it means certainly could be done if the amendment passes, but the Government are saying that, as it stands, it is not clear. The drafting of the amendment is so ambiguous that it causes the Government concerns about its inclusion.
Naz Shah
This is a genuine question because I continue to struggle with this. What kinds of complications would we envisage if a lethal drug is being administered to a patient who has chosen assisted dying? What kinds of examples are there? Can the Minister help me understand?
Stephen Kinnock
With all due respect, I think it is more the responsibility of those who draft and table amendments to draft and table them in a way that leaves no room or as little room as possible for ambiguity. I think my hon. Friend would be better off addressing her question about the potential complications to somebody with clinical expertise, who could list off a series of potential physical manifestations. I am not qualified to do that. I do not have a clinical background so I am not able to answer her question.
Amendment 464 would impose a duty on the co-ordinating doctor not to do anything with the intention of causing the person’s death and to seek to revive the person if it appears to them that the procedure is failing. It is unclear what “appears to be failing” would mean, and what criteria would need to be met for the co-ordinating doctor to consider the procedure to be failing. It would be unusual for primary legislation to seek to mandate a clinical course of action in the way proposed by the amendment. In addition, the amendment could potentially create conflict for the co-ordinating doctor if the person has a “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” order or a legally effective advance decision is in place, as the doctor would have to resuscitate them even if they had stated wishes to the contrary. That could give rise to engagement of article 8 of the European convention on human rights on respect for private and family life.
Amendment 532 would introduce a new duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out what the co-ordinating doctor is legally permitted to do if they determine that the procedure under clause 18(2) has failed. Under the amendment, the regulations would also include specific actions that the co-ordinating doctor can legally take if there is a greatly prolonged death; if the person is unconscious and unable to make a second attempt at self-administration; or if the person has other complications. If specific actions that the co-ordinating doctor can legally take are set out, there is a risk that, when complications arise, they would be unable to take actions that are not listed. That may lead to uncertainty and restrict what the doctor can do, using their professional judgment, to respond to particular circumstances. It is unusual to set out a particular clinical approach in primary legislation.
Amendment 533 places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying where the provision of assistance under the Bill may take place. It sets out a requirement on the Secretary of State to
“consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
prior to making such regulations, including certain specified groups.
I turn to amendment 430, which would broaden the Secretary of State’s power to issue codes of practice under clause 30 of the Bill. It would explicitly enable the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice in connection with
“responding to unexpected complications that arise in relation to the administration of the approved substance under section 18, including when the procedure fails”.
Naz Shah
I respectfully point out that the Minister says that it is not for him to make interpretations and that he has not got the clinical expertise. I genuinely appreciate that, but I am also trying to understand why he accepts provisions that are not clear in the Bill. Why is he okay with those but not with the amendments?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend will have noted that a number of amendments have been drafted in collaboration with the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. I think that demonstrates that when the Government have seen a lacuna, a lack of clarity or ambiguities in the Bill, officials, along with the Justice Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, and I, have worked with my hon. Friend to table amendments to tighten up the Bill. We are doing that in areas where we feel that ambiguity exists. However, when we feel that the Bill, as drafted, does not give rise to such concerns, our position on the amendments is according to our position vis-à-vis the current wording of the Bill.
Danny Kruger
The Minister said that the Government find it impossible to understand the word “complications” —that it is too complex and full of ambiguity. Yet in clause 9 of the Bill, we have that very word. The suggestion is that the doctor should
“discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications”.
Is that unclear? If not, what is the difficulty with specifying “complications” in clause 30?
Stephen Kinnock
The challenge with amendment 436 is that the policy intent is not as clear as it is in clause 9. That clause is about conversations in advance of decisions about committing to the procedure, whereas when it comes to complications that have arisen in a rapid and fast-moving situation, the view of the Government is that it is adequate to rely on the professional judgment of the medical practitioner to take the decision that best suits that situation.
One is a conversation that can be explored between the clinician and the patient in advance, in a managed environment; the dialogue can take place in a considered manner. The second situation is one in which there is a particular physical manifestation and it is up to the clinician to take a rapid position and to decide, according to all the elements that they usually use, such as the GMC’s “Good medical practice”, other codes of practice and their own professional judgment.
Danny Kruger
The Minister suggests that it is appropriate for the patient to give some advance indication of what should be done in the event of complications, but that it would not be right for Parliament, too, to give advance direction of the sorts of responses that would be appropriate in the circumstances.
I am afraid that I do not understand the Minister’s distinction. Either it is possible to set in advance the sorts of responses that would be appropriate in the event of complications—the word “complications” is already in the Bill, so is clearly acceptable—or it is not. In the event of complications arising when the patient has not given clear instructions in advance, surely it is appropriate for the doctor to be able to rely on guidance, whether that is in the Bill or set out by the Secretary of State subsequently.
There needs to be clarity about what to do because, to repeat the point, this is not normal medicine—a fatal drug has been introduced into the body. That is not a normal medical situation in which a doctor just uses their clinical judgment; the only appropriate clinical judgment in such circumstances is to attempt to save the patient’s life, because that is what doctors are supposed to do. But we are telling them that they have been allowed to help a patient to die artificially. In that circumstance, what are they supposed to do when that is clearly not working?
Stephen Kinnock
How amendment 436 is drafted makes for a real challenge, because it is not clear what detail should be set out in the person’s medical records or in the report to the chief medical officer and the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. There is ambiguity in the drafting of the amendment.
Kim Leadbeater
To try to tie this together, I should say that there seems to be consensus that something has to be recorded in the event of complications. It feels to me as though what the Government are saying is that this is not the best crafted way of doing that—that is the worst sentence ever; I apologise. We have to look at the best way of achieving the intention of a number of amendments. I am looking at amendment 430, which I think achieves the objective. This feels as though it is a drafting issue, rather than necessarily a policy issue. I might be wrong.
Stephen Kinnock
Of course, if we can find ways to improve the Bill, we should—that is what this Bill Committee is for. But the input from my officials and parliamentary counsel legal advice have raised red flags about the amendments because of how they are drafted and the ambiguity that they give rise to. Clearly, it is up to the Committee to decide whether it wants to include the amendments or whether those issues could be looked at later—either on Report or when the Bill is going through the other place.
Naz Shah
We cannot have things both ways. I have re-read amendment 436 and I am not convinced that the issue is the drafting. It is very clear:
“If complications occur as a result of the provision of assistance the coordinating doctor must…make a detailed record of the complications…make a declaration…and…make a report”.
I am struggling to differentiate between having a conversation about it and it actually happening—it is still a complication, so why the resistance? Can the Minister agree that the Government will look at this and, perhaps in the wash-up, tidy it up—if that is the issue, and they agree in that instance?
Stephen Kinnock
Fundamentally, the role of the promoter of the Bill is to decide whether the Bill, as passed through this Committee, meets the policy intent that she wishes to achieve. Our job as Ministers is to work with her to deliver that objective. If the promoter of the Bill comes to the view that any of the amendments should be considered and added to the Bill, we will of course work with her to enable them to be delivered. My job at the moment is simply to say that there are concerns about these amendments due to the issue of ambiguity.
Kim Leadbeater
As a matter of clarity, although I appreciate the power that the Minister has just given me, which amendments we vote for is actually the job of the Bill Committee—rather than just my job, I would hope.
Stephen Kinnock
Absolutely, it is the job of the Committee to decide which amendments pass, but my hon. Friend’s role as the promoter of the Bill is to define the policy intent of the Bill—its fundamental objectives, the fundamental safeguards issues and its architecture in that sense. It is absolutely the responsibility of the Bill Committee to decide whether to amend the Bill.
Sarah Olney
I hope the Minister can answer a question for me. I hear what he is saying about concerns with the amendments themselves, which makes a lot of sense, and the policy objectives of the hon. Member for Spen Valley. What I am concerned about is that in the Bill as drafted, notwithstanding that various amendments have been tabled, it is not clear what the doctor should do in the event of complications. There may well have been an earlier conversation with the patient, but the patient’s request may still leave the doctor in the position of committing a criminal offence.
I would like to know whose responsibility it is to ensure that doctors are not left in that position, which could come about either because the Bill as drafted is not clear or the amendments do not make the appropriate clarification. The hon. Member for Spen Valley has done a marvellous job, but in terms of policy intention the Bill does not cover this aspect. The Minister is saying that it is his job only to ensure that the amendments are appropriate. I am still very concerned that there is a big gap here and that we are potentially leaving doctors in the very difficult position of not knowing whether or not carrying out the patient’s intentions would leave them in the position of breaking the law. I would like to know whose responsibility it is to ensure that doctors are not left in that situation.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Lady will know that we rely on medical practitioners to make professional judgments all the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has set out the range of things that medical practitioners can do when they are dealing with end-of-life care. That happens all the time.
In these circumstances, it is the view of the Government that we should continue to rely on the skill, judgment and expertise of medical practitioners, underpinned by the various codes of practice—the GMC, or good medical practice, being probably the most obvious one. There is an understandable desire to use primary legislation to address issues of this kind, but it is important to point out that that could prove to be counterproductive and that we could end up with a Bill that becomes less workable and therefore potentially less safe—what one might call the law of unintended consequences.
Sarah Olney
The Minister is talking about somebody making a medical judgment, which would obviously be the right thing to do in the normal course of events, but we are talking about a doctor being left in a position of not knowing whether to take a further step that would end somebody’s life or to take the step that would be natural for a doctor—to try to revive the patient. This is about what the legal position is in that case—it is not a matter for medical judgment.
Stephen Kinnock
My response would be to refer the hon. Lady to clause 30(1), which sets out that the Secretary of State will produce a code of practice. Amendment 430, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said she is minded to support, would also ensure that the code of practice includes guidance on the matter that the hon. Lady raises. I think there is a commitment to a code of practice, and if amendment 430 passes then it would be explicitly in the Bill that that code of practice should include the issue that she raises.
Amendment 533 places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying where the provision of assistance under the Bill may take place. It sets out a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate prior to making such regulations, including certain specified groups.
Amendment 430 would broaden the Secretary of State’s power to issue codes of practice under clause 30. It would explicitly enable the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice in connection with responding to unexpected complications that arise in relation to the administration of the approved substance under section 18, including when the procedure fails.
I understand that amendment 255 is no longer relevant as it relates to schedule 6, which is going to be changed—I think that is right—so, in that sense, the amendment is null and void. I hope that those observations were helpful.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank colleagues for a thorough discussion of a group of interesting and important amendments. Amendment 429, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, would require the doctor to remain in the same room as the person. I respectfully disagree with my hon. Friend on that point. If a person is literally in the last few minutes and moments of their life, it should be up to them to decide who is in the room with them. In some cases, that might be the doctor, but I suspect that in many cases it would be loved ones and close family members.
We have had a thorough discussion of the range of amendments that look at how we deal with complications. My view is that amendment 430 would do what needs to be done. We need the Bill to show that this has been considered, and the logical place for that would be clause 30, on codes of practice. I am happy to support that amendment when the time comes to vote on it.
Danny Kruger
The Minister suggested that there will be a code of practice, but clause 30 says that there “may” be a code of practice. Does the hon. Member accept that there might not be one and that, even if there were, the only obligation on professionals would be to have regard to such a code? There is a big difference between that and a stipulation in the Bill.
Kim Leadbeater
I believe that amendment 447, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, would change the “may” to a “must”. I am minded to support it for that very reason.
Amendment 532, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, comes from a good place as is meant to be a way of trying to help the doctor, but I worry, as medical colleagues have commented during our deliberations, that it could create more of a problem for the doctor in that it would remove flexibility and the use of their clinical judgment and expertise. It always worries me when we are considering putting that level of detail in the Bill.
Jack Abbott
I appreciate what my hon. Friend is getting at in terms of what might happen down the line, but the amendment would not restrict any doctor’s flexibility at all or bind them in any way. All it would do is ask the Secretary of State to form a set of regulations.
Kim Leadbeater
The challenge would be in whether the co-ordinating doctor would be able to take actions that were not listed. I worry that a list would be quite restrictive. Amendment 430, which would look at the code of practice, would achieve something in a less restrictive way, which is why I am minded to support it.
We have had a really interesting discussion about amendment 533, and we will probably come further down the line to discuss where patients should have the choice to have an assisted death. I am not entirely sure how the amendment would work, which is why I am not minded to support it.
I am slightly concerned about the terminology and am not sure what the definition of “disadvantaged and marginalised communities” would be for the purposes of the amendment. I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich to new clause 8—the duty to consult—bearing in mind that there will be a long period of consultation before the Bill, if it passes, is enacted.
The Minister referred to amendment 255, which I think will fall as it refers to a schedule that has been removed from the Bill.
Danny Kruger
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I am satisfied that the matters arising from clause 18 have been fully debated. I therefore do not propose to have a stand part debate.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Kit Malthouse
On a point of order, Sir Roger. Is there any chance somebody could attend to the heating? I do not know whether I am the only Member who is starting to feel a bit cold. As the evening wears on, we are likely to get colder. If we could have it turned up slightly, that might assist our proceedings.
The Chair
I was under the impression that cold concentrated the mind, but we will see what we can do. I speak as one who will not be in the room. The point has been taken.
Clause 19
Authorising another doctor to provide assistance
Sarah Olney
I beg to move amendment 408, in clause 19, page 13, line 18, after “provided” insert “has been consulted and”.
The amendment ensures the person has been consulted before they have given consent for another medical practitioner to be authorised to provide assistance.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 210, in clause 19, page 13, line 22, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) may in particular provide that the required training, qualifications or experience is to be determined by a person specified in the regulations.”.
This amendment enables regulations under subsection (2)(b) to provide that the required training, qualifications or experience is to be determined by a person specified in the regulations.
Amendment 499, in clause 19, page 13, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) Where a registered medical practitioner who is authorised under subsection (1) is not satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in section 18(4), they must notify the coordinating doctor immediately.”
This amendment provides that where a practitioner authorised under clause 19(1) is not satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in clause 18(4), they must immediately notify the coordinating doctor.
Amendment 22, in clause 19, page 13, line 32, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) must specify that training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse is mandatory.”
This amendment would require that, in the event of the coordinating doctor authorising another registered medical practitioner to provide assistance under the Act, that other registered medical practitioner must also have undertaken training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse.
Clause stand part.
Sarah Olney
Amendment 408 seeks clarity on a critical aspect of the legislation. Clause 19 allows a co-ordinating doctor to authorise another registered medical practitioner to carry out their functions, providing that the patient consents and that the replacement has completed training, qualifications and experience as specified by the Secretary of State. This is a facilitation clause to smooth the process, and in some cases it might seem like something that we should just nod through. If the co-ordinating doctor becomes unwell, takes leave or faces an emergency that prevents them from fulfilling their duties, they might delegate to ensure continuity of care for the patient. If the patient relocates, perhaps to be closer to family, or if the co-ordinating doctor cannot travel to the patient’s location due to the distance or logistics, a local practitioner could be authorised to step in, provided they meet the specified requirements and the patient consents.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak to amendment 499, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Let me outline what the amendment does and why I believe that it provides an inadequate safeguard. Under clause 19, the co-ordinating doctor may authorise another doctor to provide assistance—meaning that they will help the patient to take the lethal drugs. For clarity, I will refer throughout my speech to this other doctor who may step in to provide lethal drugs as the second doctor.
Under clause 18(4), the co-ordinating doctor must be satisfied of three conditions before they proceed to assist the person to take lethal drugs. Those three conditions are that the person has a clear, settled and informed desire to end their life, has capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and is not subject to coercion. Implicitly, the co-ordinating doctor can therefore end the procedure if they are not satisfied that those conditions apply. Under clause 19(3), the second doctor has the same duty as the co-ordinating doctor to be satisfied of those conditions before the assisted dying procedure can go ahead.
Amendment 499 would impose a new duty on the second doctor: if they suspected coercion, lack of capacity or lack of clear, settled and informed desire, they would have to inform the co-ordinating doctor. I suggest that the amendment does not take things far enough. It is a very serious matter if any doctor, be it the co-ordinating doctor or the second doctor, suspects coercion, lack of capacity or lack of desire. That means that a very serious mistake may well have been made, and that mistake could lead to someone having an assisted death who should not have qualified for it.
There should be several more safeguards in this part of the Bill. First, let us consider a situation where there was no previous suspicion that a patient had been coerced but where the doctor now suspects that they may have been. There should be a proper system of notification for such cases. It is true that doctors have a duty of care for patients, but it is also true that, given our overstressed, underfunded social care, health and policing systems, difficult cases sometimes fall through the cracks. The Bill should have a clear system for an authority to check back with the social care authorities and a person’s GP to make sure that steps are being taken to protect them from potential coercion. Secondly, the report that the second doctor makes in those circumstances should go to not only the co-ordinating doctor, but the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. Thirdly, when that happens, the commissioner should investigate the incident.
To repeat: if a doctor originally assessed a patient as qualifying for an assisted death, but a second doctor could not support that assessment, that is a serious incident that could lead to the assisted death of someone who should not have qualified for it. That does not mean that the co-ordinating doctor was necessarily at fault—not at all. The co-ordinating doctor will have been taking very difficult decisions under considerable stress. However, it does mean that the proper authorities should investigate the initial assessment, whether it was wrong and, if so, why it was wrong.
We see something similar with the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, which investigates not only accidents, but near misses that could have caused serious accidents. It does not assume fault when it investigates near misses. Often, it finds that there has been no human error. However, it has a statutory duty to investigate serious near misses. That is because the law passed by this House recognises that we need to understand why they happened in order to prevent fatal accidents from ever happening in the future.
For that reason, I do not think that my hon. Friend’s amendment is sufficient to fix the problems with this part of the Bill. I hope we can think about how better to address those problems, but I cannot support the amendment.
Rebecca Paul
I rise to speak in support of amendment 408, in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe. I also support amendments 499 and 210, in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and amendment 22, in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato).
Clause 19 states that
“the coordinating doctor may authorise, in writing, a named registered medical practitioner to carry out the coordinating doctor’s functions under section 18…A registered medical practitioner may be authorised under subsection (1) only if…the person to whom the assistance is being provided has consented, in writing, to the authorisation of that practitioner”.
I support amendment 408, which adds that the person must also have been consulted.
I am sure the Committee recognises that, even where someone has basic training and the experience specified, delegating care at the end of life is something that must be done with great care, given the vulnerability of patients. If a co-ordinating doctor has guided someone through this profound and significant process, there are some intrinsic risks that come with delegating the administration of the final approved substance to someone else. I concede that there will be situations where a substitute may be required, but it will not be the doctor that the patient has trusted, confided in and relied on.
A new doctor will of course do the final checks for capacity and consent, but they do not necessarily have any specific detailed knowledge of the patient and may be unable to pick up less obvious cues that someone who knows the patient may be better able to. That gap matters, and history shows that it can lead to problems. The risks of delegation are well documented. If we take the Mid Staffordshire NHS foundation trust scandal in 2005 to 2009, detailed in the Francis report, consultants often delegated tasks to junior staff or nurses without adequate supervision, which contributed to poor care and an estimated 400 to 1,200 excess deaths. Patients suffered from neglect, untreated infections, dehydration and medication errors. That was partly because delegated staff lacked the training or authority to act decisively, and consultants failed to monitor effectively.
In surgical contexts, delegation can also falter. A 2006 Daily Mail report highlighted NHS payouts exceeding £1 million for wrong-site surgeries, where consultants delegated preparatory or operative tasks to trainees or assistants, who then misidentified sites—for example, operating on the wrong leg or tooth. Those errors often stemmed from inadequate briefing or supervision, pointing to a systemic delegation risk. We have to be really aware of this.
Those examples suggest that when consultants delegate, whether to junior doctors or other practitioners, including their peers, things can go wrong if communication breaks down, or if the replacement lacks equivalent expertise or is simply not aware of some of the detailed information. In order to manage some of the risks better, patients must be consulted about who takes over their care, and not just asked to consent after the co-ordinating doctor has decided what will happen.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Given that valid consent requires a voluntary and informed decision, can my hon. Friend set out why that would not involve being consulted on the matter in any event?
Rebecca Paul
I would like to think that that would naturally happen, and we have had lots of conversations where we have said, “In reality, of course this conversation would happen.” But I always like to be belt and braces, and I would like to have these things covered in the Bill. If Committee members are confident that these things would happen anyway, I am not sure there would be any detriment to accepting this amendment.
I want to finish with a question for the Ministers. I have been worried—perhaps unnecessarily—about the lack of photographic identification in this process, and I can see a situation where allowing another doctor to provide assistance could create a risk. Although it might be less of a risk in someone’s home, because it would probably be clear who the person is, I am worried about a doctor in a hospital or clinic being substituted in at the final hour with no photographic verification of the person. At the point where they assist the patient to take the approved substance, how can the doctor be sure that it is the appropriate person if they have not had any involvement with the patient before? I accept, given some of the deep sighs I can hear, that that may be a rare occurrence, but it is worth thinking about. The simple inclusion of a photographic ID check would address some of that risk. I will not go over old ground, but I have been worrying about that.
Naz Shah
I rise to support amendment 22, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. Before I carry on, I am happy to give my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley the opportunity to say whether she will accept the amendment, because my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft has had a hat-trick of amendments being accepted around training on coercion.
Kim Leadbeater
I am very happy to accept amendment 22 from my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, as it follows the theme of the previous amendments.
Naz Shah
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, which will make my speech much shorter—I have repeated it at least three times on all the other amendments. While I welcome the amendment, I hope we can work towards something that strengthens the Bill even further.
Under the amendment, regulations would be made governing the doctors who could fill the role in the clause. Those doctors would have to undergo mandatory training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. Giving doctors that training would not remove the danger that they will overlook evidence of abuse and coercion, but it should decrease it. The doctors we are talking about will spend less time talking to the person seeking assisted death than either the co-ordinating or the independent doctors. None the less, they will spend some time with that person, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen—sorry, Spen Valley; I keep going back to Batley and Spen, but we campaigned hard to get her elected there.
Stephen Kinnock
There are some amendments in this grouping—namely, amendments 210 and 49—that we worked on with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and I will come to them later in my remarks.
If amendment 408 is passed, the person to whom assistance is being provided would have to be consulted before they consent in writing to another medical practitioner being authorised to carry out the co-ordinating doctor’s functions. All registered medical practitioners must uphold the standards set out in the General Medical Council’s “Good medical practice”, which requires registered medical practitioners to support patients to make informed decisions prior to consenting. Therefore, the proposed amendment may have relatively minimal impact.
Turning to amendment 210, clause 19(2)(b) sets out that a registered medical practitioner may be authorised to carry out the co-ordinating doctor’s functions only where they have
“completed such training, and gained such qualifications and experience, as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations.”
The purpose of the amendment is to provide that the required training, qualifications or experience are to be determined by a person or organisation specified in the regulations. An example of such a specified organisation might be the General Medical Council. Allowing for that to be specified in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill ensures flexibility.
Amendment 499 provides that where a registered medical practitioner who is authorised to carry out the functions of the co-ordinating doctor is not satisfied that all matters have been met, they must notify the co-ordinating doctor immediately.
If amendment 22 is made, regulations made by the Secretary of State on the necessary training, qualifications and experience of the named registered medical practitioner who is authorised by the co-ordinating doctor to carry out the co-ordinating doctor’s functions under clause 18 would need to include mandatory training relating to domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. The Committee has already made equivalent changes to requirements on training for the co-ordinating and independent doctors, so this amendment would bring the clause into line, should the co-ordinating doctor change, for the purposes of clause 18. Should this amendment be accepted, it would require setting up training mechanisms to equip registered medical practitioners with the knowledge and skills needed to identify domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse.
On clause 19—sorry, I was going to refer to clause 19 stand part. That is the end of my observations.
Kim Leadbeater
Clause 19 applies when the co-ordinating doctor may not be available to provide assistance. They may be out of the country or unavailable due to other personal circumstances, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park articulated beautifully—I associate myself with her comments. Of course the doctor who steps in has to be trained appropriately, and if they are not satisfied of all the matters mentioned in clause 18(4), they must immediately notify the co-ordinating doctor. That is what my amendments 210 and 499 cover.
On amendment 408 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, who sadly is not with us today, it could be argued—and I take on board the comments by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley—that it is unnecessary because it would be common practice by practitioners to consult. However, I also take on board the fact that the word “consultation” does some heavy lifting, and I think that is an important point, so I am happy to support amendment 408.
I have mentioned already in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West that I am happy to support amendment 22, for the reasons I have given previously in relation to similar amendments.
The Chair
Just before we move on to Sarah Olney to wind up the debate, I think I heard the Minister say, “No, that’s stand part.” Stand part is part of this grouping. Did the Minister wish to comment on stand part?
Stephen Kinnock
I did not wish to comment. That is why I sat down. I have said quite enough; I am sure everyone would agree.
The Chair
It was something else you were pre-empting yourself with—that is fine. I call Sarah Olney.
Sarah Olney
I have nothing to add.
Amendment 408 agreed to.
Amendments made: 210, in clause 19, page 13, line 22, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) may in particular provide that the required training, qualifications or experience is to be determined by a person specified in the regulations.”
This amendment enables regulations under subsection (2)(b) to provide that the required training, qualifications or experience is to be determined by a person specified in the regulations.
Amendment 499, in clause 19, page 13, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) Where a registered medical practitioner who is authorised under subsection (1) is not satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in section 18(4), they must notify the coordinating doctor immediately.”
This amendment provides that where a practitioner authorised under clause 19(1) is not satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in clause 18(4), they must immediately notify the coordinating doctor.
Amendment 211, in clause 19, page 13, line 31, leave out subsection (5).—(Kim Leadbeater.)
See the statement for Amendment 187.
Amendment made: 22, in clause 19, page 13, line 32, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) must specify that training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse is mandatory.”—(Naz Shah.)
This amendment would require that, in the event of the coordinating doctor authorising another registered medical practitioner to provide assistance under the Act, that other registered medical practitioner must also have undertaken training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse.
Amendment made: 212, in clause 19, page 13, line 33, leave out subsection (6).—(Kim Leadbeater.)
See the statement for Amendment 188.
Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Meaning of “approved substance”
Danny Kruger
I beg to move amendment 409, in clause 20, page 13, line 35, leave out from “specify” to “for” and insert—
“two or more drugs or other substances with different techniques of administration”.
The amendment requires that the Secretary of State specifies two or more drugs or other substances, which have different techniques of administration.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 465, in clause 20, page 13, line 36, at end insert—
“(1A) A drug may only be approved under this Act if it has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for that purpose.”
Amendment 466, in clause 20, page 13, line 36, at end insert—
“(1A) A drug may only be approved under this Act if the Secretary of State is reasonably of the opinion that there is a scientific consensus that this drug or combination of drugs, is effective at ending someone’s life without causing pain.”
Amendment 437, in clause 20, page 13, line 38, at end insert—
“(2A) The doses and types of lethal drugs specified in any regulations made under subsection (1) must be licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.”
This amendment would require that any drugs and doses to bring an end to someone’s life under the Act be licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.
Amendment 438, in clause 20, page 13, line 38, at end insert—
“(2A) The doses and types of lethal drugs to bring about the person’s death must be recommended by either the National Institute of Clinical Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group in Wales’ guidelines as appropriate prior to licensing.”
This amendment will require the doses and types of lethal drugs must be recommended by either the National Institute of Clinical Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group in Wales as appropriate.
Amendment 467, in clause 20, page 13, line 38, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure and when tabling the draft of the statutory instrument the Secretary of State must at the same time lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out all relevant information on the likely time to death, complications and likely side effect.”
Amendment 482, in clause 20, page 13, line 39, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
Clause stand part.
Danny Kruger
I rise to speak primarily to the amendments in my name and those in the name of the hon. Member for York Central with respect to the regulations for the approval of the approved substances—the drugs that will be used in the procedure of assisted death.
My amendment 465 states:
“A drug may only be approved under this Act if it has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency”.
Amendment 437 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central would achieve a similar objective. My amendment 466 would require that the drugs
“may only be approved under this Act if the Secretary of State is reasonably of the opinion that there is a scientific consensus that this drug or combination of drugs, is effective at ending someone’s life without causing pain.”
I also support amendment 482 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, which would move the approval of the regulations to the affirmative procedure.
Those who support this Bill argue that death through the administration of lethal drugs offers dignity and the avoidance of suffering. If that is to be the case, the drugs used must be effectively regulated and life must be ended effectively and without pain. The amendments I have mentioned specify the role of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; in my view, to leave this entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, as clause 20 does, is quite an extraordinary step. It feels remarkable that the Bill as drafted leaves this enormous question to the Secretary of State.
[Peter Dowd in the Chair]
Good afternoon, Mr Dowd; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
Throughout the Bill, important questions are left to regulations made subsequently by the Secretary of State. I think that is inappropriate here. When patients are prescribed medicines, in most cases the medicine will be licensed by the MHRA for use for the treatment of the particular condition. Patients can be assured that the medicine has been evaluated by the MHRA to ensure that it meets safety and efficacy standards. The MHRA reviews clinical trial data, inspects manufacturing facilities, monitors post-market safety and conducts independent quality testing so that there is regulation of medicine.
I have two concerns with my own amendments here; they might have occurred to other hon. Members, too, if they are paying attention. First, I do not accept that the procedure we are debating here is in fact healthcare. The question then arises, “Why are you proposing that the healthcare regulator would oversee the administration of the drugs?” My response to that is, “Well, somebody’s got to do it.” In fact, we are talking about substances that might be used in a medical setting, that would be appropriate in other medical settings, and that will have an effect on the body comparable to that for which they are licensed for medicine. Obviously, the intention is the direct opposite: they are licensed for genuine medicine and healthcare in order to preserve life and treat symptoms, but the intention here is to eliminate life without reference to symptoms.
Nevertheless, the only appropriate authority in our country is the MHRA—unless we were to conceive of another new body that would have that specific responsibility. However, that body would have the same obligations that the MHRA does to ensure that the substance is safe, paradoxically, in the sense of not causing unwanted side effects or distress to the patient.
The second objection—there is no reason why hon. Members present would know about it, but I have spoken in the main Chamber before about my concerns about the MHRA—is that, while I have just cited all the work that the MHRA is supposed to do in the regulation of medicines and healthcare products, I am afraid it does not do that job well. I do not want to give the Committee the impression that I think we have a perfect regulator; I think we have a very imperfect regulator in all sorts of ways.
In fact, the hon. Member for Stroud and I have participated in debates on the regulation of antidepressants and addiction-forming prescribed drugs, an important debate in which he and I are on the same side. There is genuine concern about the way the health regulator operates—we will not get into covid vaccines and other things at this moment; we have enough on our plate.
Nevertheless, despite the problems with the MHRA and the fact that I do not want to give the impression that I am concluding that assisted suicide is in fact healthcare, somebody has to do this. We cannot allow a situation in which the patient takes an overdose of a drug with no controls to ensure that the drug meets quality standards and does the job that it is meant to do. A tablet that is licensed for prescription or sale would need to have a minimum level of purity of the active substance, and to be free from other substances and contaminants that might cause unpleasant side effects or reactions. Without regulation, there is a risk that the drug may fail to work as intended or may induce unwanted side effects, such as those that we are all concerned about.
The question is: what safety standards should apply to an approved substance used for the purpose of assisted dying? A drug used to bring about death is not curing or preventing disease, or alleviating symptoms to improve death.
Sojan Joseph
We had some discussion earlier about how we will potentially be assisting dying in people’s own homes—that was not previously known to us; we thought it would be always in clinical settings—so medication will be transported from where it is stored as a controlled drug, in a hospital setting, to the patient’s home. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is important that we have clear guidance as to how we store this medication?
Danny Kruger
I entirely agree. The regulations need to specify not only what drugs may be approved, but, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, how they should be stored and transported. I would expect that to be part of the package of regulations under the Bill.
As I have stated, I do not accept that we are talking about healthcare here; nevertheless, we are using products that are comparable to health products. The MHRA would need to significantly adapt its work in order to identify the most effective drug to cause what we currently perceive as harm—namely, the death of a patient. I recognise that that would be a significant change of remit and work for the MHRA, but we need to do it. One of the reasons that we need regulation of approved substances is to help ensure that falsified versions of the drug—drugs that do not have a licence for use in assisted dying—cannot enter the market. Such drugs may not be effective and could cause distress to those ending their lives and their families. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether, in his view, clause 20 is sufficient to establish the necessary regulatory regime, or whether further legislation will be needed.
We had evidence from Greg Lawton, and other pharmacists, who wrote to the Committee to suggest that the approved substances would not legally come within the definition of a “medicinal product”, so medicines law, the protections associated with medicines and the MHRA licensing process might not apply. If that is the case, what do we do about it? We need a new licensing regime to ensure that the MHRA is able to properly regulate the substances, or, potentially, another regulatory agency would need to be established to do the job.
The Committee needs to make sure that there is a process that applies to approved substances used for assisted dying. It is not necessarily the case that a product licensed for treating a medical condition could not be used to bring about death—it is not the case that we cannot use any drug that is currently used for genuine health treatment—but it would not be being used as a medicine, so medicines law may not apply to its use for that purpose. There is an ambiguity, and I would be grateful for clarity on it.
The amendments that I am supporting would ensure that the MHRA had approved the drug for the specific purpose of ending someone’s life, and that there was scientific consensus that the drug would be effective for that purpose. The MHRA, in the marketing authorisation for the approved substance, would define the dosage of the drug required to bring about death. It would also ensure that specific considerations and warnings were placed in the product licence.
For example, some patients have allergies to certain drugs. If they decide to end their own life, that should be brought about as a result of the effect of the drug, not an unintended allergic reaction to it. Some patients would not be able to take drugs orally and might need to have the drug administered through a tube into the stomach, so different formulations would need to be available. Some drugs may need to be administered by injection. Patients may be unable to do the injection themselves, as we have discussed. Even if the patient is physically capable, injection techniques require proper training, and that needs to be considered when licensing drugs for assisted dying if the patient is responsible for self-administration.
There will be further considerations when deciding what drugs can be used. Patients will have a right to know what to expect. If they take the drug orally, how long will they have to wait before they die? Will they lose consciousness first? If so, how long will that take? Could there be some side effects or reactions after taking the drug, such as seizures or choking, that the family or carers will have to deal with? Can the drug be taken at home—that relates to the point that the hon. Member for Ashford made—or must it be used in a clinical setting? We have suggested that it could be used at home, so questions about transportation arise. Is a combination of drugs required? If so, in what order should they be taken? What happens if the patient passes out before taking the entire concoction of drugs? Has the drug formulation been optimised for the purpose of assisted dying, so that it reaches maximum blood levels as quickly as possible?
All these sorts of questions are appropriate for medical regulators. The MHRA could ensure that the patient information leaflet, and the warnings associated with it, given with the drug when it is prescribed prompt doctors to think about what drugs are most suitable for the patient and to provide information to the patient about what to expect.
Parliament must have oversight. It must bear responsibility for the kinds of deaths that it approves. Both Houses of Parliament should approve the statutory instrument. To inform that decision, the Secretary of State should provide all relevant information on the likely time to death, and on complications and side effects. When the state is creating a regime that will end lives, there must be maximum transparency and accountability, yet the Bill provides that this will be done by a negative statutory instrument. In other words, Parliament will get a say on the regulations only if the Leader of the Opposition prays against them—that is the process for a negative SI. That is the only circumstance under which the Government would make time for a debate and a vote on a negative SI. Given that this is an issue of conscience, I find it inconceivable that the Leader of the Opposition would want to take a position on it and so pray against it to trigger a proper debate. I think it is highly likely that Parliament would never get a say on this crucial issue because of the use of the negative procedure.
That situation has been recognised repeatedly as being unacceptable. When Lord Falconer introduced his Assisted Dying Bill to the House of Lords in 2014, it too provided for a negative SI power on this matter. The highly respected House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—we do not have an equivalent Committee in the Commons, but it sits over Parliament—said that it did not consider either the power or the procedure in the Falconer Bill to be appropriate, yet that is the procedure that we are being presented with here.
In 2021, when Baroness Meacher introduced her Assisted Dying Bill to the House of Lords, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee again issued a report, in which it said:
“In the interests of clarity and transparency on such important issues of public policy, the matters that are in due course to be dealt with under clause 4(7) by negative regulations should in our view be spelled out in detail on the face of the Bill from the outset. Accordingly, the Bill should contain a definitive list of medicines, and details of the manner and conditions under which such medicines are to be dispensed, stored, transported, used and destroyed. The power to amend such matters should be a matter for regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.”
We then come to Lord Falconer’s 2024 Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill, which he withdrew following the introduction of this Bill by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. That Bill in part took on that feedback from the Lords Committee. Although it did not provide a list of medicines, it did at least provide that the power to specify the drugs would be through the affirmative procedure.
The Hansard Society, which is non-partisan and neutral on assisted dying, has issued a critical report on this power. It says:
“MPs may wish to enquire why Kim Leadbeater has chosen not to adopt the scrutiny procedure set out in the 2024 bill, but has preferred that proposed in the 2014 and 2021 incarnations of the bill, despite the advice to the contrary of the Delegated Powers Committee.”
I would be grateful to learn from the hon. Lady why she has chosen this procedure.
It might be objected that the list that I am requesting might need to be modified quickly and that the affirmative procedure—having a parliamentary vote—would be an obstacle to doing that. The Hansard Society anticipated that objection. It said that
“this could be addressed by making provision for the use of the ‘made affirmative’ procedure in urgent cases where the Secretary of State wishes to remove a substance from the approved list and is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so immediately in order to prevent adverse medical events or failed assisted deaths. This would mean Ministers could act expeditiously but Parliament would have to debate and approve – albeit retrospectively – the change in the list. Whilst not perfect it would provide more opportunity for oversight than that offered by the negative scrutiny procedure.”
It seems to me that there is no justification for this vital matter to be regulated under the negative procedure. Too much power and responsibility is being given to Ministers subsequent to the passage of the Bill— if that is what happens. My amendment 467 would ensure that Parliament has a meaningful say, through the affirmative procedure, and that a report is published as part of that process setting out the expected efficacy of the drugs that will be used. I hope that the Committee will support it.
Rebecca Paul
My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire eloquently covered most of the things I would have said.
We have probably not spoken enough to date about the impact on pharmacists, but we are getting to the point in the Bill where it is really important that we take on board the written evidence and feedback that we are hearing from them. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society said:
“In dispensing a prescription, a pharmacist assumes a proportion of the responsibility for that prescription and therefore must be assured that all legal requirements are in place and that it is entirely appropriate for the patient. The link to the clinical assessment of eligibility criteria is essential and therefore the prescriber should always be one of the assessors. In addition to the usual practice of checking that the prescription fulfils the necessary legal requirement, pharmacists must have full access to the patient’s diagnosis and assisted dying care plan.”
That raises a few valid and interesting points that we need to take on board to ensure that pharmacists can do their jobs in line with the regulations and laws they are subject to, which are ultimately there to maintain patient safety.
I support amendment 466, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, which would ensure that the Secretary of State must be of the opinion that there is scientific consensus that the drug is effective without causing pain. I am of the view that the Secretary of State is probably the right place for that responsibility to sit. One reason for that, which my hon. Friend spoke about, is that I am not sure that the MHRA is the right regulating body for that. I am no expert on this, and I am open to hearing the debate, but the MHRA’s remit covers medicines and healthcare products, so there is a question about whether legally the responsibility falls to it. If it does not, do we set up another body, or do we adjust its remit so that it is covered? I have reservations about doing anything that would merge assisted dying into normal healthcare, but I have laid that out many times over the weeks, so I will not go over that.
My understanding is that, on top of all the things my hon. Friend set out, the MHRA’s role is to give marketing authorisation for the promotion and advertising of medicine. Once that has been given, reams of regulations and compliance must be done, including in respect of the labelling of medicine. I believe it would have to be put on packaging that a medicine could be used for assisted dying. We need to get clarity on that from experts in the field, so that we fully understand it. If that is the case, how do we feel about making it clear that said medicines, potentially out in the market, could be used for assisted dying? I suggest there could be some significant downsides to such clear labelling. That is something for us all to think about. I wanted to raise those important points.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak in support of amendment 465, tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reigate, who has made some powerful contributions. As we have heard, the amendment states that a drug may be approved under the Bill only if it has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for that purpose.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady puts her finger on the tension—my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and I expressed it as well—about whether it is appropriate to give the health regulator responsibility for regulating a product that is about not health, but death. Does the hon. Lady agree that no other agency would be appropriate, given the skills she has set out? The purpose of these lethal drugs is to kill the patient; nevertheless, it is appropriate that we consider them in terms of not only that objective but their potential side effects. The purpose is not one of healthcare, but the product is very close to a healthcare intervention. Therefore, despite all our anxieties, it feels appropriate for the healthcare regulator to oversee this.
Naz Shah
I absolutely agree and share those concerns. This is important. I appreciate that we have had this debate for many days now. Is this a healthcare intervention? Is it a treatment? What words should we apply? In this instance, when it comes to drugs, there are potential side effects. We have seen that they do not work everywhere and that they create complications. We have just debated whether a doctor should be in the room, outside the room or round the corner, as well as whether they should be visible or able to see what is going on. Ultimately, this is about the drugs. Having looked at the issue, I genuinely cannot imagine anything but the MHRA in this role. Are we really going to set up something completely new, outside our health service, that regulates drugs, their side effects and the potential implications?
Dr Opher
The matter of unlicensed drugs sounds very alarming, but we cannot regulate a drug through the MHRA if it unlicensed, and we would be looking for therapeutic effect, which would not apply in this case. More importantly, many other regulatory bodies, like the pharmacy framework and the General Pharmaceutical Council—
The Chair
Order. Remember that an intervention should be a sketch, not an oil painting. It should be a question or should seek clarification; it should not be a mini-speech.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend clearly speaks with expertise. There are other regulators, but the reason why I support amendment 465 is that the MHRA is an institution that we trust and that has the expertise. My understanding—my hon. Friend might be able to tell me differently—is that, of the regulators, the MHRA is the body that does the ultimate rubber-stamping and gives our country confidence in the national health service.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady is right that there is no other agency that is appropriate. The difficulty is that the MHRA is itself highly conflicted—we will come in due course to discuss the role of the profit motive in this mooted procedure—and the big problem is that it is overwhelmingly funded by the pharmaceutical companies. We have to ensure that there is no hint of corruption in the system, but I agree with the hon. Lady that the only way to do this is through that agency, but perhaps after reform.
Naz Shah
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
We should be using the world-class pharmaceutical regulator we already have to oversee the drugs that will be used for assisted dying, and I urge all Committee members to support the amendment, which is a very important safeguard.
Stephen Kinnock
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
The Government’s assessment of amendment 465 is that it would significantly impact the legal and operational delivery of the Bill. The Government anticipate that all substances used for assisted dying will have existing licences from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for other indications, but the amendment would require the approved substances to be licensed by the MHRA specifically for the purpose of assisted dying. That would require additional powers or provisions to ensure consistency with the current legal framework. The Bill does not currently provide for that, so the amendment would create significant issues for the Bill’s operability.
Amendment 466 would require there to be scientific consensus regarding the efficacy of the substances to be used in assisted dying under the Bill. The availability of scientific evidence related to the substances used for assisted dying is limited and varied across international jurisdictions. Although expert advice from clinicians and scientists will be fundamental to agreeing a list of approved substances for this purpose, in any area of medicine it would be challenging to achieve consensus on the medicines or substances to be used. The amendment may therefore open up the regulation-making process to legal challenge on the basis that there is not unanimity, and that might extend the implementation process. In addition, there may be variations in product availability and in clinical practice among countries, and that may require different substances or combinations of substances to be used.
Secondly, the amendment would narrow the scope of the duty, focusing on the drug’s efficacy in eliminating pain as a priority impact over other factors that may be considered. Our assessment is that the experience of pain is subjective. The amendment may limit the ability of a doctor to make an appropriate clinical decision on which approved substances to prescribe for their patient. The decision on an appropriate approved substance would be a clinical decision between the doctor and the person seeking assisted dying, having regard to the needs of the relevant person, including that person’s experience of pain.
Kim Leadbeater
My view is that this is very clearly a matter for the Secretary of State, but with expert clinical and medical guidance. These are the people who should be making the decisions about such drugs. The evidence about this type of medication exists. As part of the commencement period and the consultation period, I anticipate there will be wide consultation about the drugs that are available. I think it is best left with the Secretary of State, so I would leave the clause unamended.
Danny Kruger
I will press amendments 465 to 467, but not amendment 409. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Before we continue, let me make a point about the process for tonight. We are not far off a vote in the main Chamber: it may happen in the next half-hour. There may be four or five votes, including a potential Division on Third Reading of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. No doubt people will need a comfort break, so my intention is that when the Division bell rings, we will suspend for an hour and 15 minutes. I am not saying that that will absolutely the right period, but it is as good as we can judge at this stage.
Amendment proposed: 465, in clause 20, page 13, line 36, at end insert—
“(1A) A drug may only be approved under this Act if it has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for that purpose.”—(Danny Kruger.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 379, in clause 21, page 14, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) The coordinating doctor must, as soon as practicable, give a copy of the final statement to the Commissioner.”
This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to give the Commissioner a copy of a final statement.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 500, in clause 21, page 14, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3)(a) must provide that a final statement contains the following information—
(a) the person’s full name and last permanent address;
(b) the person’s NHS number;
(c) the name and address of the person’s GP practice (at the time of death);
(d) the coordinating doctor’s full name and work address;
(e) the date of each of the following—
(i) the first declaration;
(ii) the report about the first assessment of the person;
(iii) the report about the second assessment of the person;
(iv) the certificate of eligibility;
(v) the second declaration;
(vi) the statement under section 13(5);
(f) details of the illness or disease which caused the person to be terminally ill (within the meaning of this Act);
(g) the approved substance provided;
(h) the date and time of death;
(i) the time between use of the approved substance and death.”
This amendment provides that regulations about the form of a final statement must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (i).
Amendment 439, in clause 21, page 14, line 20, at end insert—
“(7) The relevant body must supply—
(a) full medical records,
(b) court records, and
(c) all documentation relating to the assessments and procedures,
relating to bringing about the death of the person in accordance with this act must be made available to the Chief Medical Officer and the Assisted Dying Commissioner.
(8) For the purposes of subsection 7 the ‘relevant body’ is—
(a) the coordinating doctor, if they are a practitioner with the person’s GP Practice;
(b) in any other case, the person’s GP practice.”
This amendment would require full medical records, court records and all documentation relating to assessments and procedures to be supplied to the Chief Medical Office and Assisted Dying Commissioner.
Clause stand part.
Kim Leadbeater
Amendment 379 would ensure that the co-ordinating doctor provides the commissioner with a copy of their final statement in cases in which the person has successfully been provided with assistance to end their life in accordance with the Bill. That is an important part of the reporting procedures and of the role of the commissioner. If agreed to, the amendment will ensure a robust recording and monitoring process for assisted dying.
Amendment 500 provides that regulations about the form of the final statement must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (i) of proposed new subsection (3A). It builds on my amendment 214, which would amend subsection (3)(a) to require that the form of the final statement must be set out in
“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
This is another way of ensuring robust and thorough reporting.
Danny Kruger
I thank the hon. Lady for explaining the purpose of the amendments. Amendment 500 specifies the information that a final statement must contain. Will she clarify why there is no requirement to record any details of what happened once the drugs were administered, other than the time between the use of the approved substance and death?
In this debate, we have acknowledged the importance of record keeping. If the intention is to maintain public confidence in the system, should there not be some provision to record whether complications happen and what complications there were? This skirting of the issue of complications is concerning. We have ruled out explicitly informing patients of the risk of complications.
Kim Leadbeater
I do not think that anyone has ruled out discussing complications. Clause 9 makes it clear that the doctor has a very clear discussion with the patient about what will happen if they proceed with an assisted death.
Danny Kruger
I am sorry; I mis-spoke. I should have said that we have ruled out clarifying the expectations of what doctors should do in the event of an assisted death, and whether or not that is specified by the patient.
Earlier today, the Committee again ruled out specifying what the obligations on doctors are if complications arise, whatever the patient has discussed earlier. With this amendment, we now seem to be ruling out gathering any information about what happened, which is surely vital not just for safeguarding but to develop good practice in the operation of the Bill, a point that the hon. Member for Ashford made earlier. There is too much silence in the Bill, between the taking of the substance and death, on what happens if there are complications, what is permitted and, now, what is recorded. Amendment 439, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, attempts to address that point. I hope that the Committee will accept it.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak to amendment 439, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, which would amend clause 21 such that the relevant body would provide the chief medical officer and the commissioner with the full set of documents relating to a person who had undergone assisted dying. The relevant body would be the co-ordinating doctor if that person were a practitioner with the person’s GP practice. If the co-ordinating doctor did not meet that condition, the person’s GP practice would have the responsibility of sending those documents.
Those documents would be the person’s full medical records, court records and all documentation relating to assessments and procedures relating to the person’s assisted death. I note that “court record” refers to the Bill before we agreed to the amendments and new clauses that replace the High Court procedure with a panel system. We should be able to slightly tweak the wording to reflect that when we tidy up the Bill. That is what the amendment does. Let me say a little about why it does so and how it would make the Bill stronger.
The key aim is to ensure proper public oversight of any assisted dying scheme. The Bill creates the role of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, who will look at and report on the workings of the system, appoint panel members and be the final court of appeal, so to speak. Those are far too many powers to give to one person, but if we are giving the commissioner a duty to report on how the system works, they should have the best possible information. It is only right that the information also be sent to the chief medical officer for England or for Wales, as appropriate; they are both very senior public officials and experienced doctors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has tabled amendment 382, which, to quote the explanatory statement,
“provides for monitoring, investigation and reporting functions under Clause 34 to be carried out by the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner (instead of the Chief Medical Officers for England and for Wales).”
I will have more to say on that amendment when we come to it, but removing the chief medical officer from the monitoring, investigation and reporting functions is not a good idea.
What use could the commissioner and the chief medical officers make of the data provided under amendment 439? Let me give some practical examples. If there were reported instances of a person experiencing discomfort or pain as a result of taking the medication, that would be of interest to the CMO and the assisted dying commissioner. It could trigger a further exploration of the titration of medication used in the procedure. As another example, let us think about what could happen if a family raised concerns about a person receiving assisted dying despite lacking capacity or being coerced. The CMO and assisted dying commissioner could use the information provided to investigate those allegations.
The amendment will ensure that the assisted dying commissioner and the chief medical officer receive detailed qualitative as well as quantitative data on people who have received assisted deaths. It is an important step towards making sure that the assisted dying scheme receives proper, well-informed scrutiny. In turn, that scrutiny will make it less likely that the scheme will allow abuses or ignore serious problems. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.
Rebecca Paul
I will be very brief. I rise to ask a few questions about clause 21 as a whole. Following our debates on various amendments, I am aware that family and those close to the patient could not be involved in the process, although potentially for understandable reasons. I appreciate that we are not here to deal with the whole operational piece, but we should think about it. For example, what happens with notifying next of kin after death, bearing in mind that “next of kin” has a different meaning after death? That is when we start to get into legal considerations, such as who the executor is—and this could be the first time that they are hearing about it. What would be the process for that, given that the person has potentially died on their own at home with the doctor?
What is the process for handling the next stage? Is there anything that we need to include in the Bill to make it a clearer, simpler and easier process? Who will the medical certificate of cause of death be given to for registration of the death? While all that is going on, what will happen to the body? At that point, we may not have family members to take care of that. Those are some questions arising from clause 21 that are worth reflecting on.
Stephen Kinnock
The amendments relate to clause 21, which applies where the person has been provided with assistance to end their own life in accordance with the Bill and has died as a result. Throughout this process, we have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Amendments 379 and 500 have been mutually agreed on by her and the Government, so I will offer a few technical and factual comments.
Amendment 379 would require that, where a person has been provided with assistance to end their life and has died as a result, the co-ordinating doctor must provide the voluntary assisted dying commissioner with a copy of the final statement under clause 21 as soon as practicable. That links to the commissioner’s role in monitoring the operation of the Bill, as set out in new clause 14. Amendment 500 sets out the information that must be included in the form of a final statement, which is to be set out in regulations in accordance with amendment 214.
The effect of amendment 439 would be to introduce a new requirement for the relevant body, defined as either the co-ordinating doctor or the person’s GP practice, to provide full medical records, court records and all documentation related to assessments and procedures relating to bringing about the death of the person in accordance with the Bill to the chief medical officer and the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. The amendment is broad, and it is not clear whether doctors would be able to comply with the duties fully.
For example, GPs do not normally have access to court records, and would need to request them to provide them to the chief medical officer and the commissioner. Currently, a decision to share court records is made at the discretion of the judiciary in most cases. As such, any statutory burden to disclose court records agreed by both Houses would require consultation with the independent judiciary. Depending on the type of record, there could also be data protection considerations.
Kim Leadbeater
I have nothing to add other than to respond to the fair point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about complications. The doctor does have to record the final statement in the medical records, and I am confident that they would also record any complications in the medical records. Similarly, we have talked about the code of practice with regard to complications, so there is scope to include what would happen in those instances there. It is, however, a fair point, and it could be something to look at amending on Report, if the hon. Gentleman wants it to be in the Bill.
Amendment 379 agreed to.
Amendment made: 500, in clause 21, page 14, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3)(a) must provide that a final statement contains the following information—
(a) the person’s full name and last permanent address;
(b) the person’s NHS number;
(c) the name and address of the person’s GP practice (at the time of death);
(d) the coordinating doctor’s full name and work address;
(e) the date of each of the following—
(i) the first declaration;
(ii) the report about the first assessment of the person;
(iii) the report about the second assessment of the person;
(iv) the certificate of eligibility;
(v) the second declaration;
(vi) the statement under section 13(5);
(f) details of the illness or disease which caused the person to be terminally ill (within the meaning of this Act);
(g) the approved substance provided;
(h) the date and time of death;
(i) the time between use of the approved substance and death.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment provides that regulations about the form of a final statement must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (i).
Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Other matters to be recorded in medical records
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 380, in clause 22, page 14, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) The coordinating doctor must, as soon as practicable, notify the Commissioner that this has happened.”
This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner of a matter mentioned in subsection (1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 440, in clause 22, page 14, line 34, at end insert—
“(4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3)(b), the information recorded must include—
(a) any interventions made by a medical practitioner in response to the procedure failing, and
(b) the timing of those interventions.”
This amendment would specify certain information to be recorded under section 22 when the procedure fails.
Clause stand part.
Kim Leadbeater
The amendment would require that if a person has decided not to take the substance or the procedure has failed, the co-ordinating doctor must, as soon as is practicable, notify the commissioner of that. It is fairly straightforward.
Sean Woodcock
I rise to speak to amendment 440, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. It concerns what the doctor must do when they are supervising an assisted dying procedure. It would add a requirement for the medical records to include
“(a) any interventions made by a medical practitioner in response to the procedure failing, and
(b) the timing of those interventions.”
Should the procedure fail and the person start to suffer complications, record keeping will be vital. That is particularly true because the Bill does not provide clear guidance on what doctors should do if a person starts to suffer complications during the assisted dying process; it states that a doctor and the applicant should discuss before the procedure what the applicant’s wishes would be if they suffer complications. We have heard from the Minister that doctors should use their clinical judgment when that happens to a person undergoing assisted dying. Some doctors may commence lifesaving treatment; others may decide to wait and watch while the patient suffers complications in the hope that those complications do not last too long.
Collecting accurate records will enable the authorities, including the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to compile information on people suffering complications during assisted dying procedures, however few they are. That in turn would allow for several things. It might allow doctors to compile data on which drug combinations and methods are most likely to bring about complications. It could help doctors and medical authorities to write procedures for responding to patients who suffer such complications. That information could also be used to inform patients about the likelihood of suffering complications if they go ahead with assisted dying.
We have heard from several hon. Members that good record taking is essential to monitoring and safeguarding assisted dying. Unfortunately, in other jurisdictions there are significant gaps in the data on when patients have suffered complications. In Oregon, records are destroyed the year after each annual report, and physicians are not required to be present when lethal drugs are taken, so the reports of complications depend on information provided by whoever was present at the time. Complications are recorded via a form, but in 2023, 72% of complications in cases were listed as unknown.
Simply recording the fact of a procedure failing will not provide enough information for monitoring, review and improvement. We should aim to do considerably better in the data we collect on patients who suffer complications, and that is why I urge Members to support the amendment.
Danny Kruger
I rise to speak to amendment 440, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for York Central. I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Banbury. Surely it is the case that the interventions made by a medical practitioner in response to the procedure failing, and the timing of those interventions, must be properly recorded. Should the procedure fail, the need for record keeping is of significant importance, as with all medical record keeping.
The doctor with the patient should write up the notes, including the times at which they reacted negatively to the procedure, the amount of medication that they consumed, any side effects and any action taken. That is good practice. In other jurisdictions there has been poor record keeping, as I mentioned, when things have not gone according to plan. We do not fully understand what happened in those instances or, more generally, the prevalence of complications in those jurisdictions. That information will be vital if further interventions are required, including emergency care.
Clause 22 deals with two situations: if the person decides not to take the substance or if the procedure fails—the phrase “Other matters to be recorded in medical records” seems a rather innocuous title for a clause that deals with such situations. In fact, I think that is the only mention of the procedure failing in the whole Bill. However, the clause, and amendment 380, simply require the co-ordinating doctor to notify the commissioner that it has happened as soon as practicable. Do we have any sense of when the doctor should judge the procedure to have failed? I would be grateful if the Minister or the promoter could offer a definition of procedural failure. What does that actually mean?
That question arises in other jurisdictions that have assisted dying laws. A 2019 paper by the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers said:
“There is no clear cut-off for what constitutes ‘delayed time to death’ or ‘failed oral MAID’.”
At what point does a delayed time to death yield to failure? That question is not just abstract for us; it is a philosophical question in other contexts, but we are required to answer it. That paper goes on to suggest that
“clinicians should decide with patients in advance at what point they will consider inserting an IV and completing the provision”,
which is a rather euphemistic term but we know what it means. That is legal in Canada, but it would not be here, so what happens?
In written evidence, Dr Alexandra Mullock, who is a senior lecturer in medical law and co-director of the Centre for Social Ethics and Policy at the University of Manchester, pointed out:
“The Bill is silent on the precise obligations of the doctor if the procedure fails.”
Clause 18(9)(a)(ii) states that the doctor must remain with the person, but what the doctor should be permitted to do, either in relation to aiding recovery or supporting the person to die after the initial attempt has failed, is unclear. She said:
“During my work with the Nuffield Citizen’s Jury, the issue of what happens if the drugs do not end the person’s life was raised within the evidence presented to the jury, and this became a point of concern for several jurors.”
She also said:
“By not addressing this question within the Bill, it allows doctors to exercise clinical discretion, however, it is arguably legally and ethically preferable to clarify the position and address public concern by including a clause that covers this problem.”
I hope that is helpful.
I will end by referencing the hon. Member for York Central, who tabled amendment 440 and made the case very powerfully. She said that should the procedure fail, the need for record keeping is of significant importance, as with all medical record keeping. I have already said that, but we cannot have too much of the hon. Member for York Central.
Stephen Kinnock
Amendment 380 is one that the Government have worked on with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. As the Bill currently stands, clause 22 sets out that where a person decides not to take an approved substance provided under clause 18 or where the procedure fails, the co-ordinating doctor must record that that has happened in the person’s medical record or inform a registered medical practitioner with the person’s GP practice. The amendment would require that in those circumstances, the voluntary assisted dying commissioner must also be notified.
I turn to amendment 440. As I have just mentioned, clause 22 provides that the co-ordinating doctor is required either to record in the person’s medical records or inform a medical practitioner registered at that person’s GP practice if the person has decided not to take the substance or the procedure has failed.
The amendment increases the requirements on the co-ordinating doctor to document in such cases any interventions made by a medical practitioner and the timing of those interventions. The requirement on the co-ordinating doctor to record interventions following a failed procedure is open-ended in time, which could lead to operational challenges. For example, the co-ordinating doctor would remain obliged to record the medical interventions made by others in response to the procedure failing, even if those interventions took place weeks or months after the event itself. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.
Kim Leadbeater
I have nothing to add, other than to say that the complications that have been referred to many times today would be covered by the code of practice that we will introduce by agreeing to amendment 430.
Amendment 380 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 440, in clause 22, page 14, line 34, at end insert—
“(4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3)(b), the information recorded must include—
(a) any interventions made by a medical practitioner in response to the procedure failing, and
(b) the timing of those interventions.” —(Sean Woodcock.)
This amendment would specify certain information to be recorded under section 22 when the procedure fails.
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
Free School Meals
(2 days, 10 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
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered free school meals.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. It is a great honour to introduce this debate on free school meals—the first opportunity to discuss this important issue since the general election. Today’s debate was prompted by my conversations with primary school teachers in my constituency, who told me of their concerns at the lack of funding for free school meals and breakfast clubs. The number of children in our country going to school hungry is unacceptable, and that impacts families in my constituency of Eastleigh and across the UK. The chance to have the best start in life should be available to all children, regardless of background.
The cost of living crisis has driven countless families into hardship. The Government’s own figures estimate that 4.3 million children, or 30% of all children in the UK, are living in poverty, with the figure at 21% in my constituency. As of January 2024, 18.5% of pupils in Eastleigh—that is 2,426 children—were entitled to benefit-based free school meals, yet we know many more who would benefit from a free school meal do not meet the strict eligibility criteria and miss out. The Government must look at this issue with the urgency it requires, because those children are being failed.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
While I was the leader of Wokingham borough council, I ensured that we funded free school meals during the school holidays for children who received them during term time. That was absolutely the right thing to do to ensure that children were not left hungry and at a disadvantage because of their background. The Times reports that 1 million children face losing their free school meals. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is troubling, and that the Government must ensure that children entitled to free school meals continue to receive them during school holidays?
Liz Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I absolutely agree. I also congratulate him on the work that he did at the council to ensure that children did not go hungry in the school holidays. I wish more and more councils were able to do that.
How are children supposed to get good grades at school, engage in sports and achieve their dreams for a better future if they are hungry? Four in five teachers told the National Education Union that they see children unable to concentrate due to the impact of deprivation. Polling of 10,000 teachers across England conducted by School Food Matters showed that a quarter of teachers have used their own money to feed children. For families who are struggling, a free school meal would make a huge difference. When children are well fed, they perform better at school, are healthier, and have improved long-term outcomes.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate, particularly as we might be about to receive the outcome of the child poverty strategy review. Does the hon. Member agree that we have a postcode lottery at the moment? Three schools in Liverpool posted postcards to the Prime Minister saying that we needed to do away with the postcode lottery, because if you live in London, Scotland or Wales, you receive free school meals. Do you agree that children going to school hungry in the sixth richest economy in the world is a scourge on this country?
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. Will Members address the Chair, not one another directly, please?
Liz Jarvis
The hon. Lady made an excellent point, and I trust the Minister will address it later in the debate.
One headteacher in my constituency who leads a school of over 600 pupils told me the only way he would be able to resource breakfast clubs is to extend the teachers’ directed time and remove some of the vital continuing professional development interventions and clubs that support disadvantaged pupils. He worries that he will have to cut back on those initiatives to free up time to run breakfast clubs.
Mrs Strong, headteacher at Chander’s Ford infant school, told me that, although the cost of school meals has increased, the funding schools receive has not kept pace.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes a point that I want to draw out. Gattons infant school in Burgess Hill in my constituency is paid £2.53 per meal, but the caterers charge it £3.15 per meal, so there is a shortfall of 62p per meal per child per day, which amounts to £7,839 over a year. Added to that, the caterers now charge the school an additional £2,000 per year to take away all the waste from the meals. That is a colossal amount of money for a small infant school to sustain. Does my hon. Friend agree that schools should be compensated for the true cost of free school meals?
Liz Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Schools are now being forced to subsidise meals from their already overstretched budgets, which takes away from vital resources such as staff salaries and school supplies.
For Chander’s Ford infant school, the cost of providing meals now exceeds Government funding by £1.11 per meal, forcing it to find another £31,468 out of its budget for the financial year. Schools should not be forced to cut services or make tough decisions to cover the cost of meals that should be fully funded.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
My hon. Friend said that it is important that children are well fed, and I want to focus on the word “well”. Does she agree that this is about not just the amount of food that we provide for children, but the quality? It is really important that children receive highly nutritious content that releases energy slowly throughout the day and enables them to concentrate. Does she agree that, given that school face such difficulties with their budgets, there is an understandable temptation to look at less costly solutions for food, which is potentially very dangerous for children’s long-term health outcomes and ability to learn?
Liz Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I agree that it is essential that children have the best possible quality food, as well as a sufficient quantity.
I absolutely support the roll-out of breakfast clubs, but we must ensure that schools have the resources to provide them. The Government have talked about their plan for change, but addressing the core issues of funding for free school meals, the low threshold for eligibility and the way children are locked into appalling poverty is paramount. In England, only families earning £7,400 or less a year after tax and benefits qualify for free school meals. That threshold is far too low and excludes hundreds of thousands of children in need. The limit must be increased, so I was pleased to support a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to increase the threshold to £20,000 a year after tax, which would expand eligibility to children who are currently missing out.
According to analysis conducted by the Child Poverty Action Group, 900,000 children living in poverty do not qualify for free school meals because the eligibility criteria are so restrictive. Those children are being denied a meal that they desperately need. That is a shameful legacy of years of underfunding.
It is also unacceptable that thousands of children entitled to free school meals are not receiving them due to administrative barriers. The Liberal Democrats believe that auto-enrolment is the solution, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) tabled an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to implement that change. A report by Policy in Practice in 2024 estimated that 471,000 children missed out on free school meals due to a complex application process. Auto-enrolment been proven to work. When it was introduced in Durham, nearly 2,500 additional children gained access to free school meals, leading to a £3 million boost in pupil premium funding for the local council.
A system designed to support the most vulnerable should not be so complex that it prevents children from accessing the help they need. It is not just parents who are struggling with the administrative burdens, but teachers. My constituent Mrs Beckett, the headteacher of Nightingale primary school in Eastleigh, told me that the need to continuously justify how pupil premium funding is spent is one of the ongoing frustrations for schools. In reality, that funding allows them to provide additional support that benefits every child. Given that free school meals eligibility is a key driver for pupil premium funding, she questioned whether there had been any discussion about reducing the bureaucratic burdens on schools in this area. It would be more beneficial for the Government to acknowledge the broader support impact of the funding than to expect schools to repeatedly demonstrate its effectiveness, which is not a good use of staff time.
Beyond the bureaucratic hurdles that families and schools face, many families simply cannot afford to provide their children with nutritious meals, leaving schools on the frontline of a food insecurity crisis. A survey conducted in January 2025 by the Food Foundation found that 18% of households with children reported experiencing food insecurity, compared with 12% of households without children. That is deeply concerning, not least because of the growing child obesity crisis. According to NHS England, almost one in 10 children are already obese by their first year of school, and by year 6 it rises to 22.1%. Schools should be part of the solution, ensuring that every child has access to healthy, balanced meals that support their growth, learning and wellbeing. If the Government are serious about raising the healthiest generation ever, they must go beyond rhetoric and ensure that free school meal funding is high enough to provide the right meal for every child who needs one.
Providing universal free school meals for primary school children is a good social and economic policy. Research from Sweden found that children who receive free school meals earn 3% more in lifetime earnings, rising to 6% for the poorest children. Expanding free school meals would be an investment in our future. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s analysis has shown that without additional action from the Government, poverty and deep poverty will remain largely flat until January 2029, with child poverty in the same terrible state. The Liberal Democrats would extend free school meals to all children living in poverty across both primary and secondary schools, with the goal of providing them to all primary school children when public finances permit. The Government must use targeted support, starting with more free school meals and establishing a fairer social security system that lifts families out of poverty, removes cruel policies such as the two-child benefit cap, and provides a proper safety net. I have consistently called for the two-child benefit cap to be scrapped, which is the quickest and most cost-effective way to lift children out of poverty.
No family should have to choose between paying bills and putting food on the table. No teacher should have to worry about making sure that pupils have had enough to eat so that they can learn, and no child should have to struggle through the school day. I hope the Government will act with urgency and step up for the children who desperately need their support.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I hope that smile is because you are pleased to see me, and not because of Liverpool’s defeat on Sunday—[Laughter.] I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for securing this important debate.
In January, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published its first report on UK poverty since the new Labour Government took office. The report laid bare the horrific inheritance of the Conservatives. They departed office with three in 10 children in Britain living in poverty. The number of children growing up in the deepest form of poverty, defined as a household that cannot afford basics such as heating and eating, has more than doubled in the previous five years. In The Big Issue today, a survey of findings from frontline workers reports that 85,000 children are living in destitution—an increase of 21% since 2021—with 53% of families being supported unable to afford enough food for basic nutrition.
I see that in my own constituency each week. Teachers and social workers on the frontline tell me that things are getting worse for the families they know are struggling, and this has played out in the reports from both the JRF and The Big Issue. Shockingly, the JRF report states that at the end of this Parliament, child poverty is set to be higher than it was at the beginning. For a Government with a mandate for change from an electorate tired after 14 years of austerity, and with a huge majority to put transformative policies into legislation if they wish, that would mark a catastrophic failure and a huge missed opportunity. We cannot afford for that to happen, and I know the Minister would not want it to happen.
I am here to talk about one policy that would tackle that injustice. First, I again want to put on record my opposition to the central driver of rising levels of child poverty: the two-child benefit cap. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said, if we want to combat poverty, we must abolish the two-child benefit cap. But that is not the only tool at our disposal to tackle child poverty. I am here to talk about another: universal free school meals.
The case for universal free school meals is overwhelming and undeniable. Free school meals for all will ensure that every child has a hot, healthy meal each day, allowing children to eat, learn and grow together. That would tackle child poverty and disproportionately help working-class families, alleviating hunger and freeing up money for other essentials. That is why universal free school meals are a central demand of the Right to Food campaign, which I am proud to lead in Parliament.
As colleagues will know, eligibility for free school meals is incredibly restrictive. Household incomes must be less than £7,400 to qualify, which means that almost 1 million children in Britain are living in poverty but are not eligible for free school meals. When the Right to Food campaign ran a consultation across the country during covid, so many parents said they were just above the threshold, living in struggling, difficult times.
Those were my reflections when we drew up the Right to Food submission for Henry Dimbleby, but the picture varies across the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) touched on, universal provision ends after year 2 throughout the rest of England, but in London and Wales, and up to year 5 in Scotland, all primary pupils are entitled to free school meals. The evidence showing the benefits of that is growing by the day.
After universal free school meals were rolled out across London’s primary schools thanks to Sadiq Khan, 84% of parents stated that the policy significantly helped to manage family finances. Studies show that free school meals improve children’s concentration, behaviour and academic attainment, benefiting children from deprived backgrounds most of all. Research from Sweden shows that free school meals improve children’s lifetime earnings. It is a no-brainer.
There are also benefits outside the classroom. There are wards in my constituency with the highest child obesity rates in the country, and they are also some of the most economically deprived. That link between poverty and obesity is most clearly seen in children. Children in the most deprived fifth of the population are more than twice as likely to be living with obesity than those in the richest fifth.
Children with free school meals consume more fruit and vegetables. Studies have shown that universal provision leads to reduced rates of obesity and health inequalities. I will put that fact to the Minister when I meet him later this month, with other MPs and the leader of Knowsley council. Councillor Morgan and the chief executive of Knowsley council have committed their borough to any pilot scheme with the Government to tackle this public health issue.
If we fix this in Knowsley, we can roll it out nationwide. I hope the Minister listens to our arguments for a universal free school meal pilot in Knowsley when we meet him in a couple of weeks. If we add up the benefits, the economic case for universal free school meals is straightforward. According to research by PricewaterhouseCoopers, for every pound invested, there is a £1.71 return. Unlike tweaking eligibility rules, universal provision combats the stigma attached to those receiving free school meals.
Later today, MPs will vote on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I warmly welcome the Bill’s introduction of school breakfast clubs, but I am supporting amendments to go further in tackling child poverty. I have tabled an amendment to put the holiday activities and food programme on a statutory footing, ensuring that children from the poorest households continue to have access to meals in school holidays into the future. I am also supporting an amendment to make free school meals for all primary pupils a reality throughout England.
I finish by saying this to the Minister. When the country finally voted to get rid of the Tories last summer, it was not voting for child poverty to continue to rise; it was voting for change. The change this country desperately needs includes transformative policies such as universal free school meals. I urge the Government to get behind those amendments and this policy. That would positively change the future chances of millions of working-class kids, giving them a chance to live a long, healthy and productive life. Surely, Minister, that was what the Labour party was created to do, and it is certainly why I am in this job.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the smile was for both reasons.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) on securing this debate.
I absolutely support the call for universal free school meals, but it needs to be accompanied by a call for proper funding because at the moment schools are simply not getting the support they need. In my constituency, the local council is unable to provide a catering service any more; it is simply not financially viable. Over the years, more and more schools have opted for private firms, so councils have lost the economies of scale and are no longer able to provide that service. Now, of course, those private firms are charging schools more than they would have been paying previously. Not only that, but on a practical level teachers are being expected to do more work as part of providing catering. The practicalities of delivering free school meals, even in the current situation, are fairly grim for schools.
The Government have announced they will introduce breakfast clubs. One school I spoke to in my constituency said it was expecting 67p per child for non-pupil premium children and 88p for pupil premium children. It currently runs a breakfast club, and that non-pupil premium figure represents less than 15% of the break-even cost. The only way the school could fund a reasonable quality of breakfast and provide the support staff need would be to take money from many other important things it does. The school is also worried about the quality of food it will be able to provide. It currently provides a wide range of food, such as fruit, yoghurt, toast and cereals, and the children have plenty of choice. They also have the opportunity to have protein, which keeps them feeling full for longer. All of this gives them a balanced diet, but the school cannot see how it can provide more than a slice of toast on the funding that is proposed.
There is also a question of the physical constraints. The school I visited currently has to have two sittings for lunch and it has one of the larger school halls in the area. It is trying to work out the practicalities of delivering this service, given the constraints on space. Schools simply do not have the funding to extend their buildings.
In speaking to the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh raised the restrictive eligibility for free school meals. More children risk missing out in future when parents on legacy benefits are forced to move to universal credit. Existing transitional protections run out at the end of this month.
To conclude, it is important to children’s learning that they are well fed—by which I mean fed with good-quality food. I am concerned about the deliverability of the Government’s breakfast club proposals and the shortfalls that schools are already facing with free school meals.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for raising this important issue.
Prior to being elected to this place, I was a youth worker in Norfolk and served as a local councillor for many years. In both roles, I spent much time supporting local families, and issuing food bank vouchers was sadly a routine part of my role. The referrals for families nearly always included many children. It is estimated that a third of all children in South West Norfolk live in poverty, with rurality being a significant additional burden, alongside a real challenge with low wages. More people using our local food bank were in work as opposed to out of work, so they were earning a wage but still struggling.
Nationwide in 2023-24, the Trussell Trust supplied more than 3 million emergency food parcels—the highest number it has ever distributed in a single year. I am grateful for the support of Trussell and the food banks at Thetford and Downham Market in my constituency. It is worth noting that when Labour left office in 2010, Trussell had 35 food banks nationwide. In 2013, that had increased to 650, and in 2019 it was 1,300.
I draw on those experiences from my time as a councillor because I came across so many families who were accessing the food bank but who were not registered for free school meals. That was often for a number of reasons, but primarily because they believed that they were not eligible or that they had missed the boat for the whole year. Often, people had a change of circumstances part way through the year and suddenly found themselves in a completely different situation.
It is believed that 14% of all pupils in the UK who are entitled to free school meals are not claiming them. However, in the east, it is nearly a quarter of all pupils. In Norfolk, it is 17%, but the figure in neighbouring Suffolk—which is one of the worst in the country—is 32%. These are people who are eligible for free school meals but not claiming them.
There are still so many people who could and should be being supported by free school meals. We must do more to encourage enrolment and consider all options to get more people supported. I am really pleased with the progress the Government are making, particularly on breakfast clubs. There is one in a very rural village in my constituency, and I am looking forward to seeing what difference it makes as part of the trial. However, the challenge is great, and we must do more.
I was particularly pleased that the hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned pupil premium. Sadly, in my constituency, as elsewhere, we have more than our fair share of conspiracy theorists and right-wing rhetoric. Schools and councils tell me that it is increasingly a struggle to encourage parents to access support and share information. One school told me recently that parents do not want to reveal income and employment information, such is the growing distrust of the state. That is having a real impact on schools’ ability to access a fair share of pupil premium and other support intended to help not only those children who may directly benefit, but the school as a whole. Will the Minister speak to those specific concerns?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for setting the scene and for delivering a debate that is so important to us all.
Obviously, I will give a Northern Ireland perspective. Although Northern Ireland is not the Minister’s responsibility, I know—or at least I think—he appreciates my comments and the perspective I give, which in this case replicates what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom. I always think it is important to bring that interpretation to these debates, because that hopefully adds to how we do things together in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and ensures that we do them in a better way. Listening to hon. Members so far, it is evident that there are similarities, despite education being devolved. It is important that there is provision for all children to have a decent, balanced meal while in school. For that reason, I am pleased to be here.
I know that the team of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) lost on Sunday, but the premier league is still ahead of him and that is the important one, so he should not worry about the Carabao cup; the premier league means a whole lot more, although the Carabao cup means a lot to Newcastle, because they have not had much success in the past few years.
It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place, and I look forward to his contribution. He comes to these debates, and indeed to Question Time in the Chamber, to genuinely try to answer our requests, and he always does that in a way that helps me have confidence in what he does and in the relationships he has with the Northern Ireland Assembly and particularly with the Minister there.
I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), in his place. He always brings his knowledge to these debates, and he brings it in a fair way. That adds to our debates, because they are about how to make things better. That is what I always say about the shadow Minister and what he does.
To give some background, free school meals are managed and allocated by the education authority back home, and parents can check their eligibility and apply accordingly. The most recent figures I could get are from 2021, when 98,000 pupils in Northern Ireland were entitled to free school meals. I thank the hon. Members for Liverpool West Derby and for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) for referring to those in poverty, because a great many are in poverty. There is no doubt that there are children who are eligible but who are not claiming, so more must be done to make parents aware of the criteria. I am keen to see how we can cast the net wider and gather those who should be eligible but who are not applying, whatever their reasons may be.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman makes a point about those who are eligible. Schoolchildren in my constituency are complaining about bus services in Epsom and Ewell. They cannot get on to some of the buses, which means they are incredibly late for school. That is one of the reasons why they miss the breakfast option. While I welcome the introduction of free breakfast clubs, does the hon. Gentleman agree that free hot lunches are key to helping those who need them most? Those who are not there for breakfast also cannot get lunch. However, if they had a free hot lunch, even if they are late to school, they would still be able to have a hot meal.
Jim Shannon
As the hon. Lady says, there will always be children who miss out. How do we bring them into the system? The Minister has, no doubt, listened to her question, and hopefully his answer may be of some help.
In March 2024, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health revealed that 109,000 children in Northern Ireland were in relative poverty. Given that 97,000 to 98,000 children are receiving free school meals, there could potentially be around 11,400 children eligible for assistance and not claiming, some perhaps for the very reasons that the hon. Member for Eastleigh highlighted. More must be done to recognise that.
Some 89,000 children in Northern Ireland are said to be in absolute poverty, which is awful to think about. What a fine line there is between relative and absolute poverty. However, the fine line means that they either get a meal or do not get a meal, and it is important that they get one. I am being constructive in my questions, and I ask the Minister what we can do to address those issues.
Free school meals are a fantastic way to support parents, and they take a bit of pressure off them. Parents do not want to send their children to school without a meal; they want to make sure their children have a meal and a full stomach. Children’s inquisitive minds work better when they are not worrying about getting fed.
We must remember that our schools promote healthy eating and encourage parents to pack healthy and balanced lunches. While that is a wonderful initiative in principle, the cost of food has risen, as other hon. Members have outlined. The figures are very clear: it is impossible to produce a meal for 69p or 78p, and we need to remember that when it comes to producing helpful and nutritious meals.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. However, as a new Member who strongly welcomes the new breakfast club initiative, I point out that in my constituency, like many others, only one in 10 schools currently offers a free breakfast club to children. Many of the schools that do offer one rely on companies such as Greggs, and the generosity of parents and teachers to put on the clubs. While I understand that there may be some kinks in the system as we roll out the early adoption scheme, is it not better that the Government are stepping forward, providing funding and working with teachers and schools, rather than relying on the generosity of private businesses and the teachers themselves?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is right. I am not here to deliver a bad message to the Minister. I welcome the scheme, because it is a good scheme. Any scheme is a good scheme if it helps.
I was about to mention Greggs, Kellogg’s and other companies that do deals with schools. Just in the past week, Asda and Tesco have come up with pilot schemes across the United Kingdom through which food that is about to expire will be given to certain groups. And schoolchildren are a group that it could be given to.
There is nothing wrong with the food. I am of a certain generation, and in my house, when I was growing up, nothing was ever thrown out—nothing. I mean that. If the potatoes were old, they were roasted. If the cheese had a bit of blue growth around the edge, it was cut off or wiped off and we ate it. It has not done me any harm. I am shortly coming to a significant age, and perhaps those foods helped me live longer.
My point is that we need to take advantage of opportunities, and the pilot schemes set up by Asda and Tesco are opportunities. The hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) is absolutely right that there are other ways of doing things, but we welcome the Government’s positive initiative—if something is good, it is good; it is never bad just because it was proposed by another party. Let us include it in our agenda.
It is no secret that fresh, healthy food is more expensive than the easier alternative, so providing something at school will benefit so many families—parents want that as well. There have previously been calls to provide free school meals for all children. Many MPs, celebrities and organisations backed the No Child Left Behind campaign to provide universal free school meals. Such initiatives and partnerships could be developed to help us deliver for our children.
There is proof that nourishing and healthy meals support children in performing academically. They have better concentration, better memory and better energy, which boosts their educational performance and increases the likelihood of a successful future. That is what we all want, and it is what the Government and the Minister are aiming for.
The initiative is similar to the free milk scheme, which I am old enough to remember from when I was a boy back in the 1960s. It was launched after world war two and was still going when I was at school, and indeed after that. It was designed to combat malnutrition and ensure that all schoolchildren under the age of 18 had free access to a good source of protein and calcium to aid their diets and growth.
I have spoken on this topic many times in this Chamber, but I want to emphasise its importance. Some pupils with special educational needs thrive on routine and perhaps live by a very strict diet. We have heard about children with special diets, and we should think about how they are catered for. If there were a SEND debate in this Chamber, it would be full because everybody would come along with their stories, and I would add my stories and examples too. Schools need to provide meals that cater to those children’s needs. No child should suffer or be left behind. Will the Minister offer some clarity on the current guidelines on this issue?
The free school meals system is fantastic. The Government’s initiative is fantastic, and nobody here will ever be churlish about it. I have made some constructive suggestions for how we can move forward in partnership with businesses such as Greggs, Kellogg’s, Tesco, Asda and others. As I said, there is more to do to recognise all the children and parents who could benefit from this scheme. Furthermore, perhaps the Minister and his Department could consider universal free school meals for the betterment of all children’s futures.
Again, constructively and positively, I look to the Minister to ensure that he has those conversations with the devolved nations—he makes it his business to do that, which is constructive and very welcome—and to ensure that adequate funding is always there to support suffering children and parents who are on the breadline, which makes it difficult for them to cater for and look after their children.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), for securing this hugely important debate.
This is not a niche issue. As has been said, with three out of 10 children living in poverty, many of them going to school hungry, this is a matter of national shame. It has made me reflect on how privileged I was. I went to the local state school, which was a perfectly fine school. I never went to school hungry, and I always had a roof over my head. If I had gone to school hungry, there is no way I would have concentrated to get the grades I needed to go on to study veterinary science at the University of Liverpool for seven fantastic years. I could not have achieved that. We know that in this country we are short of vets, doctors and engineers. A huge amount of talent is being wasted because children cannot reach their full educational potential.
The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) touched on the economic benefits of universal free school meals, and rightly mentioned the PwC study showing that for every £1 we put into free school meals, we get £1.71 in economic growth. There are a variety of reasons for that, including the fact that children end up getting better jobs and paying more tax—more than £18 billion over a 20-year period. There is less childhood obesity, costing the NHS less; people are less likely to end up on long-term benefits because they are getting better jobs and are healthier.
We also know that the prison illiteracy rate is several times the national average. It costs £51,000 a year to keep someone in prison, yet apparently we cannot afford to give children free school meals that might prevent them from going down that path in the first place. Not only do we have the heartbreaking moral argument for ensuring that children go to school well fed, but we also have the economic argument that doing so will grow our economy if we are brave enough to provide those meals.
I visited the tiny Itchen Abbas primary school—a little like the one I attended. The school has only 60 or 70 children, and I heard how by the time the school pays staff to come in an hour early and covers heating costs, while receiving only 60p, 70p or 80p per meal, it costs a lot to provide those breakfast clubs. The school wants to do it, but it is not feasible at the moment. I totally support breakfast clubs, and I think they are a fantastic idea. However, we have to make sure that not only are they affordable for schools, and not costing extra, but they are providing good, nutritious food for children. Clearly, when we factor in all the added costs, 60p or 70p per meal will not provide a nutritious meal and will cost the school a lot of money.
Despite the best efforts of Liz Truss and the last Government, we are still one of the wealthiest nations on the planet. There is no reason for any child to go to school hungry. If we make the right choices over the next few years, we can ensure that every child reaches their full educational potential, we can regrow our economy and we can ensure that every child enjoys being at school.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I hope you will forgive my heckling earlier—I could not resist when Sunday’s football match was mentioned. I am married to a proud Geordie and Newcastle United fan, and it was a day of high emotion in the Wilson household—although I am a Londoner and therefore a Spurs fan., but the less said about that, the better. I hope the Chair will indulge my teasing the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne).
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) on securing this important debate, especially as we head into the second day on Report on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. We will be talking about free school meals and breakfast clubs later.
I am incredibly proud that the Liberal Democrats have a very strong record of championing and delivering free school meals. Let us not forget that universal infant free school meals were delivered as a result of Liberal Democrat efforts in the coalition Government. If not for our presence, it is clear that they would not have happened—Labour Members have previously put that on the record. I am proud to continue my party’s campaign to ensure that more children benefit from free school meals.
Frankly, as many hon. Members have said, in this day and age, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we should not have to campaign on this issue. It is shocking that the Food Foundation has reported that one in five schools runs a food bank, and that as of January 2025, 18% of households with children live in food insecurity, meaning that family members are skipping meals or having smaller meals because they simply cannot afford to put enough food on the table.
I want to make the case for why more children should receive free school meals, both through the eligibility threshold and auto-enrolment, and for ensuring that is properly funded, given the challenges our schools face.
Why are free school meals so great? Well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) powerfully outlined, we know that well-fed children have better educational outcomes; children who took part in universal primary free school meal pilots in east London and Durham achieved on average two months more progress in their SATs. We also know that children’s concentration and behaviour improve. Behaviour is a real challenge at the moment for teachers up and down the country. We know that children end up eating healthier, because packed lunches tend to have more calories from fat, as opposed to carbs and other sources of calories, and they are higher in sodium and sugar. We know that free school meals help parents to save time and money—on average £10 per week—and, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, analysis by that well-known left-wing think-tank PricewaterhouseCoopers shows there is a huge economic benefit: for every £1 invested, there is £1.38 return.
Why do we need more children to be eligible for free school meals? We know from the Child Poverty Action Group that some 900,000 children living in poverty are currently missing out on free school meals. The threshold that is used at the moment—£7,400 of family income—is shockingly low. It was last uprated in 2018; we are now in 2025, and we all know about the inflationary pressures and the cost of living crisis that we have faced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who is no longer in his place, mentioned in his intervention, about a million children are set to lose out on free school meals as a result of the migration of legacy benefits to universal credit. The temporary extension to the arrangements is due to expire at the end of this month. I really hope that Ministers will take urgent action on that, because we cannot afford to see yet more children losing out on free school meals.
I recognise that I happen to represent a relatively affluent constituency, but that does not mean that there is no poverty there; in fact, it is often in more affluent constituencies that pockets of poverty tend to be hidden and overlooked. I was moved to tears a while back when a mother came to see me at my surgery. She had fled an abusive relationship and, as a result of the domestic abuse she had suffered, she was on mental health medication. She told me, “I have had to forgo my medication so that I can use the money I would have spent on a prescription to enable my daughter to have lunch when she goes to college.” Those are the sorts of decisions, dilemmas and choices that families up and down the country are having to face so that children and young people are well fed and can focus on their studies. That cannot be right.
I support the ambition, which a number of hon. Friends and other hon. Members have set out, of offering free school meals for all primary school children, but the Liberal Democrats recognise that money is tight at the moment. Therefore, extending free school meals to all primary school children is probably unachievable at the moment, and we should take a more targeted approach. That is why we are strongly committed to delivering the recommendation that Henry Dimbleby made to the last Conservative Government in his food strategy that the eligibility threshold for free school meals should be increased to £20,000, for children in both primary and secondary school. Let us remember that hunger does not end at the age of 11 and, where we have scarce resources, target them at the most needy children and young people at both primary and secondary. Welcome though the breakfast clubs are, we have heard time and again, not least from the children’s charities that gave evidence to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, that there are concerns that the most needy children will miss out and not take up the breakfast club offer.
Even with the current low eligibility threshold for free school meals, far too many children are missing out, but, shockingly, we do not know how many are missing out, because the last time the Government assessed how many children who were entitled to free school meals were actually taking them up was 2013—12 years ago. We know that at that point 11% of children eligible for free schools meals were missing out. Based on current numbers, the Liberal Democrats estimate that around 230,000 eligible children are missing out today. In a report published last week, the Education Policy Institute notes that those least likely to register are younger primary children, typically from the most deprived local authority areas. Although there are universal infant free school meals, it is still really important that parents register if their child might be eligible, because, as we have heard, that brings with it pupil premium funding for our schools.
I beg the Minister to look seriously at auto-enrolment. Last week, the House considered a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb)—a Labour Member—that would introduce auto-enrolment. The Education Committee has strongly recommended auto-enrolment, and at least two amendments on it, including a Liberal Democrat one, have been tabled to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and will be debated this afternoon. In Liberal Democrat-led Durham county council this academic year, as a result of auto-enrolment, 2,500 more children are getting a free school meal and £3 million of pupil premium funding—money to help support our most deprived children to learn and thrive in their schools—has been delivered to schools in Durham.
In responding to Friday’s debate on the private Member’s Bill, the Minister said that he was talking to colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology about data sharing to enable more auto-enrolment at local authority level, but children cannot afford to wait. There are all sorts of challenges with data sharing, but this can be done nationally. If the Government are going to persist with the changeover from legacy benefits to universal credit, with more children missing out on free school meals as a result, this is one mitigation they can take right now.
Before I finish, I want to touch on funding. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), who is no longer in her place, touched on the fact that we have to fund free school meals properly where children are eligible for them. I welcome the Government’s recent uplift in funding for universal infant free school meals, but it has increased by only 28p, or 12%, since the Liberal Democrats introduced the universal infant free school meal policy in 2014—at that point it was funded at £2.30 per pupil per meal; it is now £2.58—since when food prices have increased by 29%.
For most of that time, the funding stayed static. In the last Parliament, I and many other hon. Members campaigned hard for an uplift in per-meal funding. I was very pleased when Nadhim Zahawi finally moved a little bit on that, but the funding is still lagging behind inflation. Schools are having to find cost savings in other budgets to fund universal infant free school meals, which they have to deliver by law. As a London MP, before the Mayor of London introduced free school meals for all primary pupils, I heard from many of my primary schools that they were charging juniors more per meal in order to subsidise infant meals, because the Government were not giving them the requisite funding. If we want high-quality, nutritional meals for our children, they need to be funded properly. That is a very important lesson to learn as breakfast clubs are rolled out.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh and for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) have pointed out, there are alarming stories of schools picking up costs of between 60p and 80p per breakfast. That is just not sustainable. Schools do not have the extra money to subsidise breakfast clubs. We need breakfasts that have nutritional value. I asked in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee whether breakfast club breakfasts will consist of just a piece of toast and a glass of water, or whether they will actually be nutritionally valuable for children.
We know that there are big logistical challenges for small schools of delivering breakfast clubs. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) mentioned children who cannot get to school in time, particularly those in temporary accommodation. Families in temporary accommodation travel from Croydon, Slough and further afield to Twickenham, and some spend two hours each way travelling. Those are the children who most need a breakfast, and they are the most likely to miss breakfast club.
In conclusion, providing a hot, healthy meal in the middle of the day for every child in poverty is the right thing to do both morally and economically. The Government have the opportunity to do the right thing today by supporting new clause 7 tabled to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh. If they are serious about spreading opportunity—they tell us most weeks that they are—they have the chance to step up today to improve educational outcomes for the most disadvantaged, to boost their health and nutrition, and to help every child, no matter their background. If the Minister wants to deliver on that mission, I hope to see Labour Members marching through the right Division Lobby tonight when we call a vote on new clause 7 to raise the eligibility threshold for free school meals and auto-enrol every child that meets it.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is wonderful to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate warmly the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), and I commend everyone who has taken part in the debate, including the hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), for Redditch (Chris Bloore), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Winchester (Dr Chambers), for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). Of course, I also commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Today is a big day for him, because it is the day that Parliament will finally debate whether St Patrick’s day should become a UK-wide public holiday. We are doubly grateful to him for joining us this morning ahead of that moment.
This is a very important debate on a very important subject. Nutrition for children is clearly fundamental, for all the reasons that the hon. Member for Strangford talked us through. Later today, colleagues will have a chance to discuss the welfare system overall—what it is designed to do and what it does well. We should note that free school meals, in economist speak, are a particularly efficient benefit, because they are a benefit in kind. They go directly to people with a demonstrable need and provide a direct benefit, which helps them in their schooling.
I was proud that the last Government extended free school meal eligibility more than any previous Government. We took spending to over £1 billion a year to deliver, by the end of our time in government, free lunches to the greatest ever proportion of children—over a third, compared with one in six in 2010—despite unemployment coming down by 1 million, 600,000 fewer children growing up in workless households and the proportion of people in work but on low pay halving as a result of the national living wage. By the end of our time in government, more than 2 million pupils were eligible for benefits- related free school meals, a further 1.3 million infants in years R, 1 and 2 were eligible for universal infant free school meals, which were introduced in 2014, and 90,000 disadvantaged students in further education were eligible for free meals.
With any benefit or programme as important as this, of course there will always be things that we need to keep under review and update, and there are always issues. I think there are eight principal issues, which I hope the Minister will speak to; most of them have been covered by colleagues in the debate. The first is the per-meal funding rate of £2.58, which clearly needs reviewing over time, particularly in the light of the Budget changes, including measures such as the increase in national insurance contributions, which have raised costs.
Colleagues have talked about the quality of school meals, and it is right that standards are kept under review. Indeed, the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for School Standards, committed in this place on 7 May last year that Labour in government would look again at the guidance on school food standards. There have been calls—we heard them again today from the hon. Member for Twickenham—to change the £7,400 threshold. I should be clear that that is earned income, not total household income. Again, in this place on 7 May last year, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), a distinguished Labour MP who is now a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, asked about that.
There have also been calls to make school meals year-round—the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby mentioned that—and to copy the example of London by making all primary school pupils eligible for free school meals. Indeed, I believe that the Minister said at the Labour party conference in September that the Government and his party were looking carefully at the London example to see what could be learned and derived from it.
There is also the question of children who are educated otherwise than at school, which we have debated in Westminster Hall, including with the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby—it may have been the last time, or almost the last time, that I was sitting on the Government Benches. On that occasion, we made it clear that we would put into the guidance the eligibility and the reasonable adjustments requirements. It would be good to hear how that is working operationally.
There is a good case for auto-enrolment. Some local authorities are running pilots; the Government should learn from that and seek to implement auto-enrolment. Historically, it has been hard to do, because of legal reasons and systems issues. The systems issues have ended, because technology has moved on, and a legal basis can be found, so I hope the Minister will be able to move forward with that.
Finally, on the question of eligibility, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate mentioned the transitional protections under universal credit. There was a campaign in 2018—let us euphemistically call it a creative deployment of the truth—that suggested that the then Government were about to remove free school meals eligibility from hundreds of thousands of children. I remember it well, because I was a Minister at the time. It was not true; in fact, what has happened with universal credit transitional protections is that many more children have become eligible for free school meals. In fact, that is a major reason why one in three children is now eligible for free school meals. The big question for the Government is this: will they take steps to keep the number of children eligible for free school meals at roughly a third of children? Perhaps the Minister can say a little more about how they will do that.
Beyond lunch, there are other aspects of meals at schools. In addition to the school fruit and vegetable scheme, there is also the holiday activities and food programme, which often takes place in schools and which the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby mentioned. We are proud to introduce that programme, which will be backed by over £200 million of funding and eventually extended to all 153 local authorities in England.
Then, of course, there is breakfast. We introduced the national school breakfast programme in 2018. Although Ministers often talk about school breakfast provision as if it was a new idea, by the end of our time in government, 2,694 schools were involved in the national school breakfast programme, serving about 350,000 pupils. It was targeted, including by area deprivation, and eligibility was on a whole-school basis. The formula gave a 75% subsidy for the food and delivery costs. Crucially, programme remains available to this day to eligible secondary schools, as well as primary schools.
We worry a lot these days, rightly, about school attendance. Breakfast provision has a bigger effect on school attendance in secondary schools than it does in primary schools. I think the Government have confirmed that they are retaining indefinitely the national school breakfast programme for secondary schools. It would be helpful to hear the Minister confirm whether that means that at least the current level of support will be retained.
There are many more breakfast clubs than those in the national school breakfast programme. Some have a modest charge; some have a universal element—for example, every child can have a bowl of porridge, but other things are available. Some schemes use the pupil premium to subsidise it. Of course, just as with any wraparound provision, if a pupil being at breakfast helps to support a parent to go to work, typically the parent would be eligible for reimbursement of up to 85% of any costs through their universal credit payment.
On 24 February, the Secretary of State for Education said in the main Chamber that one in seven children in the pilot schemes has no current before-school provision. By my basic maths, that means that six in seven of those children do, so breakfast clubs in schools are quite widespread.
The Government say that the current programme is a pilot. Given that there are thousands and thousands of breakfast clubs in schools across the country, some of us were wondering what they were piloting—perhaps it was the angle of pour of the cornflakes, or some other difficult, technical detail. It seems that they might be trying to pilot how little they can get away with. The Government like to say to parents that they will save them £450 a year through breakfast clubs. Now, £450 per year divided by 190 school days—can anyone do that live?—is £2.37 a day.
There are one-off costs being provided for schools—£500 plus £1,099—but the per pupil rate is as little as 60p per day, although it is a little higher for pupil premium pupils. I would say that there is a big old gap between the 60p a day that the Government will give to schools and the £2.37 that they say they will save for parents, and I would like to know how they expect schools to make up that gap. I have no doubt that the Minister will say, “Ah, but it’s only a pilot,” but will he commit to increase the rate if it turns out to be too little to cover schools’ real costs?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for securing a debate on this important subject, and all Members for the spirit in which they have contributed.
Free school meals provide pupils with essential nutrition, support school attendance, improve behaviour and set children up for success by ensuring they can concentrate, learn in the classroom and get the most out of their education. They are essential to breaking down the barriers to opportunity and tackling child poverty—a task that is more important than ever because of the legacy of rising child poverty left behind by the previous Government. There are 700,000 more children in poverty now than in 2010, and more than 4 million children now grow up in low-income families.
As part of our plan for change, we are determined to tackle the scourge of child poverty and break the unfair link between background and opportunity. We have already taken wide-ranging action, despite this Government’s incredibly challenging fiscal inheritance, including by setting up the child poverty taskforce. The taskforce is considering a range of levers to tackle child poverty, including key cost drivers for households such as food, to develop a comprehensive strategy that will be published this year. That is in addition to action that we are already taking to deliver on our mission to break down barriers to opportunity. The first 750 schools will begin offering free breakfast clubs from April, backed by more than £30 million of investment, to boost attainment, attendance, behaviour and wellbeing.
It is important that children eat nutritious food at school. The Department encourages schools to take a whole-school approach to healthy eating. The school food standards restrict foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar, and ensure that schools provide children with healthy food and drink options so that they get the energy and nutrition they need across the school day. Free school meals must comply with those food standards.
Under current free meal programmes, about 2.1 million disadvantaged school-age pupils—24.6% of all pupils in state-funded schools—are already eligible to receive benefits-based free meals. A further 90,000 16 to 18-year-old students in further education are entitled to receive free meals on the basis of low income. In addition, all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2 in England’s state-funded schools are entitled to universal infant free school meals. That benefits about 1.3 million children, ensuring that they receive a nutritious lunchtime meal. In total, we already spend more than £1.5 billion on delivering those programmes, and eligibility for benefits-based free meals drives the allocation of billions of additional pounds of disadvantage funding.
As a number of Members said, we want to ensure that as many eligible pupils as possible claim their free school meals, and we will make it as simple as possible for schools and local authorities to determine eligibility. To support that, we currently facilitate the process of claiming free meals through the provision of the eligibility checking service. This digital portal, available to local authorities, makes verifying eligibility for free lunches quick and simple. The checking system is being redesigned to allow parents and schools to check eligibility independently from their local authorities. This system will make it quicker and easier to check eligibility for school meals and has the potential to further boost take-up for families meeting the eligibility criteria.
In addition, we are aware of a range of measures that are being implemented by local authorities to boost the take-up of free lunches. We welcome locally led approaches. By working directly with their communities, local authorities can overcome the barriers to registering and take action to ensure that families access the support for which they are eligible, subject to these activities meeting legal requirements, including those on data protection. As with all Government programmes, we will keep our approach to free school meals under continued review.
In addition to free schools, the Government are also investing in breakfast clubs, as I have mentioned, as well as the holiday activities and food programme this year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) alluded to, we have tripled the investment in breakfast clubs to over £30 million in the 2025-26 financial year, to help to ensure that children are ready to learn at the beginning of the school day. Local authorities will also receive over £200 million of funding for the holiday activities and food programme for 2025-26, which will provide healthy meals, enriching activities and free childcare places to children from low-income families, benefiting their health, wellbeing and learning.
A number of points have been made about funding arrangements for free school meals. Schools are funded for benefits-related free meals at £490 per eligible pupil per year, and receive that as part of their wider core funding. That figure is increasing to £495 per eligible pupil for the next academic year. Universal infant free school meals and further education free meals are funded through direct grants, valued at £2.58 per child per meal. That is an increase of 2% on last year’s rate of £2.53 and reflects the latest GDP deflator inflation forecast. Funding is not ringfenced, which means that schools have autonomy over how meals are delivered, which can include entering into contracts with suppliers and allocating funding within their budgets. I can assure Members that we will continue to work closely with the school food industry to monitor sector challenges.
I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) to discuss his views and ideas later this month, as we continue to work with local authorities to break down barriers to opportunity and deliver this Government’s plan for change. I know that he will welcome the Government’s roll-out of breakfast clubs, which on average will put £450 back into the pockets of parents, as well as ensuring that children are socialised and ready to learn at the start of the school day.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contributions; a Westminster Hall debate is never as rich or courteous without his attendance. He kindly acknowledged my willingness to engage with the Minister of Education in Northern Ireland on our shared challenges. I can assure the hon. Member that I will continue to engage with the Minister.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh and a number of other Members, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), spoke about a range of issues to do with auto-enrolment and data-sharing initiatives by local authorities. We are aware of a range of measures that councils are implementing to boost the take-up of free lunches. To support those local efforts, and as the hon. Member for Eastleigh stated, my Department is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explore legal gateways that could enable better data sharing. In the meantime, we will continue to engage with stakeholders to understand the barriers for households who meet the criteria for free lunches but are not claiming them, including by working closely with local authorities, including those mentioned in today’s debate, to understand the approaches that are being taken.
Members have raised points about the lack of data on take-up. As mentioned, data from 2013 indicates that 89% of children eligible for free school meals receive it. We have been unable to update that figure due to data limitations, which we are actively working to resolve.
The hon. Members for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and for Winchester (Dr Chambers) spoke about breakfast club funding. I encourage them to look at the detail of the guidance issued to schools, which will set out that an average-sized primary school with 50% take-up in the breakfast club scheme will receive around £23,000 per year as part of the early adopter scheme. For context, the previous Government’s programme would have given a similar school £1,600. This shows that the Government are delivering real investment to deliver our plan for change.
I welcome the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) back to his rightful place on the shadow Front Bench, even if it is just for this morning. As he and the hon. Member for Twickenham said, transitional protections were put in place to ensure that children whose families were moving from legacy benefits to universal credit did not lose out. We will move to the next phase of transitional protections from 31 March, and I can assure hon. Members that no pupil will feel any change until after the summer. As with all Government policy, we will keep our approach to free school meals under review.
As a number of Members have stated, the Government inherited an extremely challenging fiscal environment, including a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. The child poverty taskforce is considering in the round how we tackle the drivers of child poverty and its impact on children. Access to healthy, nutritional food will continue to be part of those conversations.
The provision of free school meals to the most disadvantaged pupils is vital. Access to healthy and nutritious meals free of charge supports the health, learning and wellbeing of some of the most disadvantaged pupils. I again thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh for securing the debate on this important subject. I also acknowledge the engagement of other Members in this place, along with the work of key stakeholders, whom I engage with regularly. We will continue to ensure that the most disadvantaged children receive the support that they need. I thank all Members for their contributions on this important matter, alongside the football banter—“Play up Pompey!” I hope it is clear from my comments that the Government are committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity and to putting the subject of child poverty and health very much at the forefront of our agenda as a mission-led Government.
Liz Jarvis
I thank all the Members who have spoken in this debate. The biggest takeaways for me are that the way to ensure that all children have enough to eat at school is to raise the threshold for families who qualify for free school meals, to scrap the two-child benefit cap and to have auto-enrolment for free school meals. I urge the Government to listen to the lived experiences of teachers who are trying to deliver free school meals or breakfast clubs, because they are all struggling, in my constituency and across the UK. It is really important that the Government take that on board.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered free school meals.
Stations: Step-free Access
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
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I will call the Member in charge to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. I exhort Members to think of what I just said a few moments ago. I call Mr Paul Kohler to move the motion.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered step-free access at stations.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. We are here today to discuss an issue of great importance to many across the country. No one could accuse this Government of dragging their feet on reform of our public transport system. With the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill en route to the Commons from the Lords, the rail reform consultation and the call for ideas on an integrated transport strategy, big steps are under way. All that activity presents us with a real opportunity to put accessibility at the heart of our public transport system to deliver a network that will serve everyone—but the devil will be in the detail and it is incumbent on the Government to move on from lofty rhetoric to the hard reality of making our transport system accessible.
More than 60 million people in the UK have a disability, or around a quarter of the total population. Those living with a disability take 28% fewer journeys than those who do not—a telling indictment of our current provision. There are issues on all forms of public transport, but arguably the greatest obstacles exist in rail services. According to a study by Transport for All, only 30% of disabled respondents said they used trains with confidence, and 10% said they do not use them at all. There are many reasons for this, including overcrowded trains and inadequate toilet provision. However, the biggest issue remains the absence of step-free access. Currently, only about a quarter of train stations are fully step-free from street to platform, making much of the rail network unusable for wheelchair users, and incredibly difficult for those with other mobility issues.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Constituents of mine with disabilities have had accidents at railway stations in Yeovil because of the lack of support staff and inaccessible systems for booking assistance. Does my hon. Friend agree that Great Western Railway and other operators must be made to ensure that there is proper support staff at stations such as Yeovil Pen Mill and Yeovil Junction?
Mr Kohler
Yes, I agree. It is not just about the physical provision, but having staff available, which I will come on to later in my speech.
As I was saying, accessibility is a problem not only for wheelchair users but for those with other mobility issues, including those with pushchairs or luggage, so we need to address the problem of step-free access. The Government have made some progress on this in recent years—though by no means enough—via the Access for All scheme. Since its inception in 2006, it has provided step-free access to around 300 stations, something that should be acknowledged.
I was very proud to recently cut the ribbon at the new Motspur Park station, which is now fully step-free for the first time in its 100-year history. After a decade-long campaign by local Lib Dems and efforts by my predecessor, we finally achieved what local Tories in Wimbledon said was impossible: delivering a station of which all users could take advantage.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on his work on the station in his constituency. In my constituency, Northwich station has been without a step-free crossing since 2013, when the barrow crossing was closed. He will be aware that the Government have set out, as part of Great British Railways’ six objectives, that accessibility should be part of that. I am sure he welcomes that. Does he agree with me that we need to see another round of Access for All applications while Great British Railways is being established, so that there can be a pipeline of work while that is going on?
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and setting out the challenges. One of the challenges for me as a Scottish MP is the fact that the Scottish Government are responsible for nominating stations for Access for All, but it is a UK Government fund. My own station of Leuchars for St Andrews is a huge challenge because of the vast numbers of people who come to visit St Andrews. I understand the Leader of the House said that the Minister was considering the future of the Access for All fund. Does ,y hon. Friend agree that what we are hoping to hear this morning is a commitment to that fund?
Helen Morgan
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing my intervention and for making such a great speech. Many stations, such as Whitchurch station in north Shropshire, are well advanced through the Access for All scheme, but funding has been pulled at the last minute. Does he agree that there is a really good pipeline of work ready to go and ready to be built, and it would be great if the Government could reopen the scheme and get on with those that are ready to go?
Mr Kohler
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct— I had got to exactly that point in my speech. Despite the successes, the Access for All scheme has failed to deliver on its potential, but hon. Members need not take my word for it. In May 2024, the current Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, then chair of Network Rail, said Access for All had “significantly underperformed” over the previous five years, having stalled under the previous Government. Of the 149 schemes due to be completed in that period, only 77 were—and, in what seems to be a first for a Government infrastructure project, there was an underspend of £99 million.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. East Croydon station in my constituency is the 21st most used station in Great Britain. It has a bridge that has been closed for 10 years, despite the use of local taxpayers’ money, national funding and developer funding. We also have Norwood Junction station, which is the 79th busiest in the country and has no lift access at all. Does he agree that this is not just about reinvigorating the Access for All scheme, but about ensuring that it is delivered consistently, that we create local partnerships and that what is delivered makes sense to the people who are impacted?
Mr Kohler
I agree entirely with the hon. Member. All those components have to come together.
I must remember where I get to in my speech when I take an intervention. In an answer to a written question, I have been informed that an internal review into the shortcomings in the scheme has been conducted but has not been released. I therefore ask the Government to commit to doing so today. Many more stations have not even secured funding to begin the journey to step-free access. Stations in my constituency, including Malden Manor, South Merton and Morden South, are still waiting, with no prospect of anything happening any time soon.
There are also problems with the requirements that govern station modernisation. Believe it or not, it is not a given that step-free access will be incorporated in any new scheme. The current regulations state that if development is taking place at a station that serves under 1,000 passengers a day and there is another step-free station within 50 km—yes, 50 km—no step-free access needs to be included in the scheme; rather, there needs just to be some form of provision to include it at a later date. We all appreciate the need to spread developments across the network, but do the Government really think that 50 km is a practical distance to travel to use an accessible station?
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way—he might like to mark where he is in his speech. I pay tribute to him for his speech. Swanscombe station, in my constituency, is not part of the Access for All programme at the moment, but it sits in a deep chalk cutting with no step-free access and with steep stairs, and is therefore completely inaccessible to local people. The transport misery for residents is increased because the main road out of town, the A226 Galley Hill road, has collapsed and has been unusable for two years. Does he agree that Access for All has not achieved its aim of ensuring that very many stations are accessible, and that far too many have lain outside the scheme for too long?
Mr Kohler
Like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman makes the point that this is an issue across the country. It absolutely needs to be addressed if we want to make our transport system fit for all residents.
If a development is already taking place, surely that is the ideal time to ensure that the station is step-free, instead of causing disturbance at a future date. Wimbledon Chase, in my constituency, is about to undergo a major redevelopment, but step-free access is not being provided. That makes no sense. I understand that the previous Government conducted a consultation on potential changes to the regulations, so do the Government plan to move forward on this issue?
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Bristol Parkway is well used by people from my constituency, but those with mobility issues have faced lifts being out of action for weeks on end. Does my hon. Friend agree that not only do we need step-free access at stations, but it is vital that that access is reliable and properly maintained? That should be a subject for regulation, too.
Mr Kohler
My hon. Friend makes a good point; I got to the point in my speech entitled “Lifts out of action”, so I will start that now—how prescient of her.
The issue is not only the lack of step-free access. Even where there is provision, it is often unreliable. It is clearly unacceptable that those who rely on step-free access to plan their journeys—based on the limited number of stations available—discover only on arrival that the lift is out of action. The Office of Road and Rail found that there were more than 5,000 lift faults on the network from April to October last year—an increase of 9% on the same period the previous year. Furthermore, there has been a deeply concerning increase in the number of entrapments. The number of entrapments went up by more than a fifth in the last six months, with almost 400 entrapment events from April to October 2024 and an increase of 42% on the number of entrapments of more than 75 minutes.
The situation on the London underground last year was even more appalling. Only 92 out of 272 London underground stations are step-free, but those are often out of action, not just from faults, but due to a lack of staffing. A recent Lib Dem freedom of information request showed that there were 1,254 incidents last year, totalling 6,197 hours when the lifts were working perfectly well but train staff members were not there, meaning that those who rely on them cannot use the station.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr Kohler
Wimbledon Park tube station in my constituency had the highest number of incidents, with the lifts not working on a shocking 132 occasions. That was not always the case; in 2015 there were only 65 occasions across the whole year. Things deteriorated from that point, and in 2019 the Mayor of London told the London Assembly that he had been
“clear with Transport for London…that these instances must be further reduced.”
Sadly, that did not happen, and the situation has continued to deteriorate year on year. I appreciate that it is primarily a matter for the Mayor, but will the Government please raise that issue with him?
Time is short, so I will finish up, but we must note that lifts are by no means the only issue. Even if individuals can reach the platform, boarding the train is often incredibly difficult, and 67% of station platforms are too narrow for wheelchair users to turn at the base of a ramp. It is estimated that just 2% of stations actually have level boarding between the train and the platform. That is simply not good enough.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My hon. Friend is laying out the case very clearly for more certainty about the future of Access for All funding, and the real, crying need for many of our communities to have level access to public transport. Does he agree that stations such as Bredbury in my constituency, where a passenger can travel in one direction with level access but not in the other, are affecting people’s decisions about whether to take employment—making this a growth issue for our country, not just a fairness issue?
Mr Kohler
My hon. Friend has also shown how prescient she is, because I am about to reach that point in my conclusion. It is clear that the Government need to take urgent action on all this. There is a desperate need to get our economy growing, and ensuring that our infrastructure is accessible should play a key part in that. We hear today that the Government are reviewing the benefits system to get more people back to work. Surely they see that making public transport accessible is a crucial part of that endeavour. Accessibility is not just a good-to-have; it is vital to creating a more inclusive and productive country. I hope the Government are listening.
Kate Dearden (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) on securing this important debate on step-free access at stations. We all recognise how vital our transportation system is to the daily lives of millions across the country. It is the backbone of our economy, connecting people to jobs, opportunities and essential services, while also enabling people to spend time with friends and family. Crucially, it is also about ensuring that everybody, regardless of their mobility, can access those same opportunities.
At a recent meeting hosted by a fantastic organisation based in my Halifax constituency called Lead the Way, which provides invaluable guidance and support to people with learning disabilities and to their families and carers, I had the opportunity to hear directly from constituents about the significant impacts that inaccessible travel can have on their lives. As I said to those constituents, and I say to Members today, I absolutely share the passion for delivering transport infrastructure that is not only efficient, but inclusive. The principle of step-free access at stations is a vital element in ensuring that we have a transport system that works for everyone.
The Government’s ambition is to see everybody using our transport network with ease and confidence. That means giving disabled people, older people and those with additional needs access to the services that many of us take for granted. Since 2006, the Access for All programme has been pivotal in advancing that goal. Since launching, the programme has developed step-free, accessible routes at more than 260 stations, as well as smaller-scale improvements at more than 1,500 stations, including accessible toilets and improved customer information systems. The Department has been clear that the need for step-free access at our stations is not just a matter of convenience, but a matter of fairness. That is why, since April 2024, 22 stations have been completed under the Access for All programme, with a further five due to be completed by April 2025.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
A constituent with mobility issues recently wrote to me about his concerns about Wivelsfield station in Burgess Hill. It was part of the Access for All scheme, but the money for improvements has yet to be forthcoming. It is another example of a station like that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), where one side of the platform is accessible but not the other. Will the Minister ask officials to look into what is happening at Wivelsfield station and write to my office with an update on progress?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, which has been noted and heard. I am just coming to an update on the Access for All programme. As I mentioned, 22 stations have been completed under the programme, with a further five due to be completed by April 2025. That will be the highest number of stations completed in any single year since the programme began, but we know our work is far from done.
Much of our rail network was designed in the Victorian era. It was an impressive engineering achievement for its time, but it falls short of meeting the accessibility standards that 21st century passengers rightly expect. Today, only a fifth of stations across Great Britain offer step-free access to and between all platforms. However, it is important to recognise the progress made, with 75% of journeys now passing through step-free stations, which is a significant improvement on 50% in 2005.
I share hon. Members’ frustrations that changes have not happened at the pace people would like to see. The Network Rail performance at the end of control period 6 was not good enough, with a number of projects late and over budget. We have taken steps to rectify that, including restoring a strong national oversight team at National Rail, so that best practice between routes and regions can be shared.
Under the previous Government, 310 nominations were received from Network Rail, train operating companies and other strategic transport organisations for the next round of Access for All. Last year, a list of 50 stations selected for initial feasibility work was announced. I am pleased to report that significant progress has been made with those studies. To date, 29 feasibility studies have been completed, with remaining studies on track for completion by the summer.
Helen Morgan
Will the Minister commit to those stations that have had their design and feasibility studies done? Some had commitments from the Minister in the previous Government, before the election was called. Can she commit to getting on with those stations? It is extremely frustrating for residents in places such as Whitchurch, who thought they were getting Access for All but have had the rug pulled from under their feet.
Kate Dearden
We will continue to take the Access for All programme forward as fast as funds allow. We will write to her with any updates we can provide. We are strongly committed to making the oldest railway in the world accessible to everybody and we will announce the stations progressing to design in the summer. We remain committed to building on progress and Ministers are carefully considering the best approach for the Access for All programme in control period 7. The Department for Transport will provide updates to all stakeholders in due course.
Wendy Chamberlain
Can we get a timescale on that? It sounded like lots of warm words and commitment and passion, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) said, there are now communities waiting with expectation. What timescale is the Department working to?
Kate Dearden
We will be able to make an announcement over the summer. I will not stand here today and make unfunded spending commitments—as Members will probably appreciate, that would be far above my pay grade. We will announce the stations that are progressing to design in the summer and the outcome, most likely, after the spending review.
The programme is, of course, vital to ensure that people with disabilities, parents with prams, who Members have mentioned, and older people, as well as anyone with reduced mobility, are not excluded from our public transport system. It is about giving everyone the same opportunity to travel freely, with dignity and without encountering unnecessary barriers.
Access for All is just one element in improving access to railway stations, and I will highlight some recent successes. The Elizabeth line has made significant strides in improving station accessibility across all 41 stations on the line, setting a benchmark for future projects, including level boarding from platform to train in its central section. That means that passengers with wheelchairs or other mobility aids can board trains without the need for assistance, thanks to the alignment of platforms and trains at the same level, which is a significant achievement for inclusive design.
Another notable example is the Northumberland line project, with all six of its new stations having step-free access. That ensures that everybody, regardless of their physical ability, can access a service, eliminating barriers and promoting equality. The stations are designed to accommodate passengers with mobility challenges by providing ramps, lifts and other accessible features. We are also pleased that the trans-Pennine route upgrade is set to deliver step-free access at all but one of its stations once the upgrade work is complete.
In addition to those specific projects, the broader rail industry is taking steps to improve step-free access in both existing and new stations. The Office of Rail and Road plays a crucial role in that effort by setting guidelines and taking enforcement action against companies that fail to meet accessibility requirements. The industry is held accountable to standards that require a commitment to step-free access as part of its service offering. When those requirements are not met, the Office of Rail and Road can take the necessary actions to ensure compliance, which may include fines or forcing the implementation of corrective measures.
I have highlighted the importance of delivering step-free access across Great Britain, which reflects the Government’s unwavering commitment to improving accessibility. Programmes such as Access for All, alongside major advancements such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade and the Elizabeth line, demonstrate the progress that we are making.
In conclusion, I urge all Members to continue to advocate for step-free access at stations, not just as an aspiration but as an essential part of our transport infrastructure. Together, we can ensure that no one is left behind. The journey towards an accessible and inclusive transport system is one that we can and must complete.
I again thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon for securing this important debate and I thank everyone else here for their contributions to it. I wish you all a great day.
Question put and agreed to.
Shipyards: Economic Growth
(2 days, 10 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
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of shipyards in economic growth.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank all hon. Members for attending the debate, because shipyards and shipbuilding are iconic symbols of the industrial heritage of the United Kingdom. From the Belfast poetry of Carnduff and the folk songs of England, from the north-east to the south-west, to the words of Donald Dewar at the opening session of the re-established Scottish Parliament, evoking:
“The shout of the welder in the din of the great Clyde shipyards”,
they are part of the economic and social history of these islands.
Our shipyards and the industry and creativity of their skilled workers have been sources of pride for local communities that have too often felt a keen sense of loss whenever a shipyard closed, as many did in the course of the previous century. When I was elected in July, the threat of closure for the Methil yard in my constituency was very real. After three centuries of the yard being the beating heart of the local economy, it was clear within days of this Government taking office that Harland and Wolff, seen as the saviour of the yard after the collapse of previous owners BiFab in 2021, was itself in dire financial difficulties.
That was a hugely anxious time, not only for Methil but for other Harland and Wolff yards in Belfast, Appledore and Arnish, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), with whom I shared many challenging meetings on the prospects for the yards. Those were times of stress and worry for the future for all workers at each of the four yards. It was essential that, where the previous Government had not acted, this Minister and her colleagues took decisive action to save the yards. Many of us were relentless in making the case for the four yards, because not only their facilities but the skills and commitment of their workforces are essential for our mission for economic growth.
I want to pay tribute to the workers at the yards and their unions, Unite and GMB, who fought for their future. In particular, I thank the union representatives at Methil yard, Dougie Somerville of Unite and George McClelland of GMB, who worked alongside the yard’s manager Matt Smith to make the case for the yard to be saved. George started working at Methil in 1973, which is even before I was born. His commitment to the yard has been amazing, and it has paid off.
I recognise it was no easy process to secure a deal for Navantia UK to take on all four yards. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Industry had to go to great lengths to secure a deal. For the Scottish yards, an important advocacy role was played by the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar. I was also pleased that there was positive dialogue between UK and Scottish Ministers on the future of the Scottish yards. I hope that spirit of collaboration continues, working together to promote the facilities at the yards.
It was deeply dispiriting to see yesterday’s announcement that the £175 million contract for seven loch-class vessels to serve our island communities had not been awarded to a Scottish yard but has gone abroad. That is highly disappointing for the shipbuilding industry in Scotland. It is a great concern for Ferguson Marine in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey). SNP Ministers simply have to show more ambition for Scotland’s shipyards.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising this subject and particularly for referring to the workforce at Ferguson Marine, who have lost out on that small vessel replacement programme, sending 170 jobs down the Swanee. Those workers were political pawns in a nationalist game, which I guess came to its peak when the First Minister launched a ship with painted-on portholes.
All is not lost because it was only phase one of the small vessel replacement programme that went to Poland this week. There is a phase two, which would provide vessels for my constituency: two ferries for the Western Isles and one for Iona. Surely the answer that the Scottish Government should seek to find is that phase two be rolled into phase one and that a direct award be made to Ferguson’s shipyard on the Clyde, which has experience of building those small vessels. We can save jobs, we can deliver the ferries and we can serve the people of the Western Isles by making a direct award.
Richard Baker
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend who, as always, is a doughty campaigner for his constituents. He has also put forward very practical proposals that offer a real way forward to ensure that those vessels are built by Scottish shipyards. We should all be working together to fight for the future of Scotland’s shipyards, so it is a matter of regret, particularly after the announcement yesterday, that we have no Members from the Scottish National party in Westminster Hall for this debate.
The sad news yesterday was in stark contrast to the day of excitement and celebration when the Minister for Industry, who is here today, visited Methil to mark the formal handover of the yard to Navantia UK. Let us hope that in the future we will have joint working and effective collaboration between UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers, and that Scottish Ministers show some ambition for future investment in and contracts for shipyards in Scotland.
Let us be clear that saving the yards is not an act of charity to their workers or the communities they support. The reason it is so important to save these yards is that they have an essential strategic role in promoting economic growth in this country. In 2024, the economic output of our shipyards was £2.7 billion. Between 2019 and 2024, the economic output of the sector increased by 72%, at a time when the overall value of the manufacturing sector declined by 2.4%.
Today, there is so much potential for our shipyards to play an even greater role in growing our economy. The national shipbuilding strategy had already set out plans to deliver a pipeline of more than 150 new naval and civil vessels for the UK Government and the devolved Administrations over the next 30 years. Ports are now one of the five key sectors earmarked for £5.8 billion of investment through the National Wealth Fund. Those plans for investment are all the more important today, as the budget for defence spending increases to enable the UK to fulfil our responsibilities to Ukraine and in other arenas.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
I thank my hon. Friend for his words about the workers at Arnish and I know that he has played a very important role in advocating for that yard. He talked about the national shipbuilding strategy and defence orders. Historically, all Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary orders were fulfilled by UK shipyards. That changed in 2012 when the MARS tanker order was awarded to Daewoo in South Korea. Subsequently, the 2017 national shipbuilding strategy made it an assumption that all such defence orders would be put out to international tender, bar some exclusions. Does he agree that that has been a source of real uncertainty in a sector that needs long-term planning, and that in future any industrial strategy should provide maximum assurance about the pipeline of orders for our domestic shipbuilding yards?
Richard Baker
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important and very eloquently argued point. We need to have such security for our shipbuilders and our shipyards, and our procurement strategy must support that agenda. Later, I will say more about how the ambitions about the security of future work at our shipyards that he has just set out can be realised.
It is our shipyards and our shipyard workers who will be crucial in developing our new defence capabilities, including the more than 350 skilled workers from my constituency who work at Babcock in Rosyth, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). It is not only in defence that our shipyards have a key role to play in economic growth, but in renewables as well. It is right that Labour’s green prosperity plan highlighted the role of ports in growing our renewable sector.
Navantia’s plan for Methil is that it will become the business’s centre of excellence for offshore wind manufacturing in the UK through Navantia Seanergies, its specialist renewable energy division. Navantia has announced plans to modernise both Methil and Arnish, with advanced fabrication and assembly capabilities, aligning with national commitments to secure domestic energy security while meeting our ambitious energy transition targets. I believe it would make great sense to extend the Forth green freeport area to include Methil and, in doing so, provide important incentives for that vital work.
In addition to yards being centres for renewables infrastructure, the transition towards low-emission ships and sustainable materials presents opportunities for innovation and leadership in environmentally friendly maritime technology. Green shipbuilding can be incentivised through Government procurement, and with the current scale of procurement in shipbuilding, there is also a role for the Government to encourage collaboration between naval shipbuilders, rather than running competitive tenders for each project. Most of all, the huge potential for growth in shipbuilding and fabrication in this country can only be achieved by investing in skills.
We have an ageing workforce in our shipyards, but the prospects today for young people joining the industry are bright. That makes it all the more important that we recruit and train young people in the skills our shipyards need. In Methil, there are plans for comprehensive training programmes, including on-site training at Navantia’s Spanish facilities—when I talked to apprentices on a cold day in Methil, they were right behind those plans—which demonstrate Navantia’s commitment to developing a highly skilled local workforce. It is important that the UK Government, devolved Governments and local skill agencies support that vital work.
One of the moments after the Methil yard was saved I found most rewarding was when Neil Cafferky, an apprentice draughtsman at Methil, had the opportunity to tell the Prime Minister what it meant for him that he would be able to continue his apprenticeship at Methil. Neil studied at Fife College and New College Lanarkshire before beginning his apprenticeship at the yard in 2021. That journey of skills and training has been amazing for Neil, because in 2022, Neil was a finalist in the Scottish Renewables young professionals green energy awards.
Neil is not alone in having a bright future at Methil. Of the 200 workers whose jobs at the yard were saved, 51 are apprentices. They are among thousands in the shipyards across our country. Investing in our shipyards means thousands of young people having the prospect of skilled, well-paid jobs throughout their career, with all the benefits that will bring to them, their communities and their country.
The actions taken by Ministers early in this Government show that they understand the importance of our shipyards in growing our economy. If we seize all the fantastic opportunities we have to grow our shipyards and boost the brilliant, highly skilled workforces that they employ, the story of shipyards in this country is not only one of a proud history, but of a vibrant future as well.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate and, if possible, keep to an informal five-minute time limit to allow everyone to get in. I call Edward Morello.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) on securing this debate.
Dorset does not enjoy the kind of large shipyards that the hon. Member outlined, but the marine industry is vital to Dorset’s economy. It generates £483 million in gross value added and supports more than 8,000 jobs. Importantly, 71% of those jobs are in boatbuilding, reinforcing the sector’s importance to the region. Local shipyards and boatbuilders provide high-quality, skilled employment in coastal communities; they offer well-paid jobs in areas where such opportunities are often limited.
However, the industry is at a crossroads. The shortage of skilled workers in the area is now the single greatest barrier to growth. We must do more to attract and retain talent in the sector. One key opportunity lies in supporting women in boatbuilding. Historically, women have been under-represented in this industry. It estimates that only 2% to 5% of hands-on yard workers are women. However, initiatives such as Women in Boatbuilding are changing this. Women in Boatbuilding has played a transformative role, particularly in Lyme Regis, where it has helped the Boat Building Academy, which I recently had the pleasure of visiting, to achieve a 50:50 gender split on its flagship boatbuilding course. Women in Boatbuilding not only promotes diversity, but drives economic growth. By making shipyards and boatyards more inclusive, we widen the talent pipeline, ensuring the industry’s long-term sustainability. With the right support, more women will enter the profession, leading to greater innovation, a stronger workforce and a more resilient industry.
Supporting new talent is vital, but we must also protect the heritage of traditional boatbuilding. The National Shipbuilding Office recognises that the leisure sector accounts for 14% of the UK’s shipbuilding industry, yet traditional boatbuilding is being neglected. In 2023, traditional wooden boat building was added to the Heritage Crafts Association’s red list of endangered crafts, highlighting the urgent need for action. Without intervention, we risk losing centuries-old skills that have built and maintained iconic vessels—from Dunkirk’s little ships to HMS Victory. These crafts not only preserve our maritime history, but contribute to our economy.
The solution is clear: we need central support and funding dedicated to preserving traditional boatbuilding skills. Without that, apprenticeships remain inaccessible outside the south-west, skilled labour shortages will worsen and our internationally admired shipyards will struggle to compete. Dorset has a proud maritime heritage and a thriving marine industry, but it needs investment, skills development and a commitment to inclusivity to ensure its future success. We have the talent, expertise and global reputation. Now we must ensure that this industry has the resources to grow, to innovate and to inspire the next generation of boatbuilders. Let us invest in our shipyards, our workforce and our maritime heritage before it is too late.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) on securing this important debate. He spoke very knowledgeably about the topic, and his incredibly successful work to secure the future of the Harland and Wolff yard in Methil demonstrates what a conscientious, hard-working fighter for his community he is. I am proud to call him my friend.
Shipbuilding is a growth industry. Between 2019 and 2024, the economic output of the shipyard sector in the UK increased by 72%—I wish we could say that about much more of the British economy. There are almost 39,000 employee jobs in that industry in the UK, with 19% in Scotland, so it is an industry that we must get behind. It is central to Glasgow and the Clyde region. As everyone knows, Glasgow has a proud history of shipbuilding. At one point, more than 100,000 people were working in 38 yards along the Clyde; at the turn of the last century, almost one in four boats sailing in the world was built on the Clyde, so shipbuilding is in Glasgow’s blood. The number is much lower now, but like any Glasgow MP, I have constituents who depend on the shipyards on the Clyde for work, and they make a significant contribution to Glasgow’s economy.
We have world-class defence shipyards. We have two shipyards on the upper Clyde and they are operated by BAE Systems. They have a long history of developing first-class ships for defending the United Kingdom, and the new Type 26 frigates at the dockyards will do the same. This creates wealth across Glasgow, including in my seat. We also have a brilliant maritime education sector in Glasgow, and much of this is in my seat, on the Clyde. City of Glasgow college, trains craft apprentices for the BAE Govan and Scotstoun shipyards, and BAE has a brilliant on-site skills academy. City of Glasgow college also trains very many merchant navy officers in the UK, and many of those involved live in my seat, including in the Gorbals, as I find regularly when I knock on doors.
We need to keep warship building work in the UK. Make no mistake: this is essential for national security. We may wish for the world to be different, but we have to take it as it is. Skills in military and domestic shipyards are very important as we face this unpredictable world.
Civilian shipyards could also provide great opportunities in Glasgow, such as in renewable energy. Of course I would like to see Government support for shipbuilding, but it has to be deployed wisely. Taxpayers and the wider economy expect that money to be deployed wisely. Regretfully, that has not been the case with the SNP Government, who own the Ferguson Marine shipyard in Port Glasgow, just along from my constituency. They have spent more than £500 million on two ferries, which are hundreds of millions of pounds over budget. They nationalised the yard in 2019, but despite it being state-owned, Audit Scotland in December 2024 raised very serious concerns about governance at the yard. It said:
“Internal audit has not been able to provide assurance on FMPG’s risk management, control and governance arrangements”
and other matters.
Yesterday, we learned that Ferguson Marine had lost out to a shipyard in Gdańsk on a £175 million contract to build vessels for the Scottish Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) is entirely correct that the Scottish Government have prioritised opportunities in Poland over those in Port Glasgow. The outcome of six years of SNP control of that shipyard is hundreds of millions of pounds wasted; it is an absolute scandal.
The SNP Government have failed the people of Port Glasgow—some of the most deprived communities in our family of nations—while wasting hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Port Glasgow desperately needs good jobs, as does the whole of the Clyde region and Glasgow, and we should be incredibly angry at that SNP scandal. That is another SNP Government failure: they have failed Glasgow and the Clyde region on shipbuilding, education, health, transport and economic growth. After 18 years of the SNP, Scottish shipbuilding and Scotland need a new direction.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. It seems to be a regular occurrence in Westminster Hall now. I wish you well and thank you for all you do.
I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for leading the debate. I am very pleased to be here. He mentioned Harland and Wolff, which I will talk about as it obviously plays a critical role in Northern Ireland. For the record, the Minister has played a significant role, along with others, in ensuring that its future is a lot rosier than we thought it would be. We were worried about its future, but the Minister and others have ensured that it looks much brighter.
Shipbuilding has been crucial for the UK for decades. It generates hundreds of thousands of jobs and improves infrastructure between mainland Britain and the devolved institutions. I am honoured and pleased to be here to showcase the success of our fantastic shipbuilding sector. Gone are the days when Harland and Wolff employed almost 30,000 people in Belfast. It is down to about 1,000 or 1,500, but it hopes to grow to 2,000, 2,500 or maybe even more.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, Northern Ireland paved the way in shipbuilding. Some of the world’s most iconic ships were built at the heart of Harland and Wolff in Belfast. Everyone knows of the famous Titanic, probably for the wrong reasons—the tragedy in which all those people lost their lives—but there were also the RMS Britannic and the RMS Olympic. At the time Harland and Wolff, in the neighbouring constituency of Belfast East, represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), was one of the largest, most famous shipbuilding companies in the world. We are proud of that rich history.
I am proud to be able to speak about what Harland and Wolff has done in Northern Ireland and the jobs it has created. The tradition of shipbuilding, although not as big as it was, is still significant within Harland and Wolff across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is and was a global hub for shipbuilding. The sector employs hundreds even today, so it is important that we protect and preserve it, and retain people and give them opportunities. We want to protect and retain shipbuilding skills, including metalworking and engineering.
We are rich in shipbuilding culture for many reasons, including defence, global trade, imports, exports, design and engineering—the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife mentioned that in his introduction. In September 2024, Harland and Wolff entered administration for the second time in five years. In January 2025, with the help of Ministers and others, it was announced that the Spanish-owned firm Navantia was to take over ownership, maintaining the core roots of the historic shipyard in Belfast and elsewhere in this United Kingdom.
Maintaining jobs is at the core of any administrative takeover. Many employees who worked in Harland and Wolff before the takeover lived in my constituency and still do. I remember the tradition of shipbuilding even in the small village of Greyabbey, which I lived just outside of. The number of people who worked in the shipyards in the 1960s and ’70s and even in the ’80s was significant, as it was in Newtownards. Like some of those people, employees today are fearful of job losses and redundancy. The Minister has also been involved—for which I thank him—in the Spirit/Airbus takeover. Employees are not in control of which sectors are bought, which poses a massive question mark to their livelihoods, and indeed their futures.
Shipbuilding contributes billions of pounds to the United Kingdom economy, both centrally and through devolution. We continue to export and repair ships and we have a part of the defence contract as well, which we are very proud to have. It massively contributes to the value of our trade and goods. Furthermore, some 36,000 people are employed in our wonderful Royal Navy. Shipbuilding is imperative for our defence capabilities, from defending our overseas territories to protecting our sea trade routes. Without the shipbuilding sector and the staff and people that have made it what it is, success would not be possible. Warships and submarines are built in other areas across the nation, including areas in England and Scotland and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife, who introduced the debate. I am surprised that his colleague, whose constituency I cannot remember, is not here. He has always been very much to the fore in naval debates. I expected him to be here to wax lyrical about what he would do. I can remember his name but not his constituency.
Richard Baker
I think the hon. Member might be recalling my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), who is at this moment at the Rosyth port meeting Babcock. His passion for his community and for that yard is, as the hon. Member knows, very strong.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for filling in that gap. Hansard will pick up on the constituency and keep it right. The only reason the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) is not here is because he is away doing something very practical in his own constituency, so well done to him.
We must continue to prioritise shipbuilding for the future, so I look to the Minister for the commitment that I know is already there. Just for the record, it is always good to have the reassurance that we all seek. There are steps that the Government can take to provide direct financial support to the shipbuilding sector, both centrally on the mainland and regionally to the devolved nations. Infrastructure development is massively important for the United Kingdom, from our safety right through to the food in our supermarkets. I am old enough to remember things that we used to say in my history class: we are an island built on coal, surrounded by waters full of fish. I am not sure whether that is true any more, but it tells us that the role of ships in connecting our islands is very important.
The history goes back centuries and is something to be proud of. In Northern Ireland it is always great to look back and recollect the successes of our past and still be grateful to this day that shipbuilding is as important as ever, despite being under the control of different companies. It still creates jobs, wage packets and opportunities and helps us grow as a nation.
I will conclude with this. I look to the Minister for her commitment to the industry and to the staff that will ensure it continues for the future. I am pleased to see the Minister, who has shown commitment, in her place. In all the things that I have brought to her attention, I have never once found her wanting, and I am sure we will not find her wanting this time, either.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for securing this debate on this very important topic. In Scotland the ferry fleet is years old and replacements have not been ordered in a timely way, which has caused chaos and difficulties for many of those in island and mainland communities. Now more than ever, we need a robust ferry replacement programme to ensure that our island communities are fully connected to the mainland. This debate provides an opportunity to highlight the importance of a UK shipbuilding industry.
Take my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran and the impact that the lack of an effective ferry replacement strategy has had on our local communities, especially the island communities. Two state-of-the-art ferries were commissioned by the Scottish SNP Government for routes to the Isle of Arran. However, that was not what the community really needed or wanted. What we actually needed were smaller ferries that fit in the existing port at Ardrossan harbour, not new and expensive ships. We needed ferries that were built locally and which could provide a reliable and much-needed service, rather than the stop-start one we have at the moment. That is due to myriad issues, too many to mention in this debate. One of the new ferries is the one that had the painted windows seven years ago, which I will speak about in a moment.
The ferries were originally commissioned in 2015 and were scheduled to be ready for service in 2018. Glen Sannox has only entered service this year, 2025, and has already been recalled due to faults. Glen Rosa is due to be ready for September 2025—seven years too late for the people of Ardrossan and Arran. Had there been a planned, sustainable order procurement process we would not be in the position we are in Scotland. When planning for future projects, the Scottish Government need to prevent the Ardrossan harbour situation from ever happening again. That should be done through robust and thorough planning.
Ardrossan’s economy has for many years relied on the harbour. The Isle of Arran is becoming isolated, suffering economically from a lack of tourism as sailings have been greatly reduced. Residents suffer as they cannot access essential services on the mainline, such as hospital appointments—so this is serious. We are now in the position where we might lose the port of Ardrossan because a ship has been built that cannot fit in the harbour. That will severely affect the local economy of Ardrossan and Arran and that of the surrounding area.
As we heard earlier, the recent procurement process to build seven new small electric ferries has awarded the contract to a non-UK bidder. It is a real pity to see the local nationalised shipyard Ferguson Marine, which has a track record of building smaller vessels on time and in budget, miss out on new contracts such as this.
I would like to finish by highlighting the importance of shipbuilding to national strategy. UK shipyards play a key role in our defence, as the Royal Navy depends on them for the construction and maintenance of their vessels. Given that we are increasing the defence budget to 2.5%, I think we can all agree that it is time to revisit and reinvigorate this overlooked industry.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I look forward to serving under your leadership this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for securing this debate and for an interesting, passionate opening speech. I also congratulate him and everyone involved in securing the Methil yard to make sure that there are jobs, opportunities and of course ships in future.
It is often said the Clyde built Glasgow and Glasgow built the Clyde. To anyone familiar with our city, that is more than just an expression: it is a way of describing the relationship that Glaswegians have with the Clyde. For centuries, it was a major shipbuilding river with some 30,000 ships built in yards in Glasgow and along the 116 miles of the Clyde. The expression “Clyde built” was synonymous with quality and was one that Glaswegians were particularly proud of. With the decline in shipbuilding, a major source of work, industry and pride was taken from the city.
As we have heard, the latest blow was delivered just this week when Ferguson Marine, established in 1903 and the last yard on the lower Clyde, lost out to a Polish company on a contract to build seven electric ferries for CalMac. Ferguson is a Scottish Government-owned company. It has been at the centre of controversy following delays and overruns in the construction of two new, much larger, ferries for CalMac. The contract for the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa was originally awarded in 2015. It was not until January 2025 that the Glen Sannox was put into service.
I will skip the bit about a First Minister of Scotland launching a ferry in 2017, when it was incomplete and had portholes painted on.
Patricia Ferguson
I was going to skip it because I thought I would save the blushes of the SNP Members present but, as none is present, I will carry on. It was the indignity of indignities perhaps to see a First Minister of Scotland launching a ferry with portholes painted on—something that was drawn attention to at the time, but did not seem to faze her. Perhaps we should have learned that the person in question was unembarrassable.
However, just last week, the ferry in question, brought into service in January 2025, was found to have a crack in the hull. Fortunately, that seems to have been overcome and the ferry is back in service. However, the award of the contract to a Polish company is very disappointing, as the contract for the seven new, smaller ferries was seen as a way of allowing Ferguson Marine to move forward, to put its troubles behind it and to build the kind of ships that it has expertise in doing. It was also a way to ensure the continuation of shipbuilding on the Clyde and the preservation of the jobs of the workers there.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) said yesterday, CalMac’s decision is incredibly disappointing and is a result of the Scottish Government failing to provide a direct award to the yard. That should never have been allowed to happen. Now no workers in Scotland, let alone Inverclyde, will benefit from those contracts. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that. By way of contrast, I will just mention that, in Stavanger last week, on a visit with the Scottish Affairs Committee, I saw a new electric ferry built in Norway, for Norway.
We have heard about the difficulties that many of our island communities have in reaching the mainland. We have heard about the issues that islanders have in accessing appointments and going about their business in the way most of the rest of us who do not live in island communities expect to, but an additional problem is caused by the age of our ferry fleet. People on the islands find it very difficult to go about their business island to island. The interconnectedness of our islands is suffering, too.
In my constituency of Glasgow West and stretching across the Clyde into Glasgow South West, we have BAE Systems, which makes the Type 26 frigate, which is highly rated around the world and highly adaptable, too. As well as contracts with the Ministry of Defence for eight frigates, Australia and Canada have chosen that particular frigate for their fleets and work is ongoing to try to secure a major contract with Norway, which would be hugely significant for both countries in terms of not just the export of the frigate itself, but what it would mean to our relationship and the defence of the two nations.
Last year, I visited BAE Systems’ new training academy, built at a cost of some £15 million. BAE recognised that skills in areas such as welding were in short supply in the UK and has set about training the workers of the future, as well as upskilling existing workers, and training the leaders of the future. The state of the art academy is teaching 200 young people every year about project management, the management of cranes and welding, to name but a few of the jobs that people are being prepared for. The way in which innovative technology is used in the academy is remarkable. The young people I met that day are clearly relishing the opportunities they have.
Obviously, BAE Systems is training the workers it needs for the future—men and women, to take the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello)—but I would be surprised if some of the skills acquired in the academy were not also utilised in our green energy transition, and in the transition towards low-emission ships and sustainable and environmentally friendly maritime technology. It is clear to me that those young people will ensure that the term “Clyde-built” will continue to be a designation denoting high quality for decades to come.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for securing this debate on the role of shipyards in economic growth, which is particularly important to coastal communities such as those in my constituency. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) that I can match her issues with ferries and raise her some.
For an island community like ours, shipbuilding is not just an industry, but part of our identity, our economy and our connection to the mainland. The Isle of Wight has a proud history of maritime innovation—from the pioneering days of Saunders-Roe, which led the way in hydrofoil and hovercraft development, to Wight Shipyard today, which is a leader in high-speed, low-carbon vessel construction. Across the island, boatbuilders such as Lallows boatyard and Diverse Marine, and marine engineering firms such as White Marine, continue to provide skilled employment and contribute to the wider maritime sector. We are especially proud to be Europe’s leader in aluminium welding, where world-class craftsmanship, cutting-edge technology and an unwavering commitment to innovation combine to shape the future of the industry.
But the significance of shipbuilding on the Isle of Wight extends far beyond jobs and exports. It is about connectivity and resilience. As an island, we are uniquely dependent on our ferries. Companies such as Wight Shipyard play a crucial role in designing and constructing the vessels that keep our communities connected, including the Thames Clipper boats here in London. Investing in shipbuilding on the Isle of Wight is about not just economic growth, but securing our transport lifeline, ensuring that our ferries remain reliable, affordable and fit for the future. Our ferries are not a luxury; they are essential. They support commuting, tourism, healthcare access and supply chains. By backing local shipbuilders, we can develop and maintain the vessels we rely on, reduce costs and drive innovation in greener, more efficient transport. In doing so, we strengthen not just our economy but the very infrastructure that keeps the Isle of Wight moving.
Shipbuilding on the Isle of Wight should not just be a story of the past; it must be a driving force for our future. At a time when coastal economies need regeneration, the industry has the potential to unlock long-term sustainable growth. The skills, expertise and infrastructure are already here. Investing in our shipyards means creating high-quality jobs, boosting local businesses and ensuring that the island remains at the forefront of maritime innovation.
There are real opportunities. The clean maritime demonstration competition has already funded innovative projects. We have the chance to position the Isle of Wight as a centre of excellence for low-carbon vessel design, but we need long-term commitment. We need capital investment, research and development support, and fair procurement policies that recognise the value of British shipbuilding. For instance, Wight Shipyard refurbished our Border Force boats and has the capability to build the new fleet at considerable savings to the current estimates. It just needs a route into the procurement process.
I urge the Minister to recognise the strategic importance of shipyards, particularly for island communities such as the Isle of Wight. By investing in our shipbuilders, we are not just creating jobs; we are securing the future of our island economy, strengthening our transport resilience and ensuring that Britain remains a global leader in maritime innovation.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) on securing this debate.
For centuries, shipbuilding has been a pillar of British industry, contributing not only to our maritime heritage but to the economic prosperity of our coastal communities. In the 1790s, Whitby was the second largest shipbuilding port in England. Indeed, a certain Captain James Cook learned his seafaring skills in the town, and his marvellous ship, the Endeavour, was also built there. Hon. Members can find out more about our proud shipbuilding history by visiting the Captain Cook memorial museum or Whitby museum.
Today, Parkol Marine Engineering at Eskside wharf in Whitby has a workforce of more than 70. In 2017, it opened a second yard in Middlesbrough. Parkol has customers from across the UK and Europe, for whom it builds fishing trawlers as well as fully custom designs. Recently, it won two public tenders, which it wants to capitalise on to obtain more work in the workboat industry. This is important, because in a town where low-paid and seasonal jobs in tourism and retail predominate, Parkol offers young people in Whitby much-needed skills and opportunities, as well as apprenticeships in manufacturing, engineering, fabrication and business. That all significantly contributes to our local economy. Parkol told me that a lot of the necessary skills have been lost or are carried out by workers towards the end of their careers, so it strives to promote reintroduction of those skills via in-house apprenticeships.
Beyond direct employment, shipyards provide contracts for steelmakers, electrical engineers, software developers and countless other businesses. It is crucial that we recognise that broader economic impact and ensure that shipyards receive the backing they need to thrive. As Members have referenced, shipyards are more than just workplaces; they are engines of economic growth and cornerstones of national security. We must give them the best possible chance to grow.
Parkol’s location on the east coast positions it well for carrying out maintenance work on crew transfer vessels and workboats employed on wind farms or offshore projects in the North sea. It has a floating dry dock, but it was built in the 1990s and now it has outgrown it, which means that larger vessels have to use slipways in Scotland and Holland. It is looking at how to increase its capacity, but has struggled to identify suitable funding or grant streams.
I am pleased that the Government have made clear their commitment to supporting job creation and long-term growth in the shipbuilding sector. I ask the Minister to commit to a bold vision for our shipyards, big or small, ensuring that they continue to serve as a source of national pride and economic prosperity for communities such as mine for generations to come.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in any debate chaired by your good self, Ms Jardine.
I, too, note that a certain political party from Scotland is not present today, which is a disgrace. Let us think about what it would be like to be working in Ferguson’s right now. Through no fault of the workforce—there is nothing wrong with their skills—they have been left out, which is pretty bad, and not one of those Members bothers to show up. I would not let them run a birthday party in a brewery, if I can put it that way.
Nevertheless, we have had good news about the frigates that are going to be built in Scotland. I suggest that there will probably be a greater necessity to build more of them, and I imagine that that work could come to Scotland. We have the skills and we should be proud of that.
When I was growing up in the highlands, there was a dismal litany of depopulation. When I was at Tain Royal academy, the brightest and best—and many others— went south. Indeed, my father said to me, “Go south, young lad, to work and to prosper.” But then the oil came. I give credit to the then Labour Government for seeing the potential of North sea oil and for lifting the ball and running with it, because those crucial decisions in the early 1970s created the industry that we have today.
Because of where the potential yards were situated, and the need to get them to the North sea, it made sense to build them in the Outer Hebrides, Kishorn, Ardersier and Nigg. In the early 1970s, we saw the transfer of the skills that have already been mentioned from the Clyde and other parts of the UK. Those skills moved north to build the mighty structures that we have today in the North sea.
I worked in the Kishorn yard on the Ninian Central Platform, which in its day was the biggest concrete structure ever built, and in the Nigg yard for a number of years. At the height of North sea construction and fabrication, no less than 5,000 people worked in the Nigg yard. Hon. Members can imagine what a difference that made to the local economy of that remote part of the highlands—depopulation disappeared just like that.
People moved in. We made jokes about them—no offence to hon. Members from the west of Scotland—and called them Hey Jimmys, because they all came in saying, “Hey Jim!” They got my name right, because I am James, which was rather charming. It was a shot in the arm to see, in my home town of Tain, people coming in from south-west Scotland and other parts. What that meant in terms of amateur operatic societies, and just doing things in the community, was a great change—very much for the good. I remember those days with great happiness: I married and I brought up my children because of the employment in those yards. That was why I did not move away and why I disobeyed my father’s instructions.
More recently, as has been mentioned, we have seen the potential of floating offshore structures. As I have said, the Nigg yard where I worked was placed where it was because it was in one of the finest deep-water ports in the United Kingdom, where big structures could be built and moved relatively easily out to the North sea. For that reason, I am grateful to the Government for the announcement in the last few days that £55 million will be given to the port of Cromarty firth to develop an alongside fabrication facility to create and put together those modular structures that can then be taken out. I thank the Government for that very welcome decision.
From that investment, we can do great things in future, but I also suggest that time is of the essence. The skills mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) are ageing. If they are lost, they could be gone forever, because they are clever skills such as butt welding and all the different sorts of fabrication in steel, aluminium or concrete. In getting ahead with what we are doing now, we will be in the nick of time to train up new generations based on past generations’ knowledge and ability. I welcome that.
This has been a well-tempered debate—apart from the conspicuous absence of some hon. Members—which sends a good message to everybody who cares about our shipbuilding industry. Everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet, which is to be welcomed because, as others hon. Members said, it was shipbuilding that made this country great. We have the skills and the people, and we can do it again, but this time with offshore and other similar structures.
If a Government Member would like to visit my constituency to see what we are going to do, they would be more than welcome—to say the least. I may be in a different party, but I extend the hand of friendship. I know that a visit would mean a great deal to the local people.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) on securing this debate on the often overlooked but critical contribution of great shipyards to our nation’s economic strength, employment prospects and national security. Many hon. Members have spoken with great passion and knowledge about the sector and about yards in their constituencies. My own constituency is a stone’s throw from Leighton Buzzard, which is the furthest point in England from the sea, so I cannot speak with any local knowledge but I absolutely acknowledge the shipbuilding sector’s critical role.
For centuries, shipbuilding has been a cornerstone of British industry, sustaining local economies, providing skilled jobs and securing our place as a maritime power. As we have rightly heard during this debate, the UK’s shipyards have played a dual role—driving economic growth at national and local levels while ensuring our security at sea. Under the previous Conservative Government, decisive steps were taken to secure the future of British shipbuilding and maintenance, including supporting jobs, upskilling our workforce and reinforcing our defence infrastructure. Under the new Government so far, we have seen a more lacklustre set of steps taken towards supporting this sector.
Shipyards are more than just industrial sites; they are economic lifelines for the communities that surround them. For example, in Portsmouth and Govan, BAE Systems surface shipyards have been instrumental in building the Royal Navy’s cutting-edge fleet. The last Conservative Government’s commitment to the Type 26 and Type 31 frigate programmes guaranteed long-term employment and training opportunities for engineers and apprentices. Those contracts not only secured local jobs, but strengthened the wider economy.
In Cumbria, the BAE Systems submarine yard in Barrow-in-Furness has been at the heart of our nation’s defence. Thanks to strategic spending by the previous Conservative Government, Astute-class and Dreadnought-class submarines continue to provide thousands of highly skilled jobs while reinforcing Britain’s nuclear deterrent. That is a prime example of how economic security is directly linked to national security. Spending on our defence industry ensures that we remain prepared for the threats of the future.
In Birkenhead, Cammell Laird has been a stronghold for commercial and defence-related shipbuilding. Contracts secured under the previous Government provided much-needed stability, supporting jobs in the north-west and reinforcing the UK’s ability to maintain its naval and commercial fleets.
One of the most important aspects of shipbuilding is its role in training the next generation of workers. The previous Conservative Government recognised that, and supported and backed apprenticeship schemes that ensured that young people could gain the skills needed to drive innovation in the sector. The workforce at shipyards such as Govan and Barrow-in-Furness includes thousands of highly trained welders, engineers and naval architects. We ensured that their skills were passed down through new training programmes and partnerships with local colleges.
Without continued spending, there is a real risk of losing that expertise to foreign competitors, yet the current Labour Government have failed to provide the necessary assurances to sustain those initiatives. The lack of new contracts, clear strategic direction and industry support has left many shipyards facing an uncertain future.
Richard Baker
I share the hon. Member’s ambitions for our shipyard sector. I was recently at the Rosyth dockyard in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), where the workforce were excited about the future. They were already looking forward to a long order list and now feel in a position for that to grow, given the prospect of increased defence spending. Does the hon. Member agree that the strategic aim set out by the Government provides great opportunities for our shipyards and shipbuilding sector?
Greg Smith
That is indeed good news. The Conservative party, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, has supported the Government’s increases in defence spending. We moderately disagree on the pace of that increase, because we want to go considerably faster, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about the good news for that particular shipyard.
I ask the Minister whether, following the defence uplift, the Government will commit to construct all our military vessels in the United Kingdom. The link between economic security and national security cannot be overstated. A strong shipbuilding industry means a strong Royal Navy, ensuring that the UK remains a global maritime power. It also means domestic manufacturing capabilities, reducing reliance on foreign suppliers and keeping critical national infrastructure under British control.
The Conservatives understand that reality. When we were in government, our national shipbuilding strategy was designed to create a steady pipeline of work to provide stability for our shipyards and to ensure that Britain could defend herself in an increasingly unpredictable world. That approach guaranteed not just warships but support vessels, reinforcing our ability to project power on the world stage.
However, the Government’s delay in awarding many new contracts and the absence of a clear vision for the future of UK shipbuilding weakens our defences and threatens those skilled jobs. That threat extends to virgin steel production—a critical component in the shipbuilding supply chain. The Government have failed to negotiate a deal with the United States, whereas we secured the 500,000-tonne tariff-free agreement when in government. The lack of a deal is a real threat to the industry.
Shipbuilding depends on steel production, which is already suffering from Labour’s failure to negotiate. Will the Minister provide the crucial update on talks with the United States that people whose jobs are on the line are desperate to hear? We need urgent action to safeguard our economic and national security interests. Does the Minister have any ongoing concerns, or is she confident in the future of those sites? The Government’s handling of Harland and Wolff when the company needed financial support—it was threatened with administration, and the Government did little or nothing to stop that—was hardly a boost of confidence for the thousands of jobs that depend on the supply chain.
Patricia Ferguson
I thank the hon. Member for taking an intervention. I am not sure whether he misheard or did not hear the earlier part of the discussions in Westminster Hall this afternoon when Members on this side of the House and Liberal Democrat Members talked about the fact that Harland and Wolff was saved in both Methil and Northern Ireland. That is surely something to be celebrated across the Chamber.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, and it is absolutely good news that Harland and Wolff has survived, but throughout the entire summer, not long after the new Government were elected to office, there were constant asks for financial support that were not forthcoming. It took a very long time. This is fundamentally a debate, but I would gently suggest that the saving of Harland and Wolff—which I reiterate is good news—happened in many respects despite the early actions of the new Government and not because of them.
Patricia Ferguson
Would the hon. Member take another intervention on that point?
Patricia Ferguson
I am grateful for that good-humoured response. Does he accept that the problems with Harland and Wolff did not just arise after a Labour Government were elected? Given that the Labour Government were able to announce that Harland and Wolff would continue and survive in December—fewer than six months after they came into office—it seems to me that the Government really care about the industry and worked really hard to make that happen.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the points that the hon. Lady makes. The point from my earlier comment still stands—I was the shadow Minister over the summer; I survived my party’s reshuffle—that many asks were being made by Harland and Wolff much earlier, and that was something that was not initially forthcoming. I fully accept the timeline that the hon. Lady sets out. This was not something that suddenly happened on 4 July, but when a new Government come in they should be judged on the speed of their response and exactly what is done to save that sector. We must continue to back our shipyards, provide long-term certainty for workers and reinforce Britain’s position as a global leader in shipbuilding. By doing so, we will not only create a prosperous economy, but ensure that our nation remains safe and secure for generations to come.
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) on securing such an important debate. I thank him for quoting Donald Dewar in the first speech of the Scottish Parliament in 1998. I worked in an office next to Donald Dewar for a couple of years and he was an incredible man. He also said in that speech:
“We are fallible. We will make mistakes. But we will never lose sight of what brought us here: the striving to do right by the people of Scotland; to respect their priorities; to better their lot; and to contribute to the commonweal.”
The debate this afternoon has shown that many Members are carrying on in that spirit and acting in that way on behalf of their constituents.
One of the first issues that crossed our desks when we came to power last July was the challenge with Harland and Wolff. We were faced with a dilemma: if we had, as the shadow Minister suggested, thrown money immediately at the problem, we would have been throwing good money after bad. That was clear to anybody who had any sight of what was happening, but it was also clear that we were in a perilous position and we wanted to make sure that the Government could do whatever they could to save all four yards. There was a big push, for a number of reasons including the contracts that existed, to think about Belfast, and not to think about the four yards together.
A collective piece of work was done in which I played a small part and my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes and Mid Fife and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), who has the Arnish port in his constituency, as well as the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Defence and my boss the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, played a large part. They all wanted to make sure we could do some kind of deal. When I was sat in the Ministry of Defence with Navantia, we were scratching our heads and thinking, “What on earth needs to be done here?” It was a big piece of work, with a lot of hard work around the clock from officials. The Prime Minister intervened because he saw the importance of this good piece of work. My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife made the important point that we did not want to do this work out of a sense of charity. It was because the people at Methil, in his case, are enormously skilled, offering the possibility of future contracts and operations.
We did not see it as charity; we saw it as protecting the talent we have in this country, and wanting to see it grow. When I had the privilege of going to Methil to meet and talk to some of the 200 workers, 50 of whom are apprentices, it was apparent that this was a place—though cold—where we built the things that defined the 20th century, and can also be where we build the things that will define the decades to come. It is important to keep that in mind.
I want to touch on an issue many hon. Members raised about the Scottish Government, procurement and the award going to a Polish shipyard. I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) about that earlier today. He questioned why Poland had been chosen over Port Glasgow, which was a good question to ask. I know Anas Sarwar has also been asking questions. I heard the intervention about phase 2, and perhaps there is something to be pulled and gained from this, though what has transpired is a shame.
There is a question about procurement, which both we and the Minister for Defence Procurement are looking at. We will keep doing that, including considering the Procurement Act 2023. I will soon be talking to that Minister, not only in this area but on steel, to see what more we can do.
Jamie Stone
I thank the Minister for giving way. On that point, I do not know how well I can put this. In building offshore structures, different bits can be built in different places, but they would come to Invergordon to be amalgamated, hence the £55 million Government investment. Could the same principle apply of looking at the rules, to ensure that the different bits are built in Methil or Ardersier, rather than being built abroad? Because that is our fear, that they may be made far away in somewhere such as Poland or Korea.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He mentioned the importance of the £55 million that has gone to Cromarty Firth. Of course, we need to ensure, when looking at supply chains in whatever the industry, we do what we can to rebuild British jobs. In quite a few of our manufacturing industries over recent years, we have seen a slow decline, which we are keen to turn around.
I am working on the steel strategy, where we have a £2.5 billion fund that we committed to in the general election, on top of the £500 million that will be going, if delivered, to the Port Talbot work with Tata. That is a lot of taxpayers’ money; we want to ensure we are spending it wisely and that we are using the levers of Government, whether in procurement or other matters, to ensure that we are building as much as we can in the UK. We obviously have to be cognisant of laws around procurement and need to look at it carefully. It is an ambition of the Government that we make things in the UK and use supply chains here as much as possible.
I am sorry about the decision that was made in Scotland. I am also sorry that there is no one here from the SNP to make their case. We will do what we can with procurement to ensure we make the right decisions. We talked about shipbuilding and shipyards and the importance—
John Grady
On the topic of SNP Members being away—perhaps they are all listening to “Desert Island Discs”, although one would not reach the desert island if the SNP were in charge—many of my constituents have family, friends and loved ones on the Scottish islands, but at many times of the year they have terrible difficulty going to see them because of the appalling ferry service. That is because the age of the fleet has increased significantly during the 18 years that the SNP has been in power and the reliability of the vessels is down, which damages businesses, people trying to go to hospitals or travelling, and industry on those islands. Does my hon. Friend agree that the way the SNP has managed the ferry service in Scotland over the last 18 years is utterly contemptible?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I will bow to his wisdom as to why and how that situation has transpired, but for sure the ferry service is crucial for people’s lives, wellbeing and health. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) said, a ferry service is not just about identity; it is also about basic necessities and lifelines. So, I agree with my hon. Friend that there does not appear to have been good management of the ferries by the SNP, but sadly we are not overly surprised by that.
There were lots of good contributions to the debate about the role that shipbuilding can play and about some of the issues that we need to look at. We have talked a lot about defence. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife, who secured this debate, has about 350 workers in his constituency who work for Babcock and we are really pleased that the Government have committed to the 2.5% spending on defence going up to 3%. I have talked to the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, and of course we all think that the increase in defence spending presents an opportunity to do more here in the UK. I am working with colleagues to make sure that we get that right.
The whole point of the industrial strategy, which the Conservative party was ideologically opposed to, is to bring together the things that we do really well and ensure that all the levers of Government are tilted in the direction of turbocharging those sectors. Defence is one of those sectors, but historically defence has sort of worked to one side and everybody else has worked to another side. We are trying to bring those two together a bit, so that civil and defence can work together, learn with each other and prioritise all that activity from Government, to make sure that, as I say, we are turbocharging those eight sectors, one of which is defence.
There was a lot of talk about apprenticeships. The spokesperson for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, talked about the apprenticeships that were set up under the last Government. Sadly, the apprenticeship levy does not work for a lot of people and we have shortages in professions such as welding. Indeed, welders have been on the Migration Advisory Committee list of people who we can procure from other countries because we are not training enough of our own. So, to see those welders in Methil learning their trade was a great thing. It was also great to hear the senior managers at Navantia talk to me about welding, because they actually know about shipbuilding and welding; they have real expertise. That was really encouraging.
We are reforming the apprenticeship levy, we are talking about how we can ensure that companies invest more in apprenticeships, and we are again looking at how we can tilt the whole skills regime towards the professions that we know we will need in the future. Engineers, welders and electricians are all on the list of the professions we need to boost in the future.
Members also talked about the opportunity provided by offshore wind and the green economy, as it were, more widely. As has been said already, Navantia plans to make Methil the centre of excellence for offshore wind manufacturing. There is also green shipbuilding, which is a burgeoning industry, and there is the whole infrastructure of monopiles and floating jackets—all of those possibilities—as well. I have also talked to the industry about the opportunities to lead the way in autonomous systems and robotics.
When we pull together the industrial strategy, the defence spending, our reforms to apprenticeships and our prioritisation of funding, including the Cromarty Firth example, the National Wealth Fund—with £5.3 billion for clean, green energy in five groupings, one of which is ports—and the clean industry bonus, which is another opportunity to support growth in this sector, it is clear that the Government have a plan. That has been lacking in previous years, but we are not afraid to roll up our sleeves and get things done. We are all invested in the shipbuilding industry for reasons relating to the past and, more importantly, the future.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) talked about women in boatbuilding. I spend quite a lot of time with a lot of men in the industries I work with. That was a good point, well made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) made a good point about the importance of spending taxpayers’ money wisely in this space and not throwing good money after bad. I have talked about that already. We need to back winners and use that money as wisely as we can.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his kind words. He made the point that shipbuilding used to employ tens of thousands of people, but now it employs hundreds to a couple of thousand. We are realistic about that. We are talking about a smaller industry because of the changing nature of how ships are built, but it is still very important.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) talked about procurement, which I have touched on already—it is very important. It is nice that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) saw the electric ferry bought in Norway, for Norway, but that speaks to a point that we are all looking at: we want do more in the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West said that shipbuilding is a lifeline, a kind of identity and an opportunity for economic growth. I agree with that, of course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) mentioned Captain Cook and the Endeavour. I did not know about that, but I now do. She talked about skills and apprenticeships, which I have touched on. She is absolutely right that they are very important.
This is an incredibly important area for the Government. We have put our money where our mouth is and are ready to do what needs to be done. The industrial strategy, the apprenticeship work and the defence spending present huge opportunities for the future, and I look forward to working with everyone here to deliver them.
Richard Baker
Thank you for chairing this excellent debate so skilfully, Ms Jardine. I thank Members from across the House for their informed and important contributions. There has been great consensus about the exciting prospects for shipbuilding and shipyards in this country. There is the potential to invest in skills to ensure that they and the workforce are retained in our local communities, so we must build training and apprenticeship opportunities for our young people.
That commitment has been reflected by the actions the Government have taken, including the intervention to save Harland and Wolff and our investment plans to ensure shipyards have a great role in the future. I could not agree more with the points that hon. Members made about the need to invest in shipbuilding in Scotland. I would say that as an MP for a Scottish constituency. Saving the Methil yard was absolutely essential for me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) said that Clyde-built ships are synonymous with quality and reputation. We have that aspiration for shipbuilding right across the UK. Those qualities are represented by so many shipyards across our constituencies. That is why we should be passionate and confident about the future of our shipyards, and invest in them. It is hugely regrettable that the Scottish Government in the past few months and years have not shown that commitment, or evidence of support, but this Labour Government, in their first months in office, have done so.
We have been through the experience of Harland and Wolff, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows well. He spoke passionately about how it affects his constituents; it is so important to have a Northern Irish voice in this debate. I recall all too well what the Government inherited. Regrettably, the previous Government had done nothing for over a year to save those yards. The prospect of investing in the company as it was then was not realistic, and would only have threatened the yards further in the future. What came forward was a clear strategy that succeeded in saving the yards.
I take onboard fully the fact that there has been consensus across the Chamber that we want to invest in shipbuilding and shipyards; the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) shared in that. The Government’s ambitions for shipbuilding and our shipyards are clearly shared across the Chamber. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and my erstwhile University Challenge teammate, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), spoke very well about that, drawing on his professional as well as his political background. The ambition set out across the Chamber for our shipyards in renewables and defence is very clear. It is an opportunity for us to grasp.
The Government have made an excellent start, and indicated a clear plan for a bright future for our shipyards. I am pleased that the debate has reflected the commitment across the Chamber, from all the parties who were represented, to that ambition for our shipyards and our country. Apprentices, both female and male, will be looking forward to a long and bright future in our shipyards. I think we will all support that over the course of this Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of shipyards in economic growth.
Military Co-operation with Israel
(2 days, 10 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
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of military collaboration with Israel.
It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. My speech for today’s important debate was written and completed yesterday. My arguments were factually and systematically constructed, and at the core of my speech was essentially the pursuit of truth, with very little emotional rhetoric. I woke up this morning just before dawn, like millions of other Muslims around the world, to begin fasting for another day with some food and water, when news broke of yet another violation of yet another peace deal, as Israelis rained down bombs on makeshift shelters, slaughtering men, women and children. Perhaps like me, those men, women and children were preparing for their day of fasting, but now they will never see another sunset.
The question is this: have we provided those lethal bombs, or the parts for the aircraft that are dropping them, and has our intelligence sharing led to the slaughter of a further 400 people last night? I beg the Minister, “Please do not sit here and say we are doing everything we can,” because that will add insult to injury. I accept that no one in the Labour Government has openly called for the Israel Defence Forces to be given a Nobel peace prize, but we have not even summoned the Israeli ambassador to express our concerns or contemplated economic sanctions because, in the words of our Foreign Secretary:
“Israel remains an important ally. We have an important trading relationship, worth £6.1 billion last year and involving 38,000 British jobs. I am sorry; any discussion of sanctions is just not correct.” —[Official Report, 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 152.]
I say to the family of the children who were burned alive last night that I am sorry; the Government say that we cannot afford to lose the money.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important and timely debate. He is right to refer to the Israeli airstrikes that killed over 400 people last night, shattering the fragile ceasefire and violating international law. He will also know that this has happened against the backdrop of the last two weeks, when we have seen a siege and blockade of Gaza, denying the people there food, water and electricity, which is collective punishment and in itself a war crime under international law. Does he agree that the silence of the international community is unacceptable? It is not a choice to act. The international community, including the UK, has obligations under international law and the UK Government must meet those obligations by imposing immediate sanctions on Israel.
Shockat Adam
I concur with the hon. Member completely. In the words of Martin Luther King:
“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
Against that backdrop, let us continue. As I mentioned, today’s debate has been secured on no other premise than to find the truth. At this moment, the global order that we helped to build stands on the precipice of collapse. If we, as one of its architects, fail to uphold the principles that we established, we will also be complicit in its destruction. No one voted me in to resolve the conflict in the middle east overnight singlehandedly, or expects me to do so, but what the British people in their millions are demanding—rightfully and unequivocally—is moral clarity, a strategic commitment to ending hostilities and the absolute assurance that our nation is not complicit in facilitating war crimes.
Today’s debate will not delve into the historical archives of the conflict, which date from Balfour onwards—the Nakba, the occupation and the consistent humiliation, or the Hamas atrocities of 7 October. Instead, this is a legal and moral inquiry into our nation’s military co-operation with Israel in the face of credible allegations, including of genocide, now before the International Court of Justice. The ICJ has ruled that the occupation is illegal and warned that Israel’s actions in Gaza may constitute genocide. Under international law, the UK has an obligation not only to refrain from facilitating those crimes but to prevent them actively. Yet despite that duty, our country continues to engage in military co-operation with Israel. The question before us is very clear: are we upholding the rule of law?
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Government have introduced arms export licence suspensions, which target any weapons that might be of British origin that would be used in Gaza, but are attempting to balance that with the needs of the IDF to defend itself against acts of aggression—for instance, the Iranian missile attacks in other theatres in which the IDF is operating?
Shockat Adam
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; that is something I will come on to. The question is very clear: are we upholding the rule of law or are we complicit in its erosion? Too often we speak in numbers. Tens of thousands are dead and millions displaced, but as the saying goes:
“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”
Before we proceed, I want us all to pause not to cite figures, but to honour lives lost—two specifically. Shaban al-Dalou was a 19-year-old software engineering student who had already been displaced five times. The eldest of five siblings, he had memorised the entire Quran and was just days away from his 20th birthday when an Israeli airstrike hit the Al-Aqsa hospital compound. The world witnessed the horrific image of Shaban attached to an IV bag, his body burning alive. His mother, the woman who had nurtured his every single dream, was killed alongside him. For a crumb of solace they were buried together in an embrace.
Who can forget the face of Hind Rajab, a six-year-old girl who was trapped in a car with five of her dead relatives, their bodies riddled with bullets? The whole world heard her call for help—a voice scared but full of hope. Rescuers from the Palestine Red Crescent Society responded. Unfortunately, they too were killed. These are not statistics; these are human lives. Let us take time to look at their faces. The question before us again is: did we as a nation facilitate those crimes?
Following this, in September 2024, our Government acknowledged that Israel was at clear risk of not complying with international humanitarian law and admitted that there was a risk that UK arms exports might be used to commit serious violations. Yet according to Campaign Against Arms Trade, potentially £100 million-worth of military equipment has been approved for export to Israel, including spare parts for F-35 fighter jets that require continuous maintenance to remain operational, therefore constantly requiring spare parts. Furthermore, exports of F-35 parts are covered under what we call an open general licence, which allows unlimited exports to all approved partners worldwide., so we will never know the real numbers. Given that more than 15% of every F-35 is made in the UK, Israeli airstrikes would simply not be possible without British components.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing such an important debate. It was horrifying and heart-wrenching to wake up this morning to see more than 400 innocent Palestinians being killed, including children, bringing the death toll to over 48,000. Does he agree that Israel is not using weapons to defend itself, but rather using them against innocent Palestinians? It is time the Government took action to stop selling arms so that international law is not broken any further.
Shockat Adam
In addition to the 400 the hon. Member mentions, we have seen close to 50,000 Palestinians killed, the majority of whom have been women and children. In addition to the manufacture and supply of F-35 parts, it appears that RAF Marham in Norfolk has been used at least seven times to send spare parts directly to Israel. Since declaring a so-called suspension of arms exports, the UK has issued 34 new licences, including those for essential aircraft components. I ask the Minister directly: which licences were suspended in September 2024, which licences remain suspended, and why have the Government refused to publish details of arms exports between July and September 2024?
Our military co-operation extends beyond arms sales; it is operational, especially when it comes to using our airbase in Akrotiri, Cyprus. In one year alone, from December 2023 to November 2024, the UK conducted 645 surveillance and recon missions, which amounts to almost two flights a day. Interestingly, during the same period, the US moved heavy transport aircraft carrying military equipment to Akrotiri, and the RAF subsequently conducted daily cargo flights from Akrotiri to Tel Aviv. We have been told that those flights were for surveillance and hostage rescue, but if that is the case, we must ask why we used RAF Atlas C1 aircraft, which are large enough to transport military vehicles and helicopters.
Luke Akehurst
Does the hon. Member not accept that in the unlikely event that RAF transport aircraft had been carrying something as large as a helicopter or a military vehicle from Cyprus to Israel—it is the first time I have heard that allegation—we might have seen evidence of such helicopters or military vehicles of British provenance? The Israel Defence Forces have no need of such equipment. They have far more equipment than the British armed forces do.
Shockat Adam
That is the question that I wish to be answered. Were we involved, directly or indirectly, in the Israeli operation in Nuseirat in June 2024, when 276 Palestinians were killed at the rescue of four Israeli hostages? Critically, has our intelligence been used to conduct air strikes? If so, under article 25 of the Rome statute, is the UK now legally complicit in war crimes?
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Does my hon. Friend agree that allying with Israel while it carries out a genocide will bring about the end of the international world order as we know it?
Shockat Adam
I completely concur with the hon. Member’s timely intervention. The Government claim that they provide intelligence only when they are satisfied that it will be used in compliance with international law, but what independent due diligence has been conducted to verify that? If hundreds of UK flights have taken place over Gaza, what have we witnessed? What crimes, if any, have we seen? In the light of what happened this morning, why has the RAF continued to deploy Shadow R1 surveillance flights towards Gaza, when a stipulation of the ceasefire explicitly forbids surveillance operations? Is that not a violation of the spirit of the ceasefire agreement? Can the Minister confirm that the Israeli armed forces will not use surveillance supplied by the RAF flights during a hostage exchange in future attacks on Gaza?
The war has taken the lives of an unprecedented number of aid workers, including three British nationals who were killed while working with the World Central Kitchen humanitarian convoy. Their families have repeatedly requested video footage from our own Shadow R1 surveillance aircraft, which was operating above Gaza at the time. The Government have refused to release it. Similarly, on 27 May, when at least 45 Palestinians were killed in Rafah, another UK surveillance aircraft was in operation. Again, the footage has not been released. Why? What is being hidden, if anything? If we are confident in our innocence, why the secrecy?
Finally, there is now mounting suspicion and evidence that UK facilities in Gibraltar are being used for the facilitation of armed shipments, harbour services, and jet fuel supplies for vessels transporting weapons from the US to Israel. Can the Minister please clarify the usage of Gibraltar in the war effort?
We must confront the bigger picture. The UK helped to build the modern international legal order, but we risk dismantling it today. International law is not a game of pick and mix, where we enforce it in one case —namely African despots—and ignore it in another. By allowing Israeli exceptionalism, we threaten to undermine the very concept of international law itself.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate, and I ask them to keep to an informal limit of about three and a half minutes, please.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) on securing this timely debate. We need to consider the potential vicarious liability of the UK state in military activities in Palestine and the middle east.
The murder of more than 400 Palestinians in Gaza last night must outrage us all. In the past fortnight, the passage of aid through Israeli checkpoints has been denied, leaving the Palestinian population in Gaza with less food, less water and fewer vital medical supplies. Israel’s rejection of the ceasefire and its extreme military action overnight has escalated the killing of civilians in Gaza, including women and children. It is a reasonable assumption that those airstrikes were conducted at least in part with F-35s, for which the UK continues to manufacture parts and supply maintenance parts. Will the Minister clarify whether they were used on this and previous occasions?
Despite the partial suspension of arms export licences to Israel, the Government left a deliberate loophole in place, allowing the export of F-35 parts to Israel via the global spare parts pool. In addition, the Government have issued at least a further 34 arms export licences to Israel since the original suspension—more than they originally blocked. According to new arms export licensing data published by the Campaign Against Arms Trade, the Government approved an open licence for components for combat aircraft. That licence appears incompatible with the Government’s supposed commitment not to supply military equipment that could be used in Gaza.
From reports of the High Court case between Al-Haq and the Business and Trade Secretary, we have been made aware that the Government continued sending F-35 fighter jet components to Israel despite knowing that there was a clear risk that they could be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
Luke Akehurst
Does my hon. Friend accept that it is more likely that F-35s were in use to shoot down Iranian drones, cruise missiles and other projectiles that were fired at Israel? Israel needs to use that platform to defend itself, given that it has faced two of the largest barrages of weapons fired at civilian targets since world war two.
Andy McDonald
As my hon. Friend has mentioned on several occasions, Israel is perfectly entitled to defend itself against Iranian attacks. It can have all the arms it wishes for, and it has the protection of other people from around the region, but the prerequisite is that it observes international humanitarian law in respect of the Palestinian people and that it vacates the illegally occupied west bank. Those are the conditions on which it should receive support.
Since the Government announced their partial suspension of arms export licences but maintained exports to the F-35 global supply pool, I have asked in the main Chamber, in Westminster Hall and in written questions whether they are engaging in discussions with F-35 partner nations about whether the supply of F-35s and spare parts to Israel could be suspended. They have made no effort to address that matter in the House, other than to claim that they cannot take action on the global spares pool without bringing the F-35 programme into peril, which would have implications for international peace and security. Preventing UK arms exports—specifically F-35 jets, which are dropping 2,000 lb bombs on Gaza with UK-made components—from being used in war crimes by Israel against Palestinians is in no way a threat to international security in Ukraine or elsewhere.
The US and the UK have actively constructed a false dichotomy in which the lives of Palestinians are pitted against the lives of other civilians. Continuing to transfer F-35 components to Israel is a violation of the UK’s domestic and international legal obligations, which include the strategic export licensing criteria, the arms trade treaty, the Geneva conventions and the genocide convention. Will the Minister say whether the F-35 joint programme office could control material movement based on part or number configuration? Will the UK consider raising with partner nations the need to temporarily suspend sales of parts to a nation that, last night, murdered several hundred civilians in Gaza? Will he state the legal implications for the Government if it is concluded that the F-35s have been used to pursue war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide against the Palestinians?
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this debate.
As hon. Members have mentioned, we are discussing the UK’s military collaboration with Israel when, in the past 24 hours, more than 400 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli airstrikes. We can see in real time the consequences of that collaboration and who is paying the price. Families in Gaza are searching for their loved ones among rubble. The dead lie wrapped in stained white sheets. They are the ones who have paid the price. Meanwhile, this Government have relentlessly pushed for the continued export of UK-made parts for F-35s. The Minister must confirm whether any of those warplanes were involved in the attack on Gaza last night. Will he confirm whether UK-made parts enabled any of the bombings in recent days? If they did, will he acknowledge the UK’s direct role in the official collapse of an already fragile ceasefire?
In September 2024, the Government admitted that
“Israel is not committed to complying with international humanitarian law”,
that there was a “clear risk” the UK’s arms exports might be used to commit serious legal violations, and introduced a partial suspension of 29 arms export licences to Israel. But that move exempted the UK’s most financially significant and deadly export: components for the F-35 jets, including bomb release mechanisms, which are still being made in my constituency despite the city council’s rejection of the company’s presence in our city. Moreover, since the original suspension, the Government have issued at least a further 34 arms export licences to Israel. Will the Minister confirm that we have now issued more new licences than we suspended when that minimal measure was taken?
Alongside issuing deadly arms licences, the UK has outsourced more of its complicity to its overseas territories and military bases. The UK’s base in Cyprus has been used by the UK, US and Germany to supply Israel with weapons, personnel and intelligence since October 2023. Gibraltar has continuously provided harbour services to vessels involved in providing energy and supplies to Israel—the Minister should confirm that, in response to hon. Members’ questions. In written questions, Ministers have flatly refused to answer questions about whether RAF Shadow R1 flights from Akrotiri, in Cyprus, into Israeli airspace have been instructed to collect surveillance footage for hostage rescue or any other purpose. That refusal means that further written questions are now deemed out of order and the Government are escaping any scrutiny.
The UK can either reaffirm its commitment to human rights, as a nation that upholds democratic values, or it can continue to aid and abet a state whose human rights abuses now extend to genocidal actions—it cannot do both.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is both an honour and a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this debate.
From the outset, let me be absolutely clear about what is happening. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been slaughtered in Gaza. Women and children account for the vast majority of the dead. Entire families have been wiped from existence. What is left for those who survive? Starvation and disease, with homes and hospitals turned to rubble and dust. They now also face renewed airstrikes.
Just last night, more than 400 Palestinians were killed in Israeli bombings. That is not defence; it is the annihilation and the attempted eradication of a people. We, the United Kingdom, have obligations under the genocide convention, international law and the most basic principles of being human. We say we are committed to upholding international law, but what does our country actually do? The Government have approved more arms export licenses to Israel than they have suspended, they continue to use RAF Akrotiri to assist the transfer of US military cargo to Israel and carry out surveillance flights over Gaza gathering intelligence that could aid in the targeting of Palestinian civilians.
When the International Court of Justice ruled that genocide is “plausible”, the Government should have cut all military ties with Israel. Instead, it has chosen to continue arming and enabling a regime that conducts annexation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Prior to last night’s devastating attack, Israel routinely broke the ceasefire agreement declared on 19 January, blocking aid and cutting off electricity and water supplies. Does my hon. Friend agree that these acts of genocide need to be recognised as such by the international courts and the UK Government?
Brian Leishman
I am in complete agreement; it is undeniable that these are war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of genocide. Every weapon part that the UK supplies and every piece of intelligence that we share makes us complicit. We must immediately suspend all arms sales, cease all military co-operation and impose economic and diplomatic sanctions. Anything less is just another stain on our history and an unforgivable betrayal of the Palestinian people to whom, let us be completely honest, we already owe a historical debt.
I co-signed a letter to The Guardian newspaper from the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). It called for an independent public inquiry into the UK’s role on what has happened and continues to happen in Gaza. Many people are of the opinion that the Government have taken decisions that breach international law. These opinions will not be changed unless there is transparency and accountability.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I am afraid I have to impose a formal time limit of three minutes so that we get through everybody.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing the debate, as well as the authoritative way in which he introduced it. Last night, 400 more people died in Gaza as a result of direct bombardment in breach of the ceasefire. At the same time, Israel is denying access to food, water and supply of electricity to the people of Gaza, who are now going through the most ghastly time ever, on top of all the horrors they have been through over more than a year. So many people—69,000—are now known to be dead there, and more bodies are found every day that rubble is cleared away. Those who survive will forever live with survivor’s guilt for the fact that they survived while all their friends and family died around them. This is devastation beyond belief on live television all around the world. We watch people being starved to death in front of our very eyes, while there is food aplenty just a few kilometres away, deliberately denied to them by a decision of Israel. That is a war crime. We have to be quite clear about that.
In a statement in the Chamber yesterday, in response to the G7 summit that the Foreign Secretary had attended, I asked a specific question about international law and the war crimes that I believe Israel has committed. He, it seemed to me, conceded that Israel was in breach of international law. That is quite significant. Presumably, there are many Foreign Office briefings going around saying that Israel is in breach of those laws.
That leads to the second question: if we, as a country, knowingly accept that Israel is in breach of international law and continue to provide it with the weapons with which people can be killed in Gaza then we ourselves, as a country, also become complicit in breaches of international law. Those laws are there for a purpose, to try to prevent genocide and the crimes against humanity that are happening before our very eyes.
Imran Hussain
The right hon. Member makes a powerful case. Does he agree that the international dimensions of the situation are so clear, with the ICJ investigating genocide and the International Criminal Court investigating war crimes, even though it continues to be attacked for that, that there is no room for any nation to deny this serious international situation? Secondly, would he agree that silence, frankly, goes with hypocrisy and double standards?
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. We are very short of time, so I ask Members to refrain from interventions, in order to get through every speaker.
Jeremy Corbyn
I will be brief, Ms Jardine, because we need to get through the debate and have the Front Benchers speak. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. I attended the International Court of Justice hearing, where South Africa presented an historic and brilliant case that led to that historic opinion being offered by the court.
I was also at The Hague for the launch of the Hague declaration by a number of nations that have dedicated themselves to pursue support for the ICJ and ICC decisions diplomatically, and recognise that Israel is in breach of the fourth Geneva convention on the obligations on occupying powers in countries, which applies to Israel in Gaza and the west bank. I believe the Hague declaration is an important step forward.
I would be grateful if the Minister would answer some specific points. What exactly is going on at RAF Akrotiri? What was it that the Prime Minister on his visit there said he could not talk about, but there was lots of it going on? That was a very strange statement and comment to make on television at that time. Why are so many flights going from Akrotiri to Israel? What is happening, as the hon. Member for Leicester South mentioned, to the information collected by those flights over Gaza? Is all the information collected going to be provided to the ICC and the ICJ to pursue their investigations, if they request it?
The 300 licences that still exist have been increased by another recently approved 34—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. Sorry—time’s up. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for raising this issue. He and I have very different opinions, as he knows, but we are both committed to seeing a just peace for the people of Gaza and Israel, securing the hope of a different future for every child in that area, regardless of race or religion. That is the desire that I work towards, knowing it to be the aim of this House. I will always be a proud friend of Israel and will speak from that perspective.
I must indicate that there is a time for peace through strength, which is what is needed. Israel was mercilessly attacked; the hostage releases, along with the parading of infant bodies in coffins, highlight the mentality of those who carried out the 7 October atrocities. Some 1,200 were killed—men, women and children—and women were raped with indescribable violence by Hamas terrorists. With Hamas there is clearly no remorse, but there is a clear hatred.
When people know where they stand and that the scorpion can sting, they protect themselves, which is what Israel does. Hamas can do nothing other than hate Israel and seek her eradication, and I would never support calls for Israel not to have the means to defend herself, as she rightly does.
I have lived through terrorism and the troubles and beyond. I am thankful that my children have never checked below their cars, as their dad did, or been stopped at an army checkpoint. They do not remember the days of the bombs exploding and the pain of innocent victims who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I do not advocate war; I have felt the pain of it. However, I know that nations must retain an ability to show that they can and will defend their people when peace is no longer an option.
Israel did not use its military prowess until atrocities were carried out on it. It is my hope that the time has come for a solution for Israel and the decent people of Gaza. I will support that, but I will never attempt to bring Israel to the negotiating peace table with a hand tied behind their back, while acknowledging that the hatred of Hamas has not abated, and therefore neither has the threat to Israel. I want peace, but I want a lasting peace, and that will not happen while Hamas retain any control or ability to carry out their desire. These are the same Hamas terrorists who hid behind women’s skirts in schools and hospitals—that is the sort of terrorists they are.
The rules cannot change and those who hate Israel are the main players in the game. Israel must have access to weapons and the support that they deserve. They must also have access to wise counsel to help to provide a plan and a way forward. I hope that this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will continue to be a friend to Israel in word, wisdom and deed, as I am every day of my life and indeed will be for the foreseeable future, and for every breath that I have in this world.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I call Luke Akehurst—please keep it brief, as you have had several interventions.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this debate today and for the sincerity of the remarks that he made. I know this is an issue that he cares deeply about. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Recent months have seen dramatic shifts in global geopolitics, and I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown in defending our country’s alliances in uncertain times. These developments are a reminder of how important our country’s defence and security relationships are. In the middle east, we have deep and historical links with both Israel and much of the Arab world. The military co-operation between the UK and Israel helps to keep our country safe. Over decades, Britain and Israel have conducted joint military exercises in areas such as counter-terrorism, cyber-security and defence technology. British troops have been kept safe thanks to co-operation with Israel’s cutting-edge defence sector, particularly in unmanned aerial vehicles, missile defence and radar systems.
The UK and Israel share intelligence on counter-terrorism and security threats posed by Iran, ISIS and other malign actors, both in the middle east and at home. Indeed, it is my understanding that the surveillance flights are actually collecting intelligence relating to the hostages in Gaza, including Avinatan Or, whose mother is British and who has now been held captive for 528 days. I hope the Minister will be able to update us today on whether the UK will continue those surveillance flights and do everything we can to bring Avinatan home.
The UK and Israel’s defence co-operation strengthens our international alliances, most obviously through the F-35 programme, which some other hon. Members have rather maligned today, but which has created more than 20,000 jobs in the UK. I ask for reassurance from the Minister that there will be no change to the UK’s participation in the F-35 programme, and that British- made parts will not be withheld from any of the other participants? Disrupting collaborative programmes that have been painstakingly negotiated over decades with multiple international partners—in this case a programme where we have a unique position as the only tier 1 partner—would mean that we would not be trusted to be a reliable partner in future international collaborative programmes that are critical for our national security, our technological base and the future of our aerospace industry.
I will finish by saying that military co-operation with Israel brings benefits to civilian populations in the middle east—Israeli and Palestinian. Last year, when Iran launched unprecedented ballistic missile attacks against Israel, which could have killed Palestinians as well as Israelis, British jets and intelligence played their role in shooting them down, saving Israeli and Palestinian lives and avoiding a huge escalation that could have brought all-out war across the region. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about how the Government intend to strengthen our military co-operation with the middle east’s only democracy.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I am afraid we are out of time for Back Benchers now, but perhaps Brendan O’Hara would like to intervene on the Minister. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) on securing this important debate.
I want to start by saying that the return of Israeli strikes on Gaza is horrific for all Palestinians, for the remaining hostages and their families, and indeed for the world. We need a return to the ceasefire now. I thank the hon. Member for raising so many points that I was not aware of; it would be good to hear the Minister’s response on those particular issues.
As early as April 2024, the Liberal Democrat leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), called for the UK Government to suspend arms exports to Israel. Today I reaffirm that position: the UK must immediately halt all arms exports to Israel. During Foreign Office questions in October, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), pushed the then Minister for Development to
“agree that the UK should…cease all arms exports to Israel”.—[Official Report, 22 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 168.]
In response, the Minister talked around the issue and gave no clear response. That is unacceptable: we need decisive action, not evasion.
Liberal Democrats have long championed tougher controls on UK arms exports, to ensure that British-made weapons do not contribute to human rights violations. We support a presumption of denial for arms exports to all Governments listed in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s human rights and democracy report as human rights priorities, which include Israel.
Ultimately, the Liberal Democrats believe that only a political resolution, based on a two-state solution, can bring lasting peace, security and dignity to Palestinians and Israelis. However, developments in recent weeks have undermined efforts by moderates on both sides to maintain a ceasefire and move towards a durable peace in the region. The Israeli Government’s decision to block the supply of aid into Gaza and their cutting of the electricity supply are unlawful and must be unequivocally condemned. It is crucial that we see a return to the ceasefire, with its conditions respected by all sides, and negotiations advanced to agree on phase 2. Electricity and essential supplies must flow into Gaza to alleviate the immense human suffering. Blocking aid threatens the lives of the millions of Gazans dependent on humanitarian assistance after the destruction of the past 17 months. The UK Government must apply pressure to ensure a return to a ceasefire, and supplies must resume without delay.
Hamas must move immediately to release the remaining hostages, including the bodies of those killed in captivity. The treatment of hostages at the hands of Hamas, both in captivity and during their release, has been despicable. It is also clear that the expansion of Israeli settlements in the west bank is illegal and is fuelling further tension, undermining the efforts of Israeli and Palestinian moderates to move towards peace. The UK Government must outline concrete steps to put pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu to address rising settler violence and the illegal expansions. Inaction on this issue must end. The Liberal Democrats have called for a ban on the import of goods from illegal settlements.
An increasing number of our allies, including Spain, Norway and Ireland, have formally recognised a Palestinian state. It is now time that the UK joins them. Recognition of Palestine on 1967 lines would send a strong signal that we are committed to a two-state solution and to supporting the work of Israeli and Palestinian moderates to that end. Given the calls by far-right Israeli Ministers such as Smotrich for the annexation of the west bank, the urgency of that recognition cannot be overstated.
President Trump’s return to the White House adds further layers of complexity and urgency. His reckless comments on the future of Gaza, including suggestions that Palestinians should be removed from the strip, have further inflamed tensions. It is crucial that the UK steps up and pushes for a diplomatic resolution that recognises both an Israeli and a Palestinian state. Recognising Palestine would also inject hope into Palestinian society that having its own state is possible, which in turn would help to wrest control back from the extreme actors at the edges of Palestinian society.
In conclusion, the UK must have a principled and strategic approach: halt arms exports to Israel, hold all parties accountable under international law, and champion a two-state solution. This Government must stop ducking those critical issues and take a stronger stance, one that can contribute to a just and lasting peace.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. In accordance with parliamentary tradition, may I congratulate the new hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) on securing this important debate? As I understand it, he is a graduate of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, so I hope he will appreciate it if I make a few points in my speech about the defence-related events that have taken place recently at some British universities.
Perhaps I can begin by making some general comments about the situation in Gaza, as raised by several hon. Members this afternoon. I was on the Front Bench in the House of Commons on Thursday 16 January 2025 when the Foreign Secretary delivered the statement to Parliament concerning the ceasefire deal. Clearly, the events last night, including the bombing of targets in Gaza, are very concerning, as several hon. Members have already highlighted.
The release of the remaining 59 hostages held by Hamas since the atrocities of 7 October 2023 is key to a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza and to building a better future. The British Government should be directly involved in efforts to find a way through this very difficult moment. The international community must also reiterate that there can be no role for Hamas in Gaza’s future.
The Foreign Secretary argued back in January that the only viable long-term settlement of this issue is via a two-state solution, which would permit the creation of a credible Palestinian state not under Hamas control, alongside an Israel with secure borders, free from terrorist attack. That has long been my view too. We all want to see an end to the suffering in the middle east, particularly in Gaza, but I believe it is only via a two-state solution that that can ultimately be achieved.
As the hon. Member for Leicester South said, the Opposition believe it is necessary to retain a viable defence manufacturing base in the United Kingdom, both for strategic reasons and because the defence industry plays a vital role in ensuring the nation’s prosperity. In economic terms, the Aerospace, Defence and Space trade body estimates that in 2022-23 defence work contributed approximately £38.2 billion to the United Kingdom economy, with exports reaching £38.7 billion. ADS also estimates that the defence, aerospace, security and space sectors combined supported 427,500 direct jobs in the same year.
In addition, it is worth recording that the UK’s defence industry has been a key supplier of equipment for the defence of Ukraine. For example, the new light anti-tank weapon, NLAW, was used very effectively by Ukrainian troops in the defence of Kyiv in the first days of the full-scale Russian invasion in February 2022. Not only were many of those weapons manufactured in Belfast, but for years, Britain had been training Ukrainian troops, following the first invasion of Ukraine, including Crimea, in 2014.
It was a combination of British military training and British-supplied equipment that helped prevent Russia from overrunning the capital of Ukraine in the first few days of that invasion. It is probably true to say that had we not provided the Ukrainians with those NLAWs and, crucially, trained them to use them in complex anti-tank ambushes, the Russians would probably be having dinner in Kyiv this evening.
There is an inscription on the Korean war memorial in Washington, which says quite simply, “Freedom is not free.” That freedom has to be defended, and in the modern world that requires military technology. While I can understand the passion articulated by the hon. Member for Leicester South in this debate, I say to him most respectfully that he is able to make those arguments in a democratic forum and publicly criticise the Government of the day because he is fortunate to live in a parliamentary democracy. That is not something we can say of all the countries in the middle east.
Moreover, yesterday saw the death, at the age of 105, of the last remaining battle of Britain fighter pilot, Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway, DFC. We pay tribute to his brave service in Parliament today. Importantly, had we not had a defence industry in 1940, manufacturing Spitfires and Hurricanes, this debate would not even be taking place. We need a defence industry, and we need people at university to be allowed to freely choose to enter it without fear of intimidation.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this debate, and for the way in which he opened it with his questions. I will try to respond to them all, but if I miss one out, given the questions from other hon. Members, I am happy to write to him after the debate to ensure I cover all his points.
I am sure we were all united this morning by our collective disappointment at the developments overnight. Let me be very clear: the reported civilian casualties resulting from Israel’s actions are appalling. We do not want to see a return to fighting. More bloodshed is in no one’s interest. Our priority is encouraging all parties to return urgently to dialogue, and ensuring that the ceasefire agreement is implemented in full and becomes permanent. Peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians lies down the path of a proper and respected ceasefire, of releasing the hostages and restoring humanitarian aid, and, ultimately, of a two-state solution.
We will step up our work with partners across the region to restore aid and secure the release of the hostages through negotiation. Humanitarian aid should never be used as a political tool. Israel must restart the flow of aid immediately. We are grateful to the Governments of Egypt and Qatar for the important role they are playing in facilitating the hostage release negotiations, and to the King of Jordan for his efforts to increase humanitarian assistance into Gaza. We have all welcomed the release of 38 hostages so far, including Emily Damari and Eli Sharabi, and our thoughts are with those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones. I repeat our calls for the immediate release of all hostages and for a surge of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
I now turn to the subject of the debate: our military co-operation with Israel. The UK shares an important, long-standing and broad strategic partnership with the state of Israel. Our defence partnership with Israel aims to support the security of an important partner and reduce tensions in the wider region. It incorporates a range of defence engagement activity, including defence education, joint training and capability development. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) mentioned, the role our RAF played in thwarting Iran’s co-ordinated missile and drone attack on Israel in April 2024, and again in October 2024, demonstrates our commitment to Israel’s security and to de-escalating regional tensions.
As the House has been updated previously, in the aftermath of the shocking attacks on 7 October, the RAF has conducted unarmed surveillance flights over the eastern Mediterranean, including in airspace over Israel and Gaza. I reassure hon. Members, because a number of them raised this point, including the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), that these flights are solely in support of hostage rescue. Only information related to hostage rescue can be passed to the relevant authority for hostage rescue. We will pass information only if we are satisfied that it will be used in accordance with international humanitarian law.
As in the past, and as with other nations, any future defence activity with Israel will be subject to a rigorous overseas security and justice assistance assessment to assess compliance with human rights obligations and international humanitarian law. Although we recognise and respect Israel’s right to defend itself following 7 October, and condemn the brutal attacks by Hamas in the strongest possible terms, we have had, and continue to have, concerns about Israel’s conduct. The Prime Minister and UK Government Ministers continue to raise those concerns with their Israeli counterparts. The Foreign Secretary has visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories three times since taking office, most recently in January, and has pressed for a ceasefire, adherence to international humanitarian law, the return of hostages and a broader resolution.
We are clear that the remaining hostages must be released, and the way to return them safely is through a deal. All parties, including Israel, must observe international humanitarian law. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we urge Israel to lift aid restrictions immediately and restore the supply of humanitarian assistance that the people of Gaza so desperately need.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), mentioned the west bank. We recognise Israel’s right to defend itself and the continuing threat posed by armed groups, but Israel must protect civilians and show restraint to ensure that the scale and conduct of its operations are proportionate to the threat posed. The Foreign Secretary has raised our concerns about Israeli operations in the west bank with the Israeli Foreign Minister. Our position remains that Israel’s actions in the west bank and Gaza must be in accordance with international humanitarian law.
Mr Adnan Hussain
Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary admitted that Israel is breaking international law. Does the Minister therefore acknowledge that its actions and our Government’s refusal to act against them, including by banning all sales of weapons, will be watched carefully by rogue states such as Russia and will be used as a template for the actions that are or are not allowed on the international stage?
Luke Pollard
Our position remains that Israel’s actions in Gaza are at clear risk of breaching international humanitarian law, and we will continue to raise our concerns with Israel.
The hon. Member for Leicester South raised the issue of arms exports. In recent years, UK arms exports have accounted for less than 1% of total defence exports to Israel. As hon. Members are aware, when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took office in July 2024, he ordered a review of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law. On 2 September, he concluded there was a clear risk that UK exports to Israel for use in military operations in Gaza could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations, at which point my right hon. Friend the Business and Trade Secretary took the decision to suspend relevant export licences to Israel.
Luke Pollard
I will make progress because I have only a few moments left.
As hon. Members are aware, the suspension of export licences does not include exports of components for the global F-35 programme. As previously set out to Parliament, it was necessary to exclude exports for the F-35 programme from the scope of the suspension because of the programme’s broader strategic role in NATO and its wider implications for international peace and security. Although the UK Government’s support for Israel remains steadfast in the face of aggression and terrorism, it is clear that we must have a robust export licensing regime. We keep all licences under close and continual review.
Hon. Members have mentioned the overseas territories. For operational security reasons, and as a matter of long-standing policy, the MOD does not confirm, deny or comment on any foreign national military aircraft movement or operation within UK airspace or on UK overseas bases.
The events overnight were a major setback. Like all Members who spoke today, we want to see the fighting stop. The ceasefire must be re-established, there must be a return to dialogue, the remaining hostages must be released and a surge of aid must be delivered to the people of Gaza. Although the challenge is much greater today than it was yesterday, we will continue to work alongside our allies and partners towards those goals and a two-state solution that delivers security for Israelis, dignity for Palestinians and a lasting peace in the region.
I would be happy to have a further conversation with the hon. Member for Leicester South after this debate about the points I did not get to because of the shortness of time.
Shockat Adam
I thank all hon. Members for their sincere contributions. We all want the hostages to be released, but as the Hostages and Missing Families Forum said,
“The Israeli government has chosen to abandon the hostages.”
I say to the shadow Minister that I agree with the defence industry that we must have a robust arms industry, but I pray that our children’s lives are never at the behest of a nation’s economic profit.
History will judge us not by our words but by our actions. Let me be completely clear: this debate is not an attack on our Government, nor is it about politics. It is simply about truth. Only truth can serve justice, and only with justice can we bring about peace. I urge hon. Members to reflect not on their political loyalties but on their moral duty. When history looks back at this moment, we must be able to say with absolute certainty that we stood on the right side. That is the least we owe to Shaban, Hind and all the dead children of the conflict.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of military collaboration with Israel.
School Funding: National Insurance Contributions Grant and Pupil Premium
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Today the Department for Education has confirmed national insurance contributions grant funding rates and schools’ pupil premium funding rates for the financial year 2025-26. Setting/phase NICs grant funding in 2025-26 Mainstream (5-16) schools and academies £786 million High needs settings £125 million Local authority centrally employed teachers £22 million Post-16 providers £155 million Early years providers £25 million 2025-26 pupil premium rate Primary pupils who are eligible for free school meals, or have been eligible in the past six years £1,515 Secondary pupils who are eligible for free school meals, or have been eligible in the past six years £1,075 Children who are looked after by the local authority £2,630 Pupils previously looked after by a local authority or other state care £2,630
The NICs grant will provide schools, colleges, and high-needs settings with over £1 billion to support them with the increases to employer national insurance contributions from April 2025, broken down as set out in the table below.
Despite the challenging economic context, core funding for schools was prioritised in the Budget, and the NICs support is additional to the £2.3 billion increase announced in October. This means that the core schools budget will total over £64.8 billion in 2025-26.
Further information can be found on: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-insurance-contributions-nics-grant-and-early-years-national-insurance-contributions-ey-nics-grant-for-2025-to-2026.
The pupil premium grant provides additional funding to schools to support disadvantaged pupils so that they achieve and thrive in education. Total pupil premium funding will rise to over £3 billion in 2025-26, an increase of almost 5% from 2024-25.
The pupil premium funding rates are increasing by 2.39%—and then rounded—compared to 2024-25 rates, in line with the forecast GDP deflator measure of inflation. The table below sets out the new pupil premium rates that will take effect from 1 April 2025.
The grant also provides support for children and young people of service families, referred to as service pupil premium. The service pupil premium rate is also increasing by 2.39%—and then rounded—in 2025-26, to £350 per eligible pupil from 1 April 2025.
Further information can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium/pupil-premium
[HCWS532]
World Health Organisation Pandemic Accord Negotiations
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I would like to update the House regarding the latest round of negotiations on a legally binding international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response—the pandemic accord—at the World Health Organisation (WHO).
In March 2021, the UK joined other WHO member states in calling for a pandemic accord that would ensure the world is better prepared for any future pandemic. Negotiations on the pandemic accord have been ongoing since 2022, and member states have until the World Health Assembly in May 2025 to reach an agreement.
The pandemic accord aims to enable a better co-ordinated, global response to pandemic threats and facilitate more equitable and timely access to pandemic-related vaccines, treatments, and tests. With a future pandemic a certainty, the pandemic accord is an opportunity to better protect the UK against this threat and to deliver on the Government’s health and growth missions, including through improving pandemic prevention, promoting innovation in pandemic related research and development (R&D), and putting in place systems that can promptly respond to pandemic threats when they emerge. The UK will only sign up to a pandemic accord which is both in the national interest and protects the health of people in the UK and around the world.
Member states have reached provisional agreement on around 75% of the text, while negotiating on the principle that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. Since the House was last updated in November, provisional agreement has been reached on articles covering sustainable financing for the implementation of the agreement, and R&D. During the latest round of negotiations, between 17 and 21 February, some progress was made on portions of the text covering pandemic prevention, the opening chapter of the accord (covering definitions, objectives, and principles), and pathogen access and benefit sharing (PABS). However, there is still some way to go on several issues, including on technology transfer and further areas within the pandemic prevention and PABS articles, with limited time remaining to negotiate the text. The UK Government remain committed to working with member states to reach an effective agreement.
I will continue to update the House as negotiations near conclusion.
[HCWS529]
Prison Capacity: Operation Safeguard
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government inherited a prison system on the verge of collapse, which would have left the courts unable to send offenders to prison and the police unable to arrest dangerous criminals. I took decisive action and implemented changes to the standard determinate sentence release point which provided essential but temporary relief to the system.
When I updated Parliament in July 2024, I was clear that the capacity crisis would not disappear immediately and the changes to release points were never the whole solution to the prison capacity crisis we inherited. To put our criminal justice system on a sustainable footing for the long term, I launched the independent review of sentencing in October and set out the 10-year prison capacity strategy to deliver the 14,000 new prison places we promised. In my commitment to transparency, I also laid the first annual statement on prison capacity, setting out expected demand and supply for prison places.
Over the last three months population growth in the prison estate has been high—January saw the highest average monthly prison population growth in almost two years, which has only just begun to slow. As of 17 March, there were 824 places remaining in the adult male estate. We are operating at more than 99% occupancy. Operating this close to critical capacity increases the risk that prisons do not have sufficient space for a given prisoner entering the system and so an alternative has to be found, which is most frequently in a police cell. In recent weeks this has happened hundreds of times, far above the rate seen during normal operations. On the night of 10 March, there were 124 no-space lockouts, which is the highest number of business-as-usual lockouts on record.
We have just opened a new 458-capacity houseblock at HMP Rye Hill. In addition, in a few weeks’ time, I will be opening HMP Millsike, a brand new 1,500 capacity prison in North Yorkshire.
However, I expect prison capacity will remain tight until the new capacity is fully operational. Given the recent increase in demand, it is necessary, and prudent, for me to temporarily reactivate Operation Safeguard to better manage the flow of offenders into the prison estate. This is an established protocol that will ensure that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and police forces can jointly plan which police cells may be required to hold offenders on any particular day. The previous Government last activated Operation Safeguard in February 2023; it ran until it was formally deactivated in October 2024 by this Government. This time we have a clear plan to improve capacity and minimise the use of Safeguard.
Safeguard will help ensure temporary pressures on the prison estate are managed effectively with partners in the police. We will keep its use under constant review and work closely with police colleagues to ensure we can stand down cells as soon as they are not required.
I am incredibly grateful for the support of police colleagues and want to pay tribute to the continued extraordinary work of our frontline staff in police, courts, prisons and probation whose daily efforts keep the public safe.
[HCWS531]
Draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill: Public Consultation
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
This Government are committed to ensuring that equality and opportunity are at the heart of our programme for national renewal. Our plan for change sets out the ambitious—but achievable—milestones we aim to reach by the end of this Parliament. The work we are doing will improve the lives of working people and strengthen our country.
The manifesto and King’s Speech last July announced our intention to legislate to deliver mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for larger employers. These measures will help employers identify and tackle pay disparities across their workforces, remove barriers to opportunity for ethnic minority and disabled staff and support our plan for change in driving up household income for all.
Today we are launching a public consultation in support of this. Responses to the consultation will help shape the pay gap reporting measures that we will include in the draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill, to be published later in this Session.
We are particularly interested to hear from those who will be impacted by these proposals, including employers, representative bodies, trade unions, race and disability stakeholders, ethnic minority and disabled people, and disabled people’s organisations.
We are considering what other measures the draft Bill could incorporate, including through a call for evidence which will be published separately. The call for evidence will include consideration of how we make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people.
We are also announcing today that we are establishing a race equality engagement group to help us develop further measures to tackle race inequality. This group, which will be chaired by Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, will enable us to work closely with communities and stakeholders to find out what matters most to them.
A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available on gov.uk.
[HCWS530]
Soft Drinks Industry Levy
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rennard
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the success of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy in comparison to voluntary sugar, salt and calorie reduction and reformulation measures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the soft drinks industry levy has nearly halved the sugar in soft drinks. By uprating the levy, as was announced in the Budget, we will ensure it remains fit for purpose and drives further restrictions. The voluntary programme has delivered meaningful product change and learning on what more is possible. We continue to drive reformulation through promotion and advertising restrictions, which are showing promising results. We will continue this momentum to create a healthier generation.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the levy has reduced considerably the number of children who would otherwise have been admitted to hospital for dental extractions. Two-thirds of the public support an expansion of the principle of this levy to other high-sugar foods, with revenue raised funding children’s health programmes. Will the Minister commit to supporting the Recipe for Change campaign, which is backed by over 50 health charities and medical colleges, given that if the proposed sugar and salt levy in Henry Dimbleby’s National Food Strategy was implemented it could avoid more than 320,000 cases of type 2 diabetes over the next 25 years?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand why the noble Lord raises this: he, like me, wishes to reduce obesity rates. Although the soft drinks industry levy is showing success, it is much harder, as he will be aware, to apply the same in respect of food, simply because of its formulation: there is no other sugar in soft drinks beforehand, whereas there is in food. Although I understand the pressure to do this, and we continue to do more, it is not quite as straightforward to draw the direct comparisons, as I know he understands.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I remind my noble friend that the voluntary system for the reduction of salt, which was organised by the Food Standards Agency before I joined it, was so successful that the World Health Organization held its international conference in London in 2010 because it had been so successful on a voluntary basis. Of course, this was before the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, removed nutrition from the Food Standards Agency. The voluntary system can work substantially.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right: voluntary schemes can indeed work well. In addition to crediting my noble friend for his work with the Food Standards Agency, I can tell your Lordships’ House that voluntary reformulation has encouraged sugar reduction by around 15% in cereals, 13% in yoghurts and 29% in milk-based drinks, and contributed to a reduction in salt intake. Of course more can be done to improve everyday food and drink, and we continue to work by whatever means necessary and within all sectors of industry to do just that.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will know that sugar has been substituted with glycerol in slushy drinks—these are iced drinks that are particularly for children. This is having an adverse health impact, particularly on young children. According to recent press announcements, a number have been admitted to hospital. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing to educate parents and to address this issue?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising this very important point. The Food Standards Agency is considering very carefully the findings of the review mentioned in the media, to which she referred. In the meantime, parents are strongly encouraged to follow the advice that slushy drinks should not be given to children under four years old. Retailers are also advised to make adults fully aware of this guidance if they seek to buy them for children. In addition, although the symptoms of intake are usually mild, it is important that parents are aware of the risks, particularly at high levels of consumption. I thank the noble Baroness for shining a light on this matter.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, research by the First Steps Nutrition Trust shows that parents believe that baby foods are strongly regulated. In fact, there is no legal threshold for the amount of sugar in baby foods in the UK; there is only a threshold for the amount of added sugar. If a large quantity of concentrated fruit juice is added, we end up with baby foods that have implicit labels on them suggesting that they are healthy but they contain more sugar than Coca-Cola. In the UK, 61% of two to five year-olds’ energy comes from ultra-processed foods. Will the Government look to get significant, important regulation for baby foods?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble Baroness raises. This is one of the areas that we are looking at. She also raised ultra-processed foods. As she may be aware, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has reviewed evidence and stated that further research is needed as to whether ultra-processed foods are unhealthy due to processing or to an unhealthy nutrient content. We have discovered that we need to separate the two. That will also assist on the point that she raised about baby foods.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, although sugar taxes and levies are examples of top-down state solutions to tackle obesity, I will ask the Minister about grass-roots, bottom-up solutions. She will know of non-state local civil society projects that work in communities to encourage healthier lifestyles, such as BRITE Box in south London, which offers recipes, ingredients and budgeting advice to help low-income families cook and eat more healthily. Can she tell your Lordships how the department works with such local projects to tackle obesity and how that best practice has spread to other communities? Could she also write to me with a list of some of the projects that her department is aware of, so that all noble Lords could learn a bit more?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would be very pleased to write further to the noble Lord on this matter. I pay tribute to all of those community third sector organisations that work in line with government direction to reduce obesity. There are many aspects to this: it is not just about what community organisations can do but, for example, about implementing TV and online advertising restrictions for less healthy food. In all these ways, we will be able to make progress to reduce obesity.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, we know well that diet and nutrition, and the infrastructure from which we can access the food that we eat, determine our health. These things continue to be unequal. The proportion of household income required to afford to follow the Eatwell Guide is 11% in the least deprived areas and 45% in the most deprived areas. What consideration will be given in the NHS plan to these wider issues—including the merits of reformulation policies—to improve the critical determinants of health?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is right to speak about the additional levels of ill health and obesity; a child of 11 in the most deprived areas is twice as likely to be obese as those in the least deprived areas. I can certainly assure her that the 10-year plan, which is soon to be made available, will take account of inequalities in all their aspects, including nutrition and food.
Lord Bird (CB)
Is the Minister aware that, according to the BMA, 50% of people who suffer from cardiac arrest actually suffer from food poverty in the first instance?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that point. He will know that the Defra-led food strategy will assist us across government in tackling this.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will follow up on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, about the regulation of foods for babies and toddlers. Is the Minister aware that some of the fruit and vegetable pouches marketed for babies from four months onwards—despite the advice that they should not be weaned until they are six months old—contain more sugar per 100 millilitres than Coca-Cola? Some toddlers’ teeth are being rotted as they emerge from their gums. When will the Minister take action on this?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness reminds us that one of the major causes of children having to report to A&E is dental decay. That is why I am glad that we have announced plans for over 700,000 urgent dental appointments, as well as for supervised tooth-brushing. To the specific point that the noble Baroness makes, she is indeed right about the progress that needs to be made. We have recently responded to the House of Lords Select Committee inquiry into food, diet and obesity, as I know she is well aware. We will have a debate on that formal response on 28 March.
Great British Railways: Industrial Action
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what role Great British Railways will have in resolving industrial action on the railways.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, when Great British Railways takes over, it will be responsible for the industrial relations of the railway. Its establishment depends, of course, on the passage of the forthcoming railways Bill through Parliament. In the meantime, as each train operation comes into public ownership, the transfer of undertakings regulations will apply, and thus the existing negotiating arrangements will apply for these operators and, of course, for Network Rail. There is currently no new industrial action on the railway network except for a projected eight-week strike on Hull Trains, which is an open-access operator and therefore not the responsibility of the Government.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we know from what we saw only a few months ago that, under the current departmental management, the Department for Transport is very good at giving out public money to ASLEF and the RMT without securing any improvements in working practices in exchange. Why will this be different when GBR is managing the railways? What additional tools will it have that will secure the improvement in working practices on the railways that all of us want to see?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The answer to the noble Lord’s point is that it will have competent long-term management. The longest dispute in recent history on the national railway network was the one which was solved with an additional 2% pay offer last summer. That dispute lost an estimated £850 million-worth of revenue over the two years that it took place. Significantly, there were no productivity measures on the table at the time when the dispute was settled, simply because there had been a long-standing dispute between the employers—the owning groups of the train operating companies—and the department about the share of the revenue savings that they would get if productivity was applied. That meant that, in several train companies, there were no proposals whatever extant that could be implemented. Any sensible employer has in their mind the things that they need to do to make their operation more efficient and a negotiating strategy with their employees to achieve it. That was not the case last summer, but it will be the case in future.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, what steps will Great British Railways take to minimise disruption to passengers during periods of industrial action? What compensation mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that passengers are not unfairly disadvantaged when their journeys are disrupted?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The primary activity that needs to take place is good industrial relations, so that the instances of disputes that affect the train service are much reduced. A feature of good industrial relations is dialogue between the employees, their representatives and the employer, which is very much in the mind of the Government as we go forward with Great British Railways. In addition, as I have said to the House before, I want to see managers at route and train operating company level who can co-ordinate how the railway behaves and how it serves customers. By those means we will offer a better service and have less industrial action.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the focus that the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has put on the negotiating arrangements in the railway sector. This was highlighted in the dispute that has been referred to before the general election, in which a point was reached where, after very intense and prolonged negotiations, a potential settlement had emerged that the negotiators were prepared to support from all sides. Unfortunately, that settlement was not approved because the Government Ministers decided to veto the possibility of that agreement being reached, bringing into serious concern the integrity of the whole process. Let me now turn—
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
Let me now turn more directly to my question that arises from that. It is of course absolutely right—
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
May I ask the Minister whether he agrees that, yes indeed, careful attention needs to be paid to producing the right negotiating machinery as GBR takes shape? Can I also ask him—
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
Does he agree that it would be better at the same time to reset relations with the workforce and the trade unions?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend, but I will add one point. The Government are responsible for the cost of the railways to the taxpayer and, because of that, Governments need to make clear before the commencement of negotiations what the envelope is for the employers to negotiate. It is most unhelpful for a Government to intervene part or nearly all of the way through.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I remind all noble Lords that questions should consist of up to 100 words and no more than two points.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to my noble friend’s Question, does the Minister recall a speech that he made on 27 April 2022, when he was chairman of Network Rail, to the Rail Industry Association? He said:
“The industry will not back away from its modernisation and cost reduction drive despite the threat of strike action”.
Does that remain his policy?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I was wondering what I had said in April 2022. When I spoke to the Rail Industry Association, it was in respect of industrial relations in Network Rail, which I had the privilege to chair for nine years with 30,000-odd employees. What was very successfully concluded in the summer of 2023 was a ground-breaking deal with extensive productivity in a public sector corporation. It was not widely celebrated by the Government of the time because they did not welcome that progress, but it was very much in line with what I said in April 2022.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my register of interests. Does my noble friend not agree that the lamentable record of the previous Government when it comes to industrial relations on the railway demonstrates the need for an independent guiding mind in the form of GBR, which we will hopefully legislate for soon? Does it not demonstrate the need to have an organisation that can take the heat and the fire—and, I might say, in some cases, the ideological approach—out of industrial relations on the railway and set a positive, modern and long-term framework for workforce relations in that sector?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Not only do I completely agree with my noble friend, but the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, might recall that, when he was deputy chair of Transport for London and I was the commissioner, we went to the ends of the earth to keep industrial relations matters away from the political leadership of the mayor and within the organisation. The right way of concluding both wages and conditions is for the employer to negotiate with the recognised trade unions of the employees, and political influence does not help much in those relationships.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the weekend roster has been sorted, particularly for stations along the east coast main line route, and that the excuse that there is no crew available will not be used over weekends this summer?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
So far as the long-distance operator on the east coast main line is concerned, I can very happily give that assurance: LNER is top of the performance league and is actually very popular with passengers—I hope it remains so. In respect of Northern, I just looked at it today. Northern was taken into public ownership in March 2020 because the previous owners had failed. At that time, it had a dispute about the role of the guard. That dispute was already running then and is still running after the remainder of its term of ownership under the previous Government. It is a very long-standing dispute that involves Sunday rostering, and we are working very hard to fix it. This Government inherited that dispute; it could have been resolved in any of the years from 2020 to 2024 if the Government at the time had so chosen.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, will GBR have a better plan than Network Rail for fixing the terrible damage done to Oxford by about four years of Network Rail cutting the city in two—with damage to the people, businesses and residents—or will the transition make things even worse and slower?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have apologised to the noble Baroness for the disruption at Botley Road bridge in Oxford already, and I am happy to do that again. What I am quite clear about is that the disruption caused by the bridge replacement and the associated difficulties of rebuilding the road will be finished before GBR comes into effect.
Scotland: New Nuclear Power Generation
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they plan to have with the Scottish Government regarding the extension of new nuclear power generation to Scotland.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, Scotland’s policy on new nuclear energy projects is a matter for the Scottish Government. We remain open to discussions with the Scottish Government on nuclear energy’s future in Scotland. In the meantime, we welcome EDF’s recent decision to extend Torness’s operation to March 2030.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I agree that we should respect the role of the Scottish Government, but surely now is the time to stop pussyfooting around, when the Scottish Government say that they are quite willing to accept in the future electricity generated by nuclear in England. Given that energy is a reserved area, surely we should look at ways of stopping the blockers in Scotland, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister have a look at it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend knows that on powers relating to nuclear the issue is that, in Scotland, nationally significant infrastructure projects, including nuclear, are broadly reserved. However, Scottish Ministers have devolved executive competence for planning decisions for improving applications to build, operate or modify electricity-generating stations with capacities exceeding 50 megawatts in Scotland. We are not in a position to make a change to that. Scotland has a rich nuclear heritage, and the work being done at Torness is extremely valuable in providing clean energy to Scotland. As I have said already, we very much support EDF’s decision to extend the life of Torness by a couple of years.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
The Net Zero, Energy and Climate Change Interministerial Group met on 6 March and the communiqué came out yesterday. It has a section in it about what was discussed, and nuclear power is not mentioned. The interministerial group met in October and March last year, and nuclear power is not mentioned in either of those two communiqués. Can the Minister assure us that nuclear power will be on the agenda of the next meeting of the interministerial group?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we are always open to discussing nuclear power in that group, and with the Scottish Government. However, it is very difficult to make progress in view of the current Scottish Government’s position on nuclear. I can say that, on 6 February in the Scottish Parliament, Anas Sarwar, the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, called on John Swinney, the First Minister, to drop his ideological opposition to nuclear power in Scotland.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, the GMB came out and said that the Scottish economy is losing out to the tune of £1 billion because of the Scottish Government’s ideological indifference to nuclear. Am I right that, last week, the noble and learned Baroness the Advocate-General said that there had been a fundamental reset in the relationship between the UK and Scottish Governments? I ask the Minister if this is not the time to demonstrate that reset. Can we please have a joined-up, holistic strategy for nuclear that does not stop at the Tweed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, there has been a reset and we have been in close discussions with the Scottish Government on a number of energy matters, but the fact is that the Scottish Government are opposed to new nuclear development. I agree with the noble Lord—and Anas Sarwar said it too—that the refusal to allow new nuclear power plants is costing Scotland billions in investment and thousands of jobs, which will go to England and Wales instead. I agree with that, but the fact is that we are dealing with the Scottish Government, who, at this stage, are not prepared to go for new nuclear.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, in view of the difference of opinion on nuclear power in Scotland, demonstrated by both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will the Minister accept that, in Wales, there is a widespread wish to see the former nuclear power stations of Wylfa and Trawsfynydd being used? That brings together the Labour Government in Cardiff and the Plaid Cymru-run local governments in Anglesey and Gwynedd. Given the strong feeling that this should happen, not least in the context of medical isotopes, can the Government give particular attention to bringing investment to those two sites?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the department rejoices in the approach of the Welsh Government, and indeed of the noble Lord. I well understand the potential for new nuclear developments in Wales and think it is a tragedy that the proposals in Wylfa did not go ahead. The noble Lord knows that, in the siting policy currently in play, Wylfa is listed as a site of great potential. The new siting policy is more flexible, but, undoubtedly, Wylfa in particular still has great potential.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, last year, Scotland met 113% of its national power needs from renewable sources alone. This is set to radically increase, providing much-needed clean power to the rest of the UK. I welcome the expansion of the £150 warm home discount to more homes in Scotland. Does the Minister agree that the SNP Government must take urgent action on energy efficiency? Their decision to scrap their own green heating plans for heat pumps in new homes will leave Scottish citizens poorer and colder.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl is not going to draw me into commenting on what the Scottish Government have done on these matters. However, it is worth making the point that, in 2023, 19.3% of electricity generated in Scotland came from nuclear. That indicates that, in clean power, nuclear has a huge amount to offer Scotland, Wales and England.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, would the Government’s hand not be greatly strengthened in dealing with the Scottish Government if they themselves moved ahead on a decision on small modular nuclear reactors? When do they expect to announce the outcome, and can we have something slightly more definitive than “soon”?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend on the importance of the small modular reactor programme. He knows that Great British Nuclear is going through a selection process at the moment. We expect important announcements to be made in the spring.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, power devolved is power retained. If the Scottish Government are not acting in the interests of the United Kingdom, with their opposition to nuclear power and to oil and gas, that will create great difficulties for the rest of the United Kingdom. Has the Minister considered taking back the power for them to prevent the appropriate infrastructure needs of the country as a whole?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think it is the case that we should reopen the devolution settlement, and the noble Lord would not really expect me from the Dispatch Box to say that we should. I think it is clear that, overall, new nuclear has a huge role to play, in the baseload that it can provide and in clean power. The move towards the final investment decision on Sizewell, progress on Hinkley Point C, the SMR programme and the potential of advanced modular reactors will give us a hugely important foundation for clean power for Great Britain as a whole.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, I speak as a former planning Minister in the Scottish Government. Does the Minister agree that the best way to address this case is not more conflict with the Scottish Government but promoting the argument for nuclear power in a positive way—and, perhaps, working hard so that Anas Sarwar becomes First Minister of Scotland and we can resolve this problem?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, those are very wise words from my noble friend.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, if the Scottish Government do not want nuclear power but are willing to use electricity that it has generated, should there not be a reflection of that in the price they pay?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we are looking at the whole issue of zonal pricing, but I do not think we would go quite that far. It is interesting, though, that the Scottish Government were in favour of the extension to the current plant in Torness. I agree with my noble friend Lady Curran that we should work on that and be constructive in our approach. We have had fruitful discussions on some of the difficult issues around Grangemouth and the North Sea transition. We should build on the reset that the Prime Minister and the First Minister have taken forward, and we should articulate the advantage that nuclear power gives to all countries in Great Britain.
US Tariffs on EU Goods
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of tariffs imposed by the United States of America on EU goods for trade in Northern Ireland, having regard to the Windsor Framework.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom customs territory and internal market. Northern Ireland exporters will not be impacted by these new US tariffs any more than exporters from elsewhere in the UK. We are looking closely at the retaliatory tariffs announced by the EU and any impact that they might have on Northern Ireland businesses. Under the Windsor agreement, where US imports into Northern Ireland do not subsequently enter the EU, traders can reclaim any additional duties through the duty reimbursement scheme.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. Bearing in mind that the Windsor Framework is a device to protect delicate trading relationships in Northern Ireland in the post-Brexit era, can she outline what work is being done with regard to potential tariffs imposed on EU goods by the USA, which could impact on Northern Ireland? What will be the impact on the most vulnerable products and markets? What discussions have taken place with the EU and the American Administration regarding mitigations to protect businesses?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I would like to reassure my noble friend that we will always act in the best interests of all UK businesses, which of course includes those in Northern Ireland. We continue to look closely at the details of the retaliatory tariffs announced by the EU and any impact they might have on businesses. We are in regular contact with our partners in the US and the EU, as well as businesses in the UK. An important mitigation is already in place under the Windsor agreement. Where goods do not subsequently enter the EU, the duty reimbursement scheme enables traders to reclaim EU applicable duties in full without any limit on total claims. The customs duty waiver scheme also allows duties to be waived entirely, subject to an overall limit.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, bearing in mind that the issues raised by the noble Baroness are seen by Northern Ireland business as raising huge complexities, will the Minister consider the practical step of issuing a weekly bulletin in Northern Ireland so that tariffs and other regulations appear to business- people to be less like an anarchic board game?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Comprehensive guidance is available on GOV.UK and businesses can contact HMRC for more information about the reimbursement schemes. I will take back the noble Lord’s general comment about how we can improve those communications.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, the fundamental problem is that part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, is forced to impose tariffs on US imports in a situation where the rest of the UK may not. That is without any reference to the UK Government, this Parliament, the Northern Ireland Government or the Northern Ireland legislature, so that colonial set-up has to be rectified. In the absence of a rectification of the fundamental problem, the Minister referred to the tariff reimbursement scheme, but the head of Manufacturing NI said in the Financial Times that the scheme is “nonsense” and full of red tape, and that
“few companies have been able to successfully navigate it”.
He knows about business. Is he right, or do the Government know better?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The duty reimbursement scheme is an established scheme that businesses have been using to make successful claims since 30 June 2023. As I have said, comprehensive guidance is available on GOV.UK and businesses can contact HMRC if they need more information to support their claims.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as chair of InterTrade UK. Paragraph 47 of Safeguarding the Union says that the United Kingdom is not just a political union but an economic union. Given that, and bearing in mind what other noble Lords have said, how can we deal with the economic problems of tariffs coming from either the European Union or the United States of America? How do we make it simpler? The Minister said that it is an established scheme, but it has been in place for less than two years and has not had to be activated until these tariffs have come to fruition. We need to find a way to make it easier for companies and to deal with it proactively.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
This is all predicated on the Windsor Framework, which removes unnecessary checks, paperwork and duties and fixes a lot of the problems for parcels and medicines applying across the whole of the UK. It also enables important democratic scrutiny through the Stormont brake. There are those protections in place, and we are continuing to look at the operation of the Windsor Framework as we go forward.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, last week, at the St Patrick’s celebrations in Washington, the Northern Ireland Secretary restated the Government’s commitment to reaching a trade agreement with the United States, which we strongly welcome. At the weekend, however, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threatened that Congress would veto any trade deal that does not respect the 1998 Belfast agreement. Given that the 1998 agreement upholds Northern Ireland’s position as an integral part of the United Kingdom and the fact that the United States is the largest market for Northern Ireland goods outside Great Britain and Ireland, can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention that any US trade agreement will benefit Northern Ireland in exactly the same ways and on the same terms as all other parts of our country?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords will know, we are working to find a new relationship with the US and to build on the strong economic relationship we have, which is fair, balanced and reciprocal. Of course, that will have to take into account the interests of Northern Ireland as well.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, given that all parts of the UK economy are so integrated with that of the European single market already, and that the tariffs from the Trump Administration are economic coercion and not based on any trade policy, I have two questions for the Minister. First, have we triggered the enhanced co-ordination mechanism within the Windsor Framework process, to ensure that any retaliatory action is co-ordinated across the European Union and the United Kingdom? Secondly, considering that this is economic coercion and illegal under WTO rules, what instructions have our Ministers given to our representative at the WTO to complain against the Trump Administration’s practice?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, it is of course disappointing that the US has imposed global trade tariffs. We are determined to support UK businesses across the sector. The Government are working with the affected businesses but, as noble Lords will know, standing up for industry means finding solutions to the global challenges we face. That means working closely and pragmatically with the US to press the case for UK business interests.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the review of the trade and co-operation agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom will take place next year, 2026. If the Minister thinks that things are working smoothly, or that it is easy for businesses to operate, she is under a misapprehension. Have the Government started work on what the review should deal with? Do we have a policy? What consultation will the Government undertake as they prepare their negotiating position?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are seeking to strengthen and reset the relationship between the EU and the UK. Taking forward our manifesto commitments on that relationship will carry tangible benefits for businesses in Northern Ireland and the UK. The Government are committed to abiding by commitments in international agreements, including working to the Windsor Framework in good faith. That will include new negotiations going forward.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I hear the Minister say that there will be a reset of relationships between the UK and the EU but, if that happens, it may mean that those extra tariffs from the US will impact more on the United Kingdom as a whole. At some stage, the UK Government might have to choose between being closer to the USA and closer to the EU. Which is it?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we will always ensure that we protect the interests of all UK businesses, including those in Northern Ireland.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Does the present position not demonstrate that Britain is being left behind in the negotiations between all the different partners in America and Europe? This is a reflection of our decision to leave Europe, and leave ourselves exposed to these measures.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My noble friend is right that we need to strengthen and reset our relationship with the EU, and that is exactly what we are attempting to do now.
Gaza: Ceasefire
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester to ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the durability of the ceasefire in Gaza.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, our position is clear. We do not want to see a return to fighting. The reported civilian casualties resulting from these strikes are appalling. Our priority is urging all parties to return urgently to dialogue and to ensure that the ceasefire agreement is implemented in full and becomes permanent. The fighting must stop; hostages must be released, and civilians must be protected, including those who have returned home during the ceasefire.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. We on these Benches find the recent airstrikes on Gaza deeply shocking and abhorrent, as we do the continued cruel holding of hostages. Following the Foreign Secretary’s comments yesterday that Israel was breaking international law by cutting aid to Gaza, what steps are being taken to ensure that the Government of Israel abide by their international obligations as the occupying power to ensure unhindered provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza? What consideration has been given to introducing targeted sanctions should the Government of Israel persist with this culture of impunity?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary’s and the Government’s position remains that Israel’s action in Gaza is at a clear risk of breaching international humanitarian law. Our international humanitarian law assessments have raised concerns about possible breaches of IHL in the areas of humanitarian access and the treatment of detainees, and we took decisive action on 2 September, suspending all licences for the IDF. We have also been clear that the Government are not an international court, and we therefore could not arbitrate on whether Israel has breached international humanitarian law.
However, I can be clear to the right reverend Prelate that humanitarian aid should never be used as a political tool. Israel must restart the flow of aid immediately. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have both made it clear that we are appalled by Israel blocking aid when it is needed at greater volume and speed than ever before. Blocking goods, supplies and power entering Gaza risks breaching international humanitarian law and should not be happening. We are doing everything we can to alleviate the situation. It is disappointing to hear reports that the Rafah crossing has now closed to medical evacuations. This is a desperate situation, and we urge all parties to return to the table.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, as we speak, the APPG on UK-Israel is launching the 7 October Parliamentary Commission Report, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Belgravia. That report systematically documents the appalling abuses of that day—the rapes, the mutilations and the slaughter. In the midst of this terrible situation, there is one incontrovertible truism: Hamas is still holding dozens of those hostages who they abducted on that day and who have now been in captivity for well over a year. Does the Minister agree that the entire international community should be united in calling for the immediate release of those hostages, and that that will help to bring this terrible situation to an end?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I believe the international community is united. I thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for their support in bringing those individuals who have been released back to their families. Our thoughts are very much with those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones, including the family of the UK-linked hostage, Avinatan Or. The simple fact is that release of the hostages is a vital component of the ceasefire deal, and it is the ceasefire deal that we have to be focused on to ensure that the hostages are released, that there is peace back in Gaza and that we get humanitarian aid in there, which is essential.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, given the unacceptable civilian casualties, the withholding of life-sustaining aid and the comments by the Hostages and Missing Families Forum, representing the Israeli hostages’ families, who said that they were “shocked” by the strikes and
“the deliberate disruption of the process to return our loved ones”,
it looks as if there is little chance that there will be the next stage of the ceasefire. Given that the Government believe that there is a very strong possibility of IHL being breached, is this not now the time to enact the precautionary principle and for there to be targeted actions against the extremist members of the Israeli Government who have rejoined the cabinet and must have been given an element of impunity by the United States? We must act unilaterally in this country and use the precautionary principle.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the noble Lord knows my position very clearly. All our diplomatic efforts are engaged with neighbouring countries, the US and all others to ensure that the parties to the ceasefire return to the table and implement the commitments they made. That is essential. That is how we will see the release of the hostages and see aid get back into Gaza. That is our priority. The noble Lord is fully aware that I am not going to comment on any possible future sanctions or actions; we do not do that. It is important that we focus diplomatically on ensuring a return to the ceasefire agreement and then at least we can get the aid into Gaza.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, next and then from my noble friend Lord Grocott.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the tragedy of Gaza is going to continue until Hamas is removed from power? Can he explain what he wants to say on this subject to Ayelet Epstein, who is watching these proceedings and whose son Netta was murdered by Hamas on 7 October when he successfully shielded his fiancée from a grenade?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As I have repeatedly said to the noble Lord in this Chamber, we are committed to building a future where the Palestinian Authority is the authority for all Occupied Territories and it is defended and protected to do its job. There is no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, is not the overwhelming natural reaction to the news that we have heard today to ask: how much longer must this slaughter continue? Let us add the 400 deaths reported so far to the 48,000 that have already taken place—including 11,000 children and several hundred children under the age of 12 months, who presumably were not members of Hamas. If this does not include serious breaches of international humanitarian law, then it is time that someone started rewriting the humanitarian law law book.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think my noble friend knows that we have considered the risk of breach of humanitarian law and have taken action to mitigate that risk. I also want to stress how we have worked with allies. On 5 March, together with France and Germany, we expressed our deep concern at Israel’s halt on aid to Gaza and urged it to lift restrictions. The Foreign Secretary also made this clear to the Israeli Foreign Minister during their call on 5 March. On 28 January, the then Minister for Development announced a further £17 million of healthcare aid. The situation is no doubt dire. We cannot see the return to the violence we have seen before. We want this ceasefire to hold. We want to see the return of hostages and we are doing everything we can with our allies to ensure that that is the case.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Given the horrifying events of the last 24 hours, there is an inescapable irony in uttering the words “durability” and “ceasefire in Gaza” in the same breath. The Minister talked about diplomatic efforts. What are the Government specifically doing to engage our allies across the Arab world, especially Saudi Arabia, in helping to bring this nightmare to an end?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let me reassure the noble Baroness that we are doing precisely that: we are working with all our allies. One thing is very clear: if anyone was listening to the “Today” programme this morning, they will certainly have heard former Israeli ambassadors express deep concern that these actions will impact on the possibility of relationships with Arab countries. We actually saw some positive signs of a rapprochement with Saudi Arabia; all of this risks that. We should focus much more on ensuring that unity of diplomatic effort to get the ceasefire back on course and have further, longer peace talks so that we can both defend Israel and protect Palestine.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, next and then the noble Baroness, Lady Foster.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, last year the EU representative for the Middle East said on TV that “before 7 October, Gaza was an open prison and after 7 October it became an open graveyard”. What does the Minister make of that statement?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend highlights many comments that we have heard on previous occasions in this Chamber. The situation in Gaza has been horrific, but there is no doubt that the events that caused those hostages to be taken were also horrific. We have also got to think about the levels of sexual violence that those hostages were put to. There is no escaping the fact that we have to focus on the future. We have to ensure that we get proper aid and support into the Occupied Territories and Gaza and we have to focus on a much longer-term solution, which this ceasefire agreement gave. There were stages and we knew it was not going to be easy, but all our diplomatic efforts are going to be focused on that.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, those who are really guilty of breaching this ceasefire numerous times and continuing to do so are the Hamas terrorists and their cohorts, with many psychopaths in Gaza. These people are guilty of war crimes, breaching Geneva conventions and many other crimes that they perpetrated on 7 October and since then. Does the Minister agree that the only solution here is to release these hostages? There are still 58 of them: half of them, we believe, are deceased. Many of the people have been murdered in cold blood. They have been tortured and starved and they are still in underground tunnels. Would that not go some way in resolving this appalling situation, and maybe some way to a solution?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
There is no doubt that the ceasefire agreement provided for exactly that. We have renewed our call to all parties to return urgently to dialogue and to ensure that the ceasefire agreement is implemented in full, most notably through hostage releases and the humanitarian scale-up becoming permanent. As I have said, it is ultimately in everyone’s interest for this deal to hold. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we are appalled by Israel blocking aid, which is needed in greater volume and spend than ever before. But I repeat that there is a solution: return to the ceasefire agreement, release the hostages and let aid into Gaza.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, next and then from the noble Lord, Lord Singh.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
I am afraid it is the case that Hamas is busily redigging its tunnels, rearming and preparing to attack Israel again. It makes that very clear and at the same time it has 58 or 59 men, women and children held hostage in terrible conditions, as we have heard from the report that we will receive later today. Should we not be pressing Qatar and Egypt to impress on Hamas that it really must come to the table? We must have some peace and some resolution and it is Hamas that is preventing it. Can we not press them to ensure that Hamas will agree to release hostages and cease its aggressive actions?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. I must sound like I am constantly repeating myself, but I think this is worth repeating. We had on the table an agreement that provided for the release of hostages and for there to be a return to full aid going into Gaza. That is the solution: get back to the table and implement the ceasefire agreement. I stress that we are in diplomatic contact with all our allies in the region and we are certainly urging them to ensure that all sides, particularly Hamas, deliver on their commitments in that ceasefire agreement.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, with all the reservations we have heard about the excesses of Israel in Gaza in this House, from the Foreign Secretary and in many other parts of the world, why are we still supplying arms to Israel?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the noble Lord knows full well that we took decisive actions in terms of arms supplies to the IDF that might be used in Gaza. We followed our own international humanitarian guidelines in that respect. We took decisive action when we felt that there was a risk to international humanitarian law being applied. So the simple answer to the noble Lord is that we have acted.
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gustafsson
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 December 2024 and 4 February be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 17 March.
Immigration (Biometric Information etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 January be approved.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 17 March.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Tuesday 18th March 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberNon-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 61-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (14 Mar 2025)
15:50 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 1 agreed.
16:58 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 283 / Noes: 177 - Amendment 3 agreed.
17:10 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 271 / Noes: 179 - Amendment 4 agreed.
17:52 - Division on Amendment 24 - Ayes: 255 / Noes: 165 - Amendment 24 agreed.
19:18 - Division on Amendment 30 - Ayes: 232 / Noes: 141 - Amendment 30 agreed.
19:30 - Division on Amendment 32 - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 135 - Amendment 32 agreed.
Baroness Pinnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Baroness Pinnock’s amendments to page 3, line 37, page 4, line 6, and page 4, line 17, would have the effect of retaining the standard multiplier for hospitals, medical and dental schools, or any other healthcare setting to be determined by regulations.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant local government interests, in particular that I am a councillor in Kirklees. At the outset, I wish to express my thanks to the Minister and his officials for their time in discussions on the details of the Bill. I had assurances at those meetings that the measures in the Bill are not designed to increase business rates revenue, although that ignores the consequence of the Bill that, for RHL—retail, hospitality and leisure—businesses, Covid relief disappears, and the difference is partly funded by those businesses. Importantly, the Minister also confirmed that local government funding in totality would not be affected and that, “as far as is practicable”, no individual council would find itself worse off as a result.
What is unfortunate, though, is that the Government have been unable to share the basic assessment that must have taken place to provide the assurances given. Thus there is no clarity about the impact of these changes on individual properties—hence Amendment 1 and consequential Amendments 9, 10 and 17 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox, which seek to understand the impact of the changes on the NHS.
The useful information shared by the Minister from the Valuation Office Agency shows that 290 NHS hospitals will be caught by the new £500,000 threshold. Given that the standard multiplier is currently 0.546, or 54.6 pence, in the pound and the Bill enables the multiplier to increase to 0.646, or 64.6 pence, in the pound, for these higher-band properties, this will cost those hospitals dearly.
I warned the Minister that his failure to provide examples would mean that I did the calculations. For example, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children has a rateable value of £5.9 million, and its business rates costs will rise from £3.2 million to £3.8 million, an additional burden of £600,000 per year on business rates alone. The John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford has a potential business rates increase from £3.4 million to £4.1 million. Going further north to my own county of Yorkshire, the Hull Royal Infirmary could see its bill rising from £1.8 million to £2.1 million. Those are typical figures for hospitals across the country. I do not believe that it is the Government’s intention to reduce hospitals’ ability to drive down waiting lists, yet that will be the impact of these changes and the consequent higher charges.
Amendment 1 seeks to exclude hospitals from the higher threshold multiplier to prevent a further burden of taxation falling on the NHS. The Minister will, I am sure, want to comment on the fact that, while NHS hospitals will see a huge rise in their rates, about one-third of private hospitals have charitable relief of 80% of their rates. He will no doubt say in his reply that it is not possible to allow exclusions to the Government’s scheme, but that just demonstrates that the whole business rates system is no longer fit for purpose, because the rateable values on which it depends are inevitably higher in cities and urban areas, while distribution warehouses benefit in rateable terms from being out of town. The whole system is topsy-turvy.
The Government’s express purpose was to tax those fulfilment warehouses more to help save our high streets—in their words. They failed to say that this will also clobber our NHS. That will not do. Hospitals must be excluded from the higher multiplier. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seek to retain the standard multiplier for healthcare hereditaments. They address the unintended consequences of the Bill, as we have heard very strongly from the noble Baroness.
As mentioned in Committee, I understand the desire for a reformed business rate system and, indeed, if such a system were proposed, I would be more inclined to support it. But despite the Government’s manifesto commitment to level the playing field between the high street and the online giants, the Bill does not deliver on that. I understand that this is only the first step in the Government’s plans, as I am sure the Minister will point out, but it is not a step in the right direction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments seek to remove healthcare hereditaments, including medical and dental schools, from the higher multiplier.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have explained the importance of taking a sector-agnostic approach with regard to the application of the higher multiplier. This is the fairest approach to ensure that the Government can sustainably fund the lower multipliers. In Committee I set out that of the 16,780 properties at or above the £500,000 threshold, based on the current rating list, only 350 are in the health sub-sector. Of these, 290 are NHS hospitals and only 30 are doctors’ surgeries or health centres. These numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.
This Government fully support the healthcare sector. Our great National Health Service, which has delivered universal healthcare for nearly 80 years, is something the Government are extremely proud of. We recognise that the NHS needs support and reform to ensure that it can continue to deliver world-class healthcare to all for the next 80 years and beyond. The noble Baroness may feel that I do not appreciate her point, but I assure her that I do. This Government want to create an environment in which the healthcare sector can thrive. As I have set out, the impact on this sector is limited and where it does apply, much falls to the public sector.
The noble Baroness will be aware that phase 2 of the spending review is currently under way, following the fixing of the spending envelope at the Autumn Budget. As part of setting departmental budgets at the spending review, the Government will consider the full range of priorities and pressures facing departments. This includes considering any impact of the higher multiplier.
I am sure noble Lords appreciate that I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the spending review, but I reassure them that the impact of the higher multiplier on the public sector is an active consideration. The immunity of the Crown from business rates was removed 25 years ago and since then all of the public sector has been on the same footing as business. The Government are not going to reverse this position, which was intended to drive fairness between the public and private sectors and the most efficient use of property in the public sector. For these reasons, I cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendment and I respectfully ask her to withdraw it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, which, I am afraid, was much as predicted. I really do not know how a Labour Minister can say that the Government are agnostic about our NHS. You can be agnostic in approach, but surely not about the NHS. The Minister said that they are taking an agnostic approach to the sector, but that includes agreeing that our NHS will be clobbered by even higher rates bills than it has now, while some private hospitals have the 80% charitable relief. That will not create the level playing field that he talked about.
On these Benches, we are determined to support our NHS to enable it to push down waiting lists. Given that the Minister was unable to give me any hope that there will be a change of heart, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Lytton
Member's explanatory statement
This, together with another amendment in the name of the Earl of Lytton, would have the effect of leaving large RHL properties paying the standard multiplier rather than the supplement, consistent with previously stated policy intentions.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, I declare an interest as a chartered surveyor, a member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association, and a member of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. In fact, these are the three bodies referred to in Amendment 32, which is in this group, under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
I thank the Minister for his willingness to engage and for yesterday’s meeting—I appreciate that very much. If it is any comfort to him, that is at least part of the reason why I felt that I should not press these amendments today, most principally because they go to the heart of the philosophy of how the financial backcloth of rating is dealt with. That would be a very diffuse target at which to try to aim at this stage in the Bill.
Before dealing with Amendment 2 and speaking to Amendment 11, which is also in my name in this group, I remind your Lordships how we got here. During our deliberations in Grand Committee, the Minister referred to the 2024 Budget, in which the Chancellor set out a Budget to “fix the foundations” and to take
“difficult but necessary decisions on tax, spending and welfare to repair public finances, to increase investment in public services and the economy … Part of that agenda included transformation of the non-domestic rating or business rates system, including delivering on the Government’s manifesto pledge to support the high street”.
The Government’s manifesto pledge did a good deal more than just support the high street: it talked about dealing with the online giants. That is why Amendment 1, which we just voted on, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, causes me to remind your Lordships of what I reminded them of at an earlier stage of the Bill: the very large number of non-target species that are swept up by this particular Bill. I enumerated a significant number of them—not all, I might add—of which hospitals were one.
The Minister went on to say that the Government intended to provide
“a permanent tax cut for qualifying retail hospitality and leisure properties and, in doing so, better ensure the ongoing vibrancy of high streets up and down the country”.
He then referred to this whole
“challenging fiscal position that the Government inherited”.
We can fairly say that business ratepayers have been subject to an unsatisfactory means of levying this particular tax for a very long time. I have been on my feet on innumerable cases during the two periods that I have been in this House challenging that perception and showing how this is very negative in its effects on business confidence.
The Minister said that the system
“should work in a sustainable way”.
There are two bits of sustainability: whether the Treasury can balance the books and find the most convenient shortcut through in dealing with its affairs, and what you might call the politically most expedient way. The other way is the one that looks at how businesses make decisions and how the prospect of a surcharge impacts on what businesses do. I have said many times in this House that it is a poor tax that itself starts shifting the dial for people trying to get away from its effects.
The Minister said that
“the Government are asking those with the most valuable 1% of properties to pay more to support the viability of high streets”.
I find it difficult to relate the benefit to the high street by the means shown in this particular Bill. The Minister also said that the process that the Government has alighted on would be equitable and would
“capture the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants”.—[Official Report, 24/2/25; cols. GC 444-45.]
Fair enough, but it catches an awful lot else besides, so it is very poorly targeted.
On 17 March, in the other place, in a Written Answer to a Written Question from the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, the Exchequer Secretary commented first on the Valuation Office Agency publishing its official statistics detailing the number of non-domestic properties in England with a rateable value of £500,000 and over, broken down by sector. He then went on to say:
“There is no special category code for ‘internet retail warehouses’. You may find the data for ‘retail warehouses and food stores’, and ‘large distribution warehouses’ helpful”.
I do not find that in the least bit helpful. These are charging people who are not part of the target species. It appears that the Government have no idea how many large warehouses are occupied by the online giants that they claim to be targeting in the first place.
There are lots of questions here, some of which have already been put on previous occasions by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Why was this threshold set at £500,000? What is the metric? How are the Government able to justify this figure? The manifesto said that the reforms would
“raise the same revenue … in a fairer way”.
When the Government are planning to raise an additional £2.65 billion by making businesses pay for the retail, hospitality and leisure relief and discounts, which up to now have been funded centrally, that makes me wonder precisely what the business of raising the same revenue in a fairer way amounts to.
If the intention was really to charge more to online giants, one would have to ask why the 90% of hereditaments to which the supplement might apply—the £500,000 rateable value and above—are dealing also with warehousing and other things that are clearly outside that. Some 90% of what they propose to charge does not fall within the category of online giants. It goes on from there. I have already raised the question as to why we cannot get to a more comprehensive reform of business rates—already referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—because this is starting to be an active disincentive to businesses.
That question is not answered by saying that other variable cost elements for businesses are better in this country than elsewhere. This is a direct, in-your-face fixed cost that businesses have to deal with. I cannot see that this is consistent with a growth agenda that intends to attract inward investment.
My interrelated Amendments 2 and 11 are aimed at not worsening the situation for the large retail, hospitality and leisure properties, the inclusion of which in the supplement cannot be justified on property terms. I would prefer the discounts to be applied to all such RHL properties, but this would be even less acceptable to the Government. However, it involves the removal of less than 25% of the total rateable value to which the Bill proposes to apply the supplement. When one looks at the mathematics of this, it really does not stack up. Even at the maximum level of potential supplement, it is substantially less than the extra revenue that the Government will raise from shifting the costs of the RHL relief from the Exchequer to the business rate payer—so it is not very large beer.
I said yesterday in a meeting with the Minister, and I say again, that I and a lot of rating practitioners, and certainly business rate payers, would be a great deal happier if we could have an assurance that the Government will move at reasonable pace to remedy the deficiencies of the current business rate system by whatever means. There needs to be comprehensive thought about this whole process so that we do not simply drift on and create more and more division and less and less confidence. Even at this late stage in the process, can the Minister give a reassurance that this is forthcoming within the current Government, for the better achievement of their aims on investment and growth? I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have great sympathy with the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and agree with the conclusions that he has so carefully reached. I know that these Benches would support his amendments.
Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, concerns an important issue. The Government promised in their manifesto to make the payment of business rates fairer and more balanced between retail distribution warehouses and high street shops. Indeed, the Chancellor said in the last Budget that she wanted to shift the burden. Yet all the signs are that nothing will happen until next year at the earliest. I hope that the Minister can give us an update on the timing for the outcome of the review that the Government apparently are undertaking. I say that because this is, as the noble Earl made clear, an urgent matter. Business rates are a major burden on retail high street shops. Sainsbury’s said a few months ago that half of its total tax bill is for business rates.
The system needs urgent reform. One step would be to accept the proposals in this group of amendments. In particular, Amendment 32 sets deadlines for when the Government must have acted. I hope that, if there is an opportunity, we on these Benches can support the amendments in this group.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I do not wish to talk for more than a moment, as I have Amendment 32 coming in the next group.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I apologise. In that case, let me just consult my notes.
My proposal is not dramatic and does not involve tax; it tries to define a very difficult aspect of non-domestic rates: the effect on retailers. I thank the Minister for his time last night, when we discussed my proposal at length. However, subject to his comments in a few minutes, I will decide whether to press my amendment later.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is right to challenge the Government’s intentions in relation to saving our high street. The Government are in a quandary: retail, hospitality and leisure businesses have continued to benefit from Covid-related relief, which is currently at a rate of 75% but will fall to 40% from April and not exist in the following year. The challenge for the Government then will be to square the circle of the commitments made.
The slogan of saving the high street depends on ensuring that businesses at the heart of the high street are not priced out of financial viability by large changes in business rates—hence the Bill. However, the evidence from Wales and Scotland—which have and have used the right to alter the Covid rate relief in a previous year—is that the effect of the reduction in Covid relief was a rise in business closures above what would normally be anticipated.
As will be debated in the next group of amendments, large retail stores are an essential ingredient for a thriving shopping centre in a city, large town or retail park. It is already clear that retailers are moving more and more of their business online, partly in response to consumers but also as a consequence of the rising costs of bricks and mortar retailing—our high street that the Government intend to save. The high street will not be saved unless these larger stores are classified with all other RHL properties and charged the lower multiplier. A failure to do so simply underlines the Government’s inability to appreciate the rising taxation burden imposed on high street retailers.
Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, seeks to push the Government into wider reform of the system to fulfil the promises made about charging more to fulfilment warehouses—the Amazons of this world—to help level the playing field with traditional retailers. As the Minister knows, I have regularly provided evidence of the iniquity—I should have said inequity, but it is probably iniquity as well—of the business rating system, which has failed to be radically changed in the face of the online revolution. If the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, wishes to test the opinion of the House on his proposals to push the Government into making deeper and lasting reform of the property taxation issue, we on these Benches will support him.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I will speak to the amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
Amendments 2 and 11 are broad amendments that seek to retain the standard multiplier for all retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments, rather than them facing higher business taxes. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is right to raise the issue of higher taxes on RHL businesses above the £500,000 threshold, as the Government’s stated policy intentions are not reflected in the reality of this Bill. We share similar concerns about the impact that this will have on high streets, which is why my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook has tabled an amendment to protect anchor stores and I have tabled an amendment on the cliff-edge effects of the £500,000 threshold.
Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, seeks to introduce a review of the introduction of a specific use class that targets businesses that operate solely out of fulfilment warehouses—the Amazon tax. The Bill does not deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to ensure that online giants are paying their fair share of business rates. Indeed, we expected this Amazon tax to be introduced through this Bill, and it is disappointing that the Government have not delivered anything close to such a reform in this legislation. As such, we will support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, should he choose to press it.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for a very constructive and positive meeting yesterday. This group of amendments seeks to amend the approach taken in the Bill regarding the targeting of the higher multiplier. They would require the removal of qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure from the higher multiplier and commit the Government to undertake a review of the merits of creating an additional multiplier and use class for fulfilment centres of retailers that do not have a material presence on our high streets. As set out at the Budget, the Government intend to introduce a permanent tax cut for qualifying RHL properties from 2026-27 by introducing two lower RHL multipliers for these properties that have a rateable value below £500,000. The Bill makes provision to enable this through secondary legislation.
In consideration of the challenging fiscal environment that this Government face, it is important that the permanent tax cut is funded sustainably, which is why the Government intend to introduce a higher multiplier to fund the tax cut from within the business rates system. It is the Government’s intention for the higher multiplier to apply to all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. This ensures that sufficient funding is raised to enable the Government to provide that permanent tax cut for RHL properties with rateable value below £500,000. I thank noble Lords here today for their contributions on this topic.
The Government recognise that a small number of RHL properties fall above the £500,000 threshold. However, the helpful information published by the Valuation Office Agency shows that this is comparatively small. As per the current rating list, of the 16,700 properties in England with a rateable value at or above the £500,000 threshold, a little over 3,000 fall into the shops subsector. There is more behind this: of those falling into this subsector, around 72% are supermarkets, large food stores or retail warehouses. That leaves fewer than 1,000 stores, of which around 600 are located in London and the south-east. For most other regions, the number of shops affected is fewer than 50.
A similar pattern is present when looking at hospitality and leisure sectors. That data also shows that 670 hereditaments fall into the assembly and leisure subsector, of which 380 are located in London and the south-east. Only 550 fall into the hotels, guest and boarding, and self-catering subsector, of which 450 are located in London and the south-east. So the impact is not widespread when it is considered that there are over 450,000 shops; over 80,000 hotels, guest and boarding, and self-catering properties; and over 180,000 assembly and leisure properties with a rateable value below the £500,000 threshold. It is imperative that any tax cut is funded sustainably, so the Government do not intend to remove any properties from the higher multiplier.
Against the challenging fiscal environment, the Government have to take tough decisions. This is the fairest approach that ensures a sustainable solution to ensuring that the permanent tax cut for RHL properties can be funded from within the business rates system. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I respectfully ask him not to press them.
I turn to Amendment 32 from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and I appreciate his interest in Burnley warehouses. This amendment also concerns the new multipliers and how we might target online retailers that operate from large distribution warehouses and tend not to have a presence on the high street. This matter has attracted interest not just during the passage of the Bill but in the course of several reviews of business rates over recent years.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, at the beginning of his response to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, he said that there would be a permanent business rates cut for RHL businesses. Yet, the House of Commons Library briefing states that the British Property Federation said in written evidence to the Public Bill Committee that there would be an increase in total business rates liability of £2.6 billion. Can the Minister explain that?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, yes, I can explain that, because we are talking in particular about the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. The point is very clear. We cannot have a system where every year businesses do not know what their business rates bill is going to be. Over the years—I accept that there has been Covid—we have not had a long-term approach to this. This is part of a wider reform of the whole business rates system. I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that having a multiyear approach to this will provide more certainty and stability for businesses, which will know what their bills will be. The higher £500,000 threshold properties, which amount to 1%, are supporting the retail, hospitality and leisure sector, in particular, across the country.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group—and in particular my colleague on these Benches, my noble friend Lord Thurlow, for introducing his amendment.
I appreciate that the Minister has effectively gone as far as his brief permits, but I hope he realises that there is a serious job of work that needs to be done. A reforming Government who come in with a manifesto commitment need to do something better than shuffle the chairs on the deck of a ship that appears to have a very large hole in it, as far as I am concerned.
Before I conclude, I will make three or four comments. If the full 10% supplement is applied on top of—I paraphrase —a 55p in the pound multiplier, that is getting on for 20%. Maybe it is 18%—I have not done the maths—but it is a very substantial proportionate increase. On the Minister’s own admission, it serves to disadvantage what he regards as a “very few”, for the uncertain and, indeed, undetermined benefit of what we take to be numerous smaller fry.
We do not know how that is going to work out, as we have explored in previous stages of this his Bill. It does not target the high street; it does not target it with that benefit, at least not obviously so. For all the hospitals, police stations, theme parks, offices and manufacturing units, along with the distribution network of large warehouses serving conventional retail, it will just result in higher costs to consumers, including, indirectly, via local authorities owning leisure centres and installations of that sort.
So the problem does not go away just because the Government have found the least painful strategy for dealing with these things. I think we will be seeing the ill-effects of this for some time to come, not least in the attrition of confidence of which I spoke earlier. However, with that said, I do appreciate what the Minister has done and his willingness to engage and again thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with others in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to exempt anchor stores because of their role in increasing footfall on the high street.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 3 in my name and to speak to its consequential Amendments 8, 12 and 16.
These amendments seek to retain the standard multiplier for anchor stores, given their ability to drive business on our high streets. Throughout Committee, there were several noble Lords who acknowledged the importance of these stores and the role they play in the commercial ecosystem of our high streets up and down this country. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their support on this matter.
As anyone who has worked in local government will know, when you get an anchor store such as a large Tesco, M&S or Primark—or one of those rare but well-loved independent department stores—on the high street, it allows the high street to flourish. I can certainly attest to that from my experience. The importance of these stores absolutely cannot be overstated. Without them, many high streets would seriously suffer due to the reduced footfall.
It is those very shops that draw people to the high street, and their presence encourages people to spend in the smaller, independent businesses. So the reason that these anchor stores should not be subject to the changes in the Bill is due to their role in aiding those small businesses. The Government claim that the Bill helps small businesses because it will leave them with reduced business rates, but if the anchor stores move away from the high street, they will not be able to sustain themselves at all. The Minister has many times continued to state that there are only a few of these stores in number, but if it is your high street that contains one of these, or if you want to bring one into your high street, then it is very important to you.
Not only will this push current stores away from the high street, but it will also mean that in future, when businesses are evaluating where to open new branches, they will be increasingly likely to choose locations out of town, where property costs less and where they will not be forced to pay the new higher multiplier. Large businesses will leave town centres, and I am concerned about the impact that that will have on the future of our high streets and the reduction in footfall that it will cause.
If the Government continue to increase costs on businesses in the same way as they have begun, there will not be any businesses left on our high streets to tax. The combination of the minimum wage, which we support, and the increase in employers’ national insurance has already led to many businesses increasing their costs or reducing their head count. This may well not be the most costly tax they face, but it could end up being the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
My amendments would give the Treasury the power to define specifically what an anchor store is. I am sure we are all aware that it is not the easiest term to specify, as the Minister mentioned in Committee. I understand that it might be difficult but, with the input of or indeed the discretion for local authorities included, I am sure the definition can easily be reached.
In order to safeguard our high streets, we must protect the businesses that allow them to thrive. We understand the need to create a more fair and equitable system, but that is not what the Bill promotes. As such, we are highly concerned about the consequences, whether intentional or not, that it will have.
I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the topic of manufacturing. It is a sector of huge importance and must be protected.
I hope the Minister will recognise the importance of exempting these stores and will accept these amendments. If he does not, I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. The issue of anchor stores seems fundamental in increasing footfall into traditional shopping centres, and it is right that there should be a power to exempt those anchor stores from higher rates.
One note of caution that I want to mention is that a Government would need to ensure that there was not a tendency by landlords to try to increase rents in the face of lower business rates. I am sure there are ways in which that can be done. Where councils are the landlord then they would have control of that, but when the landlord is in the private sector we need a mechanism to ensure that that can be done—and it should be done. If the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, I am sure she will have the support of these Benches.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned Amendment 4 on manufacturing. My noble friend Fox is in another meeting in the House at this very minute, so I will be saying a few things about that amendment. It is important that something is done to support the manufacturing sector. There has been a drop in confidence in the sector since the autumn. There is a big increase in manufacturers’ costs. Reductions in markets, making business development more difficult, have become very clear. Orders in general are reported to be smaller in size. The Brexit impact urgently requires a reset with the European Union. Manufacturing industry has high energy costs, and there are now concerns surrounding tariffs which are affecting confidence.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My noble friend Lord Shipley has just made a powerful case for the disaggregation of manufacturing from the standard multiplier and for those businesses to benefit from the lower multiplier. The economic case is a strong one, as my noble friend has just said, and the Government’s go-for-growth strategy, especially in the context of world events, will fundamentally depend on British manufacturing. More encouragement needs to be provided to the sector to invest and to innovate, and a government decision to reduce the rate burden will be one such indicator that the Government are showing they are determined to support those businesses that produce the wealth on which our public services rely.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has led this group with the case for the Government to take especial notice of so-called anchor stores, on which the viability, as she rightly argues, of our high street absolutely depends. I urge the Government to accept Amendment 4, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox, to show that the importance of manufacturing will be recognised. If the Minister seeks to ignore that argument, then we on this side will test the opinion of the House.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I add my support to the important comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. The importance of anchors cannot be overemphasised, particularly in smaller towns. We all know a shopping centre near where we live, and not a brick of development for that shopping centre would have been laid if it was not for a pre-let to an anchor.
It is important to explain that. They do not just create the footfall for the retailers generally—which of course they do—but they also catalyse the funding for the developer to build it. They are the anchor. They are the golden goose for the high street. Taxing them more simply risks losing them. The damage to society locally in losing them will be difficult to restore, and social cohesion will suffer. I strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and will support it if it goes to the vote.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments seek to remove anchor stores from the higher multiplier. They also seek to expand the cohort of hereditaments that qualify for the lower multipliers by bringing manufacturing properties into scope alongside qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure.
As set out at the Budget, the Government intend to introduce a permanent tax cut for qualifying RHL properties from 2026-27 by introducing two lower RHL multipliers. The Bill makes provision to enable this through secondary legislation. In consideration of the challenging fiscal environment that this Government face, it is important that the permanent tax cut is funded sustainably, which is why we intend to introduce a higher multiplier to fund the tax cut from within the business rates system. It is the Government’s intention for the higher multiplier to apply to all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. This ensures that sufficient funding is raised to enable the Government to provide that permanent tax cut for RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this topic. As she did in Committee, the noble Baroness has set out the important role that anchor stores play on our nation’s high streets. We have heard that they are a linchpin, that they drive footfall and that they help support the broader high street ecosystem by attracting other businesses. The Government recognise this and the information published by the Valuation Office Agency shows that a relatively small number of shops fall above the £500,000 threshold. In my response to the debate on the previous group, I set out that the impact on shops is not widespread. I will not repeat those numbers here.
Furthermore, anchor stores are often part of large retail chains that will also have a number of properties with a rateable value below £500,000 and, in the case of those properties, will benefit from the lower RHL multipliers. Moreover, whereas RHL relief is currently limited to a cash cap of £110,000 per business, the Government intend to have no such limit on the new RHL multipliers to better ensure more widespread support for the high street.
On the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the impact of this Bill on the manufacturing sector has been a recurrent theme throughout its passage. In the other place, the Government heard calls for manufacturing to be included in the cohort qualifying for the lower multipliers, citing the threat of tariffs, our isolation from our neighbours and growing competition from other countries. These amendments would bring manufacturing properties with a rateable value below £500,000 into scope of the lower RHL multipliers.
Noble Lords are aware of the difficult task that this Government face. The current fiscal backdrop is challenging and, in this context, I hope they understand that widening the scope of the properties qualifying for the lower multipliers, as well as taking properties out of scope of the higher multipliers, as these amendments seek to do, is likely to dilute the support that the Government are able to provide to RHL properties with a rateable value below £500,000.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have emphasised our desire to ensure that we move to a fairer, rebalanced and sustainable business rates system. We have been clear that any tax cut must be sustainably funded. To expand the cohort and number of properties qualifying for the lower multipliers while reducing those to which the higher multiplier will apply risks this policy no longer being sustainable—a key principle that the Government have stated throughout the Bill’s passage.
As I said, against the challenging fiscal environment, the Government have to take tough decisions. This is the fairest approach, which ensures a sustainable solution so that the permanent tax cut for RHL can be funded from within the business rates system. Of course, noble Lords have made sensible points. Anchor stores are part of high streets, as is light manufacturing in some areas, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in Committee.
The Government are committed to ensuring the longevity and survival of our vibrant and diverse town centres, and there are many ways in which we are pursuing that endeavour. In December, we introduced high street rental auctions, a new power which allows local authorities to auction off the lease of persistently vacant commercial units. The new regulations will make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable for businesses and community groups, while helping to tackle vacancy on our high streets.
Through the English devolution Bill, we will also introduce a strong new right to buy for valued community assets, which will help this Government safeguard our high streets. This measure will empower local communities to reclaim and revitalise empty shops, pubs, and community spaces, helping to revamp our high streets, increase footfall and eliminate the blight of vacant premises.
Furthermore, at the Autumn Budget, the small business multiplier for properties with a rateable value of under £51,000 was frozen at 49.9p, meaning that, together with small business rate relief, over 1 million properties will be protected from a 1.6% inflationary increase. Alongside this, the Government continue to support our valuable manufacturing sector through other means.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked what in particular we are doing. At the Autumn Budget, the Government announced £975 million for the aerospace sector over five years, over £2 billion for the automotive sector over the same period, and up to £520 million for a new life sciences and innovative manufacturing fund. The Budget also saw two key programmes extended, promoting innovation across UK regions and manufacturing. The innovation accelerator programme will continue for another year, focusing on high-potential clusters across the UK. Meanwhile, the Made Smarter innovation programme will continue to be funded, empowering manufacturers to adopt digital technologies and enhancing productivity and sustainability by connecting digital solutions providers with industry.
I hope that it is clear to noble Lords why the Government cannot accept these amendments. The permanent tax cut for RHL properties must be funded sustainably. Furthermore, the Government fully recognise the importance of the British manufacturing industry, but we are supporting that sector through other avenues. It is for those reasons that I cannot accept the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I respectfully ask them not to press them.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to this debate and for their support. I would like to say something about Amendment 4, on manufacturing. It is a sector of great importance to our economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said. He is correct that in January GDP fell by 0.1%, which was attributed largely to a 1.1% fall in manufacturing output. Not only did manufacturing fall in January but, as the noble Lord said, it fell in the three months to January. Since it was the largest contributor to GDP shrinkage, the importance of this sector cannot be ignored by the Government. If the Liberal Democrats divide the House, we will vote with them.
Anchor stores are incredibly important to businesses on the high street, as we have heard. To lose them would be highly detrimental to the economic viability of most high street businesses. As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said, it will also stop any future new anchor stores being given permission. I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Pinnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to include the manufacturing industry in the types of business that can qualify for the lower multiplier.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, manufacturing is at the heart of what this country does. We need to support it, and we can through the Bill by reducing the burden of business rates on those businesses. I therefore beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Jamieson
“(9BA) The Secretary of State must by regulations increase the figure in subsection (9B)(b) on 1 April 2029 in line with the average aggregate change in rateable values, as recorded by the Valuation Office Agency for three tax years preceding 1 April 2029.”
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 5, which is in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, I shall speak to Amendments 18 and 20, which are consequential. The amendments seek to introduce an increase in the threshold for the higher multiple, in line with the average aggregate increase in rateable values in the three years preceding the re-evaluation of the business rate multipliers. I am concerned that the Bill will introduce a stealth tax that will result in more and more businesses being subject to the higher multiple, if the higher multiple is fixed at £500,000 and does not increase with rateable values.
I listened to the points raised by the Minister in Committee and adjusted the amendment so that it considers the re-evaluation that will take place in 2029. Although the Minister claims that an alternative system will be introduced, this is uncertain. As such, it makes sense to introduce protection in the Bill.
Amendments 7, 15 and 19 seek to introduce into the Bill the definition provided for the RHL relief, which seems unnecessary given that the definition already exists in government guidance.
I look forward to the response from the Minister on the issues that have been raised. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 7 and consequential Amendments 15, 19 and 22 probe the Government on the definition of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. This is absolutely critical because those businesses currently receive 75% relief, which will fall to 40% in April, and the relief will be non-existent by April 2026. The Bill introduces the lower multiplier by way of reducing the impact of the removal of the Covid relief. It then becomes crucial for businesses to know which multiplier will apply to them.
The House of Commons Library’s detailed briefing stated that there is currently
“no definition in law of ‘retail, hospitality and leisure’ properties”.
It would be really helpful if the Minister confirmed that this essential definition will be determined in secondary legislation.
Throughout deliberations on the Bill, the Minister has repeated that RHL properties in the new regime are identical to those that received Covid relief. If that is so, surely the legal definition must already exist and can be shared in our debates on this group of amendments.
During the debate in the other place, Daisy Cooper MP wanted to know whether large RHL businesses that currently have a £110,000 cap on the Covid relief received will have that cap removed and benefit from the lower multiplier. If that is the case and they get the cap on their relief removed but also benefit from the lower multiplier, it will mean that smaller businesses end up subsidising the larger chain stores within this definition of RHL. Again, I feel sure that it is not the Government’s intention to let small shops subsidise larger ones. If that is not the case, can the Minister explain what is going on?
Can the Minister confirm that the new rating system being introduced in April 2026 will be fixed for three years, as he stated in earlier debates on the Bill, and that the small business relief will be uplifted in line with inflation? That is very important for small shops in villages and small towns. Currently, rateable values of less than £12,500 receive 100% business rates relief, and then a sliding scale exists. It is therefore critical that the rateable values are revised upwards to reflect property values. Otherwise, ever fewer businesses will qualify—fiscal drag for business rates. This is also the argument made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in relation to the higher threshold being introduced. Failure to increase the £500,000 threshold results in pulling more businesses into the higher rate.
In the end, as we have heard from across the House this afternoon, tinkering with the system fails to address the fundamental problem that businesses are not what they were 100 or even 20 years ago, and property taxation must change to create a fairer, more equitable approach that does not penalise traditional businesses, which end up providing a larger portion of the tax take than is justified.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group touch on a few different areas in the Bill, so I will speak to each topic in turn.
Amendments 5, 18 and 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, would require the £500,000 threshold for the higher multiplier to be increased at the 2029 revaluation in line with the average aggregate change in rateable value for the preceding three years. In Committee we similarly discussed whether the £500,000 threshold should be uprated over time. The amendments we considered in Committee would have uprated the threshold in line with annual inflation, and I explained—and I think the Committee recognised—why that was not appropriate.
Amendments 5, 18 and 20 are closer to the more appropriate considerations for changes to the threshold. As I said in Committee, the 2029 revaluation will be the next logical moment to consider whether the £500,000 threshold remains appropriate for the new higher multiplier, and at that time we will consider whether the threshold in the regulations continues to be appropriate. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the total change in the rateable value at the 2029 revaluation will form part of those considerations. But it will not be, and should not be, the only consideration.
As well as the movement in all rateable values, we may want to look at the movement in rateable value for the cohort of properties near or above the threshold. We will need to consider in 2029 the level of continued support that we should provide to qualifying RHL and, in turn, the revenue needed from the higher multiplier to fund that support. That should form part of the considerations of the threshold on the higher multiplier.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I heard for the first time the Minister say “near or above” the higher multipliers. Why would that be? Are the Government assuming the amount of money that they are going to get in future years? It seems to be a new context to this debate that he used those words.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I alluded to this point in Committee. The review with stakeholders and businesses is currently taking place. We will come back as we look at the reform of business rates. In the context of the business rates review and reform, consideration is being given to hereditaments that are near, above or within a small distance of the £500,000 threshold.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Although we remain concerned regarding the increased business taxes as a result of the impact of fiscal drag, having reflected on the Minister’s assurances we will not be pressing Amendment 5.
Baroness Pinnock
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to include the manufacturing industry in the types of business that can qualify for the lower multiplier.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, along with others in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to exempt anchor stores because of their role in increasing footfall on the high street.
Baroness Pinnock
“(9D) In sub-paragraph (9B), “qualifying healthcare hereditament” includes hospitals, medical and dental schools, and any other healthcare settings as may be prescribed by the Treasury in regulations.”;” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Baroness Pinnock’s amendments to page 3, line 26, page 4, line 6, and page 4, line 17 would have the effect of retaining the standard multiplier for hospitals, medical and dental schools, or any other healthcare setting to be determined by regulations.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Baroness Pinnock’s amendments to page 3, line 26, page 3, line 37, and page 4, line 17, would have the effect of retaining the standard multiplier for hospitals, medical and dental schools, or any other healthcare setting to be determined by regulations.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, along with others in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to exempt anchor stores because of their role in increasing footfall on the high street.
Baroness Pinnock
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to include the manufacturing industry in the types of business that can qualify for the lower multiplier.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to include the manufacturing industry in the types of business that can qualify for the lower multiplier.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, along with others in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to exempt anchor stores because of their role in increasing footfall on the high street.
Baroness Pinnock
“(6C) In sub-paragraph (6A), “qualifying healthcare hereditament” includes hospitals, medical and dental schools, and any other healthcare settings as may be prescribed by the Treasury in regulations.”;” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Baroness Pinnock’s amendments to page 3, line 26, page 3, line 37, and page 4, line 6, would have the effect of retaining the standard multiplier for hospitals, medical and dental schools, or any other healthcare setting to be determined by regulations.
Lord Fox
“Impact assessment(1) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of sections 1 to 4 of this Act on—(a) businesses,(b) high streets, and(c) economic growth.(2) An impact assessment under subsection (1) must consider—(a) the impact on different types of businesses, including small businesses; (b) the impact on businesses operating mainly or solely on high streets;(c) whether the provisions will have a measurable impact on economic growth.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with another in the name of Lord Fox to Clause 6, would require the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment on sections 1 to 4 of the Act before they come into force.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, all the amendments in this group provide for reviews of different aspects of the Bill. In moving Amendment 21, I will speak to Amendment 33 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
It is very clear from everything that we have heard in Committee and on Report that we are still very much in the dark as to how this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will affect our high streets. It was billed from the beginning as a measure that would save our high streets—that was clearly how it was marketed in the Commons. However, without the details that we seek, and without the context of those details, we really do not understand.
The differences between these several amendments are, more or less, on the timing of when the review would happen. In our Amendment 21, the timing is that, before the Act comes into force:
“The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of sections 1 to 4 of this Act on businesses, high streets, and economic growth”.
If the Government are serious about their assertion that they are going to save our high streets, they need to be able to support that. Nothing the Minister has said at any point has underpinned that this will save our high streets.
An impact assessment must consider the impact on different types of businesses, including small ones, and the impact on businesses operating mainly or solely on high streets, and whether the provisions will have a measurable impact on economic growth. That is the key because, from everything my noble friend and others have said, it seems that at the end of this process most businesses will be paying more in rates than they are currently paying—and how that delivers any kind of economic growth is something of a mystery to me.
So that is the nature of Amendment 21. We also support the other amendments in this group. Amendment 24 in particular requires the Secretary of State to review the impact on
“businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000”.
That of course brings us to the plateau issue. I will leave the noble Baroness on the Conservative Benches to speak to that, but in the event that she decides to push the amendment to a vote, we on these Benches will support it. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 23, in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, and Amendments 24 and 34 in my name. Amendment 23 seeks to include a review of the impact of this Bill on businesses. The lack of any kind of assessment of the impact that this policy will have on businesses needs to be addressed—hence this amendment.
Amendments 24 and 34 seek to include a requirement for a report on the impact that the £500,000 threshold will have on businesses. I am particularly concerned about the cliff-edge nature of the £500,000 threshold and its impact on business decisions. A business crossing the threshold, even by £1, will see an almost 20% increase in business rates payable. This is bad enough for most businesses, but a business in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector will see a near doubling. For instance, an RHL business with a hereditament of £495,000 that invested in its property just enough to push it over the threshold would potentially see an increase in rates from around £175,000 to £325,000 as a result of the Bill. This is meaningful in terms of business decision-making.
Not only is this unfair but it is a distorting tax. This Government say their priority is growth, but think about all those businesses up and down the country facing this dilemma and the impact on their individual decision-making. I thank the Minister for his engagement on this and I appreciate that this is being driven by the Treasury and its simple spreadsheet analysis. However, these are real decisions with real-world impacts, not simply numbers on a spreadsheet.
This Bill was initially presented as one that would increase the tax share of out-of-town warehouses, dubbed the “Amazon tax”, but that is not the Bill we have been presented with. As the Minister has said previously, only around 10% of businesses paying the higher tax will be warehouses. This Bill will actively encourage businesses to stop investing in their property to avoid paying a hefty increase in business rates. We want to develop our high streets. We want to encourage businesses to invest. This not only disincentivises that critical investment but creates a perverse incentive at the margin.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments would require the Government to undertake various forms of impact assessment or review, either ahead of Clauses 1 to 4 coming into effect in April 2026 or shortly following their implementation. Throughout the passage of this Bill, noble Lords have raised valid questions. What properties would be subject to the higher multiplier? What properties will qualify for the lower retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers? What will be the impact on the public sector, anchor stores or manufacturing? Throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government have sought to be as clear as possible. I appreciate that noble Lords may feel otherwise, but this does not detract from the fact that the Government have done what they can to provide as much information as possible.
I will reiterate two key points on the application of the new multipliers. With respect to the higher multiplier, it is the Government’s intention that this will apply to all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. The VOA last month helpfully published an ad hoc data release, providing further detail on the number of properties and their rateable value that would fall above this threshold, broken down by region and by subsector, so noble Lords can see further details on the make-up of the fewer than 1% of properties that fall above the threshold. This is based on the current 2023 rating list, because the 2026 rating list is still being prepared and is not yet available.
The lower multipliers will apply to qualifying RHL properties, with the Government’s intention being to introduce one multiplier for qualifying RHL properties with a rateable value below £51,000 and one for qualifying RHL properties with a rateable value between £51,000 and £499,999. Noble Lords want to know who will qualify. We have been very clear on this, previously and today: the definition of qualifying RHL will broadly follow that currently in use for the existing RHL relief and will be set out later this year. With regards to the proposed amendments for various impact assessments or analysis, as I have explained previously in the House, tax is not subject to the requirement to undertake an impact assessment, and that has been the case for many years. However, the Treasury has committed, and remains committed, to producing analysis of the impact of the new multipliers at the Budget when the tax rates are set and when the outcome of the 2026 revaluation is clearer.
Furthermore, as I set out in Committee, my department already has established and detailed processes in place to collect and publicly report on the business rates collected by local government. My department produces annual forecasts for the coming year, called NNDR 1 returns, and then on the actual amounts collected by local government, called NNDR 3 returns. These are published on the department’s website at both national and local authority level. From the 2026-27 NNDR 1 onwards, these will reflect the new multipliers that the Bill makes provision to introduce. It would not be appropriate or prudent to pre-empt the Budget or the outcomes of the 2026 revaluation, but I hope that, in reiterating the commitments already made and setting out the information that my department already reports on as a matter of course, I will reassure noble Lords.
I note that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also seek to investigate how the £500,000 threshold the Government intend to introduce with the higher multiplier will impact on businesses that have a rateable value around that threshold. I am aware that the interest here is in particular with regard to how that may affect business behaviour around investment. I will make a couple of points on that more specific area.
As acknowledged in the Transforming Business Rates discussion paper published at the Autumn Budget, the Government are aware that some stakeholders have argued that cliff edges in the business rates system may disincentivise investment. In that paper, the Government committed to exploring options for reform in this space. We have recently completed an initial stage of engagement to understand stakeholder views and areas of interest for reform and we are open to receiving written representations in response to the priority areas for reform, until the end of March 2025.
Your Lordships will understand that transforming the business rates system is a multiyear process, and that reforms taken forward will be phased over the course of the Parliament, but I hope noble Lords are reassured that the Government have publicly set out that an announcement on reforms will be made later.
I know that noble Lords have repeatedly raised how any evaluation or analysis should consider the impact of the new multipliers on economic growth and the viability of our high streets. What is being described is what the Government do as a matter of course and as Governments have done for centuries: if a policy is not having the desired effect, it will be changed. Your Lordships should rest assured that the Government will be keeping all this under review, as we do with all tax policy. I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer and for reminding us of the central purpose of Clauses 1 to 4. However, I do not think that he addressed the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, in any sense. The investment and growth effect from, literally, a £1 difference in a property’s rateable value will obviously be an issue. Without that, we cannot really understand how the Act will affect our high streets. On that note, however, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 21.
Lord Jamieson
“Review: threshold effect(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of how the provisions in this Act may affect businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000.(2) The Secretary of State must lay the review under subsection (1) before Parliament.”
Lord Lexden
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to expand the exemption of schools beyond those catering for EHCP pupils, to all those wholly or mainly organised for SEND education.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 25 has the support of my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood. We are both profoundly conscious of the importance of the contribution the independent sector of education makes to providing for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I hope the Government also recognise this important contribution and will join us today in paying tribute to it.
One-fifth of pupils in independent schools receive SEND support—a significantly higher proportion than in the state sector. The small schools, which are so numerous in the independent sector of education, are ideal places for such pupils. They thrive under the careful, compassionate supervision of their dedicated teachers and the staff who support them. Many of these schools, cherished by pupils and parents alike, are members of the Independent Schools Association, of which I am president, giving me an interest, which I declare.
The continued success of these schools needs to be safeguarded at a time when SEND provision in the state sector is in crisis—a crisis which will not be relieved for some time through the plans for significant improvement that the Government are quite rightly making. Everyone hopes that the Government’s plans will eventually succeed, but arrangements are needed of the kind for which this amendment provides.
Amendment 25 would help safeguard the future of independent schools that specialise in SEND provision, which are so badly needed in our country today. Under this amendment, an independent school that has 50% or more pupils with a registered SEND need would retain its charitable rate relief. The Government say that such relief must be confined to schools with some 50% of pupils with education, health and care plans. That is the wrong dividing line. There are nearly 100,000 pupils with a registered SEND need in independent schools whose parents do not want or, in many cases, have been unable to get an EHCP, which is notoriously difficult to acquire, since a long and often expensive obstacle course awaits those who apply for it.
In Committee, the Minister was at pains to stress that the majority of children with special educational needs have those needs met in state schools. Of course that is so, but it is wrong to neglect or diminish the crucial extent to which independent schools supplement the state’s provision, working in the spirit of partnership which is the predominant characteristic of the independent education sector today.
Without this amendment, invaluable SEND schools can be expected to find themselves in grave difficulty or will be forced to close. I beg to move.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 26, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, to which I have added my name. I support all the amendments in this group, especially Amendment 25 from my noble friend Lord Lexden, who put his case so powerfully. It is shameful that the Government refuse to recognise the extraordinary role that independent schools play in the care of those with special educational needs. If, even at this late stage, they do not agree to the modest suggestions put forward by my noble friend, they will stand charged with putting the interests of party dogma ahead of the needs of some of the most vulnerable in our society.
I declare my interest as chairman of governors at Brentwood School, president of the Boarding Schools’ Association and Institute of Boarding, and, for this group, chairman of the Royal College of Music.
When I spoke in Committee on the issue of gifted arts students, I made one simple point: in an economy that is flatlining, the creative economy is one of the few areas of sustained economic growth with unlimited potential to expand even further. It provides hundreds of thousands of jobs, is part of a huge export market and contributes billions in revenue. We should nurture it, not attack it. Music, as well as being a huge British success story in its own right, powers it by supporting so much of its rich tapestry, including film, television, computer games, drama, advertising and so on. In turn, its future depends absolutely on first-class music education in schools, conservatoires and universities, providing a pipeline of talent into the sector. Without that continuing education, and new musicians and new teachers entering the profession, music dies. It is as simple as that: no pipeline, no music.
But music education—where it all starts—is in real crisis. I acknowledge that this began under the last Government, but we have yet to see any signs of change, despite the new Government having been in office nearly 10 months. From primary schools right the way through to the end of full-time education, music remains under threat as never before.
With music education already in such crisis, why on earth would the Government want to make matters even worse by jeopardising the very real achievement of specialist music, dance, choral and drama teaching in independent schools? The amendment from my noble friend reflects the success and importance of the Music and Dance Scheme schools and their unique contribution, and that of our leading choir schools, to artistic life in this country. Nearly 1,500 pupils—the stars of tomorrow—receive means-tested bursary support to attend renowned specialist performing arts schools which are the envy of the world. Their position is already under threat because most parents are now charged VAT on their fee contributions, with only a small number receiving increased funding to offset it. That is bad enough, and we should not pour fuel on the fire.
This amendment is based on a proposition that is very simple for even the most dogmatic of minds to understand. The future of these schools, which are already facing such pressure, and their continuing ability to provide world-class teaching can be made more secure if they are protected from full business rates. The Government say that their entire agenda is focused on growth, yet here we have a policy that is absolutely anti-growth. Even on the number one item on their agenda for this Parliament, their opposition to independent education is so all-consuming that they are prepared to jeopardise it on the altar of ideology. I hope that even now the Government will see the strength of these arguments and accept my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 27 and 29 in my name, and I declare my interests in sport as set out in the register. I thank the Minister for his sympathetic response to my amendments in Committee, our subsequent conversation and the clear personal priority that he attaches to sport, particularly for disadvantaged communities, and the way it can bring them hope and opportunity in life.
There was a time when this Chamber had many contributors to any debate that impacted the world of sports policy. One notable absentee, who retired from the House three years ago, is my noble friend Lord Coe, and I am sure that the whole House will want to take this opportunity to wish him well as he seeks election on Thursday to become the first British president of the International Olympic Committee.
I made my case for these amendments in Committee. Both amendments highlight the lifeline received by many of our top sports men and women who have benefited from the sports bursaries and scholarship policies of independent schools. Today I also make the case for the widespread community use of the many outstanding sports facilities of independent schools, the expertise of their coaches, their support staff and the groundsmen and groundswomen who coach and support their pupils and offer their facilities and services to local communities through dual-use campaigns. Amendments 27 and 29 would provide protection for schools where 10% or more of students receive sports scholarships or bursaries and separately would discount all sports facilities from schools’ business rates.
These proposals reflect the commitment of independent schools to spreading opportunities in sport through fee assistance schemes and public benefit partnerships, including sharing facilities and coaching staff. Sporting opportunities are a key focus for some independent schools, and sports awards form part of the £1 billion in fee assistance delivered by independent schools in the last academic year. What is really important is that more than half the money is means tested, ensuring that support is targeted where it is most helpful, yet the imposition of VAT and the increase in the minimum wage and national insurance contributions are now compounded by the proposed imposition of business rates. Schools will inevitably have to cut back to balance their budgets, and the casualties will be the opportunities for sport and recreational activity for many dual-use local community clubs after school hours.
In moving the first of my two amendments, I drew the Committee’s attention to the contribution that independent schools make to elite sport as well. At the Olympic Games in Paris last year, 33% of Team GB’s medallists attended independent schools. At Tokyo in 2021, 40% of Team GB’s medallists attended independent schools. At Rio in 2016, it was 31%. At London 2012, it was 36%. Yet only 7% of our children go to independent schools, so top Olympians and Paralympians are more than four times more likely to have been privately educated than the UK population overall because of the bursary and scholarship policies on offer.
Let me give the specific example of Millfield, which delivered 13 of the 14 Millfield-educated and trained British athletes on Team GB through its means-tested financial support mechanism. The school funded 13 of the 14 Millfield-educated and trained British athletes on Team GB for the Paris Olympic Games, who between them brought home seven Olympic medals and one Paralympic medal: four gold, three silver and one bronze. All received means-tested financial support from the school during their time at Millfield, but how can that continue? Where will the money come from when the Government themselves predict a significant fall in children going to independent schools and urge those independent schools to make major cuts to their budgets? Where will the scholarships and bursaries be paid from?
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on these two amendments. I come from the Blair school of thought on this matter, in that if we make our state schools as good as they possibly can be, private schools will be considerably less and parents may choose, for all the reasons that have been given, to go to a state school—but the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Lexden, both had wise words.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that several years ago he asked me to visit a school in Shropshire. It was a very special school that helped, supported and taught children with severe dyslexic problems. Interestingly, it was so good that local authorities paid for children to go to that school. I think there were probably about 300 or 400 pupils there and a particular programme. I was absolutely amazed. I contrast that to what is happening currently with special educational needs. We have a crisis, as we know, in special educational needs. We have parents having to go to arbitration, where 98% of those parents win their case and are put on an education, health and care plan. We know that schools are not able to cope. We know that local authorities are not able to cope. Are we seriously suggesting that we aggravate that problem by ensuring that more and more children and young people from private schools go into that system? I think we have to get our system right first, before we burden the state system with even more children with special educational needs when we cannot cope.
I was interested in the noble Lord’s comments about sport and swimming in school. He is absolutely right: it is shameful currently. We seem to be football obsessed, but we are not obsessed with other sports. In Liverpool, you can find plenty of football pitches, and we have a 50-metre swimming pool, but if you try to find netball courts, hockey fields, or a place to play lacrosse, for example, it just does not happen. We need to be able to cater for all children. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that Katarina Johnson-Thompson won a gold medal in the youth Olympics as well as in the world championships, and she came from a state school.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on these amendments. The best way forward is probably Amendment 30 in the next group, which is a cleaner way of dealing with this. I would sit a little uncomfortably with the idea of placing additional financial burdens on schools, although I understand the rationale that the Government have put forward for these changes.
The concern is that any analysis that has been done, particularly from the financial point of view, might suggest that this is perhaps a more minor element of the changes that are proposed as regards independent schools. However, there is a grave concern that the cumulative effect of this change, along with the national insurance and particularly the VAT contributions, is likely to lead to the closure of a number of schools. This is not unprecedented; I have seen it happen through various changes in other parts of the United Kingdom. As such, while this is perhaps the smallest element of those three changes, it could potentially become the tipping point for a range of schools.
Let us deal specifically with the two main amendments in this group: Amendment 25, from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and the amendment on sport in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. There has been an explosion in the number of young people diagnosed with special educational needs throughout the United Kingdom, and there is much greater pressure, sometimes for very virtuous reasons. For example, we see that some children with particular physical disabilities, who many years ago would, sadly, have had a very low life expectancy, are now able to live into adulthood and, indeed, live a full life. That is something for us all to celebrate. However, there has been a massive increase in the number of children with special educational needs.
For many years, my part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, has tended to have much higher levels of special educational needs, and there may be an argument that other parts of the country are almost playing catch-up with Northern Ireland. But I can give your Lordships an indication that we should not be naive and believe that we will reach a plateau as regards those with needs that have to be catered for. Even in Northern Ireland over the last five, 10 or 15 years, those numbers have gone up and up, and there is no doubt that that situation will be replicated in the different parts of the United Kingdom.
With this comes increasing pressure to find appropriate educational settings for those many children. Again, judging from my experience, within the state sector that creates increasing pressures, where schools that perhaps have not been doing so before are having to provide specialist classes. The local authorities—in Northern Ireland’s case, the Education Authority—are having to scramble around to try to find where they can provide additional facilities.
In the Northern Ireland context, there is not a sizeable independent sector, but particularly in England the independent sector plays an important role in providing a level of specialist support for many of those children with special educational needs. It provides a certain level of safety valve in reducing the pressure within the system. I doubt this is the Government’s intention, but if we inadvertently create a situation where a number of these schools are forced to close, that will ratchet up further pressure within the state system at a time when we are already facing a tsunami of pressures, as has been identified by a number of noble Lords. The VAT exemption put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lexdenm seems to be a sensible way forward, because the placing of that additional burden, which will almost inevitably lead to further closures, will be counterproductive to our young people as regards special educational needs.
Similarly, although the case is perhaps a little less acute as regards sport, accusations can be made of Governments of different political persuasions, over many years and decades, who have not been able to provide the level of sporting facilities in this country that our young people merit. We all glory in the great sporting triumphs of this nation, but, quite often, such triumphs have occurred in spite of the facilities in place rather than because of them.
Going back many years to Prime Minister John Major, he spoke of the need to open up fields and sporting facilities, but there was not the level of success that we should perhaps have seen. It strikes me that, if we do not have some level of exemption for our sports fields when it comes to rating purposes, we are simply accelerating the process by which many of those facilities will become no longer viable.
When schools find themselves in financial difficulty, it is about seeing what assets they have and what they can get rid of. Sport, unfortunately, is quite often seen as an extra and as an easy thing to cut, but that has a detrimental impact. What particularly persuades me towards the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is that it ties this in with community use. These facilities should not be castles shining on the hill, to which no one can gain admission. The partnership that should always be there between schools and the community must be at the heart of what we seek to do, no more so than in the issue of sport.
As such, whatever the Government’s intentions in relation to these changes, without some level of amendment, either through this group or the group beginning with Amendment 30, we will be taking a retrograde step, for both sports and special educational needs.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 26 and 28 in this group. I also support Amendment 25. in the names of my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lord Black of Brentwood, and Amendments 27 and 29, in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan.
Amendment 26, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Black, raises again the issue of schools that are wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education for gifted arts students, such as those who are part of the Government’s Music and Dance Scheme. My noble friend rightly pointed out the importance of this group of students for our economic growth. They are students who attend an independent school based solely on their natural talents, and whose parents, where they are on a lower income, are means tested.
This was debated at length in relation to the imposition of VAT on these schools. The Government need to show, first, that they understand the issues that face such schools and their pupils, and, secondly, that they want to preserve these globally respected and admired institutions, without which our country would be much the poorer.
In his letter to me, for which I thank him, the Minister pointed out that there will be no impact from the increase of VAT on the fees paid by parents. To be clear, my understanding is that that is just for this academic year; if I have misunderstood, perhaps the Minister could clarify when he comes to speak.
I believe that my point still stands: the parents of gifted children whose income is means tested will pay more in future for their children’s education because of the VAT changes beyond this academic year and because of the changes proposed in the Bill. That risks excluding some of our most gifted children from the education that they need to realise their potential.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments seek to amend the definition of a private school so as to require different types of private school to be carved out of the Bill measure, or to require parts of private school hereditaments to be exempt from rating valuations. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for their contributions.
I shall speak first to Amendments 25, 26 and 27. Amendment 25 would result in the exemption of a private school if that private school catered wholly or mainly to pupils who had special educational needs, as defined under the Children and Families Act 2014, regardless of whether those pupils had an EHCP. Amendments 26 and 27 would carve out private schools that provided full-time education wholly or mainly to gifted arts students or persons in receipt of bursaries or scholarships for sporting excellence.
The Government are aware of the concerns raised in respect of pupils with special educational needs in private schools that may lose their charitable relief because the school is not concerned wholly or mainly with providing full-time education to persons for whom an EHCP is maintained. Similarly, the Government have listened carefully to representations made by all interested stakeholders more broadly with regard to the design of the policy to remove charitable relief from private schools. The view was reached that, with the exception of the existing carve-out in the Bill for private schools concerned wholly or mainly with full-time education for pupils with ECHPs, no other private schools would be carved out of the measure. That is the fairest approach, as it ensures that the impact on pupils with the most acute needs is minimised.
The Bill provides that private schools that are charities that are concerned wholly or mainly with providing full-time education for persons with an EHCP remain eligible for charitable rate relief. In practice, the Government believe this will ensure that most private special schools will not be affected by the Bill measure. In fact, we expect any private special school losing charitable relief to be the exception—potentially, in single figures. In addition, private schools that currently benefit from the existing rates exemption for properties that are used wholly for the training or welfare of disabled people will continue to do so. This general exemption means that they do not pay any rates at all.
I know that some concerns have been raised about the possibility that some mainstream private schools may be just under the 50% threshold for the EHCP carve-out within the Bill. In private schools, including private special schools, just 5.7% of pupils have an EHCP, with the majority of those pupils in private special schools. We therefore expect there to be very few mainstream private schools near the 50% threshold. The majority of children with a special educational need, with or without an EHCP, are provided for in the state sector. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can be supported only in a private school, the local authority funds the child’s place. The approach chosen in the Bill is targeted to ensure that the impact on pupils with the most acute needs is limited. This Government are committed to reforming England’s SEND provision to improve outcomes and are providing an almost £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding in the 2025-26 financial year.
I shall speak in more detail to Amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I set out in Committee the changes that the Government are making to the Music and Dance Scheme, which supports pupils from lower-income families to attend one of eight specialist arts schools. On the question that the noble Baroness asked, no decision has been made on the future of the scheme. I acknowledge that the scheme is not available for every private performing arts school in England, but I am aware that many performing arts schools, as well as specialist sports schools and private schools more broadly, choose to provide fee assistance as part of their business model.
Providing means-tested fee assistance is one way that charitable private schools can demonstrate public benefit, a requirement that accompanies charitable status. The Bill does not remove the charitable status of private schools, and the Government expect private schools to continue to demonstrate public benefit. It is a commercial decision for individual schools to determine how they meet any additional costs as a result of the Bill measure, but the Government do not expect activity demonstrating public benefit, such as providing fee assistance, to significantly reduce.
Amendments 28 and 29 are concerned with requiring parts of private school hereditaments to be exempt from the rateable value of that hereditament. Amendment 28 would require parts of private school hereditaments wholly or mainly used as nursery facilities, or areas primarily used by nurseries, to be exempt, while Amendment 29 would require private school sporting facilities, or areas used primarily for sport, to be exempt if those facilities are also made available more broadly to the community.
The Government have decided that where private schools provide for compulsory school-age children and have nursery classes within the school on the same hereditament, the presence of nursery-age children should not remove the school from the business rates measure. This approach best ensures consistency with the policy intent. The allocation of any additional costs as a result of the Bill measure in private schools that also provide nursery classes is a matter for those schools.
I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has sought to find a middle ground following the Committee debate, but to exempt parts of hereditaments is challenging. This is also applicable to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that seeks to exempt sporting facilities. My remarks are applicable to both circumstances.
Noble Lords will recall that I said in Committee that I would take away the question of exempting parts of private school hereditaments, particularly in the context of sport. I have done that, so I hope noble Lords present will acknowledge that this has been looked at carefully. There are a very limited number of circumstances in rating where part of a property is exempted entirely. These exemptions are the most generous forms of support in business rates and are currently reserved for cases such as agricultural land, places of public religious worship and property wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people.
To exempt—to totally remove from rating—parts of hereditaments within private schools used as nurseries or for sports would not be proportionate. Stand-alone nurseries and sports facilities, whether they are charities or not, do not currently receive the same benefit, so to exempt them when present in these particular private schools would create a broader inconsistency in the rating system.
Furthermore, whether part of a hereditament can be rated differently is not straightforward and depends on the facts on the ground. The key principle is that a property at the same site, in the same occupation and used for the same broad purpose is treated as one hereditament. That is why nursery classes and sports facilities on the same site as a private school, and operated by that school, do not have their own rates bill. The Government have carefully considered this and are of the view that to treat separately parts of private school hereditaments used as nurseries or for sports would not be merited in this case.
Business rates are a property tax and, to clarify the position for the noble Lord, Lord Weir, are applicable only to England, as devolved Administrations have their own approach to business rates. Where a property is being used as a private school, even if that school may have nursery classes or sports facilities, it remains a private school property. Amending the basis on which fee-paying schools can retain their charitable rate relief in the way these amendments propose would undermine the Government’s intention to remove tax breaks for private schools in order to raise funds to support the more than 90% of pupils who attend state- funded schools.
Before I finish, I want to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and give my best wishes to Lord Coe in his bid to be elected the first British president of the International Olympic Committee.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords regarding the reasons why I cannot accept the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Moynihan. I hope they can take from my remarks that the Government have considered the cases they made carefully, and I respectfully ask them not to press their amendments.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, in accordance with the custom, I thank all those who have spoken in favour of the amendments in this group. A powerful case has been made for exempting independent schools with charitable status in respect of certain parts of the valuable work they do, such as special needs education, music and sport. It is an utter tragedy that the Government cannot see that case.
I note that, in the course of his remarks, the Minister said not one word of appreciation for and thanks to the independent schools for the enormous role they play in the education system. It may be 7%, but it is a very important contribution. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 30 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Storey; I also support Amendment 31 in the names of my noble friends Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Lexden, which seeks to include a review on the effect that this Bill will have across the education sector.
I think it is safe to say that both the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and I do not believe that the long-standing tradition that education should be free from taxation should be broken. Clearly, the Government do not agree with us, and we have seen this with the egregious introduction of VAT on independent school fees and now with the proposed change in this Bill to the exemption from business rates relief for independent schools with charitable status, not to mention the impact of the proposed employer national insurance contribution increases.
As the Minister knows, the majority of independent schools are small and run on tight margins. As he will remember from my speech in Committee, I believe it is a poor precedent for the Government to set to create a two-tier charity system and there has been no answer from the Government about this principle that all charities should be treated equally. This feels like a rather political move and charities, of all organisations, should be free from such moves.
I assume that the noble Lord is going to argue that there has been no sign that pupil numbers are dropping significantly following the introduction of VAT in January and that this Bill will similarly have a limited impact. But I say to the Minister that, first, the point that the principle that education should never be taxed still stands and, secondly, I do not think anyone really expected the impact on independent schools from the imposition of VAT would happen so quickly.
I am sure the noble Lord has received letters from parents, just as I have. They will go to great lengths to avoid disrupting their children’s education and I would be surprised if we see much change before the start of the new school year, and then from a reduced uptake in year 7. Indeed, the latest data from the Independent Schools Council shows a drop of 4.6% in applicants in year 7 and 3.9% in reception—and that was before the imposition of VAT.
I look forward to hearing the insights from other noble Lords and to hearing the Minister’s response, but at this point I am minded to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 31 in my name. I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend Lord Lexden for his support. I also strongly support Amendment 30 from my noble friend Lady Barran. I refer noble Lords to my previous declaration of interests.
Let me explain why this amendment is important. Throughout all the debates on independent education that we have had in this House, as indeed they have had in the other place, the Government have shown themselves seemingly impervious to rational argument. Frankly, they have buried their head in the sand, wilfully refused properly to engage with the independent sector and ignored the strength of feeling in this House and the opinion of experts in the field.
The unpalatable truth that they will not acknowledge is that their policies, of which the measures in this Bill are one central strand, simply will not end up benefiting the state sector in any meaningful or visible way. The 6,500 teachers promised are likely to be a fantasy and will end up being just another broken promise. But the policies will end up profoundly impacting the independent sector and the lives of tens of thousands of pupils and their hard-working parents, and that will have far-reaching consequences not just for the schools themselves but in countless other areas.
Heartbreakingly, as we heard in the debate on the previous group, it will impact on the way in which our society cares for vulnerable children, those with special needs and disabilities, and their carers and families. It will impact on local communities that currently benefit from thriving and imaginative partnerships with state schools, on faith communities and on military families. It will impact on gifted children who benefit from bursaries, something that many independent schools are cruelly being forced now to review, and of course it will impact on jobs at independent schools, especially when closures of schools inevitably and tragically happen.
It is crucial that all this is rigorously scrutinised and that Parliament has an opportunity to examine the consequences of the policies contained in the Bill, taken alongside the other tax changes being made on VAT and on national insurance—a combination of measures that the Government’s impact assessment failed to do, as it related only to business rates. That is what we, particularly in this House, are here for: to scrutinise, examine and challenge. But we need a comprehensive assessment of the facts, undertaken by the Government themselves, to be able to do that, and that is what this amendment would deliver. The Independent Schools Council, which does such an exceptional job in championing the sector, and the other associations that form part of it will conduct their own analysis. Ultimately, however, it is the Government who are responsible for the delivery of public policy in these areas and who must be held accountable by Parliament and the electorate.
The Government say that their measures, including those in Clause 5, will raise a certain amount of money to be invested in state education. I doubt it will raise anything like that, but let us see. They say they will be able to recruit additional teachers. I very much doubt it, but let us see. They say there will be no consequences for children with special needs and those in faith schools—let us see. If they are really confident that their policies can deliver what they say without damaging consequences elsewhere, why would they not want to have a review of them to prove the point? What are they fearful of?
Perhaps it is just possible that they might be wrong and will end up undermining and weakening the independent sector, which is the envy of the world, without delivering for the state sector—which means, of course, that they would have to think again. We need answers to that. That is why I believe they must commit to a thorough review of their policies, then Parliament, including our House, can scrutinise it, debate it and make recommendations for change.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I agree with both amendments in this group. If you believe in “education, education, education”, you should not tax independent schools in the way that the Government have decided they want to. The Government have argued that taxing independent schools will increase the number of teachers in state schools, but the Government’s own figures show that they reached only 62% of their postgraduate secondary ITT recruitment target in 2024, so there will be pressure to increase the pay of existing teachers rather than to appoint new ones. In any case, most of the extra £1.5 billion estimated to come per year from this clause will go on special educational needs.
I suggest, very much in line with Amendment 25 from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that the Government’s priority should be to cut the backlog in assessments for education, health and care plans, rather than taxing parents who want the best for their child with special needs and think it can be delivered only in the independent sector. There is a very basic issue of principle here: the right of a parent to opt out of a state system where they believe their child would benefit from that. When they have paid their share of general taxation and foregone a place in the state system, thus saving the state money, then paid additionally for their child’s schooling, I submit that it is wrong in principle to tax them yet again for that decision to send their child to an independent school.
I have concluded that Clause 5 is a distraction. It will fail to deliver the Government’s ambitions for the state sector, and it is better for our education system as a whole to remove Clause 5.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, again, I support the amendments in this group. Perhaps I should clarify for the Minister that I do so, to paraphrase something said in a different context, on the basis of being without a directly selfish economic or strategic interest in the issue. Let me highlight why I say that, in coming from a background of education in Northern Ireland.
This provision does not affect Northern Ireland, as the Minister rightly pointed out; it is an English-only matter, because all these aspects are devolved issues. Consequently, from that point of view, it will not impact on any of my former constituents in that regard, nor indeed on Northern Ireland. We have a strange patchwork of school types across the United Kingdom in our delivery of education. Northern Ireland’s background is largely one in which the independent sector is extremely small. Indeed, you could make an argument, particularly at post-primary level, that on the definition of what most people would regard as independent schools, there is perhaps one independent school in Northern Ireland that is directly akin to those in England.
I am trying to look at this as objectively as possible, but from that point of view there are three main reasons why these amendments need to be supported. First, the prospect of imposing additional burdens and taxation on schools sits deeply uncomfortably with me. The idea of penalising parents by saying, “Because of the educational choice that you are making, we are going to single out your schools for an additional financial burden to tax education” is fundamentally wrong.
Secondly, there is at least a perception—I am sure the Government would deny it—that this is a highly ideologically driven proposal and part of a wider set of seeming attacks on independent schools, as seen particularly by the changes in VAT. As such, there is a concern that, rather than looking at what is of educational benefit, this is some red meat being thrown out to some ideological Labour supporters. It is an easy target to go after.
The third reason is that of unintended consequences. We are asked to look at different figures and projections as to the impact that these various changes will make. As I highlighted in the previous group, this is perhaps a less significant change than the changes to VAT, but again, it will have a level of tipping impact and lead to the closure of schools. This is not mere theory.
If I may draw on an example of relatively recent history in Northern Ireland, roughly 12 years ago, the then Minister of Education, who was a member of Sinn Féin, made changes to a level of funding that was available to preparatory schools in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, the vast majority of fees were paid by parents and the schools were largely supported directly by them; it was at least 70%-plus. The state paid a small proportion of what would normally go to support children in state schools. There was a significant cut made to that. It was not completely wiped off the face of it, for the reason that the then Minister would have had to bring it to get executive approval had it done so. The arguments used were that it was some sort of financial benefit, which could then be ploughed back into state education, so it was an egalitarian move.
What was the ultimate impact of that? For many of those schools which were already under a level of financial burden, it became the final nail in their financial coffin, with the end result that, 12 years on, the number of prep schools in Northern Ireland has gone down by just over a third and the number of pupils going to those prep schools is down by more than 40%. That single move made a number of those schools unsustainable.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 30 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran and the noble Lord, Lord Storey. In doing so, I should explain that leaving Clause 5 out of the Bill is the only way to protect all pupils with SEND who attend independent schools, like those I attended, where the proportion of children with SEND is much lower than 50%. I understand the Government argue that protecting only schools where a majority of pupils have education, health and care plans, or EHCPs, is adequate—as if they can ignore the inconvenient truth that almost 100,000 pupils receive SEND support in independent schools without an EHCP.
I wonder whether the Government have joined the dots and thought of the impression that this gives. The sad fact is that, in the Government’s eyes, the damage to many of these children’s life chances seems to be a price worth paying. They are expendable, immaterial, inconsequential, collateral damage, caught in the crossfire of what appears to be an ideological obsession with punishing anyone they perceive as rich. Yet many of these children’s families, as we have already heard from across the House, are not rich and the Government know it, but they seem not to care. They seem not to care that this is a deeply damaging and wholly disproportionate measure which, as we have already heard, will not raise significant revenue but will harm schools and particularly pupils with SEND who, as I did, come from modest backgrounds. Their life chances will be badly affected by its implementation. They seem not to care, but schools could close because of it. They seem not to care about the incomprehensible incompatibility of putting, as we have already heard, even more pressure on an already overstretched state sector, which the Government know and the National Audit Office has shown, is already failing to meet demand. They seem not to care, incredibly, about the mental health of pupils with SEND, which will undoubtedly be hurt by the impact of this measure unless Clause 5 is left out of the Bill. I say again to the Minister that I refuse to believe that this is the Government’s intention, but it is definitely the impression given.
So I fear that we have lost sight of the people who matter most: the almost 100,000 children with SEND who receive SEND support in independent schools without an EHCP. This amendment gives us the opportunity to send a clear message as a House that we stand with them in solidarity and with their families. That is why I urge noble Lords on all sides of the House to support it and to remove Clause 5 from the Bill.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I had not originally intended to intervene on this amendment, but I cannot help but see a wider point of principle that is involved with Clause 5 of the Bill.
I should explain that rating law serves to exempt premises used by charities and occupied for their charitable purposes, with 80% mandatory relief and 20% discretionary relief given by the billing authority. There is also some discretion for billing authorities to give similar treatment to local not for profit or community enterprises. I hope I have got that right.
What disturbs me is that, clearly, the Government think that some charities are more deserving than others. This throws up a wider issue of an arguably discriminatory policy on which a wider debate across the country is warranted. What might be more or less meritorious when considering organisations concerned with human disease, animals, wildlife or conservation, building preservation and so on? But education is the very basis of what we leave and pass on to future generations in knowledge, citizenship and values. I fail to comprehend what this clause in the Bill is, and that is why I feel compelled to support these two amendments. If we do not secure its complete removal, we should certainly have the review advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Black.
I will illustrate some of the consequences of this. I recently visited my old school as part of the Learn with the Lords programme. I ascertained that this Bill, along with other measures introduced by the Government, will cost it an additional £1 million per year and that this is likely to be reflected principally in staff reductions. I happen to know that this school has a very firm commitment to its staff, as it does to its pupils.
So Clause 5 is more than unfortunate; it is retrograde and, I feel, discriminatory. The Government ought to think again about the purpose and formulation of this particular clause of the Bill.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has heard three very strong arguments from across the House. The first is that the principle of not taxing education should be respected and upheld. Secondly, there is the principle that charities should not be subject to any kind of political overreach. Thirdly, the Government should not introduce a two-tier system, punishing charities that do not conform to their views. I think we have heard across the House that this sets a very unfortunate precedent.
Finally, there is the point that this policy will not deliver but rather will impact children, particularly vulnerable children, who attend some of the small schools that serve them and their communities all around the country. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, we have a right of reply.
Amendment 30 would remove Clause 5 from the Bill, and therefore the measure that removes the eligibility for charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities. Amendment 31 would require the Government to undertake an assessment of the expected and observed impact of Clause 5. Furthermore, that amendment seeks to ensure that any assessment has regard to impacts owing to any other tax change that have affected private schools since 1 January 2025, effectively seeking to create an all-encompassing review of the Budget tax changes and their effect on private schools, and the resulting impact on the state sector. I am unable to accept these amendments.
This Government committed in their manifesto to raise school standards for every child, to break down barriers to opportunity and to ensure that every child has the best start in life, no matter where they come from or their financial background. As part of that, the Government committed to removing the VAT and business rates charitable relief tax breaks for private schools, to help to raise revenue to help to deliver on their commitments to education and young people.
The Government carefully considered their approach in designing the policy to remove charitable rate relief from private schools. On 29 July, they published a technical note on removing the VAT and business rates charitable relief tax breaks for private schools. The Government received over 17,000 responses to this note, from a range of tax specialists, private schools, bodies that represent private schools and others. A detailed government response to this was published at the Autumn Budget. Furthermore, at the introduction of this Bill, the Government published a note setting out analysis of the impact of the business rates measure. This is available on the Bill page. A tax information and impact note was published in relation to the VAT change at the Budget and is available on GOV.UK.
The removal of business rates charitable relief from private schools that are charities will apply to all charitable private schools, with the exception of where a private school is wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education to persons for whom an education, health and care plan is maintained. As I set out in a debate on an earlier group today, under the carve-out in the Bill, the Government believe that this will ensure that most private special schools will not be affected by the Bill measure.
At the Budget, the Government announced a real-terms increase in per pupil funding, with a £2.3 billion increase to the core schools budget for the financial year 2025-26, including an almost £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding. This funding increase needs to be paid for; to help to do that, the Government are ending tax breaks for private schools, including, as this Bill delivers, ending charitable rate relief for those private schools in England that are charities. Taken together with the policy to remove the VAT exemption, these measures will raise around £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30.
I know that there have been concerns with regards the impact on the state sector caused by this policy. The impact note that I mentioned set out that, in the long run—by 2030—the Government estimate an increase of 2,900 pupils in the state sector. Based on average 2024-25 per pupil spending in England, the Government expect the revenue costs of pupils entering the state sector as a result of the business rates measure in England to steadily increase to a peak of around £20 million per annum, after several years. Overall, the expected revenue from the measure will substantially outweigh the additional cost pressures.
The Government have undertaken analysis of the policy and provided that publicly. Furthermore, they undertake a range of monitoring, data collection and publication of data as part of usual processes, and will continue to do so when the Bill measure comes into effect. For example, the Department for Education monitors place demand and capacity as a matter of course, and works closely with local authorities to meet any demand pressures to ensure that there are sufficient school places for children who need them. All children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place.
Pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons, and the school funding system in England is already set up to manage that. For individual schools, the Government therefore expect changes in pupil numbers caused by these changes to be managed in the usual way. Data on the number of school pupils is published every summer, providing information on the number of pupils at different types of schools, so anyone can see how pupil numbers in both state and private schools have changed.
Part of the assessment that the amendment would require seeks to understand any impact on partnership working between private and state schools, as well as the capacity of private schools to provide fee assistance. I understand that there is concern that private schools will reduce these activities. We understand from data published by the Independent Schools Council that a lot of private-state sector partnerships relate to the hosting of joint events or providing access to facilities used by private school pupils. In many of these partnerships, the activity undertaken benefits the pupils that attend private schools, so it would not be in the interest of the private schools to stop this activity either.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the House, and particularly to the Minister, for jumping the gun with my closing remarks.
It is fair to say that, of the three points that I raised —the principle of taxing education, the differential treatment of charities and the impact of the Bill— I did not hear the first two addressed directly, and on the third I think that the Minister and I have to agree to differ. With that, I am afraid that I have to tell the Minister that I still wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Thurlow
“Use Class for retail services from fulfilment warehouses(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must instigate a review of the merits of a separate Use Class and associated multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses that do not have a material presence on local high streets, to apply in England.(2) Experts in the sector must be consulted to inform the review, including but not limited to—(a) the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors;(b) the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation;(c) the Rating Surveyors’ Association. (3) The Secretary of State must publish a report of their conclusions and recommendations within three months of the review being instigated, and lay that report before Parliament.(4) The Secretary of State must implement any recommended changes indicated by the findings of their review within six months of the date on which the report is published.(5) The Secretary of State may make provision to carry out subsection (4) by regulations made by statutory instrument.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to recalibrate the share of non-domestic rates paid by retailers not on the high street through a review informed by expert advice, to be implemented within one year of the passing of this Act.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, we debated this amendment two or three hours ago. It would level the playing field between internet warehousing and high street shops. I am grateful to noble Lords who took part in that debate and to the Minister for his helpful and constructive suggestions, but I am afraid that they were too vague. The wait will be too long and the crisis for high street shops is pressing, so I would like to divide the House.
Lord Jamieson
Sustainable Farming Incentive
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I first declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a dairy farmer. I thank the Minister for repeating this Statement in your Lordships’ House and for allowing an opportunity to scrutinise the decision to cap sustainable farming incentives in this manner.
We on these Benches are proud of the Environment Act 2021 and of the transition in farming support payments to environmental land management schemes. ELMS is a crucial step in fulfilling our legally binding commitment to achieve a 30% recovery in nature by 2030, as well as ensuring that farming payments are for public goods. To cap the sustainable farming incentives with no notice, despite the Government’s own website informing that up to six weeks’ notice would be given for withdrawal of SFIs, is a betrayal of our farmers and our natural environment. Many were already facing unexpected financial hardship from the massive reduction in delinked payments, planning for the reduction in IHT reliefs, the increased minimum wage and national insurance contributions. This adds more pressure to those who were expecting to transition to SFIs this year but had not yet applied. Fewer than half of farm holdings that were in the basic payment scheme have SFIs.
The NFU’s farmer confidence survey shows farmer confidence in England and Wales at its lowest level ever. Some 88% of farmers believe the phase-out of direct payments will negatively affect their business, and 51% of farmers were planning to use ELMS to mitigate that phase-out. These dramatic changes in government support with no notice upset any attempt at budgeting, with costs already largely set for this year based on revenue projections that have now been dramatically cut. This will cause significant further hardship and heartache.
What assessment has been made of the impact of the SFI announcement on the financial viability of the farming industry? How many farms are likely to be pushed beyond breaking point this year? Has the estimated £400 million being cut from delinked payments been fully reallocated to the environmental land management schemes? Do the Government still intend to open the Countryside Stewardship higher tier this summer as previously committed to? In regard to the environment, what impact will the SFI decision have on compliance with the legally binding commitment delivered in our Environment Act to deliver improvements in biodiversity and nature recovery, given the central importance of farmers and land managers in achieving this?
Government messaging about the timing of new SFIs has been muddled, mentioning both 2026 and 2025 and it being potentially contingent on the finalisation of the land use framework. Please could the Minister be clear today on exactly when farmers will be given access to new SFIs and how their emphasis will differ from existing SFIs? Can the Minister also confirm that the £5 billion budget settlement for farming remains intact and will be fully distributed over the years ending in 2025 and 2026?
Given this Government’s disappointing financial decisions relating to farming and the wider rural economy, it would also be helpful if the Minister could enable us to understand what role she sees for private sector finance in replacing the public purse in land management. ELMS is an important segue into that, identifying valuable natural capital activities in land management, which in turn can morph into quantified public goods. In order for the private sector to step in, we need to see financial incentives. What financial incentives would the Government consider appropriate to deliver this investment? Will the woodland carbon code and peatland carbon code be admitted into the emissions trading scheme, creating real market demand? Will tax incentives be considered, or public bidding rules? Finally, could the water industry play a greater role in financing nature-based projects for reducing peak flow rates and flood events, and improving water quality?
The farming community needs help to plan after so many blows; I hope that the Minister can help with her answers.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Government for the Statement. They will no doubt by now be aware of the significant disappointment and dismay the sudden closure of this scheme, without consultation or warning, has caused. What analysis did the Government do before this announcement to establish the likely impact on smaller farmers such as family farmers and those on significantly less than the minimum wage? Were there impact assessments in respect of farmers losing their basic payment this year with the immediate removal of SFI, and without, as yet, any clear replacement scheme?
Can the Minister please share with us the expenditure implications? It is our understanding on these Benches that if the BPS cuts this year are taken into account, more than £400 million of the £2.5 billion farming budget will remain unspent. Given that this was a budget intended to reward farmers for nature restoration and sustainable food production, can the Minister reassure us that this will not damage both? Can she explain how the Government will ensure that key environmental work is rewarded, and carried out by farmers who can no longer get access to this funding?
Does the Minister accept that there is a danger that the larger landowners, the ones that are more corporate, are highly likely to have already taken up the SFI and be part of the 6,100 new entrants this year? What advice does she have for the smaller operators, some of Britain’s poorest farmers, who are now left behind? Is she further aware that only 40 hill farms were new entrants this year, and that the previous Government failed to provide sufficient support for hill farmers, which in turn led to an over 40% drop in hill farm incomes in just five years? Is there any plan to help the small farms, upland farmers and commoners affected by this sudden change?
Can the Minister share with the House any discussions with farming stakeholders in advance of this change? Stakeholders tell us there were none, and the NFU said that it had just 30 minutes’ notice.
Finally, will the Minister please share what steps the Government will now take to increase the farming budget to reflect the Government’s nature and climate targets? We would be very happy to share the suggestions in our own manifesto if that would be in any way helpful. These targets, we would argue, have been greatly damaged by this cut in SFI.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interest and questions on the Statement.
Twice before, the SFI system has been paused when the funding had been used up from the applications and started up again. Although applications for the SFI 2024 scheme have closed, I want to reassure noble Lords that we plan to reopen the SFI application service once we have a reformed SFI offer in place. Ongoing ELM schemes are supporting farm businesses to remain viable as they adjust to the reduction of farm subsidies that noble Lords have referred to. The new figures published recently showed that the proportion of commercial farms with income from agri-environment schemes rose from 49% in 2021 to 70% in 2023-24. There is a success rate here.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about funding from the delinked payments reductions. The money released from the reductions to subsidies is being reinvested through our other schemes for farmers and land managers. Every penny is staying within the sector.
Details of how the £5 billion for 2024-25 and 2025-26, which was secured in the last spending review as being spent, were published on our farming blog on 12 March, for noble Lords who are interested. This includes £1.05 billion on SFI and £350 million on other ELM schemes.
The noble Lord asked about the Countryside Stewardship higher tier. That is being rolled out in a controlled way by invitation, so that everyone will get the right level of support. Invited applicants will be asked to submit applications from this summer.
On the environment and environmental targets, which the noble Lords asked about, closing SFI for new applications will not have any impact on the environmental benefits that we are getting from the 37,000 SFI agreements that are already live, nor affect the outcomes we are getting from other agri-environment schemes. The Government are still committed to delivering on these environmental outcomes.
Some 4.3 million hectares of land are now in SFI agreements, which means that 800,000 hectares of arable land are being farmed without insecticides. We want to move further on this. This reduces harm to pollinators and improves soil health. Some 300,000 hectares of low-input grassland is being managed sustainably, which will help biodiversity and improve water quality. Some 75,000 kilometres of hedgerows are being protected and restored, and this provides essential habitats for wildlife, improves carbon storage and strengthens our natural flood defences.
Regarding the timing of the reformed SFI, we plan to reopen the online application process once we have finalised the offer. On the issue around small farms, upland farmers and commoners, we need to make it fit for purpose as it moves forward, so that we are talking to the right people and allowing the right kind of farms and communities to apply. We are considering what it needs to look like, taking those issues into consideration. Clearly, the spending review is also important. We expect to publish more information as to what it will look like and when it will come into play after that. We will work with stakeholders and farmers to review the scheme, to ensure that we are directing funding towards the actions that are most appropriate and have the strongest case for that investment.
We also want to align the SFI with our work on the land use framework and the 25-year farming road map that my colleague, the Farming Minister, is working on. We need to protect the most productive land and boost food security while we deliver for the environment and nature.
We are evolving the SFI offer and exploring ways to better target the money towards smaller farmers and the least productive land. We need to ensure that we get the outcomes that we need.
To confirm, the farming budget remains at £5 billion for this year and next year, as we previously announced. We are on track to spend all the funding that is available.
On private sector funding, which the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about, the Government are committed to significantly increasing private investment in nature’s recovery. This will not only help us meet our environmental targets but will create opportunities for farmers and land managers to diversify their business revenues through the sale of services around nature and the environment. Those markets are small, but they are growing. We are going to consult on what additional action we need to take to strengthen those markets in the weeks ahead. In the recent land use framework publication, we announced a call for evidence to seek views on how we can better incentivise private investment in nature from the sectors that impact and depend on our shared natural capital. We intend to publish that later this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked specifically about the Woodland Carbon Code and the Peatland Code. The Government have launched a consultation on integrating greenhouse gas removals in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme—as the noble Lord knows, that was last summer. This included exploring the inclusion of the Woodland Carbon Code in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. We are going to look at that consultation and respond in due course.
We are also exploring opportunities for expanding private investment in woodland creation. A few weeks ago, we launched the timber in construction road map, and we have an upcoming call for evidence on private investment for nature recovery. We also recently launched a tender to modernise the Woodland Carbon Code’s operations and the upcoming voluntary carbon and nature markets consultation, so there is quite a lot going on in that area.
On the water industry, we are aware of a number of water companies that are working to develop nature-based solutions and exploring actions to improve water quality and manage flooding. We are working with the industry to understand how we can promote the different benefits that come from this and to promote blended funding approaches. Through Ofwat, the Government are also supporting water companies to develop nature-based solutions—we have discussed this in other debates. It is an important focus for us. Mainstreaming nature-based solutions to deliver greater value is something we now have a grant to look at, so we can bring together multi- sectoral expertise and leadership, which is what we are going to need to facilitate and enable the proper, true transition to nature-based solutions.
I hope I have covered most things, but I will check and get back to noble Lords if I have not.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, the Minister in the Commons told the House of Commons that he knew for five years that the money was going to run out, but he said nothing. Instead, he waited until the money ran out and slammed the door— overnight—on more than half of English agricultural holdings, in breach of the six-week notice period that was cynically, overnight, airbrushed off the Defra website. His only reason for this was that there might otherwise have been a rush of applications. His only advice to farmers was to apply immediately for any new SFI that is opened, which is surely itself a recipe for a precipitous rush. It also ignores that inquiries to Defra by farmers seeking to get their applications right take months to get a reply. It took me three years to get answers, and those were still incomplete when the scheme was shut in the face of my family farm.
Finally, the Minister then tells hard-pressed rural communities that his department running out of money should be “a cause for celebration”. I cannot help but recall the rustic expression, “Don’t piddle down my back and tell me that it’s raining”. Can the Minister tell the House what lessons have been learned from this latest disaster for so many family farms?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned earlier, this is not the first time that SFI has been paused. The way the scheme operates is that it opens for applications and, when the funding is used up, it is then paused until we look at the next round of SFI funding. It is difficult to judge when that is likely to come to an end. In response to the noble Lord’s final question, we are aware that the SFI scheme needs reforming, which is what we are now looking at doing. We need to get it right and we need it to work better for farmers and for the environment. That is why, as I mentioned, we will be talking to stakeholders, including those who use the scheme and those who we would like to use it but who perhaps find it difficult to apply to at the moment. I am particularly talking about smaller farms and upland farms; we need to be much more targeted on them. We are aware that we need to reform it, and we are working on that at the moment.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my register of interests. It is somewhat disingenuous of the Minister to say that the SFI scheme has been paused twice. The previous two occasions were actually pilot schemes, which were then rolled forward, so I do not accept that. Following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, what assessment has been made of whether Defra has sufficient resources and staff to deliver commitments across the environment and food security, and what is the Minister’s assessment of the Rural Payments Agency’s ability to handle the change?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, we need to reform the system and we are working on that; we want it to work as effectively as it possibly can, both to support farmers and to deliver the environmental targets that we need. I have visited the RPA offices in Carlisle, and the staff there work incredibly hard. We are looking at how we can improve the digital support they get, for example, because we need to ensure that the RPA is fit for the future and able to support farmers as best as it can in the way that it needs to.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Statement today. On the sustainable farming incentive, I know that she visits Northern Ireland and the other devolved nations fairly regularly, examining agricultural and environmental issues. When she next visits Northern Ireland, could she discuss with the Minister for Agriculture there the impact of the withdrawal of APR and business property relief? They were essential to sustainable farming in Northern Ireland, where an acre sells for about £25,000. The level of investment and money needs to be investigated by the Government and the Treasury again.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for those questions. The last time I visited Northern Ireland, I went on a visit with the Ulster Farmers’ Union to a farm to look at the specific differences between farming in Northern Ireland and in England, and to listen carefully to their concerns about some of the issues that my noble friend has raised. I can confirm that I am going to Northern Ireland on Thursday. I will be spending two days there, and I have already asked for an agenda item with Minister Muir, who my noble friend referred to, to discuss exactly these issues. It is really important that Northern Ireland farmers are listened to, just as it is important for farmers in the rest of the UK.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I do not know whether I have an interest to declare. I am not a farmer but the Church Commissioners, who pay my stipend and working costs, are one of the largest landowners of tenanted farms in the UK, so I declare that.
We have had a couple of brief references so far to food security, but might I tempt the Minister to say a little bit more on that subject, particularly given the geopolitical situation we are in at the moment? In addition, has any assessment been made of the impact that these changes and the announcement last week are likely to have on the UK’s food security?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
On food security, as I mentioned earlier, we currently have 37,000 farmers in the SFI scheme, which equates to about 50% of farmland. The purpose of that is to support them to produce food sustainably while also delivering for nature. The SFI agreements last for three years, so, although we have closed the new applications, the live agreements—the 37,000—remain unaffected and can continue to support sustainable food production.
We are committed to improving food security and are aware that SFI is a major tool that we need to use to support that. We are also looking to boost food security with other tangible measures. For example, we recently committed to ensure wherever possible that half of food supplied into the public sector is produced locally or certified to high environmental standards. We have also announced a five-year extension to the seasonal workers visa route and we are looking at reform to the planning system so that farmers can put the necessary infrastructure in place that they need in order to continue to produce food sustainably.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is the Minister aware that, speaking in the House of Commons before the election, the then shadow Defra Minister, Danny Zeichner, said that farmers in the UK needed complete certainty and stability on the SFI? He went on to say that an incoming Labour Government would provide exactly that. Is this the Minister’s idea of complete certainty and stability?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I completely understand that the closure so quickly and unexpectedly has caused difficulties and concern—I just want to say that. However, it is important that, looking to the 25-year farming road map that we are developing, part of the reasoning behind that is to try to give that kind of security. It is also important that, when we look at opening the SFI scheme next time, all this is taken into consideration, so that our reforms produce a more stable scheme. He is absolutely right that farmers need certainty and security, because farming is looking at long-term investments and farmers need to be able to know how to make those investments. So I take his point.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests are set out in the register and that I am likely to be affected by the withdrawal of SFI 24. I want to just probe a little further on the two questions that were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester. The Government claim that the promised six-week warning of closure was not given due to the potential spike in applications causing budget overspend. Surely, Defra has been monitoring this spending versus budget and advising Ministers accordingly. Please can the Minister confirm that she is satisfied with the efficacy of the Defra review process and, if so, why the Government did not take early action to avoid this serial blow to farming and the environment?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, as I said, I am very aware that the sudden closure, when farmers were expecting more notice, has not been easy and that, for many people who were intending to put in applications, as the noble Lord said about himself, that has caused difficulties. I have friends who are in that boat, so I am very aware that difficulties were caused. I will take the concerns of the House back to the Farming Minister and explain that the unexpected pause and its impacts are felt very strongly by this House. I am happy to commit to do that, because it is important.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests as in the register. My noble friend Lady Batters very much wanted to be here this evening, but as a working farmer she is having to carry out TB testing today.
Following on from some of the earlier questions, can the Minister give a bit more detail of the advice that the new Ministers were given when they came into the department last July, when presumably the officials were already aware that there might be pressures on the fund? It seems astonishing to everyone in the Chamber that not even the Ministers gave any indication that the funds were running out. Can the Minister give a bit more explanation? The great concern now is that the details of the new scheme may not be announced in the very near future. Can she indicate when the new revised scheme is likely to be announced?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
On the detail of the new scheme, as I mentioned earlier, we will consult with stakeholders on how it needs to be reformed to work better for farmers and the environment. We do not want a repeat of problems for farmers, so we need to get it right. We must also look at budgets through the spending review. I cannot give specifics of when it will start up again, but we will start it up again. The current system will last for three years, so we need to look at how to get the next system in place as soon as practically possible, having taken those steps.
On the six weeks’ notice, the SFI scheme was set up as a demand-led scheme. Our aim was to allow as many farmers to join as possible before it was paused. We were not able to give any advance notice of the need to close, because we were concerned that, if we said that we would be closing it, we would suddenly have a lot of extra demand without the funding to manage that demand. I know that this is not what noble Lords want to hear, but that was the reasoning behind it. We must be able to afford to give the funding to support the applications that come in, and budget constraints are very difficult at the moment.
While we aim to give notice and are clearly aware that the website mentioned six weeks, there is no requirement in the scheme to do that. I appreciate that it did say six weeks. As part of reforming it, we want there to be much more sophisticated, effective budget controls around this. As the noble Lord mentioned, farmers need certainty. To give them certainty, we need to ensure that we can assess the scheme in such a way that we can provide that.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and then from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Lord for that.
No matter what is said in justification, this will still be seen as an attack on farming, particularly on small farms. Does the Minister agree that the most important job for farmers is to produce good-quality food, and that all funding going into farming should have that as the priority? Why are we allowing so many solar farms to be put on good agricultural land, with other land being used for things other than farming? Surely that must be a priority if we genuinely care about food security?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness’s question references a lot of the longer-term work that Defra is doing to get these things right. Regarding solar farms, the land-use framework is designed to look at things such as where we put energy, where the best-quality agricultural land is, where we put housing and so on. The land-use framework looks to address much of that.
Regarding what farmers should be doing, whether their first priority is to produce food and so on, we are developing the food strategy and the 25-year road map for farming. Both are looking at how we address this and how we ensure that we have high-quality, sustainable food production in this country for us to become as self-sufficient as is practically possible. These are important long-term pieces of work that the department is doing. We wanted to move away from short-term decision-making that did not deliver in the long run. A big criticism of what has happened with the sustainable farming initiative is that it was too short-term. Taking that bigger picture view, to give farmers certainty for the future, is a really important piece of work that the department is doing.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I know that the Minister is a friend of farmers and recognise her experience in Cumbria and her previous time as a Member of Parliament. She will know that farmers are disappointed. The money that is available through SFI was always intended to increase over the five years of the agricultural transition, so it is no surprise that more and more farms have come in. A record 65,000 are now in agri-agreements. I am really worried in a different way about the intensification of food production, which will actually hamper the progress that had been made in getting farmers signed up to nature. Let us be candid: the ambitious but practical nature targets can be achieved only with the help of farmers and landowners across our country.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a really good point about the increasing intensification of farming, and that is something we do not want to see. Our focus has to be on high-quality sustainable food that we can buy locally, and on farmers being able to support the country. We said in our manifesto,
“food security is national security”
and that is very true. It is incumbent on us as the Government to look at how we deliver on that promise.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, what seems to get missed in this is how little money every farmer in Britain makes out of food. In some instances, especially in dairy, they are making as little as a penny out of what we spend. Are the Government in their food strategy going to ask the supermarkets to be completely transparent about the amount of profits that they make and the supply chains that they operate? Will they ask them to start to implement much more local sourcing and a different kind of supply chain so that farmers, whom we are asking so much of, actually get paid for growing food for us?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Fairness within the agricultural supply chain has to be a key priority for the Government, because we know that farmers have suffered under different pricing regimes, if you like, for many years. If we do not get it right, we will not be able to get the food security that we want as well, because if farmers are going to produce the food that we are asking them to produce, they have to know that they will be paid fairly for that food.
We are going to use powers in the Agriculture Act 2020 to introduce “fair dealing” regulations that will apply to businesses when purchasing agricultural products from farmers. There have also been new rules for the pig sector introduced to Parliament which ensure that contracts clearly set out expectations and that changes can be made only if agreed by all parties. This continues on from the work that the previous Government were doing, and I am sure that noble Lords opposite will be very supportive of it. Following on from that work on pigs, we are committed to bringing in regulations for eggs and fresh produce sectors, as previously proposed by the Government. If we need to intervene with other sectors, then we certainly need to look at that and see what needs to be done. As I said right at the beginning, we do recognise that this has been an issue for farmers, but we also need to look at how best we can support farmers to create that secure food sector that we so badly need as a country.
Welfare Reform
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made earlier today in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, this Government are ambitious for our people and our country, and we believe that unleashing the talents of the British people is the key to our future success. But the social security system we inherited from the Conservatives is failing the very people it is supposed to help and is holding our country back.
The facts speak for themselves. One in 10 people of working age are now claiming a sickness or disability benefit. Almost 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training—that is one in eight of all our young people. Some 2.8 million are out of work due to long term sickness, and the number of people claiming personal independence payments is set to double this decade from 2 million to 4.3 million, with the growth in claims rising faster among young people and those with mental health conditions. Claims are up to four times higher in parts of the Midlands, Wales and the north where economic demand is weakest. These places were decimated in the 1980s and 1990s, written off for years by successive Tory Governments and never given the chances that they deserved.
The consequences of this failure are there for all to see. Millions of people who could work are trapped on benefits, denied the income, hope, dignity and self-respect that we know good work brings. Taxpayers are paying millions more for the cost of failure, with spending on working-age sickness and disability benefits up £20 billion since the pandemic and set to rise by a further £18 billion by the end of this Parliament to £70 billion a year. It is not like this in most other comparable countries, where spending on these benefits since the pandemic is either stable or falling, while ours continues to inexorably rise. This is the legacy of 14 years of Tory failure.
Today we say, ‘No more’. Since we were elected, we have hit the ground running to get more people into good work through our plan for change. We are investing an extra £26 billion into the NHS to drive down waiting lists and get people back to health and back to work. We are improving the quality of work and making work pay with our landmark employment rights legislation and increases in the national living wage; we are creating more good jobs in every part of the country in clean energy and through our modern industrial strategy; and we are introducing the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation, with our £240 million Get Britain Working plan. Today, our Pathways to Work Green Paper sets out decisive action to fix the broken benefits system, creating a more proactive, pro-work system for those who can work and so protecting those who cannot work, now and for the long term.
As a constituency MP for 14 years, I know that there will always be people who can never work because of the severity of their disability or illness. Under this Government, the social security system will always be there for people in genuine need. That is a principle we will never compromise on. But disabled people and people with health conditions who can work should have the same rights, choices and chances to work as everybody else. That principle of equality is vital too, because, far from what Members opposite would have you believe, many sick and disabled people want to work, with the right help and support. Unlike the Conservatives, that is what we will deliver.
Our first aim is to secure a decisive shift towards prevention and early intervention. Almost 4 million people are in work with a work-limiting health condition, and around 300,000 fall out of work every year, so we have to do far more to help people stay in work and get back to work quickly—because your chances of returning are five times higher in the first year. Our plans to give statutory sick pay to 1 million of the lowest-paid workers and more rights to flexible working will help keep more people in work.
The WorkWell programme is trialling new approaches, such as GPs referring people to employment advisers instead of signing them off as sick. Our “Keep Britain Working” review, led by former John Lewis boss Sir Charlie Mayfield, will set out what government and employers can do together to create healthier, more inclusive workplaces. So we will help more employers offer opportunities for disabled people, including through measures such as reasonable readjustments, alongside our Green Paper consultation on reforming Access to Work so it is fit for the future.
Today I can announce another step: our Green Paper will consult on a major reform of contributory benefits, merging contributions-based jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance into a new, time-limited unemployment insurance, paid at a higher rate, without having to prove you cannot work in order to get it. So if you have paid into the system, you will get stronger income protection while we help you get back on track.
Our second objective is to restore trust and fairness in the benefits system by fixing the broken assessment process and tackling the perverse incentives that drive people into welfare dependency. Members on this side of the House have long argued that the work capability assessment is not fit for purpose. Going through the WCA is complex, time-consuming and often stressful for claimants, especially if they also have to go through the PIP assessment. More fundamentally, it is based on a binary can/cannot work divide, when we know the truth is that many people’s physical and mental health conditions fluctuate.
The consultation on the Conservatives’ discredited WCA proposals was ruled unlawful by the courts, so today I can announce that we will not go ahead with their proposals. Instead, we will scrap the WCA in 2028.
In future, extra financial support for health conditions in universal credit will be available solely through the PIP assessment, so extra income is based on the impact of someone’s health condition or disability, not on their capacity to work—reducing the number of assessments that people have to go through and a vital step towards derisking work.
We will do more by legislating for a right to try, guaranteeing that work in and of itself will never lead to a benefit reassessment, giving people the confidence to take the plunge and try work without the fear that this will put their benefits at risk.
We will also tackle the perverse financial incentives that the party opposite created, which actively encourage people into welfare dependency. The Tories ran down the value of the universal credit standard allowance. As a result, the health top-up is now worth double the standard allowance, at more than £400 a month. In 2017, they took away extra financial help for the group of people who could prepare for work, so we are left with a binary assessment of can or cannot work and a clear financial incentive to define yourself as incapable of work—something the OBR, IFS and others say is a likely factor driving people on to incapacity benefits.
Today, we tackle this problem head on. We will legislate to rebalance the payments in universal credit from April next year, holding the value of the health top-up fixed in cash terms for existing claimants and reducing it for new claimants, with an additional premium for people with severe, lifelong conditions that mean they will never work, so to give them the financial security they deserve.
Alongside this, we will bring in a permanent, above-inflation rise to the standard allowance in universal credit, for the first time ever—a £775 annual increase, in cash terms, by 2029-30, and a decisive step to tackle the perverse incentives in the system.
We will also fix the failing system of reassessments. The Conservatives failed to switch reassessments back on after the pandemic, so they are down by more than two-thirds, with face-to-face assessments going from seven in 10 to only one in 10. We will turn these reassessments back on at scale and shift the focus back to doing more face to face, and we will ensure that they are recorded as standard to give confidence to claimants and taxpayers that they are being done properly.
I can also announce that, for people on universal credit with the most severe disabilities and health conditions that will never improve, we want to ensure that they are never reassessed, to give them the confidence and dignity they deserve. We will fundamentally overhaul the DWP’s safeguarding approach to make sure that all our processes and training are of the highest quality, so we protect and support the most vulnerable people.
Alongside these changes, we will also reform disability benefits so that they focus support on those in greatest need, and to ensure that the social security system lasts for the long term, into the future.
Social and demographic change means that more people are now living with a disability, but the increase in disability benefits is double the rate of increasing prevalence of working-age disability in the country, with claims among young people up 150%; for mental health conditions up 190%; and for learning difficulties up over 400%—according to the IFS. Every day, there are more than 1,000 new PIP awards. That is the equivalent of adding a population the size of Leicester every single year.
That is not sustainable in the long term, above all for the people who depend on this support, but the Tories had no proper plan to deal with it, just yet more ill-thought-through consultations. So today I can announce that this Government will not bring in the Tory proposals for vouchers, because disabled people should have choice and control over their lives. We will not means-test PIP, because disabled people deserve extra support, whatever their income, and I confirm that we will not freeze PIP either.
Instead, our reforms will focus support on those with the greatest needs. We will legislate for a change in PIP so that people will need to score a minimum of four points in at least one activity to qualify for the daily living element of PIP from November 2026. This will not affect the mobility component of PIP and relates only to the daily living element.
Alongside this, we will launch a review of the PIP assessment, led by my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability, in close consultation with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts, so we make sure that PIP and the assessment process are fit for purpose now and into the future. This significant reform package is expected to save over £5 billion in 2029-30, and the OBR will set out its final assessment of the costings next week.
Our third and final objective is to deliver personalised support to sick and disabled people who can work to get the jobs they need and deserve. We know from the last Labour Government and our new deal for disabled people, young people and the long-term unemployed the difference that proper employment support can make. More recent evidence from the Work Choice programme and additional work coach time shows that support can make a significant difference in the number of people getting and keeping work and improving their mental health and well-being.
This Labour Government believe that an active state can transform people’s lives. We know this because we have done it before. So today I can announce that we will invest an additional £1 billion a year in employment support, with the aim of guaranteeing high-quality, tailored and personalised support to help people on a pathway to work—the largest ever investment in opportunities to work for sick and disabled people. Alongside this, for those on the UC health top-up, we will bring in an expectation to engage and a new support conversation to talk about people’s goals and aspirations, combined with an offer of personalised health, skills and employment support.
Because being out of work or training when you are young is so damaging to your future prospects, we will go further. In addition to funding our youth guarantee through the £240 million Get Britain Working plan, we will consult on delaying access to the health top-up in universal credit until someone is aged 22, with the savings reinvested into work support and training opportunities, so that every young person is earning or learning and on a pathway to success.
The Conservatives left a broken benefits system that is failing the people who depend on it and our country as a whole. The status quo is unacceptable, but it is not inevitable. We were elected on a mandate for change: to end the sticking-plaster approach and tackle the root causes of problems in this country that have been ignored for too long. We believe in the value and potential of every single person and that we all have something positive to contribute and can make a difference, whether that is in paid work, in our families or in our communities alongside our neighbours and friends. We will unleash this potential in every corner of the land, because we are as ambitious for the British people as they are for themselves. Today we take decisive action, and I commend this Statement to the House.”
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on these long- awaited and much-trumpeted welfare reforms. I say at the outset that the Government are right to look at our growing welfare bill, which is far too high—I think we agree on that. Without action, it will rise to £100 billion by the end of the decade. We need to increase the number of reassessments and hold more in-person assessments to ensure that only those who are eligible for welfare payments receive them.
In government, up until July, we extended employment support, and Ministers are right to continue with our Conservative legacy in the form of the tailored pathway. My first question to the Minister is: how will the £1 billion earmarked for this be measured in terms of success and meaningful results?
Above all else, we welcome the reannouncement of a host of projects and initiatives that we, the previous Government, were already undertaking, such as changing work capability assessments and creating a single assessment; merging new-style jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance into a new, time-limited higher rate; and, of course, I should remind the Benches opposite, providing support for WorkWell. The Labour Party’s slow conversion to the idea that our country needs everybody who can work to do so should be welcomed today.
However, after eight months of dither and delay, the taxpayer has forked out £7 billion in extra sickness benefits, while nearly half a million more people have been signed off sick. On that note, or perhaps I should say fit notes, there is considerable surprise that the Government have scrapped them. It remains the case that there is a 94% sign-off rate, and this sits at the heart of the sickness benefit epidemic. Where is the action on people being signed off sick for the everyday ups and downs of life? Where are the steps that we need to take to bring down the number of people who are leaving work every single day? Currently, it stands at 2,000 people a day, and Ministers need to tackle this urgently. We do not blame the doctors, who are so busy. Can the Minister spell out what, after today’s announcement, the process is for assessing whether someone is fit to undertake work of any sort—while recognising, of course, that this is a key challenge for any Government?
Today’s announcement leaves more questions than it provides answers, and on the areas the Government have finally acted on, they need to be tougher. I have to say that £5 billion in savings is a drop in the ocean compared to the explosion in disability benefits, which, as I said earlier, are set to rise to nearly £100 billion by 2029. Do the Government think that this saving is sufficient, and enough to fill their fiscal black hole, which is the real reason why they are expected to take emergency budgetary steps next week? We on these Benches are unclear whether this small saving is net of the costs and commitments to extra expenditure in today’s Statement. Can the Minister tell us whether the savings announced today include the £5 billion the previous Government had already agreed with the OBR for reforming the work capability assessment? If so, today’s announcement will mean no real savings at all for the Government.
Turning to the plans to change PIP, they leave us with yet more uncertainty and will leave those most concerned about the speculation in recent weeks still in the dark. Will the Minister say why there have been so many leaks, semi-announcements and prolonged rumours over several weeks, which have caused genuine anxiety for those most vulnerable? I hope that a post-mortem is going on in the department, or even in No. 10, about this. The proposal to require individuals to score a minimum of four points raises crucial questions. Who decides how these points will be awarded, and thus is ultimate arbiter of who is deserving of the state’s support? Will there be an appeals tribunal process, with an even longer backlog? Ministers say they will consult on this. Can the Minister confirm exactly when this consultation will be completed and when she expects the new assessment system to be operational? Why did the Government cancel our PIP consultation? What is the difference between this one—the Minister referred to a review—and the previous Government’s, apart from an at least eight-month delay?
On the “right to try” initiative, can the Minister give us some more information about how this will work? For example, if someone goes on to the scheme but after, say, two weeks, they say the role is not for them, can they go straight back on benefits? What is the catch, if any? It would be very helpful to have an explanation. With today’s announcements being linked to the Green Paper, I am not clear what happens next. Is there a White Paper or is this the end of the process, but for these announcements?
There is clearly much anecdotal evidence of fraud in the benefit system. The Minister will cite the upcoming fraud Bill, which focuses, as she knows, on interventions by banks, but it is not clear whether the Bill tackles the malicious websites that direct those inclined to abuse the benefit system. Will the Minister give her view on this?
This was a chance to seize the moment and to choose work over a life on benefits, but the Government have fallen short. Our country needs everybody who can work to do so. That principle should be at the heart of our welfare system. Yet still, the fundamental question of how many people will be helped back into work, and by when, remains unanswered by this announcement.
I remind the Benches opposite that, under Parliaments going back to 2010, successive Conservative Governments helped 4 million more people into work, and we will continue to champion work as a means to bring dignity, purpose and security for individuals and their families.
I finish by acknowledging the large number of questions that I have posed to the Minister. I have great respect for the Minister; she knows that. She will know that the tone of my questions is not directed so much at her personally but is a riposte to the overtly and rather unnecessary political stance taken earlier in the other place by the right honourable Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, these welfare reforms aim to reduce benefit spending while encouraging greater workforce participation. I thank the Minister for reading the Statement and the noble Viscount for the useful questions that he has raised. I have respect for both of them, as they know.
From these Benches, we want to see more people in work, including those with disabilities. While the need for reform is clear, the Liberal Democrats are concerned that the current proposals risk worsening the very issues that they intend to address. We all want to see a more efficient welfare system, but that cannot come at the expense of the most vulnerable in society, particularly those with disabilities or health conditions. Instead of focusing on short-term cuts, we must reform the system in a way that is fair and compassionate and ensures dignity for all.
Does the Minister agree that one of the main aims of this reform package is, as the Statement says, to save £5 billion—often at the expense of the vulnerable in society?
One key area of concern are the proposed cuts to benefits for people with disabilities, which could push many into poverty and greater dependence on social care. The chief executive of Citizens Advice has warned that these changes could have “serious long-term consequences”, and we on these Benches passionately agree. For individuals with severe disabilities or health conditions, this reform package may well create further barriers to employment rather than removing them. The Government’s proposal to freeze the health top- up in universal credit for existing claimants, while reducing it for new ones, will only add to the pressure on disabled individuals, undermining their ability to achieve independence and security. Why are new claimants considered less vulnerable than existing claimants? Of course, that is nonsense and worthy of Ebenezer Scrooge.
These Benches welcome the idea of merging contributory benefits and creating a new unemployment insurance, but the fact remains that we are still waiting for an overdue comprehensive overhaul of the Department for Work and Pensions. Until the Government get serious about fixing health and social care—systems that are intrinsically linked to people’s ability to work—the welfare system will continue to struggle. The social care review’s three-year timeline is hugely disappointing and highlights the lack of urgency in addressing these critical issues. If the Government truly want to cut benefit spending, they must first address the root causes, not just apply superficial, short-term fixes borne by those least able to object.
These Benches remain committed to supporting people with disabilities into employment. We agree whole- heartedly with the Government’s aim to provide a right to try to work without the risk of losing benefits. However, from history, I have a sneaking premonition that it will be more difficult, and slow, to get back on to the benefits ladder once you have tried to work. That is what has happened in the past.
The wider changes, including delays in the health top-up for young people and increasing reassessments, must be approached with caution. We need to ensure that any reforms we make are sustainable and focused on long-term support for those who are most in need. Does the Minister agree that a balanced approach is needed—one that addresses the root causes of welfare dependency and puts people’s dignity and well-being at the heart of its reforms?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and questions. Maybe we can start by agreeing that we all have great respect for each other, which is both genuinely true and one of the joys of this House. We are able to have conversations and respect one another while disagreeing.
Having got that out of the way, I probably need to start by saying it is possible that some of what we are trying to do has been misunderstood. So let me summarise in my own words what we are trying to do here. First, we need to recognise that the UK has a near-record number of people who are economically inactive on health grounds. The numbers on incapacity and disability benefits are rising at an unsustainable rate, and that is not just down to worsening health. The figures and the evidence show that there are more people who say they have a disability or a long-term health condition affecting their daily lives, but the number going on disability and health benefits is going up twice as fast. So it is not just about health; there is something about the way our system works.
If those numbers keep going up, as more people are driven into the system, fewer people are left to sustain it. One in 10 working-age people now gets a sickness or disability benefit. Before the pandemic, we spent £30 billion a year on those benefits; the figure is now over £50 billion and by the end of the decade it will be £70 billion on working-age benefits. That is not sustainable. So I say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that I absolutely know where he is coming from but, if we cannot get the system on to a sustainable footing, it will not be there for the people who need it in the next generation and the one after that. We have to get the system working.
As well as being unsustainable, the system is failing those that it serves. The current system, as my right honourable friend described in the Statement, divides people into artificial binary categories: can and cannot work. Those who are deemed able to work are put out there, given support, encouraged to get a job and paid a standard allowance. Those who cannot are paid more money, left alone and given no help—the system disengages. We know that that is not the reality for most people. We know that 200,000 people on incapacity and disability benefits say they could work right now with the right support and the right job, but the system does not encourage them to do that; it actually discourages them.
Social security provides a vital safety net for those who rely on it, but we need it to be there for the future as well. Our Green Paper sets out how we will refocus the social security system towards empowering people to find work, while protecting those who most need help by supercharging the employment support with an extra £1 billion and a focus on early intervention, and by separating the link between the capability to work and extra financial support, so that everyone can work and not risk their benefits.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, suggested that this was simply a cost-cutting measure. I hope I have explained to him why the measure is trying to do two things. It is trying to place the whole system on a more sustainable footing and it is trying to reform it to make sure that it can support all those who can work to be able to go out there and get a job, to develop in it and to build a life in it, while absolutely guaranteeing to support those who are never going to be able to work or who have the most severe needs.
The estimate—we will get the details when the OBR does the figures for the Spring Statement next week—is that this package will save £5 billion in 2029-30. When the figures come out, I encourage the noble Viscount to have a look at them and compare them with what his Government had in mind, and we can then have a conversation about them. However, even with these changes, we are not reducing spending on disability and sickness benefits. We are spending less to try to make the system sustainable, but the numbers will keep on going up.
The noble Lord mentioned the question of people being put into poverty. One thing to stress is that anyone who is getting benefits at the moment—if they are getting PIP or the universal credit health element at the moment—will keep those benefits unless and until they have a reassessment and their eligibility changes, so this is a system for the future.
The noble Lord asks why it is different for those coming in afresh. The answer is that we have to make the system sustainable and that is the best way to do it. However, we want to support people in transition. Of course, some people will end up losing entitlement, but we want to look into how we can best support them, including possibly with transitional support to make the adjustment to the new regime.
The noble Lord asked about the DWP. One of the things that has worried us as we came into government is the lack of trust and confidence in the system, and we are really determined to address that. It is one of the reasons that we say in the Green Paper that we are going to develop a new safeguarding system for DWP to try to rebuild trust and confidence in the system. That is why, for example, we are going to move to recording all assessments by default, so that people can be clear and have confidence in the process when that is happening.
Crucially, for those on the universal credit health system who have the most severe lifelong health conditions which have no prospect of improvement, so they are never going to work, we are going to look at providing an additional premium to protect them so that they are secure. For people in that group, with both new and existing claims, we will guarantee that they will never face a full reassessment in the future.
The noble Viscount asked about WCA. I think he is aware that not only were the previous Government’s proposals to reform WCA, I am sorry to say, poorly thought out, but their consultation was so bad it was actually ruled illegal by the courts, which made it simply impossible. We had a manifesto commitment to either reform or scrap the work capability assessment. We have come to the conclusion that it cannot be reformed; we are therefore going to scrap it. Apart from anything else, that will mean that people will not have to go through two separate assessments. We think that is the way forward.
I probably have to take on the noble Viscount’s challenge here that the Government were going to do lots of things. I fully accept that, when his party were in government, they had lots of ideas, but they did have 14 years to do them. We, at this point, are nine months in. We have already made some announcements, we have a detailed Green Paper for reform, we are engaged in consultations and we are going to change the system. I understand this is hard. I know change is hard, but the system has been tinkered with for far too long. We need reform and we are doing it now.
It was of course Beveridge himself who identified the establishment of comprehensive health and rehabilitation and maintenance of employment as necessary conditions of success in social security. We need more than tinkering. We need a system that will be sustainable and will support people into work, but will protect those with the highest needs who can never work. We can do both. I welcome the contributions from both noble Lords and look forward to carrying on the conversation. We all need this change to work.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I think we all applaud the desire to get people off benefits and into work, but to do that we need jobs and we need employers who are willing to take those people. I hope the noble Baroness will not mind my quoting from the impact assessment that accompanies the Employment Rights Bill in relation to day 1 unfair dismissal rights. It states that
“there is evidence that the policy could negatively impact on hiring rates. For example, employers may be slower to take on workers due to the liability and increased protections”—
and I stress this last bit—
“particularly for those that are seen as riskier hires”.
Does the noble Baroness agree that that seems to be in direct conflict with the desire to bring people into work, and does she think it is a good idea?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I have real confidence in this. The noble Lord may know that in January we published the terms of reference for the Keep Britain Working review, a review headed by the former chair of John Lewis, Sir Charlie Mayfield, who is looking at ways in which we can make workplaces more receptive and more able to take on people who have health conditions and disabilities. It could include all kinds of ways in which we can support them. We want to remove the barriers to employers doing that.
We already know that this is the case: reasonable adjustments are often talked about as a way of doing it. The noble Lord may think that these difficult hires. In fact, it is estimated that, on average, employers could save between £5,000 and £11,000 for every employee they prevent from falling out of work. So having an inclusive workplace is not a “nice to have”: it is not an extra. It is a way of making sure that we protect those who are currently working. There are significant numbers of people at the moment who are working but have a condition, and hundreds of thousands of them fall out of work every year. Our system is trying to work with employers to protect those who are already in work, but we have lots of employers really engaged with us in jobcentres, in the work we are doing and in building relationships. People want to do this. We can do this.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interest in the register. When we talk about getting people back into work, perhaps the Minister could reflect on that group of people who have never been in work. I am thinking not just of school or college leavers but people who are now in their 40s and 50s and have never been in work, but actually still want to. She will not be surprised to know that I am referring particularly to the autism community. In the 32 years that I have worked in this building, the employment rate for the autism community has gone up from 17% to just 23%. These people have lived through many Conservative and Labour Governments, not forgetting a coalition Government. To get them into work will require something really different from what has been applied before. They are a discrete but important group. Given the Green Paper and the Statement that we have heard today, is the Minister going to get autistic people into work?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am really grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that question and, as she so often does, reminding us of the challenges in this area. Let me say a couple of things. To reassure those who may be worried, as I have said before, anyone currently receiving benefits will carry on getting them unless there is a reassessment and their eligibility changes. However, that is not the limit of our ambition. One of the reasons we want at least to have a supportive conversation, rather than abandon people who are simply getting those benefits, is to begin to understand what more we could do to support them.
There are some people who will find it very difficult to get into work but maybe they could, with the right support, begin to do some voluntary work. Perhaps they could begin to reach out and get some fresh kinds of support or connect with the local community. The biggest challenge for us, as in the noble Baroness’s words to us today, is how we challenge employers to take this on. We are planning, as part of the consultation on the Green Paper, to not only invite people—I expect very many responses—but to hold events for the public and round tables, to hold discussions both in person and elsewhere. I would be really grateful if she would be willing to talk to us about addressing this as part of that consultation.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, parts of this package are very welcome; for example, the right to try paid work, the strengthening of contributory benefit for unemployed people, the increase in the UC standard rate—albeit very modest—and the commitment to consult disabled people on at least some of the changes. But overhanging them is the £5 billion cut from a social security system which, according to CPAG, suffered £50 billion a year in cuts thanks to the Tories. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation warns that this is the biggest cut in disability benefits since 2010, yet disabled people are at disproportionate risk of poverty.
What assessment have the Government made of the future impact of the cuts on poverty, not mentioned in the Statement, and reliance on food banks, which is of great concern to Trussell? What will happen to entitlement to carer’s allowance, for which PIP is one of the most common qualifying benefits? When the Green Paper says that it represents a “start”—a welcome start—of the rebalancing of UC payment levels and of addressing “the basic adequacy” of UC, can we look forward to a proper review of its inadequacy?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend raises some interesting points and I am grateful for the welcome she has given to some elements of our reforms. On the question of adequacy, it may be—in her words—modest but this is actually a significant above-inflation cash increase in the standard allowance of universal credit. It means that by the end of this Parliament, people will be £14 a week, or £775 a year, better off. That might be modest proportionally; it is significant and will make a difference to people’s lives. But the real way that we will make a difference to people’s lives, in so many cases, is by helping them to move into work.
There is only so much that the benefit system can do. There are those who cannot work and have severe needs, and the benefit system must always be there to support them. But for those who can, there is so much more out there that we could be doing and we simply have not been doing it. That is really one of my hopes. We will deal with poverty in other ways. Just so my noble friend knows, the impact and equality assessments will be published next week alongside the Spring Statement. In the long run, this is not about simply tinkering around the sides of a system. We are not just doing blanket cuts. We are doing two things: trying to put this system on a sustainable basis, so it will still be there for the future, but, much more than that, trying to reform it so that people genuinely can get into work who previously have been given no help and been abandoned. That way, we can really make a difference to people’s lives.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s focus on and increased investment in supporting people back into good work, and the proposed safeguards through the right to try guarantee. However, I am intrinsically wary of attempts to address the drivers of ill health through the social security system, rather than tackling root causes. We do not know yet the content of the NHS plan. Supporting people who are currently claiming incapacity benefits into work will put considerable pressure on an already stressed health system. What steps is the Minister’s department taking to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the right support is available for people with physical and mental health needs?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for that important question. I mentioned earlier that the prevalence of disability has increased. I have to correct that: the rate of prevalence has increased. Again, the rate of the increase of disability benefits has gone up by twice as much. If I have got that wrong, they will correct me again and I will read it out next time I get up.
On the question of health, crucially, we have invested almost £26 billion extra in the NHS, but change will take time. We intend to implement our reforms to PIP in November 2026, subject to parliamentary approval. To reassure the right reverend Prelate and anyone listening, everyone claiming PIP will continue to receive it until they are reassessed and their eligibility changes. We will always seek to protect the most severely disabled.
In the meantime, we are looking to do a couple of different things. We are trying to get early intervention to stop people falling out of work, and we are about to launch our health accelerators, which will support efforts to tackle economic inactivity through getting the NHS to shift to prevention. We are trialling in some of our pilot areas how exactly we can bring together the NHS and employment support to address that.
The right reverend Prelate raises an important point. One of the challenges for us is that there are things that will need the NHS to be sorted out. There are other areas where a range of different types of support could enable people, even now, to get into work. We are determined to do both.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. There is much in this Statement to be welcomed, apart from the bit that says it is all the Conservatives’ fault. I particularly welcome the emphasis on getting disabled people back into work. At Cerebral Palsy Scotland, where I work, we are dealing with a devolved social security system. Adult disability payment, ADP, is replacing PIP and DLA in Scotland. It is similar, but it has a different application and renewal process. We are finding that there are people caught between DWP and Social Security Scotland. Apparently, there are about 80,000 people in Scotland still on PIP. Can the Minister assure me that, in the process of all these reviews and all this change, those on the devolved benefits systems will not get left behind or be negatively affected?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness and commend her for her work with Cerebral Palsy Scotland. She raises a really important point. To be clear, the proposals in the Green Paper would apply directly only to UK Government areas of responsibility. We are working through the areas of interaction between reserved and devolved benefits, with the Scottish Government in particular. The noble Baroness described one area, and there are others. As she mentioned, the Scottish Government’s adult disability payment replaced PIP. Therefore, the proposals on PIP will apply only to those areas we control. I encourage her to speak to the Scottish Government. In the end, it will be for the Scottish Government to work out how they will make their system sustainable. From our side, we can make sure that, as far as possible, the systems align. It is an important point and one we are very aware of. We will certainly make sure we address it specifically in our discussions with the devolved Administrations.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister a question on the right to try, which I am sure we would all agree is a principle that is crucially important. How can we make sure that people can take the risk to try paid employment, without the fear that is currently in the system that their benefits will be put at risk?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. Of course, she has a great deal of experience in this area; she knows only too well how the system works and how it has worked in the past.
This is one of the real problems with the current system. When people have been put through that binary judgment that they either can or cannot work, if they get into the “can’t work” category, the risks are so great that, if they try to work and fail, we will then come and say, “Ha, so you can work after all”, and then it will be taken away.
We are going to do a couple of things. First, there is a linking rule already there, which we will make sure that everybody is aware of, so that if you try a job and come back on to benefits within six months, you will be able to go back to your old benefits. That touches on a point raised by the noble Viscount as well. But we are going to go further: we are going to legislate to make it very clear that work in and of its own right will never be a reason for triggering a reassessment. It is really important that people know that. In the long run, we will break the connection between can and cannot work and support, because in the long run it is the PIP assessment and your abilities and needs that will determine how much support you get, not whether you can or cannot work. I hope that reassures my noble friend that we are determined to tackle this.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am speaking from the Back Benches today because I am very concerned about the sustainability of the benefits system, with an ageing population and the ranks of the inactive and people on disability benefits, as the Minister described. I am sure that it is right to focus on getting people back into work—and I am absolutely delighted that Charlie Mayfield is helping the Government. He comes from retail, as I do, and retail is detail. That sort of person is very helpful in trying to make things work.
I have a couple of questions. First, I have done some work on fraud in the past, including trying to use AI to reduce the cost of fraud. I was very concerned to hear that only one in 10 assessments is face to face. What does the Minister feel the opportunity is in tackling fraud?
Secondly, on timing, the Minister mentioned that there would be a change in PIP in November 2026 and in the work capacity assessment in 2028. Given the scale of the problem, can she give me any reassurance about timing and getting on with those changes?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Those are two great questions, and I thank the noble Baroness for them—and also for the phrase “retail is detail”, which I shall now deploy as though it were my own whenever the opportunity presents itself.
I am sorry for not picking up the question of fraud, because the noble Viscount asked about that as well. We have a fraud Bill coming to this House, which is making its way through the other place at the moment, so we are absolutely determined to crack down on fraud and will use a whole range of means for doing that. We will have an opportunity to discuss that in detail when the Bill arrives here.
We are thrilled that Charlie Mayfield is leading this review for us. We know that if we cannot get the relationship with employers right and create a system that works for employers and employees, we will not be able to get the jobs we need, especially for people who find it difficult.
To reassure the noble Baroness, if she looks at annexe A of the Green Paper, there is a table on Green Paper measures that gives timings on everything coming in. However, the real reassurance is that we have already started. For example, the changes to universal credit, assuming they get parliamentary approval, will start to come in from next April. But the work has already begun on supporting people into work. The Secretary of State has already announced an extra 1,000 work coaches to work with people who are sick or disabled to help them get into work. We know from past evidence that sometimes somebody simply spending a bit of time with somebody and encouraging them in can make all the difference straightaway. So we are starting on that already—we are not waiting for it to happen. We are already piloting around the country, as I said to the right reverend Prelate, trailblazers for young people and for the wider population on how we work with local councils. Sometimes, whether someone can get into work is not just about what we do; whether someone can get a job in Manchester might be about what the childcare is like, how the buses run between where the jobs are and where the homes are, and what the local labour market is like. We are working with metropolitan authorities and engaging locally to try to turn the system around and get everybody pointing in the same direction.
Finally, I really share the noble Baroness’s concern about the sustainability of the system, but I want to make sure that we are doing it to keep the system there for the future—because I believe passionately that we need a safety net there for those who struggle and who cannot work. We have to make sure that it works, and we are committed to making sure that everybody who has the most severe needs or will never be able to work will always get the support they need under this Government.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned carer’s allowance. The Minister will know that many carers have disabilities and long-term conditions themselves, and caring itself is a risk factor for having to give up work. In their consultation on the Green Paper, therefore, will the Government commit to doing more for unpaid carers, particularly around enabling them to remain part of the workforce where they want to do so? So many of them do, as the noble Baroness knows.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that question and I apologise to my noble friend Lady Lister for having forgotten to deal with it in my response to her. I commend my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley for all that she does in this space. First, she knows more than anyone that we are investing in carers: we have just significantly raised the amount of money that somebody can earn before they will lose their carer’s allowance. We have also launched an independent review of carer’s allowance to make sure that the system works. The eligibility change will benefit 60,000 carers-plus by 2029-30.
My noble friend makes the excellent point that the overlap between caring and disability is sometimes more intertwined than we realise. Again, I reassure her that if somebody is on PIP, neither the carer nor the person being cared for will lose that money unless and until there is a reassessment and their eligibility is found to have changed. More than that, we made a specific commitment in the Green Paper to look carefully when considering the consultation responses at how we can support any unpaid carers who find they are affected by the changes that we are proposing. In light of that, I strongly encourage anyone such as her or people she may know to respond to the consultation, to engage with us and to make sure that we understand any unforeseen consequences and can think about how we deal with them.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
The noble Baroness has announced a wide range of reforms. Can she say which require primary legislation and which can be done by secondary legislation? Can she outline the implications for those who work in her department of the reforms she has just touched on?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
With parliamentary approval, we will use primary legislation to address the changes in universal credit and PIP eligibility. Assuming that we have parliamentary approval and that time is found for Bills by whoever makes these decisions, we will bring forward legislation on those. Some of the other aspects of the reforms that we are consulting on in the Green Paper, if taken forward, will also need primary legislation, but of course they are the subject of consultation, so, as the noble Lord will understand, I would not commit to doing them at this stage; it depends on the result of the consultation. Some of those will need consultation, and primary legislation for them, with parliamentary approval, would have to be done in a subsequent Session.
On the impact on people in my department, we have looked carefully and have been working with colleagues across the department to make sure that the changes that we want to make are deliverable—that has been very much at the forefront. Somebody asked me recently what the biggest difference is between being in opposition and being in government. It is that, when you are in opposition, your primary concern is policy; when you are in government, one of your concerns is how you can actually deliver things. We are very conscious that we have to make sure not only that the system has the right elements to it but that it is deliverable, and we are determined to do that.