House of Commons

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 19 March 2025

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

1. Whether she has had discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the upcoming health and disability Green Paper on the finances of disabled people.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

Yesterday afternoon, we set out the Government’s plan to fix the broken system, which gives proper employment support to help hundreds of thousands who are out of work on health and disability grounds, but who want to be in a job; deals with the work disincentive that has been inserted into the benefits system over the past 15 years; and makes the personal independence payment financially sustainable.

[Tom Gordon]

In recent weeks, I have been inundated with messages from constituents who are worried sick about changes to the disability benefits system, but yesterday’s announcement goes further than even the Conservatives managed, or dared, to. Disabled people already face systemic barriers in society, including in accessing health, transport and housing. Inadequate financial support already means that some of the most vulnerable have to access food banks. These cuts will exacerbate their pain, and fuel hunger and debt. What assessment has the Department made of the cuts, the impact on finances, and the harm that they will cause?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the previous Government’s proposal to convert PIP from cash into vouchers, which caused huge anxiety. We made it clear in the announcement yesterday that we are not going to do that, but we will make changes to ensure that the personal independence payment is financially sustainable in the long term. That will reassure a large number of people for whom PIP is vital.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

Epilepsy is a lifelong disability that has huge consequences for the lives of those who have it, none more so than those mothers who had epilepsy and took sodium valproate when pregnant, and whose babies were harmed. Will the Minister take time to meet me and my constituent, Janet Williams, whose sons have been affected, to discuss how we can ensure that their quality of life is best supported by the Government?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend raises an important subject, and as she knows, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has set up the valproate pregnancy prevention programme. I, or a Minister from DHSC, will be glad to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those points.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

We all know that life is more expensive for someone who is disabled, and that investing in mental health and social care would give disabled people the support that they deserve. Liberal Democrats believe that if the Government were serious about cutting welfare spending, they would get serious about fixing health and social care, and the broken Department for Work and Pensions. By fixing that, we would reduce the benefits bill in the long term, but yesterday’s changes, which slash the support offered to vulnerable people, will leave many people facing difficult choices. Can the Minister assure disabled people, including the 80,000 in Scotland who are still receiving PIP, that they will be listened to, their needs will be taken into account, and they will somehow continue to get the support that they need?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome the additional £26 billion being invested in the national health service in the coming financial year, for exactly the reasons she set out, and the most severely impaired people will be protected under the changes that we announced yesterday to the personal independence payment. Yes, we will be consulting—there will be a full 12-week consultation period on the Green Paper proposals, and we will be listening carefully to what everybody says in response.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to help end discrimination against ethnic minority people.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to help end discrimination against ethnic minority people.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

14. What steps she is taking to help end discrimination against ethnic minority people.

[The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)]

This Government are clear that someone’s race or ethnicity should never be a barrier to success. As set out in the King’s Speech last July, we are committed to introducing mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for large employers; those measures will be part of the draft equality in race and disability Bill. Yesterday we published a consultation on those proposals, and announced that we have established a new race equality engagement group, which will partner with ethnic minority communities, stakeholders and delivery partners to help shape the Government’s work on race equality. I am delighted that Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon has agreed to chair that group.

[John Grady]

Glasgow’s Muslim community is characterised by its kindness and public service. Last weekend, I visited my friends at the Hillview Islamic and education centre in Shettleston, and met the convenor of the Muslim Council of Scotland, Dr Muhammad Adrees. I heard about terrible incidents of anti-Muslim hatred and crimes in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that our Muslim brothers and sisters should not have to live with that hatred, and will she set out the steps that the Government are taking to combat that?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I completely agree with him. Indeed, I also attended a wonderful interfaith iftar in Hounslow on Friday. Islamophobia is completely abhorrent and has no place in our society. No one should ever be the victim of hatred because of their religion or belief. The Government have established a new working group to provide the Government with a definition of anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia, and advise the Government and other bodies on how best to understand, quantify and define prejudice, discrimination and hate crime targeted against Muslims.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the Minister for her commitment to mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting. However, I was disappointed to learn that the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority are rowing back on their proposals to boost diversity in financial services. I feel that risks pushing away the very best talent from the sector. Only 4% of financial services firms disclose their ethnicity pay gap. The announcement will only slow the pace of change that is needed to tackle inequalities. Does the Minister agree that initiatives that aim to reduce the ethnicity pay gap are not anti-growth, but pro-talent and pro-growth?

[Seema Malhotra]

Fair and equal treatment at work is a right, not a privilege. Companies like Deloitte, which I visited recently, are reporting voluntarily on their ethnicity pay gaps, and I have attended roundtables chaired by organisations such as Change the Race Ratio and ShareAction, which promote the benefits of ethnicity pay gap reporting. There has been progress; last week, the Parker review showed that there is an increasing number of ethnic minority board members in our FTSE companies. I agree with my hon. Friend that pay gap reporting can help employers to identify and remove barriers to progression for their workforces, and unleash talent from all our communities, thereby supporting economic growth, and I thank her for her work on this.

[Mohammad Yasin]

I was pleased to see the Government’s announcement of the newly established race equality engagement group, chaired by Baroness Doreen Lawrence, a tireless campaigner against discrimination for many decades. What steps are the Government taking to recognise caste-based discrimination in law? Will that issue be the focus of the group’s work?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend references the race equality engagement group, which we announced yesterday. The group will strengthen the Government’s links with ethnic minority communities, enabling effective two-way dialogue on the Government’s work to tackle race equalities, and engaging on all issues. We are considering our position on caste discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, and we will update the House in due course.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

As a former NHS employee, I was shocked to hear that the Community Security Trust has found that the number of complaints of antisemitism in the NHS tripled in the 17 months after 7 October 2023. What steps are the Government taking to crack down on antisemitism in the NHS?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Gentleman will agree that antisemitism has no place in our society or in our workplaces. This is an extremely important issue, and he will know that the Home Secretary and the whole Government take it very seriously.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Aberdeen mosque and Islamic centre in my constituency was vandalised while worshippers were inside. I am pleased that the local community came together and helped with the clean-up. The University of Glasgow has published a report that says that one in three Muslim students are victims of Islamophobic abuse. Does the Minister agree that the Government and the House have a responsibility to ensure that racist stereotypes are not putting our Muslim community at risk of a rise in hate crime and far-right extremism?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is important that we tackle religious and racial hatred in all its forms.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

As well as overt discrimination, there are many hidden ethnic disparities, particularly in healthcare. Mortality rates in maternity services are four times higher for black women and twice as high for Asian women. What discussions is the Minister having with the Department of Health and Social Care to address those huge inequalities in maternity care?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. There are stark inequalities in maternal health, mental health and a range of other areas, including infant mortality. She is absolutely right that that must be tackled. We are working across Government and with the Department of Health and Social Care on those issues.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

Does the Minister think it is acceptable for anyone in this country to say that people should “pray for victory” for Hamas over Israel, or for anyone to celebrate the 7 October attacks as a David-over-Goliath situation? If not, why did the Prime Minister invite Adam Kelwick, who has said such despicable things, to No. 10 just last week? Will the Minister apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister to the Jewish community, who need to know that this Government will stand with them against violence, hatred and division—and, in fact, with communities of all races and religions? All communities need to be supported.

[Seema Malhotra]

The shadow Minister knows that Hamas is a proscribed organisation, and we will not tolerate antisemitism at any point, or in any way.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

13. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

We will deliver a cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy, and we are already taking significant steps to ensure that VAWG is treated as the national emergency that it is. That includes embedding the first domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms under Raneem’s law, starting in five police forces, and further extending the roll-out of domestic abuse protection orders to Cleveland and north Wales.

[Darren Paffey]

I thank the Minister for her answer. A constituent of mine in Southampton Itchen suffered horrendous domestic and sexual abuse while she was a serving police officer, but inexplicably the rules did not allow her to take her complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and made her a victim of the very system that was meant to offer her protection. Does the Minister agree that a woman’s right to get justice should not depend on the job that she happens to do? Will she meet me and my constituent to discuss the changes needed so that we can better protect dedicated public servants such as her?

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent. Allegations of any crime involving serving police officers should be investigated robustly and independently by the police. Outside of criminal investigations, disciplinary investigations, including those involving serious assault and sexual violence, are referred to the IOPC under mandatory referral criteria, but there is more to do.

[Kevin Bonavia]

In my constituency of Stevenage, we have an excellent charity called SADA—Survivors Against Domestic Abuse. Such charities rely on multi-agency working to deliver essential services to those affected by domestic abuse. How are the Government continuing to support organisations in working closely together to continue to provide effective services to those who have suffered domestic abuse?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank SADA for the amazing work that it does. In December 2024, we prioritised confirming funding for those delivering frontline services. In the next few weeks, we will work on agreeing decisions about our wider budget that will support the Government’s ambition of halving VAWG in a decade, to deliver on our manifesto commitments.

[Sarah Edwards]

On International Women’s Day, our community in Tamworth came together to not only celebrate the achievements of women, but reflect on the important issue of the safety of women and girls. Local women Tamanna and Mckenzie took the initiative to organise a walk-and-talk event, bringing together key organisations, including the UP Creative Hub community interest company and Tamworth Street Angels. They had never organised an event before, and they managed to pull together 50 women in just two weeks. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Tamanna and Mckenzie on that fantastic event, and on their dedication to raising awareness of such an important issue?

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely, gladly. Tamanna and Mckenzie deserve all our praise. It is infectious; the first time we do such a thing often leads to the second. The rising of the women is the rising of us all.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I am sure we all agree that securing women’s wellbeing is key to tackling violence against women and girls, so can the Minister assure women across my constituency and the country that the Labour Government, having promised to prioritise women’s health, are committed to continuing the Conservative Government’s work by making sure there is a women’s health hub in every integrated care board, to ensure holistic support for women?

[Jess Phillips]

A Minister to my left tells me that these hubs are already in nine out of 10 integrated care boards. I can assure the hon. Lady that I am working very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care on the violence against women and girls strategy, because there are real gaps when it comes to how domestic abuse, sexual violence and other related abuses are dealt with by our health services. That will be absolutely fundamental to both protection and prevention.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers and for her ongoing engagement on this issue with the people in Northern Ireland. The name Natalie McNally will mean much to the Minister; on 18 December 2022, Natalie was brutally murdered in my constituency, along with her unborn baby. Can the Minister update the House on ongoing discussions about a UK-wide strategy for tackling violence against women that will improve conviction rates, get tougher sentencing, and provide more support for victims? We do this in the name of Natalie and the many other women who have lost their lives.

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Lady for her continued support for Natalie’s family. When I was in Northern Ireland, it was very clear to me that that support had been in place. A fundamental part of halving violence against women and girls has be looking at exactly the issue she has talked about—the femicide of women, and how we can all work together in a multi-agency way to ensure that I do not have to read out names like Natalie McNally’s.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Will the Minister discuss with the Home Secretary how best we can bring to account, albeit belatedly, those still surviving who aided and abetted Mohamed Fayed in the rape and sexual assault of young women and girls?

[Jess Phillips]

The Home Secretary and I have very much discussed that. While there are ongoing police investigations, it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment. However, having met some of those affected, I want to see exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wants to see.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Minister and many colleagues in this place will be aware of the groundbreaking new Netflix programme “Adolescence”. It is chilling, but is rightfully forcing a national conversation about the dangerous content seen by young men and boys, with fatal consequences. Given the important role that schools play in preventing violence against women and girls, will the Minister provide an update on what is being done with the Department for Education to counter misogyny and extreme violence, in order to enable a safe future for young boys and girls?

[Jess Phillips]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that including men and boys in the conversation about how we prevent future violence against women and girls will be absolutely fundamental. A huge portion of the new violence against women and girls strategy is focused on prevention, and what we can do in our schools, our workplaces and elsewhere to reach men and boys, in order to change the future.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I have been contacted by a number of women in my constituency who are victims of domestic violence, and whose partners continue to exert control over them through the family court process and the presumption that they will be able to access their children. Will the Minister meet me, or inform me of what she is doing with the Ministry of Justice to help those women escape that control?

[Jess Phillips]

I work hand in glove with my counterparts in the Ministry of Justice on the violence against women and girls strategy, and I have long-standing concerns—as the hon. Lady does—about the presumption of contact and family court issues. Those issues will form the subject of part of our reforms, and are being looked into. I will gladly meet the hon. Lady.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

In January, the Labour Government committed to assisting five local inquiries, including one in Oldham. into grooming gangs and rape gangs. Two months on, we have had no update from the Government about the other locations. In which towns can women and girls now sleep safely in their beds? When and where will the other four inquiries take place, and what do the Government plan to do about the other 45 towns and cities across the country in which those gangs have reportedly operated?

[Jess Phillips]

What the Government plan to do across the country is more than was done before. The House should expect an update very soon exactly on all the plans that the Home Secretary laid out. She said that the announcement would come before Easter, and I beg the shadow Minister to have the patience she showed with her own Government when they offered none of these things.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)]

This Government celebrated International Women’s Day and Women’s History Month by accelerating action to change women’s lives. That means greater opportunities in the workplace and ensuring that our streets are safe for women and that we have better public services for our women and their families. Harnessing the talents and skills of all women will boost our economy. A 5% increase in employment among women could boost the UK economy by up to £125 billion. Women’s equality is at the heart of our plan for change and will drive economic growth for everyone.

[Charlotte Nichols]

According to research, 52% of integrated care boards in England, including Cheshire and Merseyside ICB, still require same-sex couples to self-fund at least six to 12 cycles of costly intrauterine insemination before they are eligible to access in vitro fertilisation treatment on the NHS. Can the Secretary of State please tell us what she is doing to end the postcode lottery for lesbian and bi couples looking to start a family?

[Bridget Phillipson]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to the postcode lottery and the patchy access to IVF across our country. We want to make sure that everyone has fair access to high-quality care. The Department of Health and Social Care has started to make progress towards its ambition to improve access to IVF services, and we also await the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence concluding its review on clinical guidance for the provision of such services.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Parents up and down the country are anxious about the use of puberty blockers on under-18s, so I was disappointed to read that the Health Secretary has failed to intervene in an NHS puberty blocker trial, despite grave concerns about children’s safety. The landmark Cass review said that more evidence was needed, but will the Secretary of State show moral courage and common-sense leadership to ensure that these dangerous and irreversible drugs are never tested on our children?

[Bridget Phillipson]

The Government’s position on this issue has been clear. We have accepted all the recommendations brought forward by Dr Hilary Cass. I have met Dr Hilary Cass to discuss this issue. Given the question the shadow Minister has asked, he perhaps misunderstands the recommendations that Dr Cass brought forward.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

T2.   What consideration has been given to the introduction of safe leave for employees experiencing domestic abuse?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

We strongly encourage employers to support their employees who experience domestic abuse. Many already do that through their membership of the employers’ initiative on domestic abuse, which empowers employers to take action. I will be working with the Department for Business and Trade, including through the violence against women and girls strategy, to look at issues specific to victims in the workplace.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T6. Will the Minister update the House on what changes, if any, she intends to make to the Equality Act 2010? In particular, if she is going to make caste a protected characteristic, will she ensure that people of all religions that emanate from the Indian subcontinent are consulted, because that measure would severely impact every such family in this country?

[Bridget Phillipson]

We have no plans to change the Equality Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) set out earlier, through the new race engagement group being led by Baroness Lawrence we will consider any such questions, including the ones that the hon. Gentleman identifies.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

T3.   After an appalling rape incident on the Fuller Street bridge in my constituency, I was shocked to find that last year only 2.7% of recorded rapes in the UK resulted in a charge. What is the Minister doing to improve the charge rate and get justice for more survivors of this appalling crime?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am very sorry to hear of the case in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It brings into sharp focus the need to tackle violence against women and girls, and to ensure that our mission to halve its incidence is delivered. Our inheritance from the Conservatives was shocking, with far too many women denied justice, cases never getting to court, and victims being left to wait for years for justice. That is why the Lord Chancellor has made it a priority to take action to deliver justice for women.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery the Chairman of the State Great Hural, the Parliament of Mongolia.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 March.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Last night I spoke to President Zelensky to discuss progress that President Trump had made with Russia towards a ceasefire, and I took the opportunity to reaffirm our unwavering support for the people of Ukraine.

I am deeply concerned about the resumption of Israeli military action in Gaza. The images of parents carrying their children—young children—to hospitals that have emerged over the last few days are truly shocking, as is the sheer number of those who have been killed. We will do all that we can to ensure the resumption of the ceasefire in order to get the remaining hostages out, and to get aid that is desperately needed in.

The whole House will want to celebrate the extraordinary life of Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway, the last known pilot of the battle of Britain. The courage of his generation, the fearlessness, the sense of duty and the service, secured our freedom, and we will never forget them.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Alberto Costa]

Brain tumours kill more children and adults under the age of 40 than any other cancer. From time to time all of us in our surgeries hear stories from our constituents that really get to us and twang the heartstrings. Last Friday, Laura attended my Sharnford surgery and told me of the tragic death of her energetic, loving six-year-old son Taylan from a brain tumour. All that she asked was for me to raise this matter nationally, and I am doing that now, but I want to go one step further. Will the Prime Minister agree to arrange a meeting for Laura, and the brain tumour support group known as Angel Mums, with the relevant healthcare Minister to discuss brain tumour research?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing what he was asked to do, and raising that case here. The loss of a child is unbearable, and I think that most us, including me, simply do not know how we would be able to react. I am sure that the whole House will want to send its deepest condolences to Laura, and to all Taylan’s family and friends.

I will happily ensure that the meeting the hon. Gentleman has requested takes place, so that we can give a reassurance that we are committed to supporting lifesaving and life-improving research and doing all we can to improve the way in which in we prevent, detect, manage and treat cancer.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Q3. Like many people in Peterborough, I am passionate about tackling low pay and insecure work, especially for young people. Next month many of my constituents will receive a welcome boost in their pay packets owing to the increase in the national minimum wage that is being delivered by this Labour Government. May I thank the Prime Minister for ignoring the voices of those on the Opposition Benches who continue to oppose our plans to make work pay, and may I urge him to go further and faster in delivering our plan for change for working people?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, who does a superb job for Peterborough. We are proud of the fact that our Employment Rights Bill is tackling the cost of insecure work, and that we are delivering that pay rise for 3 million of the lowest-paid. We know that the Leader of the Opposition opposes all that. She thinks that the minimum wage is a burden, and that maternity pay is excessive. It is the same old Tories. They opposed the minimum wage in the first place; they have learnt absolutely nothing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

The Chancellor claimed that her Budget was “a once-in-a-Parliament reset”, so why are we having an emergency Budget next week?

[The Prime Minister]

We have delivered record investment into this country, we have had three interest rate cuts in a row and wages are going up faster than prices, which is a massive cost of living boost. That is in only eight months, after 14 years of absolute failure. What did the Conservatives leave? Interest rates were at11% and there was a massive £22 billion black hole in the economy. They crashed the economy; we are rebuilding Britain.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister knows why we are having an emergency Budget. It is because since the last one—since the Chancellor delivered her Budget in October—growth is down, borrowing is up and she has destroyed business confidence. Does the Prime Minister now regret raising taxes on business?

[The Prime Minister]

The Office for Budget Responsibility will present its numbers and there will be a spring statement next week. We have record investment into this country and interest rates have been cut. The Leader of the Opposition talks about national insurance. We had to fill the £22 billion black hole that the Conservatives left. We have invested in the NHS, schools and public services. We are pressing on with planning, with infrastructure and regulation.

I understand the Leader of the Opposition is straight-talking, so perhaps she can help us with this. Is she going to reverse the national insurance contributions increase? If not, what is the point? If so, what other taxes is she raising to fill the hole—one way or another?

[Mrs Badenoch]

The only black hole is the one that the Prime Minister is digging. He has shown absolutely no regret, but everybody knows that the Chancellor has made a mistake. That is why they are having an emergency Budget. Later today, Conservatives will vote to exempt hospices, pharmacies and care providers from her national insurance rise. Will he at the very least support exempting those vulnerable services from his jobs tax?

[The Prime Minister]

I notice the Leader of the Opposition did not say that the Conservatives would reverse the national insurance rises. That is exactly it: she wants all the benefits, but they cannot say how they are going to pay for them. She carps from the sidelines, but cannot make her mind up whether she supports or does not support national insurance rises. We have made provision for hospices and we have made provisions for charities, but we had to secure the economy. We had to fill the £22 billion black hole that they disgracefully left.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister has not made these provisions. He keeps talking about Budget benefits. Unemployment is not a benefit; businesses closing are not benefits. I asked him whether he would exempt hospices—even children’s hospices—from the jobs tax. He did not answer that question. His MPs know that this could affect end of life care, so I will ask the same question again: will he exempt hospices from paying his jobs tax?

[The Prime Minister]

We have already invested £100 million for adult and children’s hospices, with an additional £26 million in funding through the children’s hospice grant, but we cannot get away from the root cause of what we were doing in that Budget, which was fixing the economy the Conservatives left so badly damaged—a £22 billion black hole. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will start the next question with an apology.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I remember when the Prime Minister made—[Interruption.] If Labour Members want me to answer questions, we can swap sides.

I remember when the Prime Minister made that announcement. He has forgotten, because the money he is referring to for hospices is for buildings. It is not for the salaries hit by the jobs tax. As St Helena hospice in Colchester said:

“We cannot use this funding for salaries which is where we need urgent help.”

Why is the Prime Minister not listening to hospices?

[The Prime Minister]

I have already set out the position in relation to hospices. The Leader of the Opposition says that she wants to swap sides—heaven forbid! After 14 years of breaking everything, we are getting on with the job of fixing it, and all she can do is carp from the sidelines with absolutely no policy.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Winter fuel payments have been snatched. The jobs tax is hammering everyone from business to charities. The Chancellor promised a once-in-a-Parliament Budget; that she would not come back for more. In that Budget, she said:

“there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax…thresholds”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]

Ahead of the emergency Budget, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman repeat the commitment that she made?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady has such pre-scripted questions she cannot adapt them to the answers I am giving. I think she now calls herself a Conservative realist. Well, I am realistic about the Conservatives. The reality is that they left open borders and she was the cheerleader, they crashed the economy, mortgages went through the roof, the NHS was left on its knees and they hollowed out the armed forces. This Government have already delivered 2 million extra NHS appointments, 750 breakfast clubs, record returns of people who should not be here, and a fully funded increase in our defence spending. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Q4. A lady came to see me recently who needed help. She had a disability, which means that her children have to help her cut up her food. They have to help her wash beneath the waist. They have to supervise her as she goes to the toilet. Under the Tory welfare system, we were able to get that lady on to a personal independence payment. Under the Prime Minister’s new proposed system, she will get zero—nothing. After 14 years of the Tory Government and many of us wanting to see the back of them, can the Prime Minister answer one question? What was the point, if Labour is going to do this?

[The Prime Minister]

I have lived with the impacts of disability in our family, through my mother and brother, all my life. I do understand the human impact, but the current system is morally and economically indefensible. We are right to reform it and nobody should be defending the broken status quo. We are proceeding on three principles: if you can work, you should work; if you need help into work, the state should help you, not hinder you; and if you can never work, you must be supported and protected. They are the right principles, and we cannot leave the current system as it is.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks on Ukraine and Gaza. I also pay tribute to Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway and all our heroes from the battle of Britain.

Members across the House will, like me, have heard from GPs, dentists, community pharmacists and care homes who are all deeply worried about the impact of the national insurance rise on the services they provide to patients. That is why the House of Lords passed a Liberal Democrat amendment to exempt NHS and care providers. That amendment comes before this House this afternoon, but we are hearing worrying reports that the Prime Minister will order Labour MPs to vote against it. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House and patients across the country that those reports are not true?

[The Prime Minister]

I start by pointing out that, because of the changes we made at the Budget, we were able to put record amounts of money into our national health service. It was vitally important that we did so. It is not right simply to oppose the measures we had to take to raise the money and at the same say, as the right hon. Gentleman does, that he wants the benefits of the increase in funding to the NHS. The two cannot sit together. We have already invested an additional £3.7 billion of funding in social care, including £880 million to increase the social care grant. We are taking steps, but the basic point remains: we cannot make the investment in the NHS if we do not raise the money. He cannot simply oppose any raising of money and at the same time welcome the money into the NHS.

[Ed Davey]

I think the whole House is disappointed by that reply. I hope that, ahead of the spring statement, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will think about taking that money from the NHS, and reverse that.

I would like to turn to the issue of illegal hare coursing. Criminal gangs are terrorising rural communities across our country, from Cambridgeshire to Devon, from Oxfordshire to Wiltshire. Men in balaclavas are threatening and abusing farmers, as these criminals tear across their fields in 4x4s. Farmers are warning that it is only a matter of time before someone is killed. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that we must act urgently against this appalling criminality? Will he back our calls for a comprehensive rural crime strategy, so that we not just stamp out hare coursing but keep our rural communities safe from all crime?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue, which is a matter of deep concern. We are already developing a rural crime strategy, but we will happily work with him and others to develop it further.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Q5. My constituents in Birmingham Northfield are deeply concerned about the scourge of knife crime, and I pay tribute to the professionalism of West Midlands police for its response to these horrendous attacks. However, there are still 1,200 fewer police officers and police community support officers in the force than in 2010, and a new bid for 150 more officers has been submitted to the Home Office. Will the Prime Minister look at this issue so that the police can do more to keep our streets secure and safe?

[The Prime Minister]

I join my hon. Friend in commending West Midlands police for keeping his community safe. We are doubling our investment to £200 million towards the recruitment of 13,000 neighbourhood police officers, giving every community a named officer to help tackle violent crime, and we are currently working through bids with forces to ensure that we do so. I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the Policing Minister.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

We have a deeply unfair and unequal economic system, where vast numbers of people are struggling while billionaires are getting richer and richer. Does the Prime Minister really think that the way to tackle this situation is to put the onus on older people, children, and now sick and disabled people, rather than on the shoulders of the super-rich—those who can most easily afford to pay—with a wealth tax? If the Prime Minister uses the phrase “difficult choices” in his answer, will he specify “difficult choices” for whom?

[The Prime Minister]

We do have a proportional tax system, and we have raised tax on the wealthiest under this Government. The hon. Lady’s advice would count for a bit more if her party’s manifesto had not been a recipe for £80 billion of extra borrowing, which would have done exactly what Liz Truss did to the economy—that would not help any of the people she is claiming to support.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

Q6. I welcome the Government’s ambitious growth plans for the Oxford-Cambridge arc, which promise to reverse years of decline and transform the eastern region by driving prosperity, creating jobs and delivering much-needed housing. Does the Prime Minister agree that the crowning achievement of these plans would be the establishment of a world-class theme park in Bedford borough, which would transform our local economy, create thousands of jobs and opportunities, and elevate Bedford as a national hub for leisure and tourism?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this important project, which we are working on. It is vital that we unleash the potential of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor—and, of course, Bedford—by generating growth, jobs and opportunities. We are doing that by speeding up the delivery of new infrastructure projects, slashing red tape and getting Britain building.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Q2. Many of my constituents have approached me about the inadequate treatment of young people with eating disorders. This year, despite a 30% increase in referrals, the majority of integrated care boards have cut real-terms funding. Currently, as I have seen in my own family and in my weekly surgeries, those who reach out for treatment are told, in effect, “Come back when you are thinner,” increasing both the human and financial cost of treatment. Does the Prime Minister agree that timely interventions are critical, and will he meet me to discuss how we fund them?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right: too many people with eating disorders are not getting the treatment they need. The NHS is expanding eating disorder treatment services with a focus on accessing treatment earlier and closer to home, and we are providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school. I will make sure that he is kept updated.

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

Q7. Labour’s flagship Crime and Policing Bill is designed to tackle the rise in antisocial behaviour, theft and shoplifting that occurred under the Tories. It will grant police the power to confiscate disruptive off-road vehicles, which will help to tackle the scourge of off-road bikes in my constituency. Does the Prime Minister agree that we are the party of law and order, and that we are fulfilling our commitments?

[The Prime Minister]

It is totally unacceptable for anyone to feel intimidated or unsafe due to the actions of reckless and selfish individuals. Whatever the vehicle, our Bill gives police forces stronger powers to seize them immediately and put a stop to antisocial behaviour. That is our plan for change in action, making our streets and communities safer.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

Q9.   Having had 14 years to get ready, Labour came into power with no plan to reform welfare. Now, in a panic because of their economic mismanagement, the Government are cutting benefits for disabled people without consulting them at all. It probably says in the Prime Minister’s folder that the High Court ruled that the Conservatives’ consultation was too short, but at least we consulted. The Government are not consulting at all. Will the Prime Minister explain why he is doing things to disabled people and not with them?

[The Prime Minister]

No, what it says in my folder is that the Conservatives had 14 years—[Interruption.] They did not need to consult; they just had to get on with it. They had a majority of 80 for their last five years of Government. They are now carping on about some of their ideas. They had 14 years and they did not implement a single one; they simply broke the system. They are in no place to lecture other people.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

Q8.   According to the charity Shelter, there are more homeless children in my city of Edinburgh than in the whole of Wales. That is an appalling legacy of 18 years of SNP Government. Does the Prime Minister agree that there should be no homeless children, and will he work with me, the Scottish Parliament and anyone who will listen to end child homelessness in Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

The situation that my hon. Friend describes is an appalling indictment of the SNP record. The Conservative party left record homelessness in England. The SNP record is equally shameful: a record number of children in temporary accommodation. We are investing £1 billion to tackle homelessness, abolishing no-fault evictions and building 1.5 million new homes. Meanwhile, the SNP has cut its affordable housing budget. It has had the largest settlement since devolution. It has the power and the money; now it is time that it started delivering.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

This morning, I received an email from Santander informing me that the Bognor Regis and Rustington branches in my constituency are both set to close. With four other bank branches having shut across the constituency in 2023 alone, the most vulnerable members of our society are being gradually cut off from essential banking services. Small cash-based businesses will also struggle to deposit their takings, faced with the added burden of travelling to Chichester or Worthing, making it even harder for them to operate. What decisive action is the Prime Minister taking to guarantee that people and businesses in my constituency and across the country are not left without access to cash and vital banking services?

[The Prime Minister]

We are rolling out 350 banking hubs across all communities. I will happily arrange for the hon. Lady to have a meeting with the Minister to discuss how that might affect her constituency.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Q10. First, let me welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement of £200 million from the National Wealth Fund for the industrial future of Grangemouth. Today, I want to ask specifically about the workers facing redundancy. Given the assurances from the Prime Minister on 18 February and repeated by Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour Leader, as recently as 4 March, can the Prime Minister confirm that the guarantee given on 18 months’ paid protection will be honoured for all those workers losing their jobs due to the Grangemouth refinery closure, including the shared services workers, and will he say how the payment can be claimed by all those affected?

[The Prime Minister]

Petroineos has said that every employee made redundant will get 18 months’ full pay. The Project Willow report, which has come out today, describes how we can support a sustainable industrial future for Grangemouth, which is incredibly important, delivering jobs and economic growth. As my hon. Friend references, I have announced £200 million through the National Wealth Fund to secure the site’s long-term future, and that is backed by the £100 million Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal and the training guarantee to support workers into good jobs. Those are all actions that we are taking on this very important issue.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Today, the House of Lords considers the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025, which diverge from the proposals of the inquiry report and the Government response. The regulations introduce new exclusions, treat victims inconsistently and downgrade some previously agreed awards, such as that for my constituent Owen Savill. Will the Prime Minister remember the promise made to victims such as Owen and think again?

[The Prime Minister]

The victims of this scandal have suffered unspeakably. I am pleased that at the Budget we set aside £11.8 billion to compensate them for this appalling scandal. I gently point out that the Conservative party was committed, rightly, to the compensation but did not provide a single penny in the column to pay for it. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has been established and it began to make payments last year, with over £1 billion of interim payments having been made. We remain completely committed to co-operating with the inquiry and acting on its recommendations.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Q11.   Everyone is talking about “Adolescence”, the series by Knowsley’s own Stephen Graham and Christine Tremarco, which highlights online male radicalisation and violence against girls. The creators of the show are calling for screenings in Parliament and schools to spark change. Will the Prime Minister back the campaign to counter toxic misogyny early and give young men the role models that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. At home we are watching “Adolescence” with our children—I have a 16-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl. It is a very good drama to watch. The violence carried out by young men, influenced by what they see online, is a real problem. It is abhorrent and we have to tackle it. We are putting in specialist rape and sexual offences teams in every police force and doing work on 999 calls, but this is also a matter of culture. It is important that, across the whole House, we tackle this emerging and growing problem.

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

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a UK-EU youth mobility scheme. Polling has repeatedly shown that the majority of Brits support the idea, including my constituents in Epsom and Ewell. A well-structured and controlled scheme would show that the Government are serious about providing opportunities for young people and backing British business. Will the Prime Minister stop sitting on the fence and finally commit to a youth mobility scheme?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working closely with our European colleagues, and the EU in particular, on a reset of the relationship. We will not be returning to freedom of movement—I have made that clear repeatedly —but we are making good progress.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

Q12. The previous Government failed to properly support further and adult education over the past 14 years. In contrast, the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to technical qualifications has been encouraging. Last year’s Budget provided a welcome boost to some parts of the sector, but need and demand are outstripping available funding. Skills are crucial to the Government meeting their mission to deliver economic growth, build 1.5 million homes and transition to a green economy. Will the Prime Minister reassure me that the funding model will be reviewed, so that we do not see colleges having to turn away people who want to gain the skills that our country so desperately needs?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that further education plays a critical role in giving young people the skills and confidence that they need, and the training that we need for the future. We are investing £400 million in education for 16 to 19-year-olds this year, and our levy-funded growth and skills offer will create jobs in key industries. I can assure her that the funding will deliver enough places for young people.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Large spending announcements for defence would make people think that Britain is marching to war, but the Ministry of Defence is bimbling along with procurement systems that are better designed for peacetime. Will the Prime Minister use his good offices to bring British industry into this fight, and quickly?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, but the Opposition did leave a bit of a mess that we are clearing up, having hollowed out our armed forces and having not made the investment that we needed in our defence. We have announced the largest sustained increase since the cold war to 2.5% by 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament, subject to economic circumstances. We are getting on with the job and clearing up the mess that they left.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

Q13. My constituency has the greatest number of high-rise buildings with dangerous cladding in the country. On Friday, I visited Stratford fire station. Our brilliant local firefighters told me that 77 high-rise buildings in Newham and 165 in Tower Hamlets are covered in hazardous materials, with many of them deemed unsafe. Thousands of my constituents have been calling for justice for years. What are the Government doing to ensure that private developers are held to account for the dangerous cladding on high-rise buildings that they have built?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that remediation has been far too slow, and everybody deserves a safe and secure home. We have signed a contract with 54 major developers who will pay for or fix over 1,700 buildings, and we are accelerating that progress. We will take tough action against those who evade their responsibilities. We will recover taxpayers’ funds and make sure that those responsible pay up and fix unsafe buildings quickly.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

I come to this Chamber every week to ask sensible questions—[Interruption]—and I expect sensible answers, but all I get is glazed expressions and waffle from those on the Government Benches. I want to ask the Prime Minister a simple question on behalf of all the net zero sceptics. If we became net zero tomorrow, by how much would that reduce the Earth’s temperature? It is a simple question.

[The Prime Minister]

Net zero is of course not easy, but it is a huge opportunity to boost our growth, our jobs and our economy. The hon. Member knows my views on that. He complains, but Reform would have better ideas if it stopped fawning over Putin. I understand that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) wants to be Prime Minister, but he cannot even lead a party that fits in the back of a taxi.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Q14. One in five disabled people in social housing, and one in three disabled private renters, live in inaccessible housing. One of my constituents with severe fibromyalgia and post-traumatic stress disorder lives in a first-floor flat with no lift access. As we build the 1.5 million new homes that the country needs, will the Prime Minister ensure that they are built to be accessible and adaptable so that disabled and older people can live independently for generations to come?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that everybody needs to be able to access a home that is suitable for them and meets their needs. The planning rules already mean that councils must consider the needs of disabled people when planning new homes. We will go further, setting out our policies on accessible new homes very shortly. We are boosting the disabled facilities grant by £172 million, helping more people to make vital improvements and live independent lives.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

Despite Ukraine being the victim in Russia’s illegal aggression, President Zelensky has shown leadership to his people by committing to the US plans for a ceasefire. However, it is clear that Putin is playing for time and is still carrying out daily attacks on the Ukrainian people. Is now not the time to take those frozen Russian assets, seize them and give them to the Ukrainian people to strengthen their hand at the negotiating table and punish Russian aggression?

[The Prime Minister]

On both points, last night, following the discussions yesterday, I spoke to President Zelensky to discuss the way forward. On the wider question of assets, it is complicated—it is not straightforward—but we are working with others to see what is possible.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

The release of Project Willow today is a step forward in securing good jobs and an industrial future for Grangemouth. However, the Government need to work at pace to ensure that the recommendations in Willow are acted on. Will the Prime Minister outline what steps he will be taking to ensure that barriers to a rapid transition at Grangemouth are removed and investment is progressed as quickly as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising Grangemouth again, for the second time in this session; that is because it is centrally important. He will have heard what I had to say about the projects that we are looking at to ensure the long-term future of Grangemouth, the interim measures that are being taken and, of course, the £200 million of the wealth fund that I announced just a few weeks ago.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The Prime Minister and I disagree on much—the family farm tax, the national insurance jobs tax and the cut in winter fuel payments—but we surely agree that the common good is built on public order. Crossbows in the hands of killers cost lives: they cost the lives of three innocent women last year. The previous Government moved to consultation over a year ago on the regulation of crossbows, their sale and use, and yet we have heard nothing since. They are as powerful as guns, as silent as knives. Will the Prime Minister agree for one of his Ministers to come to the House before Easter to give us a clear instruction about what the Government intend to do before any more lives are lost?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this shocking issue; he is right to do so. The case he refers to is truly shocking, as I think is agreed across the House. We are working on this and I will make sure that he gets an update so that he is across the detail of what we are doing.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Most Members of this House will be aware that the welfare system can be a nightmare to navigate and does, indeed, need reform, but could we have less of this rhetoric about the Prime Minister’s £5 billion package of disability benefit so-called reform being moral? There is nothing moral about cutting benefits for what may be up to a million people. This is not about morality; this is about the Treasury’s wish to balance the country’s books on the backs of the most vulnerable and poorest people in this society.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is a passionate advocate on this issue and has been for a long time, and I pay tribute to her for that. However, as she rightly acknowledges, the current system is broken. This is where I disagree with her: I think that one in eight young people not being in education or training—that is a million young people—is a moral issue. All the evidence suggests that someone in that situation at that stage of their life will find it incredibly difficult ever to get out of that level of dependency. That cuts across the opportunity and aspiration that are the root of my values, and Labour values, about how we take working people forward. I do see it as a moral issue and I will not turn away from that. I am genuinely shocked that a million young people are in that position, and I am not prepared to shrug my shoulders and walk past it.

Point of Order

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

12:38

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The shadow Minister for Women, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), just before Prime Minister’s questions, stated at the Dispatch Box that imam Adam Kelwick posted that he prayed for victory of Hamas over Israel. That was totally inaccurate. He made absolutely no mention, in the post to which she referred, of Hamas or against Israel; that was added wrongly by the shadow Minister. He, in fact, called for prayers of peace. The truth is that Adam has spent years working on countering extremism and even uniting people through food and conversations when rioters came to attack his local mosque in Liverpool last year. I ask that the hon. Member correct the record, and I remind her that should she have made such statements outside the House, there would possibly be legal action. What advice can you give to Members to ensure that they do not abuse parliamentary privilege by slandering people?

[Mr Speaker]

I am not responsible for hon. Members’ questions, or for Ministers’ or shadow Ministers’ answers. I do not want to extend this question, but I can assure the hon. Lady that the Table Office will be able to advise her on how to pursue the matter. I am sure, without doubt, that it is on the record and that people will reflect on that.

Food Products (Market Regulation and Public Procurement)

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:39

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the Groceries Code Adjudicator; to require co-ordination between the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator; to make provision about public procurement in respect of British food products; to make provision about the labelling of food products; and for connected purposes.

I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

In March 1917, at the height of the first world war, the then Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, sent a letter to an Orkney farmer, Charles Paterson. He wrote:

“In the nation’s interest I urge you, at whatever personal sacrifice, to overcome all obstacles, to throw your fullest energies into the work, and to influence and encourage all who assist you, so that every possible acre shall be sown.”

At that time, there was no question at the heart of Government about the vital importance of farmers in the isles and across the country. In the century since, farmers have continued to play their part in supplying the nation’s table, but their incomes have stagnated. The market for agricultural produce in the UK has not been a free market since at least the end of the second world war. Successive Governments have intervened through the payment of public subsidies to farmers, initially in the name of food security and more recently in the name of cheap food for consumers. That intervention has, over the years, distorted the market and allowed a range of unfair practices to be hardwired into the system.

As a consequence, the market today has a handful of behemoth retailers—the supermarkets—at the top, hundreds of thousands of farmers at the bottom and a variety of processors, distributors and others in the middle. Everyone takes their cut and then, at the end of it all, the farmers get whatever is left. The power imbalance between the supermarkets at the top and the farmers at the bottom is more pronounced than any other market I can think of, and it is well documented that those at the top who have the power wield it to their own advantage.

The extensive debate that we have had in this House in recent months has laid bare the shocking truth about the lack of profitability in farming. Just last week a new report from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission found that real incomes for farmers had stayed stock-still for the past 50 years.

Shortly after the autumn Budget, a group of younger farmers in my constituency came to see me and brought with them their farm accounts. They were despondent in pointing out to me that their businesses earned a net profit of 0.7% on their capital. They were not much cheered when I pointed out that they were doing better than many of their contemporaries, as figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that the average return is as low as 0.5%. One of those farmers was the great-grandson of Charles Paterson, a seventh-generation farmer who works the same land as his great-grandfather. We really could not ask for a better illustration of the shift in priorities of our Governments over the past 100 years.

This cannot go on. Farmers are seeing a rapid withdrawal of funding support. In England, the accelerated withdrawal of basic payments, followed by the closure without notice last week of the sustainable farming incentives, has left many farmers desperately worried about the viability of their businesses. Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the removal of the ringfencing of money given to devolved Administrations for agricultural payments leaves farmers there feeling vulnerable to adverse change. That is why this market now needs direct and meaningful intervention. Without it, we risk losing domestic food production and any notion of food security. If, as the Prime Minister says, food security is national security, his Government should act urgently to allow our farmers to get a fair price for the food they produce.

I was in government when the Groceries Code Adjudicator was set up. I do not think anyone believed that the GCA would be the last word in the regulation of the food supply chain, but we all took the view that it was better to have something than to have nothing. Twelve years on from its creation, the limitations of the adjudicator are apparent for all to see. The office has fewer than 10 staff, all seconded from other public bodies, and it is funded by a levy on supermarkets. To expect an operation of that size to take on some of the largest retail businesses in the country is laughable. It is hardly surprising, then, that businesses supplying supermarkets are reluctant to make complaints, especially when the office has not issued a single fine in its entire existence. Cases that are pursued end up with settlements and non-disclosure agreements.

Since publicising my Bill, I have spoken to a number of producers who have told me about their experience at the hands of supermarkets. Just yesterday, I spoke to a businessman who had been a supplier of Brussels sprouts to a large supermarket. His company had, on the basis of undertakings made to it by the retailer, invested significantly, borrowing £400,000 to build a state-of-the-art packing facility. In 2022-23, that one supermarket accounted for 47% of its business. Then, in February 2023, the company was told by the supermarket that its supply was no longer wanted for that season. For that business, the news was a hammer blow, and despite it being a prima facie breach of the groceries supply code of practice, the GCA initially declined to intervene.

I would love to say that this was an isolated incident, but the GCA annual survey conducted by YouGov suggests that it is not. It found that 42% of suppliers would not raise issues because they believed the retailer would find out and that there would be consequences. The experiences they described included de-listing without reasonable notice, undisputed invoices not being paid according to agreed terms, retrospective changes to supply agreements, running a promotional activity at the supplier’s expense, and much more.

Practice among supermarkets shows a wide variety of behaviours. Seven of the retailers were judged to have improved or at least stayed the same, with Sainsbury’s coming out on top with a net improvement score of 10.34%. Unfortunately, seven others—Home Bargains, ASDA, Tesco, Ocado, Iceland, Morrisons and Amazon— were scored as having worsened by varying degrees, with Amazon’s performance being judged to have worsened by a whopping 21.38%. Amazon was also scored as having complied with the code “consistently” or “mostly” only 46.96% of the time.

Yesterday’s Daily Telegraph reported that ASDA was threatening a “price war” to regain the market share it had lost in recent years. For farmers, that is a chilling prospect. If supermarkets are about to embark on a race to the bottom, we can be pretty sure that it will be farmers, not company executives or shareholders, who will be expected to take the hit.

It is not for us in Parliament to pick a winner in a fight between supermarkets, but they should know that we are watching. Any supermarket that thinks it can rebuild its balance sheet on the back of Britain’s farmers might find itself in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and it better have some good answers when it gets here.

My Bill has support from MPs across political parties; it is sponsored by Liberal Democrat, Labour, Conservative, Plaid Cymru, SNP, Green and Democratic Unionist Members. It also has wide geographical support, with sponsors from Shetland to Cornwall and across the four nations that make up the United Kingdom. I am grateful for the support I have received from the farming unions, the Country Land and Business Association, Scottish Land and Estates, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Countryside Alliance. That is a remarkable coalition of people who all understand that if we fail to act now, before too long there may be no industry left to protect.

Charles Paterson’s family in Orkney still works the same land to this day. If we want to keep farming communities alive for generations to come, however, we need to act now to make it happen. That is why the Bill is necessary and why I seek the leave of the House today to introduce it.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr Alistair Carmichael, Jayne Kirkham, Sarah Bool, Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, Charlie Dewhirst, Sarah Dyke, Ann Davies, Seamus Logan, Ellie Chowns, Jim Shannon, David Chadwick and Tim Farron present the Bill.

Mr Alistair Carmichael accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 June, and to be printed (Bill 203).

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),

That the following provisions shall apply to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 3 December 2024 (National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill: Programme):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Speaker]

I can confirm that Lords amendments 1 to 20 engage Commons financial privilege. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendment 20, I am satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 3 December 2024. In accordance with Standing Order No. 78(3), that Lords amendment will therefore be deemed to be disagreed to and is not available for debate.

Lords amendment 20 deemed to be disagreed to (Standing Order No. 78(3)).

Clause 1

Rate of secondary Class 1 contributions

12:51

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 19 and 21, and Government motions to disagree.

[James Murray]

I welcome the opportunity to consider the Lords amendment to the Bill. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and consideration of the Bill, and I place on record particular thanks to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Livermore, for his invaluable support and for so expertly leading the Bill through the other place.

During consideration of the Bill in the other place, 21 amendments were made, 20 of which we will address today, but before I do so directly, let me remind both Houses of the context for the Bill. When we entered government, we inherited a fiscal situation that was completely unsustainable. We have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. The measures in the Bill represent some of the toughest decisions that we have had to take as a result. To restore fiscal responsibility and get public services back on their feet, we needed to raise revenue, including through the measures that the Bill will introduce. Many of the amendments from the other place put at risk the funding that the Bill seeks to raise, so let me be absolutely clear: to support the amendments is also to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises. With that in mind, I now turn to the first group of Lords amendments.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The Minister has talked about the growth mission, which is the Government’s raison d’être, but last week we found out that the economy had shrunk. Has he done any work to find out how much that 0.1% drop will cost the Government? It will have huge tax implications.

[James Murray]

As I have set out to the hon. Gentleman in a number of debates in recent weeks, the Government have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to restore fiscal responsibility after the completely unsustainable situation that we inherited from the Conservative party. That fiscal responsibility and economic stability are essential for greater investment in the economy, which is the bedrock of the growth that we are so determined to pursue.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will the Minister outline how many billions the Government will spend this year, what percentage £22 billion represents in that amount, and—if I may be so greedy as to ask an additional question, Mr Speaker—how much the flatlining of the economy has cost the Government compared with that £22 billion? I put it to the Minister that the impact of the national insurance contributions rise has been much greater than that of the mythical £22 billion alleged by the Government.

[James Murray]

I am not clear from the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention whether he finally accepts that we inherited a £22 billion black hole when we entered government. I know that several of his colleagues have sought to rewrite history, but the facts are there. We inherited a completely unsustainable fiscal situation, with pressures and a £22 billion black hole, and we had to take difficult but necessary decisions to remedy that. It was important to do so, because without the basic fiscal responsibility and economic stability that a Government should deliver, investment, which is the basis for growth, will not happen.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Minister speaks about facts. Is he aware of the fact that when the Labour party won the election, the economy was growing, and is he aware of the fact that it is now shrinking?

[James Murray]

I am very aware of the fact that we inherited an economy and a fiscal situation in a mess. That was completely unsustainable, and it was our duty as a Government to address it. No responsible Government could have let things carry on as they were, with the fiscal situation the way it was. That is why we took the action we did.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I will not, as I have already given way several times and must make progress.

We had to take those decisions to put the fiscal responsibility back at the heart of government, to return economic stability to the public finances, and to have the basis for the investment on which we can grow the economy and put more money in people’s pockets.

Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 9 and 13 relate to the NHS and social care providers. The amendments seek to maintain the employer national insurance contribution rates and thresholds at their current level for NHS-commissioned services, including GPs, dentists, social care providers and pharmacists, as well as those providing hospice care. As Members of both Houses will know, as a result of the measures in this Bill and wider Budget measures, the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion over two years, helping to deliver an additional 40,000 elective appointments every week.

Primary care providers—general practice, dentistry, pharmacy and eye care—are important independent contractors that provide nearly £20 billion-worth of NHS services. Every year, the Government consult the general practice and pharmacy sectors.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One question raised regularly in my constituency relates to GP surgeries. The national insurance contributions will hit them immensely hard. GPs tell me that their only choice is to reduce staff and cut back appointments. The Minister mentions £22 billion extra for the NHS, but if GP surgeries and health clinics are reducing staff and reducing their capacity to deliver services, is that not a step down in what is delivered in my constituency and beyond? Will he reconsider the measures given the impact on GP surgeries?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the question of GPs and the funding and support that the Government are providing them. We are investing an additional £889 million in general practice, which brings the total spend on the GP contract to £13.2 billion in 2025-26. That is the biggest increase in over a decade. The changes to the contract will improve services for patients and help to make progress towards the Government’s health mission—shifting from analogue to digital, from sickness to prevention, and from hospital to community care—as set out in the Prime Minister’s plan for change. That support for GPs is an essential part of what the Budget, including the national insurance measures we are debating, delivers.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Age UK in my constituency has told me that the employer NICs rise will cost it £50,000 a year. Does the Minister agree that it is impossible to improve the public sector by taxing the public sector?

[James Murray]

We inherited public services that were on their knees and needed urgent support. Part of the reason why we took the difficult but necessary decisions at the Budget last October was, of course, to restore fiscal responsibility, but it was also to get public services back on their feet. That is not just about the public services that people across the UK enjoy; it is also about ensuring that we have the stability for economic growth. If we do not have a health service that works well, we do not have a healthy population who can go to work. If we do not have a transport system that works well, people cannot get to work. That investment to get public services back on their feet after 14 years of Conservative control is essential for the experience of people in the UK, but it will also ensure that we have the economic growth that will enable us to put more money in people’s pockets.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Murray]

I will make a little progress. I have spoken about GPs, but the Department of Health and Social Care has entered into consultation with Community Pharmacy England regarding the 2024-25 and 2025-26 community pharmacy contractual framework. The final funding settlement will be announced in the usual way, following the consultation.

13:49

[Dr Luke Evans]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. The National Pharmacy Association announced for the first time ever, in 104 years, that it is planning action by reducing services because of the implications of the Budget. One of its requests is the release of an independent report commissioned by NHS England on the future funding of pharmacies. Now that the Government are in charge of NHS England, will the Minister ask his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to release that report before the consultations finish, so that the public and the pharmacies can see exactly what the financial situation in that independent report will be?

[James Murray]

Reports on work that the Department of Health and Social Care is carrying out are a subject for Ministers in that Department, but on the funding that I am speaking about, the final funding settlement will be announced in the usual way, following the consultation that is under way.

The NHS in England invests around £3 billion every year on dentistry, and NHS pharmaceutical, ophthalmic and dental allocations for integrated care systems for 2025-26 have been published, alongside NHS planning and guidance. On social care, the Government have provided a cash increase in core local government spending power of 6.8% in 2025-26, including £880 million of new grant funding provided to social care—funding that can be used to address the range of pressures facing the adult social care sector.

[Dr Hudson]

The figures that the Minister is presenting, along with the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and similar to the Prime Minister, involve money going into sectors that will not mitigate the national insurance rise. Will he confirm that sectors such as hospices, social care, GPs and pharmacies will have some support, rather than tell us about money that is not going to help people with regard to the jobs tax that is coming in?

[James Murray]

The various organisations or services that I am talking about, whether GPs, pharmacies or organisations that provide social care, receive money from Government, and the way that those discussions take place is by considering pressures on the providers of those services in the round—that is the way the negotiations take place. Direct support for employer national insurance contributions obviously applies to central Government, local government and public corporations, which is much the same way that the previous Government approached things under the health and social care levy. Pressures on social care or GPs, as I have been outlining, are considered in the round in terms of their funding settlements, and as I said, the £880 million of new grant funding can be used to address a range of pressures facing adult social care.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but let us look at children’s hospices, which will be down £4.9 million. Most funding for children’s hospices does not come from the Government; it comes from communities and from people supporting them. Can the Minister, at the Dispatch Box, assure children’s hospices such as Acorns in the west midlands that they will not be down the money that they will be losing through extra NI contributions, and that that £4.9 million will be replaced by the Government for children’s hospices?

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning hospices, and perhaps I may set out the Government’s position on hospices and some of today’s amendments. The Government recognise the vital role that hospices play in supporting people at the end of life, and their families, and they also recognise the range of cost pressures that the hospice sector has been facing over a number of years. We are supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million increase for adult and children’s hospices, to ensure that they have the best physical environment for care, and £26 million of revenue to support hospices for children and young people. The £100 million will go towards helping hospices to improve their buildings, equipment and accommodation, to ensure that patients continue to receive the best possible care.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The point that Opposition Members are trying to emphasise is that the Government appear to be giving with one hand, but taking away with the other. The hospice sector is just one example of many sectors that have been adversely affected by the Government’s cruel tax.

[James Murray]

As I said a few moments ago, the way that the Government support central Government, local government and public corporations—that is Departments and other public sector employers—is the same way that the previous Government responded to the health and social care levy. That is a standard way in which the Government offer support for employer national insurance costs.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Murray]

I will make some progress.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[James Murray]

No, I will make some progress. The Government want to shift healthcare out of hospitals and into the community, to ensure that patients and their families receive personalised care in the most appropriate setting.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Southern Area hospice, which is located just outside my constituency, has to raise £3.6 million per year, or £300,000 per month. It is not Government funded, as has been mentioned, so what reassurance can the Minister give to those currently using Southern Area hospice for end of life care that the Government will do the right thing and support our hospices by not including them in the increase to national insurance contributions?

[James Murray]

I have explained how the Government are approaching employer national insurance contributions and the support that they offer for central Government, local government and public corporations. That is an established way of responding to changes to employer national insurance contributions, which the previous Government did—

[Sir Roger Gale]

rose—

[James Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman is being so persistent. He must have an amazing point to make, so I will give way to him. I wait with bated breath.

[Sir Roger Gale]

It is an amazing point, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get it, because it was clear that the Prime Minister did not get it at Prime Minister’s questions. Let’s tell the real truth: the money that is being given by the Government—taxpayers’ money—to children’s hospices such as Shooting Star and Demelza hospices, is for buildings. The national insurance increase is directly hitting the people who do the work on which very sick children depend. Why is that imposition being made?

[James Murray]

The £100 million that the right hon. Gentleman alluded to is important funding to help hospices improve their buildings, equipment and accommodation, to ensure that patients receive the best care possible. As I said a few moments ago, there will be £26 million of revenue to support children and young people’s hospices. More widely, the Government provide for charities, including hospices, through the wider tax regime, which is among the most generous in the world. That included tax reliefs for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024. Finally, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, all charities, including hospices that are set up as charities, can benefit from the employment allowance that the Bill more than doubles, from £5,000 to £10,500. That will benefit charities of all sizes, particularly the smallest.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

The Minister knows that that is funding for one year, and mainly for buildings, as he has admitted. This will be a cost on hospices every single year going forward. It will be cumulative and mean that hospices have to ask their communities for more and more, just to give that basic help. Will he commit to funding children’s hospices by the £4.9 million that the Government are taking off them every year, or not—yes or no?

[James Murray]

The points I was making before I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman are recurrent features of the tax system. The support through the tax regime for charities and their donors, which was worth more than £6 billion in April 2024, is a feature of the system that happens every year. The increase in the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, which will benefit hospices that are set up as charities, is a permanent change that we are making through the Bill.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

As is evident to many hon. Members, the Minister has, for the first time, found himself unable to answer some very straightforward questions from Opposition Members about the difference between the allocation of funding for capital expenditure and for current expenditure, and the impact that that difference will have on our hospices, children’s hospices, GPs and others affected by Labour’s jobs tax.

I am sure Members of the House of Lords who brought these amendments back will also have noticed that the Minister has been unable to answer those questions. Prior to the Bill going back to the House of Lords, will the Minister agree to speak to the Chancellor or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to get a clear answer to the questions that have been raised today about which money will be available for capital and which money will be available to offset the national insurance charge increase?

[James Murray]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman felt that I was being unclear—I think I was being perfectly clear on the Government’s position. He may not agree with that position—he is entitled not to—but on the employer national insurance contribution changes I have been very clear that the Government will provide support directly to central Government, local government and public corporations, such as Departments and other public sector employers, as was the case under his Government with the health and social care levy. That does not apply to GPs, dentists, hospices and the other organisations that we have been discussing today.

The important point that I was making, which I hope was clear to him and his colleagues on the Conservative Benches, was about the wider support that the Government are providing to hospices, the funding that we are providing to GPs and the discussions we are having with other primary care providers. That is the context in which the Bill has to be seen. We are able to take decisions around funding for public services because of the difficult decisions that we took at the Budget last year, and this Bill implements one of those decisions.

At Prime Minister’s questions earlier today, it was noticeable that when the Prime Minister asked the Leader of the Opposition whether she would reverse the national insurance contribution rise that we are bringing in through the Bill, she refused to commit to that. I am unclear exactly what the Conservative position is—[Interruption.]

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Murray]

I think one of the Conservative Members said that he will update me in his speech later. I may have misheard him, but I think I heard him say that he will confirm later whether the Opposition will reverse the national insurance changes we are making, so I look forward to that update.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Minister explain to the House how it is right for the Government to cover the extra national insurance contributions of those working in the public sector, for example in hospital provision, but it is not right to do that for those working in hospices, in end of life care? How can that circle be squared? Why will they cover the national insurance contributions for those working in hospitals that are treating people, but not for those working in hospices that deliver end of life care?

[James Murray]

The fundamental principle is about which organisations the Government will support in response to the changes to national insurance contributions. The approach the Government are taking, which is in line with the approach taken by the previous Government in the health and social care levy, is for the Government to provide support for Departments and other public sector employers for additional employer national insurance contributions. As I said to the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), that means central Government, public corporations and local government. Primary care providers are independent contractors and will therefore not be exempt from the changes.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The Minister makes the point that this is secondary for primary care providers. However, he does not acknowledge that primary care providers still do not know how they will be compensated by the Government, as I hear from dentists, community pharmacies and social care providers in my constituency. We are very close to the start of the tax year and those small businesses are providing critical primary care services in our communities. How can they operate when the Minister obfuscates and says other people might talk to them at a later stage about the money that they might receive? Would it not be easier for the Minister to accept the Liberal Democrat amendment from the House of Lords and clear up this matter today?

[James Murray]

For clarity, primary care providers who are independent contractors will not receive the direct support that the Government provide to Departments and other public sector employers. The pressures that those providers face are considered in the round before funding is provided to them, so the solution is arrived at in a different way from the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

As I set out earlier, the revenue raised by the decisions set out in the Bill will help fund public services, including those provided by the NHS and other social care providers. The amendments would put much of that funding at risk, so to support these amendments is to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises.

13:15

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

What advice can the Minister give Thames hospice and Alexander Devine children’s hospice service in Maidenhead, which are looking at a £300,000 and £50,000 increase in bills respectively? Is he saying that they should cut services, or is he expecting residents in our constituencies to raise more money for them, for it to be given directly back to the Chancellor?

[James Murray]

I do not know the situation of those hospices, so I will not give them direct advice on managing their operations. More generally, I have set out the Government’s approach to providing direct support for Departments and other public sector employers. It depends how hospice care is provided. In many cases, integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning palliative and end of life care services to meet the needs of local populations. Where hospices are commissioned by the NHS, contractual arrangements should be discussed with the integrated care board at local level.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

The Minister has a capital budget and revenue budgets. We are talking about a small amount of money—£4 million or £5 million—so will he consider switching £4 million or £5 million from the capital budget to the revenue budget? Opening up that opportunity would have merit, and would help these very vulnerable organisations.

[James Murray]

I have set out the Government’s approach to supporting Departments and other public sector employees when it comes to the changes to employer national insurance contributions. As I said to the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire, we are taking the same approach that his Government took to the health and social care levy. We are talking about the wider pressures faced by organisations, be they GPs or hospices, and what we can do to support them and their processes. We are considering the pressures on them in the round. I have made a considerable number of points about Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 9 and 13. In the light of those points, I urge the House to disagree with those amendments.

I turn to the Lords amendments relating to charities, local government and special educational needs transport. Lords amendments 2, 7, 12 and 16 seek to exempt charities from the changes to employer national insurance contribution rates and thresholds. The Government recognise the crucial role that charities play in our society. We recognise the need to protect the smallest charities; that is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 pounds, meaning that more than half of businesses, including charities with national insurance liabilities, either gain or will see no change next year.

As I have noted, it is important to recognise that all charities can benefit from the employment allowance. The Government provide wider support for charities via the tax regime; tax reliefs for charities and their donors were worth just over £6 billion in the tax year to April 2024. Again, the amendments would put much of the funding that the Bill seeks to raise for public services at risk, so supporting these amendments is support for higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises.

[Dr Luke Evans]

After yesterday’s announcement about benefit changes and benefit cuts, the Government have said that they want more people to go into work. A lot of help to get people into work is delivered by charities, so we are expecting a greater need for such charities. How will they cope if they are being taxed through further NICs? They will have to reduce their services and their ability to provide support, so there will be a gap in the market. Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to bridge that gap?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the very important reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out in this House yesterday, which are a crucial part of getting people back into work. Further details on interventions to help people back into work will be set out. We recognise that charities may, in some cases, provide that support, which is why many of the elements of support for charities in the tax regime remain so generous. There was £6 billion for tax relief for charities and their donors in the tax year to April 2024 through features that will continue in the tax year that we are entering. The employment allowance is more than doubling from £5,000 to £10,500, which will benefit all charities in this country. Charities, particularly small charities, will benefit directly from changes that we have made to the employment allowance. [Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker—I thought you were going to intervene on me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The Minister is making a lengthy contribution; I am just waiting for a conclusion.

[James Murray]

In that case, I will not take any more interventions, and I will make speedier progress. I will address Lords amendments 3, 6, 11 and 15, which relate to employers who provide transport for children with special educational needs. In the Budget and the recent provisional local government finance settlement, the Government announced £2 billion of grant funding for local government in ’25-26, which includes £515 million to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions. That funding is not ringfenced, and it is for local authorities to determine how to use it across relevant services and responsibilities.

Lords amendments 8, 10, 14 and 17 to 19 together seek to maintain the current threshold for businesses employing fewer than 25 members of staff. When it comes to protecting the smallest businesses, the Government are taking action through this Bill by increasing the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, as I have said. That means that next year, 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance at all, and more than half will see no change, or will gain overall as a result of this package.

Finally, Lords amendment 21 would require the Government to conduct assessments on the economic and sectoral impacts of the Bill. As we have discussed previously in this place, the Government have already published an assessment of this policy in a tax information and impact note published by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That note states that as a result of the Bill, around 250,000 employers will see their secondary class 1 national insurance contributions liability decrease, and around 940,000 employers will see it increase. Around 820,000 employers will see no change. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal outlook also sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions.

I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will understand why we are not supporting these amendments from the other place. Through this Bill, the Government are making difficult but necessary decisions in order to fix the public finances and get public services back on their feet. The amendments from the other place require information that has already been provided, do not recognise other policies that the Government have in place and, most seriously, undermine the funding that this Bill seeks to secure. I therefore respectfully propose that this House disagrees with the amendments, and urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support the Government on that disagreement.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. This debate has to conclude within two hours of its start, so we will have a six-minute time limit, other than for Front-Bench Members. I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

I rise on behalf of the official Opposition in support of Lords amendments 1 to 4, 8, 10, 14 and 21.

Before I dive into the detail, I want to get a little nostalgic. One year and six days ago, I opened Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2024, which cut national insurance for some 29 million working people across the country. What a difference a year makes. At the end of my speech that day, I posed a simple question to the shadow Minister, now the Exchequer Secretary, which was really bugging me at the time: how will Labour pay for all its many spending commitments? I asked specifically what taxes Labour would put up, and called for Labour to just be straight with the British people. Alas, no straight answer was forthcoming, but now we know the answer, don’t we? It is just a shame that Labour gave it to us only after the general election.

Labour promised not to raise national insurance, and that it was on the side of British business. It said that it would deliver economic growth; how is that going? The fact is that the Chancellor is delivering a £25 billion tax rise on jobs across the country. That will stifle growth, hold back British business, and harm public services. This Labour national insurance Bill will, unbelievably, take the tax burden to its highest level in history on the backs of working people.

We are debating a series of amendments tabled and voted through in the other place with the aim of mitigating at least some of the damage to three vital parts of our economy and our communities: healthcare providers, charities and small businesses. Lords amendments 1, 3 and 4 seek to exempt from the measures care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists and pharmacists, providers of transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities and charitable providers of health and social care, such as hospices, as we have heard. That is because we have been warned that as a direct result of the national insurance tax hikes, we could see fewer GP appointments, reduced access to NHS dentistry, community pharmacies closing, adults and local authorities paying more for social care, and young working families being hit with even higher childcare costs. We have to avoid that.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Member reverse this national insurance tax change? What spending would he cut to do so?

[Gareth Davies]

If the hon. Gentleman looks back at the record of proceedings on earlier stages of the Bill, he will see that we voted against it. If he looks at our record in government, he will see that we cut national insurance for 29 million people across the country. As I have said so many times in this place, why are we not debating the Government’s creation of an £8 billion quango in Great British Energy? Why are they spending £7 billion on a rebrand of the UK Infrastructure Bank? Why are they spending £9 billion on giving up our sovereignty to Mauritius? Let us start with those discussions; we can then have a real debate.

Lords amendment 2 recognises the role that the voluntary sector plays in the provision of essential services by seeking to exempt charities with an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the national insurance rate rise. Charities with an income of less than £1 million make up some 95% of registered charities and undertake vital work in all our communities, yet this Chancellor will force charity staff and volunteers across the sector to raise £1.4 billion more to cover this tax rise next year alone. Supporting this Lords amendment would prevent so many services provided by the third sector from being reduced, or even removed altogether.

Lords amendments 8, 10 and 14 seek to exempt the smallest businesses—those with fewer than 25 full-time employees—from the proposed cut to the threshold at which an employer is required to pay secondary class 1 national insurance.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The hon. Member mentions small businesses. Local hairdressers in my constituency have been in touch with me to say that given the difficult economic picture, these NICs rises will mean that they cannot take on apprentices this year. Does he agree that this NICs rise is a tax not just on business, but on education?

[Gareth Davies]

Absolutely. To be fair, I do not think the profound impact of this tax is appreciated by Labour Front Benchers. The hon. Lady has pointed out yet another area in which it will have an impact—tax on education. I could talk about the impact on universities as well.

[Sir Julian Smith]

Does my hon. Friend think that the Government have assessed the loss of tax revenue that will result from this measure? In North Yorkshire, almost all of the jobs that would have been created in small businesses over the coming year are now being repressed, leading to a loss of income for the Exchequer.

13:30

[Gareth Davies]

To answer simply, I do not think the Government did that assessment before announcing this tax rise, but with plummeting business confidence, declining economic growth and forecasts for economic growth that are consistently downgraded, the profound impact on businesses and growth—as I was saying—is clear for all to see.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I listened carefully to your answer to the Minister’s question about what you would cut if this change were to be reversed. You have not been clear about whether you would reverse it, but I listened carefully to the answer, and what I heard you say—[Interruption.] I am so sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Minister referred to GB Energy and the National Wealth Fund. Will he clarify whether he is really saying that he wants to reverse record levels of investment in energy infrastructure and innovation jobs, and in jobs across this country, to stabilise our economy into the future?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind hon. Members that interventions should not be short speeches. The hon. Lady is absolutely right; looking at the Chair should hopefully prevent her from saying the word “you” repeatedly.

[Gareth Davies]

The problem with that intervention is that the chairman of GB Energy himself disagrees about the number of jobs that it will supposedly be creating. I have set out clearly some of the things that we would do differently, and the different choices we would make from the choices this Labour Government are making.

When we talk about small businesses, and about the impact of this national insurance tax increase on businesses as a whole, the Minister and other Labour Members incorrectly suggest that only the largest businesses will be forced to pay this jobs tax. As I have told them consistently in every debate we have had on this Bill, that is simply not the case. Village butchers, high street hair salons and community pharmacies are not what most people would regard as large businesses, yet businesses such as those will be hit. If the Government really want to ensure that our smallest businesses are exempt from at least part of this damaging tax, they should support the Lords amendments that are before us today.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

We know that the Minister is having to defend the undefendable—he has got a certain Matt Hancock about him in how he does it with zeal. [Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the shadow Minister agree that the people who are paying for these increases are taxpayers? They are people who are working hard. I was talking to a manufacturing business in my constituency that was going to give its employees a 4.5% pay increase, but can now only afford to give them a 2% increase. This money is coming out of the pockets of hard-working people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind hon. Members that language should be respectful at all times.

[Gareth Davies]

The jungle awaits the Minister, clearly. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; in fact, the OBR has clearly demonstrated in its analysis that 76% of this tax increase will be passed on to working people. That is a manifesto breach if ever I saw one. Not only that—the Institute for Fiscal Studies has made clear that this tax increase will not just have an impact on working people. It is the lowest-paid people in our country who will be paying for it, which is another under-appreciated and under-commented fact for the Labour party.

[Sir Roger Gale]

It is worse than that, is it not? The money that is being paid to bail out Demelza and Shooting Star children’s hospices is being generously donated by people who have already paid tax. Those working people are effectively being taxed twice on the money they are generously giving to support some of the most needy children in this country—needy in terms of health. Is that not absolutely appalling?

[Gareth Davies]

Yes, it is. My right hon. Friend is exactly right; the Government are giving a small amount with one hand and taking a larger amount with the other, but the bottom line is that it is all taxpayers’ money. It is a double tax on those people who now face the brunt of this tax increase.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Gareth Davies]

I will make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, and then give way.

This tax, purely and simply, is a financial penalty on 940,000 businesses—that is how I look at it. The analysis shows that it is going to cost businesses an average of £26,000 per year per employer. Not content with ruining farmers’ futures through the immoral family farm tax, the Chancellor wants to hammer them with this Bill, too. She is going to make pubs, cafés and restaurants stump up more to cover her jobs tax, without regard for the impact on our high streets or the communities they serve. She is going to squeeze the creative industries, from theatres to film producers, in a desperate attempt to keep this circus on the road. It is crucial that we understand the impact that the Bill will have. That is why Lords amendment 21 requires the Chancellor to carry out a review within six months of the Bill’s impact on the sectors I have described as well as on farming, creative industries, hospitality, retail and universities.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The shadow Minister has mentioned cafés, and when we have been debating this point previously in the House, I have mentioned Basil’s café in Tunbridge Wells. It now informs me that it is having to put its prices up because of the NIC rises. Does the shadow Minister think that we are going to see a bump in the inflation figures as a result of this tax?

[Gareth Davies]

I remind the House that inflation has already gone from 2% to 3% under this Labour Government, and in fact, the OBR scored the Hallowe’en Budget as inflationary. The hon. Gentleman is right that when these tax rises hit, they will be passed on through higher prices. I hope that that will not put pressure on inflation, but it will inevitably do so.

The combination of factors and how they are affecting businesses, including cafés, is not always appreciated either. The national living wage is going up. Conservative Members have welcomed that—we implemented the national living wage—but it is about the context in which it is going up: national insurance is on the rise and business rates relief for hospitality businesses and high street businesses is being reduced from 70% to 40%. All those things are compounding the impact on cafés, such as the one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). They will be devastated, inevitably leading to job freezes or job losses, which I will come to.

From healthcare to charities and small and medium-sized enterprises, I have made the consequences of this Bill clear since it began its stages in the House. Today, the Government have one more chance to change course, because what many people across the country want to know is this. What is this Bill for? We were told that it was a one-off tax rise to fix the foundations of the economy. We were told that there would be no more tax rises after this, yet we find ourselves just a week away from an emergency Budget, with speculation rife that other taxes may have to rise because the Chancellor will not meet her own new fiscal rules. Some are suggesting that Labour will break another pre-election promise and not unfreeze the income tax thresholds in 2028, but will rather extend the freeze to pay down their new debts. That surely cannot be true—the Minister himself gave me his personal assurance in this House that income tax thresholds would be unfrozen from 2028. I would like him to reconfirm that promise to me today, in order to end the speculation.

This is vital context for Members as we consider the amendments before us today. If more tax rises will be needed—if the original justification for this Bill is now void—why should we stomach the Bill’s terrible consequences? Why should Labour MPs have to go out and defend this to their constituents? Why should we allow the Government to punish the sectors that the amendments before us seek to protect? In fact, why must we stand here and see this entire Bill implemented at all?

One impact that hits every sector of our economy is the impact on jobs. Just yesterday, we heard Labour talk about the importance of lifting people out of welfare and getting them back into work, and it is right to do that. As Conservatives, we know that the dignity of work and the security of a regular pay cheque is what lifts us up as a country and lifts families out of poverty. The tragedy is that this Bill has caused so much concern and so much uncertainty that employment is already declining in anticipation of its passing. The Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that the Bill will depress workforce participation for years to come.

Put simply, this Government are cutting welfare to boost employment, while at the same time boosting taxes, which will cut jobs. No wonder business confidence has completely and utterly nose-dived. It is inexplicable and entirely avoidable.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The shadow Minister says it is inexplicable, and I agree that on the face of it, it is. However, is one possible explanation for fiscal misadventure on this scale not that the Government Benches are filled with people who have scarcely any understanding of the real economy, much less what it means to try to start, run and sustain a business?

[Gareth Davies]

That is right, and it is an important point, because the decisions made by this Government are having such a profound impact on people in the real economy. I simply say to the British public that if they are unhappy with the decisions being made, they have to change the people making them. [Interruption.] Unbelievably, I am getting heckled on that point. The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) should get out and talk to the average businessperson in her constituency. She might quieten down significantly.

The Minister implied that the Government had no choice, and he still seeks to ask me what the Conservatives would do differently. Others on the Government Benches are trying that, implying that there is no other alternative. The Minister should look at the £70 billion of wasteful spending commitments that I have already listed, including the quangos, such as GB Energy, the pay-offs to the unions without any reform or productivity gains, and the billions of pounds being surrendered as part of the surrender deal to Mauritius. We have growth on the decline and inflation, debt and unemployment on the rise. We have a Chancellor on the brink, and confidence crumbling. We may not be able to kill this Bill, but we have our chance now to dent the damage. I urge Ministers and Members across the House to do the right thing and to support these amendments.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Due to the length of Front-Bench contributions, Back Benchers are now limited to five minutes.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to rise to speak to Lords amendments 1 to 19. I want to speak about what makes a good tax system and, in particular, optimal tax theory, which is a topic that is as thrilling to me as it is no doubt to the entire Chamber.

A good tax system is defined by neutrality, simplicity and stability, as set out in the Mirrlees review. A tax system designed along those three principles will raise the maximum revenue with the minimum economic impact. Each of the amendments in isolation might seem reasonable, but together they introduce individual exemptions that make our tax system less neutral, less simple and less stable. The amendments would make our tax system worse.

Today, we are discussing raising national insurance contributions from the largest employers to fix our broken public services and invest in our prosperity. Three quarters of that £23 billion of investment is from the richest 2% of businesses, while we are reducing contributions from the 250,000 smallest businesses.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Member talks about simplicity. If that is the case, why is the Government splitting the NICs? They could have introduced an increase on employees at the same time as the increase on employers, but they have decided not to do that. That would have been a simple measure to raise taxes, without creating this complication. How does that tally with his theory?

13:40

[Dr Sandher]

It is a pretty well established introduction to the tax system to have both employee and employer NICs. The point about simplicity is about where the tax is levied. I will come to the specific point that the hon. Member raises later in my speech and hopefully provide some illumination.

The revenue we are raising will be used to invest in our nation’s prosperity: insulating our homes, rebuilding our crumbling schools and hiring more nurses to care for our loved ones. It is about getting costs down and creating good jobs. It is about rebuilding this country after, frankly, more than a decade of despondency and despair.

The amendments before us represent bad policy that puts that at risk. As I may have mentioned in this House once or twice before, I used to be an economist. I can tell the House that a good tax is one that raises revenue and does not introduce perverse incentives. A good tax ensures that resources go to activity because there are higher levels of productivity. A good tax system introduces three principles. The first is neutrality: it treats similar activities in similar ways. The second is simplicity: it is straightforward and easy to implement. The third is stability: it is predictable.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The hon. Member is talking about productivity and growth. How does he square that with the additional tax on early years care? That care allows parents to work. If parents cannot work and employers cannot afford to bring young people through, how are we going to get the nation working? Nurseries are on their knees and they cannot take on more children, because there are strict rules about ratios and the amount of space each child takes.

[Dr Sandher]

First, there is more funding going into the early years, but I will deal with the tax side as I speak to the specific amendments.

Each amendment seeks to carve out an exemption for something, and I am sure that Members across the House identify with and, indeed, support some of those individual exemptions. However, if we were to pass the amendments, they would give specified sectors advantages not enjoyed by others.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It seems to me that the hon. Member’s issue is not with some of the amendments, but with all of them taken together. Why does not he not back some of the amendments?

[Dr Sandher]

I do not, because that would introduce exemptions and perverse incentives and make the tax system less clear. It would make the tax system as a whole less efficient. I will come to the specific ways shortly.

Let us start with non-neutrality. Lords amendments 7, 12 and 16 would create non-neutrality between small charities and non-charities. That would incentivise more social enterprises to be charities instead of businesses. Lords amendments 8, 10 and 14 would create an additional NICs band for small businesses, thereby disincentivising them from growing. Under those amendments, if a business saw its revenue go over £1 million or it employed more than 25 people, all of a sudden it would incur a NICs charge. That is a cliff edge. It would introduce a perverse incentive and reduce productivity and economic growth.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I am pleased that the hon. Member is talking about growth. He talks about perverse incentives. What possible kind of perverse incentive could he have in mind when removing a jobs tax from a children’s hospice, which cares for children and families going through the most unspeakable heartbreak? Where is the perverse incentive in that?

[Dr Sandher]

As I think I have set out, the question is not about carving out an exemption for this establishment or that establishment; it is about how we create a tax system overall that is simple and efficient. It is about ensuring that businesses and other organisations are operating more efficiently. I say this to the hon. Member: when the Conservatives were in government, they did not propose abolishing national insurance for all hospices. They should follow their arguments to the end of the line. I will move on, as I am conscious of the time.

The amendments would also reduce simplicity in the tax system. We are not exempting specific sectors or, indeed, specific establishments from this tax. Overall, Lords amendments 1 to 19 would complicate the tax system and reduce stability. Raising rates is accepted policy; introducing special rates for specific sectors or establishments is not. It would make for a less efficient tax system that is complicated to govern, expensive to enforce and more prone to fraud. This is not a predictable way of making tax policy. It is not neutral, it is not simple, and it is not stable. It is bad policy that all of us in the House should oppose.

All this may sound dry, but it matters to our constituents. Bad taxes do not just harm economic growth, but bring in less revenue. That means fewer appointments in the NHS, it means fewer new teachers, and it means less insulation in our homes. We are elected to this place as legislators. We have a duty to make policy that works, and that involves distinguishing the whole from its parts, ensuring we do not introduce loopholes and carve-outs that weaken our tax system, and governing responsibly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), the Lords amendments were clearly not designed with the aim of creating a simpler tax system. They have been sent to us to consider because they may create a fairer society, and that, in my view, should be a driving force in our consideration of them today and in the work of this House.

Such is the strength of feeling in the other place that it has sent us 21 amendments, and such is the strength of feeling on the Liberal Democrat Benches that we will support every single one. Taken together, they offer exemptions for health and care providers, for small charities with an annual revenue of less than £1 million, for transport providers, for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Rowcroft hospice in my constituency is impacted greatly by the Bill, as is Bay Care, an excellent social care provider. Both those organisations are having to make challenging and difficult decisions about how many people they can employ and how they can support people in their communities. Does my hon. Friend share my fear that this will result in the shunting of costs on to our core NHS services?

[Daisy Cooper]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. One of the main problems with this particular measure is that it is so self-defeating. It is effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul. I have said it once and I will say it again: this jobs tax is damaging to growth, and self-defeating for our health and care services. We Liberal Democrats have opposed it, and throughout the debate on the Bill we have suggested alternative ways—fairer ways—in which the Government could raise the same amount of revenue. We have also asked the Government, if they are indeed pursuing this measure, at the very least to exempt health and care providers.

The Government will not get hospitals out of a financial hole by taxing the GPs, dentists, pharmacies and care providers who prevent people from needing to go to hospital in the first place. The Government will not alleviate the pressure on hospitals by taxing hospices, which will now be forced to withdraw services from people who are trying to die with independence and dignity in a setting of their choosing, rather than in a cramped hospital corridor or a sterile ward. The Government will not keep people out of hospitals by levying a tax on the very health and care charities that provide vital services for those who are vulnerable—warm spaces, friendship for the isolated, financial advice, welfare support and social care. The Minister said that extra money would go into social care, but we know that the money allocated to it in the Budget is dwarfed by the increase in national insurance contributions. We cannot save the NHS unless we fix social care.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

There are many similar examples, but Quantum Care in Hertfordshire, a not-for-profit social care business, says that its costs will rise by £1.7 million in national insurance contributions alone, which will also have an impact on council and social services. That is certainly not solving our health and social care problem.

[Daisy Cooper]

As a fellow Hertfordshire Member, I have met representatives of Quantum Care a number of times and have heard the same reports as my hon. Friend. This is extremely worrying for our social care providers, who are very clear about the impact that this measure will have. They will have to put up their costs, they will have to hand back contracts to local authorities, and they will not be able to provide the level of care that many vulnerable people require.

The measure will also have a huge impact on small businesses and high streets. As I have said before, high streets are the most visual and visceral indicators of whether the economy is working in their area. If small businesses see their local high street going down the pan, they will lose confidence in their local economy. Pubs, hospitality companies, retailers, beauty salons and day centres are the glue that holds our communities together, but they are also the engines of local growth. Small businesses are crying out for assistance. What makes them feel so overwhelmed is the cumulative impact of all the measures that we are seeing from this Government: the national insurance increase, the rise in business rate bills, and the new obligations that are imposed by the Employment Rights Bill without the resources to manage them.

Throughout the passage of the Bill before us, we Liberal Democrats have set out alternative ways for the Government to raise funds. The Government say that this measure will raise £25 billion for the NHS, but the Office for Budget Responsibility says that when behaviour change and reimbursement in the public sector are taken into account, it will raise just £10 billion. We believe that that money could be raised from different sources, from the digital services tax to the gaming tax to reforming capital gains tax so that it is fairer and raises more money than it can currently raise because of the way in which the Government have addressed it.

This measure will destroy growth, decimate parts of our high streets, and cause vulnerable people to lose out on vital services. That is why we Liberal Democrats have opposed the increase in the jobs tax, and it is why we ask for, at the very least, an exemption for our valuable health and care providers.

[Rachel Blake]

Lords amendment 21 calls for a review of this policy. I will come to the practical reasons for my opposition to it shortly, but first I want to focus on the cause of the problem and the cause of today’s debate.

The last Government presided over economic chaos, scaring businesses away from long-term investment. The last Government failed to invest in the skills that are required in the vital sectors about which we have been hearing today. The last Government left the NHS on its knees, in desperate need of long-term investment. It will be hard to take the serious steps that will put the country back on its feet, but I believe that the measures we are debating today are necessary. What a contrast we see now: a Government laser-focused on economic stability, a Government determined to invest in skills for the future, a Government who are already reducing the NHS waiting list thanks to a £23 billion investment. That is the outcome of this policy, which is part of a package of measures to stabilise our economy and enable us to invest in public services.

I have to admit that I have been struck by the passion and commitment of Members on both sides of the House who have spoken about important public services. I talk to representatives of those services regularly myself, and I firmly believe that the investment that this Government will be able to make in childcare, in early years, in breakfast clubs, in the NHS and back into local government, where it needs to be, will in the round create the more sustainable public services that we so desperately need.

On the practical reasons why I oppose Lords amendment 21, the OBR has already considered the implications of this policy—

[Joe Robertson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Blake]

I will not give way.

Jobs data is already publicly available that will enable everybody to analyse the impact of this policy, and there has been a detailed assessment of it by HMRC. I firmly believe that this amendment will not deliver on the objectives that our country needs.

14:00

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I rise to speak in support of the Lords amendments, and I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I want to talk about the services that are so integral to our communities, because they are the ones on which our constituents rely. I am talking about GP surgeries, dental practices and pharmacies. I am also talking about our community hospices; the charity hospices that care for our loved ones through the most difficult and heartbreaking of times; the hospices that our constituents work so hard to raise funds to keep going. including our children’s hospices.

I listened very hard to what the Minister said, and he talked really dispassionately about difficult decisions. Has he no shame? This is a choice, and the Government have chosen to impose this jobs tax on children’s hospices and the services that support families going through the most unimaginably difficult and painful of times.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend speaks with so much knowledge and passion, and she is a real advocate for her constituents. When we look across the Chamber, we see that the Labour Benches are threadbare. Is that not testament to the fact that Labour is actually trying to defend the indefensible?

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

That is absolutely right. There are over 400 Labour MPs, but just four of them are sitting there to try to defend this indefensible jobs tax on our most vulnerable. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Do they not have children’s hospices in their constituencies? Do they not have hospices and other settings that their constituents work so hard to raise funds for? They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

[Joe Robertson]

Perhaps I may suggest an easy decision, rather than a difficult one? The Government, instead of giving £9 billion away to Mauritius, should use some of that to support social care and charities.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

That would be an excellent decision, and I am sure the Naomi House children’s hospice and Jacksplace, which do so much invaluable work to support families going through the most unspeakable difficulties in my area, would advocate for that.

I want to talk about childcare settings, which ensure that our smallest but most cherished family members are cared for and given the very best possible start in life. It is incomprehensible that the Government have taken this decision to imperil some of the businesses and services that our constituents most rely on—nursing homes, for example. The owner of one nursing home, with 35 years of service in the Gosport constituency, told me that the tax rises in the Budget will add £90,000 on top of its annual costs. This business is particularly vulnerable because a very large proportion of its bed spaces are occupied by local authority patients. Its costs are going to go up by 12% this year, driven mostly by changes to the minimum wage and this jobs tax—the national insurance contributions change—on his 75 members of staff. The council, which is having difficulties of its own, can provide only a 4% uplift to cover it. Quite simply, this an existential threat to his business, and he is not alone.

It is the elderly, the vulnerable, disabled people and their families who are going to pay the price, and we know that these costs will go to those having to foot the bill. If people are not privately funded, some nursing homes will be forced to hand back their local authority contracts and increase the proportion of beds commissioned privately. Since the Budget, I have received messages from individuals who have already seen the cost of care going through the roof. One wrote to me:

“Directly due to the increases in Employers National Insurance contributions the Chancellor has managed to cause an increase of 7.8% in my brother’s care home fees that are already north of £8000 a month… I shudder to think of the overall cost nationally of this increase across all those with relatives and loved ones in care.”

I also want to talk about early years settings. Early years providers are facing a squeeze that many just will not be able to stomach. Just as care settings have their revenue dictated by local government, nurseries are limited by childcare ratios and the fees they get from their local authority for their 30 hours’ free childcare. Hopscotch nursery, which looks after 1,900 children across my region, has told me that these changes will add £1 million to its overheads. It says that, in order to make up the shortfall, it is going to have to put its fees up by 10%, and that 10% will be passed on to my Gosport constituents. How can parents in Gosport face such an uptick in fees? What assessment have the Government made of the impact that will have on parents, on people dropping out of the jobs market or out of the workforce, and, most especially, on women? At the end of the day, we all know that when it comes to childcare, rightly or wrongly, the buck always stops with us. What will be the disproportionate impact of this on women?

I could mention so many other organisations that are facing the prospect of scaling back their activities. They include hair and beauty salons, which are warning that this will result in billions of pounds lost, and many will shut up shop or encourage staff to go freelance. They have previously taken on so many apprentices, but they warn that by 2027 there will be no apprenticeships left in this sector because they will be too expensive.

The common thread is that this national insurance change will hit businesses for which labour is the highest cost and there is no digital solution, and businesses that are unable to find efficiencies because of the nature of their overheads. The amendments passed in the Lords would go some way towards alleviating those cost pressures. In many cases, they would be a lifeline for the businesses and services that our constituents so desperately rely on, and those that by their very nature are reliant on the public sector for revenue. I urge the Minister to change his mind, to show some compassion, to show he cares, to listen to his constituents and to support these amendments.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I am on record previously as calling for more support for hospices, but I have been contacted by a number of constituents about the issue of home-to-school transport for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. That relates to Lords amendments 3, 6, 11 and 15, and I wish to consider those today.

For many children with SEND, their school transport is a lifeline to education, friendships and independence. Without it, these children risk being cut off, left behind and denied opportunities that they deserve. If these Lords amendments are rejected, local councils and transport providers will struggle, families will face uncertainty and, I believe, the fundamental right to education will be compromised. This is not just a technical change to national insurance rates and thresholds; it is a direct threat to the futures of vulnerable children and their families. These dry words on a page have a massive impact in the world outside this place.

There is a genuine fear that the cost of removing these Lords amendments, which will ultimately see more children kept out of school, will actually be greater than the additional revenue raised through the national insurance changes. In reality, to exempt SEND school transport from the national insurance rise is not going to bankrupt the UK. We know that local councils, even with additional funding, are already struggling with the impact of 14 years of austerity. I believe that we could certainly raise the money we need if we had a wealth tax and introduced other changes to capital gains tax. I would appreciate it if the Minister explained why we are unable to compromise on this issue and find a way to exempt SEND school transport from the changes he proposes.

[Dave Doogan]

It is almost three months to the day since we were here in this Chamber on Third Reading. The SNP and other parties warned at that stage of the very real, dire consequences for organisations, businesses, charities, hospices and so on. It certainly does not give me, or anybody else on the Opposition side of the House, any pleasure that those threats have come to pass. There is no pleasure in that whatsoever.

The British Chambers of Commerce spoke last month of a “powder keg of costs” for businesses, with 82% of firms surveyed saying that they faced the potential of staff lay-offs, wage freezes or cancelled promotions in the workforce, which will be a terrible drag on the economy. Last month saw vacancies in the UK contract at the second-fastest rate in nearly five years, while wage growth has slumped to an almost four-year low. If we want the evidence of what business thinks of this change, it is there in the figures: 300,000 small business owners surveyed last month said they intend to lay off employees in order to cope with Labour’s national insurance increase.

The economic impact is now becoming absolutely clear. Last week’s GDP figures show the UK economy shrinking in January. On Monday this week, the OECD downgraded the UK growth forecast for both this year and the next. The reality under Labour is that economic growth has fallen in four of the past seven months. The national insurance grab represents an extraordinary and unforced error in fiscal policy. If Labour genuinely has confidence in this move, then it should have no issue whatsoever in agreeing to Lords amendment 21 and publishing an impact assessment of its national insurance increase. What the Minister detailed as an impact assessment was in fact an analysis. An impact assessment deals not with the numbers, but with output in the real economy—the effect on business. The Minister knows fine that that is not what he is talking about.

On GPs and Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 9 and 13, the Scottish Government will be investing—or compensating, rather—£13.6 million in general practice this financial year to support GPs in Scotland alone, obviously, to retain and recruit staff in the face of the change. But Scotland’s GPs, any more than England’s, Wales’s or Northern Ireland’s, should not be paying the price for UK Government decisions. Labour’s decision to increase national insurance contributions is a catastrophe for GP practices and for charities across Scotland—the relevant Lords amendments are 2, 7, 12 and 16.

There are 7,000 charities in Scotland at risk from this Labour Government. Marie Curie faces a £2.9 million inflation to its costs, with £75 million across the charitable sector in Scotland. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals alone is exposed to a £400,000 recurring pressure from this Labour Government. Scotland’s public sector faces a £700 million recurring pressure, which, with the Government’s compensation, still leaves a £200 million shortfall. Scotland is again being punished for choosing to invest more in its public services and paying people who deliver those services better.

The Government regularly attack us by saying, “What would you do?” I will tell them what I would do: £30 billion by rejoining the single market; £16 billion by introducing Scottish income tax rates; and £43 billion from a wealth tax of 1% on assets over £10 million. But this Labour Government will not go after multimillionaires. They would far rather go after the disabled, hospices, family businesses, GPs, farmers, councils and charities. That is what these so-called socialists are intent on doing.

In conclusion, Labour’s fiscal bonfire is what my colleagues in the Scottish Government have had to deal with to try to ameliorate and protect communities from Labour’s economic ineptitude. But even fiscally incompetent Unionists—a cadre in whose number I include the Minister—must realise that the Scottish Parliament cannot exist simply to ameliorate and protect Scottish public services from the United Kingdom’s decisions. Devolution can only ever be a temporary face-lift for the crumbling foundations of Unionism. As the Union crumbles, I shed no tears, but I wish it was not ripping the economic heart out of Scotland on its way down.

[Wendy Morton]

I would like to start with a gentle reminder, if it is needed, that Labour promised in its manifesto not to raise national insurance. Yet we are here today because Labour broke that promise. We are here today because right hon. and hon. Members in the other place tabled some very important amendments to the Bill, which are, rightly, now here for us to consider. Let us also not forget that Labour colleagues voted against protecting small family businesses; against protecting hospices; against protecting GPs; against protecting care providers; against protecting small charities, including air ambulances; against protecting providers of school transport for children with SEND; and against protecting nurseries. Now they all face the jobs tax.

[Sir Roger Gale]

My right hon. Friend will recall that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) referred in his speech to perverse incentives. Is it not perverse that the Government should, while exempting the health service, be taxing doctors, dentists, hospices and children’s hospices, which are, effectively, all part of that same health service?

14:15

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. I find it hard to believe that we are listening to those arguments being made by Labour Members. The unintended consequences of the Labour Government’s choices are not just disappointing but callous. They are so harsh on some of the most vulnerable communities and vulnerable people in society.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

My right hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does she agree that it also shows a deep lack of understanding by the Labour party of the way our communities are constructed and the organisations we rely on so much to keep them going?

[Wendy Morton]

That is exactly the point. What we see instead is Labour Members continuing to blame their economic inheritance. That is simply not correct. The chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility said:

“Nothing in our review was a legitimisation of that £22 billion”.

I wonder what the former Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, makes of all this. In the run-up to the 2024 general election, he endorsed Labour.

What many people now see is a Government who do not really understand the role that so many charities play in supporting the NHS, communities, older people, young people, families, and patients—people who are sick and sometimes terminally ill. For example, why would they protect the public sector and the rest of the NHS from the national insurance tax, but not general practice? Analysis from the Institute of General Practice Management estimates that it will cost each practice an average of £20,000 a year. How many staff hours is that equivalent to? How many hours of a GP’s time or a practice nurse’s time is that?

I have spoken to a number of local charities, and we have heard from others today. Every pound that the Labour Government squeeze out of them through the jobs tax is an extra pound that cannot be spent on frontline services—an extra pound that they have to find just to stand still. I find it so hard to believe that this Labour Government are also taxing those who provide vital hospice care. How can they talk of helping palliative care with one hand, while clobbering hospices and care providers with extra taxes with the other?

I can be cynical at times but I see a complete lack of business expertise, knowledge or experience among those on the Labour Benches. Just visiting businesses is not enough to understand how a business operates. I speak to them in my constituency on a weekly basis. The chair of the CBI has stated that

“business has been milked as the cash cow”.

We simply cannot expect small businesses, or indeed any business, to just be squeezed and squeezed, thinking, “Well, they’ll just increase their costs and pass them on to the end user.” The end user cannot afford them, as we have heard this afternoon. Ultimately, something will have to give: hours, training, development and jobs.

Just yesterday, we were in this Chamber debating the Government’s welfare reform. At the heart of the issue, I really believe people want to get back into work. They need support to do that, but they also need employers and businesses to have vacancies so that they can support them back into work. What I, like others, see in this legislation is the Government taxing businesses out of creating the vital jobs that this country so needs to get the growth that we do not have at the moment.

As I mentioned, attendance on the Government Benches is somewhat threadbare, giving the appearance that the Government do not care. We have heard from Labour Members who do care, just like we on the Opposition Benches care. I draw my remarks to a conclusion by urging Members on the Government Benches and those listening outside to reflect very carefully. We all have the opportunity today to do the right thing—to protect and help charities and hospices and, by virtue of that, to protect and help some of the most vulnerable in our country and society. We have the opportunity to protect jobs and help businesses to create opportunities and, by virtue of that, to help working people who aspire to a better life. I end quite simply by urging those on the Government Benches to think again and to do the right thing.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I wish to express my deep concerns about the Government’s national insurance changes and the devastating impact they are having on essential services in my constituency. The amendments put forward by the Liberal Democrats in the Lords are crucial to preventing this policy from inflicting serious harm on GP practices, care providers and the wider health system.

Take our GP surgeries, which are vital to healthcare in Lewes and beyond. I have been speaking to local healthcare providers in my community over the past week. Unlike private businesses, GP surgeries cannot pass their costs on to their patients. Every extra pound spent on national insurance is a pound less spent on patient care, staffing and appointments. The Government’s failure to exempt them will mean fewer face-to-face consultations and longer waiting times, contrary to the Government’s claimed objectives. The Liberal Democrats’ Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 9 and 13 would protect GP surgeries, NHS-commissioned dentists and pharmacists by keeping their national insurance costs at a sustainable level.

Social care providers are facing the same predicament. A domiciliary care provider in my constituency is already struggling to recruit and retain staff due to rising costs.

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

I have a similar situation in my constituency with Strada Care, which is under immense strain, having already closed four care homes over the past seven years due to chronic underfunding. Thousands of care providers are on the brink of collapse, and many more may follow if these Lords amendments are disagreed to. With social care services already struggling, more vulnerable individuals will be forced into hospitals and be bed blocking. Does my hon. Friend agree that increasing costs for social care providers will have a devastating knock-on effect for the NHS?

[James MacCleary]

I absolutely agree. The care provider in my constituency faces a 9.4% increase in employer’s costs, which it simply cannot absorb. These are the very people keeping elderly and disabled residents safe in their homes, preventing hospital admissions and easing NHS pressures, yet the Government have chosen to burden them rather than support them. The Lords amendments I mentioned would ensure that care providers can continue to deliver essential services without being driven into financial crisis.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

The £615 cost per person reported to me by care providers in my constituency will mean that one constituent, who is paying £1,500 a week for care for her 94-year-old mother, will no longer have the money to pay for the care of her disabled brother as well, after the fees go up as a result of this jobs tax. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a shockingly unacceptable result of these changes, and that the Lords amendments introduced by the Liberal Democrats should be accepted?

[James MacCleary]

I thank my hon. Friend for providing such a concrete example of the real suffering these changes will cause. This is not an abstract thing; it is about real people’s lives, and there are people who will suffer as a result, as in the example given by my hon. Friend.

I will move on to nurseries and early years providers, an issue very close to my heart. In my constituency, they are facing the same impossible squeeze. The rise in national insurance contributions, combined with the increased statutory wage costs, is pushing many to the very brink. The National Day Nurseries Association has warned that the average nursery will see an additional £47,000 in costs, which the Government’s funding increase does not come even close to covering. If nurseries are forced to close, it will leave working parents, who are already struggling with the cost of living, without the childcare they need. If schools are exempt from this tax hike, as they should be, the nurseries that provide the very foundation of a child’s education should be, too.

What makes this even worse is that the Government are not just undermining essential services, but forcing more people towards them by stripping away other forms of support. At the same time as these tax hikes, Ministers are cutting vital benefits such as personal independence payment, leaving thousands of vulnerable people struggling to afford the basics, meaning that more people will have no choice but to turn to the very care providers and community health services that are now being hit financially by these national insurance changes. The Government cannot claim to support essential services while actively driving them towards collapse. They are giving with one hand, while taking much more with the other.

I find that a gauge of the level of enthusiasm and pride that a Government have in a policy they have put forward is often the number of their representatives who turn up to support it and be associated with it. Notwithstanding the heroic contribution of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), the emptiness of the Government Benches speaks volumes.

The Liberal Democrat Lords amendments before us today would help to prevent irreparable damage to GP practices, care providers and the wider healthcare system. I urge the Minister to back them, because failing to do so will cost not just money, but lives.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Bill is yet another example of legislation from this Government that breaks their manifesto promises, harms local business, negatively impacts our constituents and limits the prospects of growth in my local economy of Chester South and Eddisbury and, indeed, the country.

Fundamentally, these changes will hit working people the hardest—the very people the Chancellor said would be shielded from the impacts of the Bill will be the most affected. It will mean lower wages, higher unemployment and increased costs for businesses, resulting in higher prices in the shops. Do not just take my word for it: the Office for Budget Responsibility has stated that

“additional payroll costs for employers are passed through into lower wages.”

When I speak with business owners in my constituency, they say they feel like they are swimming against the tide, from the NIC increases to the reduction in business rates relief. The recurring message from every company I speak to is that confidence in the economy is down. I must ask the Minister: how is that conducive to growth?

I will speak to two of the amendments. Exempting hospices from this damaging increase in employer national insurance contributions is the right thing to do. I have had the pleasure of visiting both the hospice of the Good Shepherd in Backford and St Luke’s hospice in Winsford, which provide a vital service to the most vulnerable of my constituents at the most difficult time in their lives. They provide the very best care and support, and I encourage the Minister to visit and see for himself the warm, compassionate and welcoming environment that they offer, which reflects the attitude of the doctors, nurses and, indeed, all the staff who go above and beyond in their work.

The financial implications of an increase in national insurance contributions and the resulting consequences for services and staff will be hugely damaging. Those hospices have shared with me their challenges with recruitment and their deep concern that these tax rises will make paying their staff in line with what their colleagues receive in the NHS even harder than it already is.

[Joe Robertson]

My hon. Friend talks passionately about hospices. Does she agree that taxing hospices but providing tax relief to hospitals through the relief to the NHS actually disincentivises moving people out of hospitals, which the Secretary of State for Health says is his intention?

[Aphra Brandreth]

I completely agree with that excellent intervention. The frustration that hospices have is that in order to recruit staff, they need to pay wages comparable to what NHS staff receive, and this change is making that virtually impossible to do. Hospices requires a highly specialised workforce to provide the levels of care and dignity that they offer to patients. Without the proposed exemptions, I am unsure as to the sustainability of the hospices that serve my constituents.

The second issue I would like to mention briefly is the impact on transport for children with special educational needs. As we know, the complex needs and challenges of SEN children varies from case to case; some will need specialist transport to and from school, for appointments, or just for everyday tasks. Many of these young people are vulnerable children, to whom process and routine matter. They might have a driver with whom they have built a bond and who understands their needs; they might be a highly anxious child, or perhaps a non-verbal child who has a driver who can use British Sign Language.

For my constituents in Chester South and Eddisbury, specialist transport is of the utmost importance. Our communities are isolated and rural, and parents and children rely on this vital service. There are no transport alternatives in many areas. People cannot get a bus—not even one without a specialist driver—leaving many of my villages cut off with no public transport options at all.

[Daisy Cooper]

In my constituency of St Albans, which is not particularly rural, many children with special educational needs have to travel a great distance, because we do not have enough special school places. Does the hon. Member agree that this is an issue that affects children right up and down the country?

14:30

[Aphra Brandreth]

The hon. Member makes an important point. It does not matter whether we are talking about a rural or an urban community, these young people often have to travel large distances, and we really need to think about their welfare. In my constituency, they literally have no other option. If we make this service effectively unaffordable, we are just taking away that option from SEN children.

In conclusion, I simply say to the Minister and to Government Members that they should consider the real people behind these decisions, the support that will be taken away from vulnerable people and the vital services that will no longer be affordable because of this inexcusable tax increase.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We have three more speakers. If anyone intervenes, I will not be able to get all of them in.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Liberal Democrats are extremely concerned that this tax rise risks dire consequences for social care, primary care, the NHS, hospices and charities, many of which are delivering vital healthcare in the community. Thousands of care providers are already on the brink of bankruptcy, and this national insurance increase risks tipping them over the edge.

The OBR estimates that this hike will bring in £10 billion a year rather than the £25 billion estimated by the Government, once employers change their behaviour in response to the tax and once public sector employers are compensated. Yes, we know that finances are stretched, and that the Government inherited an incredibly difficult situation, but the Government could have raised that amount of money through much fairer tax changes, and we Liberal Democrats have come up with many suggestions. For example, they could have reversed Conservative cuts handed to the big banks; increased the digital services tax; doubled the rate of remote gaming duty; and introduced a fair reform of capital gains tax, so that the 0.1% of ultra-wealthy individuals pay their fair share. This may be something particular to Totnes, but many wealthy constituents have told me that they wish they were being asked to pay more tax.

The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to exempt social care providers and GPs from the employer national insurance tax rise. On average, the tax rise will cost each GP practice an estimated £20,000 a year. The Government have announced an additional £889 million in the 2025-26 GP contract, but have failed to spell out how much of that they believe practices will need to use to pay the additional tax burden, and how much will be left to meet unmet patient needs. What is clear is that the national insurance rise will mean that the uplift to the GP contract is in fact far smaller than it appears, because a proportion will need to be returned directly to the Treasury—robbing Peter to pay Paul, as many Members have said.

What assessment have the Government made of how much of the recent uplift in the GP contract will practices need to use to offset the rise in national insurance? Rowcroft hospice, which is in the constituency next door, but which serves us, says the NIC rise is expected to add £225,000 to annual costs. One of my GP surgeries says that its costs will go up by £187,000, and the Devon Mental Health Alliance estimates the cost increase at £375,000, potentially resulting in a loss of 25,167 staffing hours.

One GP said to us:

“I have been a GP for 10 years and a doctor for 15. It is exhausting and, frankly, I just feel like giving up. This is not an attractive or stable job for training doctors.”

The Devon Mental Health Alliance, which is a strategic partnership, uniting five leading charitable organisations in Devon, said:

“As a sector, we play a critical role in easing the burden on the NHS by preventing thousands of people from needing GP appointments, hospital care, or sitting on waiting lists for treatment. By addressing health issues at their root and offering early intervention and prevention, this sector acts as a frontline defence, reducing demand on overstretched NHS services.”

It cannot fill the black hole by increasing revenue efficiencies or risk management. The organisation estimates costs of £375,000 next year and, as I have said, that could mean losing 25,000 staffing hours. That would mean that more people in Devon with complex needs will not be able to access its services.

Minister, at a time when we have a mental health crisis across all ages and communities, this extra financial impact on voluntary sector services is short-sighted and will only heap more pressure on the NHS. If we do not value the work done in primary care, particularly by GPs, we are putting the health of our constituents across the country at risk, putting more pressure on GPs who are already working at full capacity and threatening reforms to the NHS, which has already been brought to its knees by chronic underfunding over the past decade. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the NICs rise for GPs, social care providers and all of those working to support health and wellbeing in the communities that we represent.

Just to finish, I would like to echo what others have said about the total absence of Government Back Benchers who have felt able to come in and speak in support of their hospices, their social care providers and their voluntary sector organisations, because they could not come in here and defend a Government policy that they know is indefensible.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

I rise to speak in support of these Lords amendments, and I will speak today on those that would protect small businesses with up to 25 employees.

In Wales, more than 99% of all businesses are small or medium-sized enterprises. Of those, nearly 95% are micro-sized, meaning that they employ between one and nine people. For all the protections that the Government say they have put in place for small businesses, the increase to employer national insurance contributions will still hit these enterprises hard.

There is a lack of home-grown Welsh businesses developing beyond the micro-enterprise level and becoming larger businesses themselves. We need a Government who will step up and support local businesses to grow. Unfortunately, this Government are doing the exact opposite, as it is estimated that an employer of 40 people on an average salary is about £29,000 worse off a year under the national insurance changes. Why would Welsh businesses now be incentivised to grow and take on more staff given this extra cost? It is worth noting, too, that the OBR forecasts that 76% of the cost of the national insurance contributions increase will be passed on to workers through higher prices and lower pay rises.

The Government have said that small businesses will be shielded from the national insurance increases through the changes to employment allowances. However, when asked specifically how many businesses in Wales will benefit, the Government responded by saying that they did not know. This Government like to talk about growth as their central mission, but can they explain how this policy is good for growth for our small businesses in Wales? All I can see is that it is bad for Welsh business, bad for Welsh workers, and bad for the Welsh economy.

I urge the Government to support these Lords amendments to at least protect more businesses from the damage that the national insurance hike will cause. I have raised concerns previously in this Chamber that this Labour Government are not considering the needs of small and local businesses in their decisions, and these damaging national insurance hikes are only further proof that that is the case.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 9 and 13. These amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the other place would ensure that care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists, NHS-commissioned pharmacies, charitable providers of health and social care, and hospice care continue to pay secondary class 1 contributions at the rate of 13.8%.

With healthcare in such a dire state in Glastonbury and Somerton, it is essential that providers are not put into further financial difficulties due to increases in employer national insurance contributions. Like so many Members, my inbox has been brimming with correspondence on this matter from organisations across my constituency. The measure will disproportionately impact businesses run by women. For example, early years provider Acorn Day Nursery in Somerton has told me that it believes that the employer national insurance contribution increases, in combination with other recent funding announcements, could be the final nail in the coffin for its business, leaving families without crucial early years care provision. I have heard from hospice care providers such as Dorothy House, which provides crucial end of life care for my constituents. It will be hard hit by the rise in employer national insurance contributions, which will impact care provision for people who live in rural areas.

Vine GP surgery in Street shared with me its concerns about the impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions, stating that it will undermine access to patient care following years of neglect from the previous Conservative Government. A constituent from Langport recently wrote to me to raise their concerns about the negative impact of the rise in national insurance on care homes. Already stretched care homes could see an increase of around £650 per employee for anyone working more than eight hours a week. That will have a knock-on impact on the cost of care provision.

Community pharmacies play an essential role in providing care in the community, in line with the Government’s strategic agenda. However, if the rise in national insurance contributions goes ahead, pharmacies such as Bruton, Castle Cary, Stoke-sub-Hamdon and Martock could all be put at risk. If they go, vital frontline services for rural communities will be lost. The National Pharmacy Association has predicted that around 1,000 will close by 2027. The combined effect of changes to the national insurance contributions and the national living wage could add an extra £25,000 to each pharmacy in rural Somerset, affecting their viability. Given the rate of pharmacy closures in Glastonbury and Somerton is nearly double the national average, my constituents will be hard hit by this tax hike.

In rural areas we simply cannot afford to lose any more pharmacies or our critical frontline services. I fear that these measures will only increase the pressure on GPs and other services that will be badly impacted by this decision. I urge colleagues to back the Liberal Democrats’ amendments so that we can protect frontline health providers, who, shockingly, are not included in the Government’s exemption. Without it, health and early years provision across the country will be drastically reduced.

[James Murray]

I will respond briefly to some of the points raised in the debate. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), repeated many points that I addressed in my opening remarks. He asked a fundamental question: why must the Bill be implemented? My response is because of the mess that his party left when we won the election last July. I noted that he refused to say whether he would reverse the national insurance changes that we are making, despite being asked by Government Members. He refused to make clear his party’s position, as the leader of his party did earlier.

The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) spoke of choices in politics. She is right that politics is about choices. But she was also incapable of explaining what different choices she and her colleagues would make, since they oppose our changes to national insurance contributions. Would they go for higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises?

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) Poole and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) spoke about special educational needs transport facilities. I mentioned in my earlier remarks that the Budget and the provisional local government finance settlement set out £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26. That includes £515 million to support councils with employer national insurance contributions. However, it is not ringfenced, which means that it is for local authorities to determine how to use this funding across relevant services and responsibilities.

There was a comment from the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), although he is not in his place and I do not know where he is—perhaps he is off feeding his spider. He made a rather colourful comparison between some of my points and those made by a former colleague of his. I do not know whether he realised that in doing so he implied that the position that the former Secretary of State for Health was defending was indefensible. I would be interested to see which of the previous Government’s policies he thought were indefensible. When he returns from his spider-care duties I will ask him, but in his absence, let me say what is indefensible: for Conservative Members to have voted for the Liz Truss mini-Budget. What is indefensible is what they did to public services over 14 years. What would have been indefensible would have been our letting the situation carry on as it was when we won the general election.

The Bill makes some of the difficult but necessary decisions that we as a Government have had to take to fix the public finances and get public services back on their feet. The amendments from the other place require information that has already been provided. They do not recognise other policies that the Government have in place, and most seriously they seek to undermine the funding that the Bill will secure. I therefore respectfully propose that this House disagrees with the Lords amendments.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

14:46

Division 132

Ayes: 307

Noes: 182

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

14:59

More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.—(James Murray.)

14:59

Division 133

Ayes: 310

Noes: 183

Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.—(James Murray.)

15:11

Division 134

Ayes: 314

Noes: 187

Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4.—(James Murray.)

15:23

Division 135

Ayes: 313

Noes: 190

Lords amendment 4 disagreed to.

Clause 2

Secondary threshold for secondary Class 1 contributions

Lords amendments 5 to 7 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 8.—(James Murray.)

15:35

Division 136

Ayes: 316

Noes: 189

Lords amendment 8 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 9 to 19 disagreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

As the House was informed earlier, Mr Speaker is satisfied that Lords amendment 20 would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 3 December 2024. In accordance with Standing Order No. 78(3), Lords amendment 20 is therefore deemed to be disagreed to.

After Clause 3

Review of effect on certain sectors

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 21.—(James Murray.)

15:51

Division 137

Ayes: 316

Noes: 187

Lords amendment 21 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 1 to 19 and 21;

That James Murray, Christian Wakeford, Imogen Walker, Dan Tomlinson, Chris Vince, Gareth Davies and Daisy Cooper be members of the Committee;

That James Murray be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Opposition Day

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[1st Allotted Day, Second part]

Winter Fuel Payment

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

16:03

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to publish data on the number of eligible pensioners it estimates did not receive the Winter Fuel Payment in 2024–25; further calls on the Government to publish data showing the impact of changes to the Winter Fuel Payment on levels of pensioner poverty and the number of hospital admissions; also calls on the Government to set out how it intends to ensure that those eligible for Pension Credit receive it before winter 2025-26; and calls on the Government to apologise for the misery caused to vulnerable pensioners in winter 2024–25.

Now that the sun has come out, I suspect that many of us will quickly forget the chill of the winter—the evenings when it was freezing outside and we reached for our jumpers, and perhaps the switch on our central heating too. However, for many pensioners turning up the heating was not an option, because one of the Chancellor’s first acts in her new job last year was to scrap the winter fuel payment for 10 million pensioners—something of which she gave no hint before the election, a time when voters rightly expect political parties to spell out their plans. As a result, millions of older people, many with fixed and far from substantial incomes and many living in draughty homes, missed out on £300 this winter. That money makes all the difference. In fact, for some it is literally a choice between heating and eating. At the same time, energy bills went up. Before the election, the Government did not say they would cut the winter fuel payment, but they did promise to bring our energy bills down—by £300, in fact. Instead, they are up by about £170. It was a promise so easily made and so carelessly broken.

Labour Members may not like hearing this, but let us pause for a minute to think about what this means in human terms. I remember well my grandmother in her 90s in layers of jumpers, shawls and blankets in winter, even when she had the heating on. In fact, I remember well giving her a woollen shawl as a Christmas present, because she was always cold. I would describe myself as someone who feels the cold, but I know that what I feel on a winter’s day is not a patch on how someone in their 80s or 90s feels, especially if they have health problems, and I know from my time as a Health Minister about the connection between being cold and ending up in hospital.

To help get the winter fuel payment cut past Labour Back Benchers, some of whom do have consciences, the Government claimed that they were going to protect the most vulnerable because those on pension credit would still get it, but let us look at what that really means in practice—at the facts. Pension credit tops up a pensioner’s weekly income to £218.15 if they are single or, if they have a partner, to £332.95 jointly. Someone with an annual income of £11,500 could be ineligible for pension credit. They may be just £1 or £2 over the threshold, but because of the cliff edge, they do not get pension credit and, as a result of the Government’s cut, they would not get the winter fuel payment either. So we are not talking about rich people.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I certainly remember, and I am sure others will, the Government saying that those with the broadest shoulders would take the strain. Does the shadow Secretary of State consider those on this level of income to have the broadest shoulders?

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend makes exactly the important point I am making, which is that if the Government thought what they were doing would affect just the very wealthiest in society, they were very wrong.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Is it not very telling that, although when this policy was voted on in this House in September the Government had a majority of 120, there are very few Labour MPs on the Government Benches to defend their own policy in this debate?

[Helen Whately]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. As I said a moment ago, I do believe that some Labour Members have consciences, but I am not sure which ones. Are those with consciences the ones who are hiding away from the Chamber because they feel guilty and do not want to hear this debate, or the hon. Members here who are actually going to stand up in support of pensioners and join us in the Lobby later.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I am looking forward to the opening speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), because if we see the same sympathy that he showed for people in his “Newsnight” interview last night, we should be in for a treat.

When the Government put forward their proposals, they claimed that they were going to save £1 billion. However, the amount of money they would be paying out with the increased uptake of pension credit was going to cost £3.5 billion at that time. Does the shadow Secretary of State have up-to-date figures on whether this policy will actually deliver a saving for the Government?

[Helen Whately]

One of the things we would very much like to see is a full set of figures from the Government, but my hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Government said they wanted everyone who was eligible to sign up for pension credit and therefore be able to access the winter fuel payment, but if everyone had actually signed up for pension credit, the Government would not have saved the money they set out that the policy would save.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The Department for Work and Pensions states that it works to a planned timescale of 50 working days for processing applications. However, on 9 December, in response to my written question, it turned out that, at its peak just before the coldest period, it was 87 working days. Even now, the answer is that it takes on average 56 working days to get pension credit sorted. That is a problem, because the Government directed people to pension credit who cannot then get access to it when they need it, at the coldest time of the year. Is that not a despicable decision?

[Helen Whately]

Yes. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. He has been every effective in his use of parliamentary questions to scrutinise the Government and get data from them—they do not like to give it willingly. He identifies the long delays for pension credit approvals and therefore access to winter fuel payment. Some will have applied before the deadline for pension credit and got the whole way through winter without getting money, or even knowing whether they were going to get any money. We know well from charities such as Age UK, which represents pensioners, that pensioners are very reluctant to get themselves into debt. If they did not know whether they were getting the payment, they would have been very reluctant to spend money in the hope that they might.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Helen Whately]

Let me make a little progress and then I will be delighted to take more interventions from colleagues.

The Chancellor has previously argued that winter fuel payments should be means-tested and cut for the richest pensioners, but who here thinks that someone on an income of £11,500 is rich? Age UK estimated that over 80% of pensioners living below or only just above the poverty line would lose their winter fuel payment.

The issue is not just that low-income vulnerable pensioners miss out on help with their heating because they are just above the pension credit threshold—the problem is worse than that. Last summer, the Government knew that over 800,000 people may be eligible for pension credit but did not claim it, meaning that they, too, would miss out on the winter fuel payment. The Pensions Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), assured us that the Government would get on top of that. In fact, she told us that her target was to have 100% of those eligible for pension credit claiming it. But here we are many months later, and still around three quarters of a million eligible pensioners are not on pension credit. That is another promise easily made but easily broken. There has been a woeful failure by the Government to close properly that gap, despite all the coverage the winter fuel payment received.

Of course, we knew that this would be hard. We, too, had pension credit uptake campaigns in Government. More people signed up, but still many did not. I expect the Government knew that they would fail, too. Their officials would have told them, but it was easier for them to assure the press, the charities and their Back Benchers, “Don’t worry,” just as we have heard their Ministers do about the welfare reforms in the last 24 hours. For them, it was easier to wait for the spring to come and hope that everyone would simply forget. Well I say to them, “We won’t let you forget.” Nor will millions of pensioners and their families: 10 million pensioners are missing out on help with their heating, among them around 1 million of the most vulnerable people in our country, quite literally left in the cold by this Labour Government. That will not be forgotten in a hurry.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. It is absolutely right that we ask the questions we are asking today. The statistic that has shocked me most in this debate is that of the millions of pensioners who lost their winter fuel payment, 44,000 are estimated to have been terminally ill. Is she as shocked as I am by that statistic?

[Helen Whately]

I was indeed extremely shocked by that statistic; that is one reason why we need to have this debate today and try to get some of the data out of the Government. They were at the time, and continue to be, incredibly reluctant to share whatever they know about the impact of this cut on people, including the terminally ill.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Going back to data, this policy does not just impact pensioners, because the Government seconded 500 extra staff to try to deal with pension credit. We know, from another written answer, that those staff came from the services handling child maintenance, counter fraud, compliance and debt, so there is going to be an ongoing impact. Do the Government not need to be transparent about the impact on the Departments that have had to move staff across to try to deal with their own policy?

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about transparency, and he recognises that this policy has had an impact not only on pensioners, but on other parts of Government, and therefore on other constituents. It is another thing that I hope the Government Back Benchers in the Chamber are taking note of, to pass on to their colleagues who, for some reason, have chosen not to be present to discuss this topic this afternoon.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being exceptionally generous in giving way. Does she agree that the Government need to be completely transparent about the costs of this policy? It has been estimated that it will cost the NHS—already pressed—£169 million. We know from NHS England that 100,000 extra people aged 65 or over have been through A&E this relatively warm winter. Is this policy not a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul?

[Helen Whately]

My right hon. Friend, given his experience in this area, will know very well the connection between heating and health, particularly for older people. The Government must surely ensure that they understand the knock-on impact of the cut to the winter fuel payment on older people’s health, and therefore on admissions to hospital and on hospitals’ ability to cope. As we know, there are then the consequences for older people, who, when admitted to hospital, often end up having long hospital stays, with significant loss of independence and reduction in quality of life as a result.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Helen Whately]

I will continue, because I know that many Members wish to speak this afternoon—at least on the Opposition Benches.

From the moment the Government announced this policy, we were deeply concerned about the impact it would have, which is why we led the opposition to the cut, and why we forced a vote on it back in September. The vote was a chance for Labour MPs to make a stand. Instead, 348 Labour MPs chose to support the winter fuel payment cut. We then saw the Government trying to avoid telling people the impact the cut would actually have, so we are trying again today.

I put it to the Minister that now is his chance to be straight with people. What did the Government know when the cut was announced? Did they know how many pensioners would miss out? Did they know how many would end up in hospital? Their own report from 2017 found that cutting the winter fuel payment could cause nearly 4,000 pensioners to die. Did Ministers ask if that was likely to happen this winter? I would be happy to give way to him if he wanted to answer my questions right now, but, given they have not been answered for months, I fear he will not.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Whately]

I will in a moment—I was hoping the Minister might have answers, but he does not.

To this day, the Government have not published a full impact assessment setting out the truth about their policies. Is that because they do not know themselves, or because they do not want to admit the harm that they were willing to do?

Thanks to the effort of colleagues and the public, we have, however, been able to glean some information in the months since. The Secretary of State admitted to the Work and Pensions Committee that she had seen internal modelling showing that 100,000 pensioners would be pushed into poverty because of their political choices. Thanks to a freedom of information request, the Government were forced to publish their equality analysis, showing that 71% of people with a disability would lose their winter fuel payment, while official NHS data shows that the number of over-65s attending A&E this winter soared by nearly 100,000 compared with last year, despite this being a less cold year.

And now, as I have said, it feels as if spring is here. It is time for the Government to be honest with the public and tell us what this policy has done in practice. I hope they will not tell us that they did not monitor the results, because that surely is not credible. It is time to tell us how many eligible pensioners did not receive the winter fuel payment this year; time to tell us how the cuts have hit pensioner poverty; and time to tell us what those cuts did to hospital admissions. Ministers need to know this information so that they can prepare responsibly for next year. Back Benchers need to know this information so that they can represent their constituents effectively. And the public deserve to know the consequence of the actions of the Government they elected.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the shadow Minister be honest with the House, and honest with pensioners: how many would be affected, and by how much, by the means-testing of the state pension, to which the Leader of the Opposition is committed?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure the Member understands that the shadow Minister is always honest. Perhaps she would like to clarify what she has just said.

[Deirdre Costigan]

I ask the shadow Minister to be straight with the House, as she asked the Minister to be.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is two strikes. Again, I ask the hon. Member please to clarify her question.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the shadow Minister tell the House how many pensioners would be impacted by the Leader of the Opposition’s plan to means-test the state pension, and by how much?

[Helen Whately]

I do not want to fall into the same trap as the hon. Lady did when she made those accusations. What she has just said does not describe the position of the Leader of the Opposition. I also remind her that today is an opportunity for the Government to answer questions, and that is what she should be looking to the Minister, rather than the shadow Minister, to do.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I have always said that it is absolute nonsense that somebody like me, who is still working, and my wife, who is still working, should receive the winter fuel allowance. We were going to address that, which was right—so we should have done. If that is what is called means-testing, then I am perfectly happy with that. But what we were not going to do was to take money from the pockets of the poorest pensioners in the country, and that is what this Government have done.

[Helen Whately]

I could not have made the point better than my right hon. Friend.

I have one final question before I conclude: what was all this for? We clearly know who lost out and who suffered as a result of the cut to the winter fuel payment, but who benefited? To govern is to choose. All those who got inflation-busting pay increases after Labour did its deals with its trade union friends were the ones to benefit. Billions for the unions, but nothing for the pensioners. This will be the legacy of yet another Labour Government. The last one increased the state pension by just 75p a week; this one have taken away the winter fuel payment.

By contrast, it was the Conservatives who introduced and protected the triple lock, which saw the state pension increase by £3,700 during our time in office; it was the Conservatives who reduced the number of pensioners living in absolute poverty by 200,000—Labour will undo that by a quarter in its first year—and it was the Conservatives who delivered nearly £12 million in winter fuel payments and cost of living payments for pensioners, because we understand the need to help the most vulnerable through the winter. It is astonishing how many people Labour has already let down in just eight months—pensioners, farmers, business owners, young people looking for jobs, and, yesterday, disabled people—in its rush to fix its financial mess.

Earlier we heard the Prime Minister say that if a party has a big majority, it does not need to consult, so the onus is on all of us here. Colleagues, and especially Labour Members, have an opportunity today to make the Government listen. It is a chance to stick to our principles, stick up for our constituents and vote to see the truth.

16:24

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

I listened closely to those remarks but am still none the wiser as to whether the Conservative party is committed to reversing the changes to the winter fuel payment. I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. The changes to the winter fuel payment have been much discussed and debated many times by hon. Members in this place. Governments make decisions and, rightly, they are held accountable for them in this place, especially when those decisions affect pensioners, whom we all want to support. This Government have made, and will continue to make, responsible choices in our management of the public finances, but also in ensuring that we deliver on what matters most.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

How on earth can the Minister say to a pensioner that he has made a responsible decision, when that pensioner is sitting at home worried about whether they dare turn up the heating when they are cold, because they cannot afford it?

[Torsten Bell]

I was coming to the exact answer to that: responsible choices are how we can ensure that we deliver what matters most to pensioners: a rising state pension and rescuing an NHS that was collapsing on the right hon. Lady’s watch. That means we will make choices that may not always be easy—I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue in this place—but are necessary. Everyone in this House knows the economic and fiscal context.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

In Hartlepool we have taken a proactive approach over this issue. Since October I have been working with Hartlepool citizens advice bureau to help pensioners get the support that they deserve. The campaign ends next week, but as of today we have managed to raise £885,900 of additional annual income by ensuring that pensioners get the benefits to which they are entitled. Will the Minister congratulate Hartlepool citizens advice bureau on its extraordinary work?

[Torsten Bell]

I congratulate it and I thank my hon. Friend, and probably hon. Members on both sides of the House, who I am sure have engaged with local charities in supporting their pensioners in the months that have gone by.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

The Minister is being generous in giving way, and I am sure that he will continue to be. He talked about making responsible choices. According to Government analysis, 100,000 pensioners are being pushed into poverty. Is that a responsible choice?

[Torsten Bell]

The poverty assessment, which we provided to the Work and Pensions Committee, does not take into account any increase in pension credit take-up, which I will come to shortly. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), talked about absolute pensioner poverty—the kind of poverty that should be falling every year as an economy grows. But relative poverty—a form of poverty that we look at—rose under the last Administration. Opposition Members may not like to hear this, but relative pensioner poverty rose by 300,000 under the last Government. I just gently say that when it comes to pensioner poverty, we have more to do—I take the hon. Gentleman’s point seriously—but the record of recent years is not one of success on that front.

Everyone in this House knows the economic and fiscal context—the economic stagnation of the past decade, visible in flatlining wages, collapsing public services and strained public finances. Every economist and every person in the country knows that Britain has lived through an unprecedented economic failure. In a challenging fiscal environment, difficult choices are unavoidable. The Government have set fiscal rules and we will stick to them. But, as some older Members may remember, prudence is for a purpose: to support a growing economy that benefits everyone. It is the prerequisite for rescuing our public services and rising living standards for workers, but also for pensioners.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

In my constituency, even after taking into account pension credit, 20,000 pensioners will lose out from the Government’s cuts. Maggie from Waterlooville wrote to me to say:

“We have cut back on heating, we are both in our seventies and we both feel the cold.”

How on earth does the Minister justify that as a responsible choice? How on earth will forcing pensioners into pneumonia or influenza help the NHS? How on earth can the Minister come here and justify treating hard-working pensioners with such disdain?

[Torsten Bell]

I do not think that anybody in the House is going to be treating pensioners with disdain. That is why the state pension will rise by 4.1% in April, why we have put £26 billion into the NHS and why we intend to learn the lessons of the last Administration’s failure to cut pensioner poverty. [Interruption.] I have already taken quite a few interventions, so I will make some progress.

As hon. Members know, winter fuel payments are now targeted at lower-income pensioners. The benefit is paid to over a million households who are receiving pension credit in England and Wales or on other income-related benefits. Pensioners in receipt of attendance allowance or disability living allowance can also qualify for pension credit. Crucially, those benefits do not reduce the pension credit award and can mean receiving additional support.

I am sure that we all want to see every pensioner get the support they are entitled to, but in recent years far too many pensioners have missed out, with over a third of eligible pensioners not claiming. So since September, we have been running the biggest ever pension credit take-up campaign, building on campaigns run by the previous Government, as the shadow Secretary of State mentioned. The campaign has included adverts on television, radio, social media and advertising screens in GPs’ surgeries. We have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders and partners including local councils, community groups and charities. I have certainly done that in Swansea, as I am sure hon. Members across the House have done in their constituencies.

[Wendy Morton]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. I welcome the fact that the Government have done work to raise awareness of pension credit, just as we did when we were in government, but that does not really reach the group of hard-working pensioners who are too proud to come forward and apply for pension credit; it is just not what they would do. The £300 winter fuel allowance was a lifeline that they have now lost.

[Torsten Bell]

The right hon. Lady makes a fair point. I will come back to what more work we need to do to understand the barriers to people applying for pension credit. Research shows, though, that awareness is the biggest barrier. We need to keep breaking down those barriers, but I recognise the point she makes.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that it is extraordinary to be lectured about responsible choices by members of the last Cabinet, whose irresponsible financial choices left this Government with a £22 billion black hole? We have to clean that up because of their irresponsible financial management.

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend proves that, while Conservative Members may be disappointed by the quantity of hon. Members behind me, that is definitely made up for in quality.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I will make some progress, because otherwise we will be here for several days.

I take this opportunity to thank each and every organisation that supported the pension credit take-up campaign, as well as the many friends, neighbours and family members who looked out for pensioners and helped them to claim. A few weeks ago, we released the first data on the impact that the campaign has had. We have seen 235,000 pension credit applications in the 30 weeks since July, which is an 81% increase on the comparable period in 2022-23. On the question about processing rates, with over 500 additional staff allocated directly for that, we have seen a similar rise in the number of claims processed. Most importantly, that has led to almost 50,000 extra awards compared with the same period last year.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

What would the Minister say to residents in Maidenhead who have told me that they are not eligible for pension credit? He talks about responsible choices, but the choice those residents now have to make is whether to dip into their savings to pay for their energy bills or to turn off their heating at night. A Labour voter contacted me who had had to make exactly that decision, and she said that she will never vote Labour again. Is that really the change that the Government were elected to introduce?

[Torsten Bell]

No, the change that we were elected to introduce was to save our NHS and to return our economy to growth so that we can raise living standards for pensioners and for workers right across the country. That is the change that we were elected to deliver and that is what we are going to do.

[Dr Murrison]

The Minister is being generous in giving way; congratulations to him on making the best of a bad job. He knows that old people die in cold homes. In 2017, the Labour party did some research on which to attack the Conservatives, which showed that 4,000 old people would probably die in the event that we removed winter fuel allowance; we did not do that. I wonder whether he got his officials to repeat that research and, if so, what it showed.

[Torsten Bell]

All of us in this place should be slightly careful when talking about what is a highly sensitive subject. There is not robust analysis that can separate out different causes of excess mortality over the winter. [Interruption.] I will come on to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question. If we look at the excess mortality data for this winter, we see that deaths are actually down. It is hard to separate out the effects of different measures—[Interruption.] No, this is an important point, because some hon. Members have been looser with their language than they might have wanted to be in past debates. We have seen the level of deaths come down this winter. There are lots of things—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Torsten Bell]

I will make some progress, and then I will give way further.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the Minister give way on the data processing point?

[Torsten Bell]

Go ahead.

[Dr Evans]

I am terribly grateful to the Minister. He made the point about there being 235,000 applications, which was great. In my written question, I asked about that and he came back and said 117,800 claims were awarded, but 114,500 were not. Those were clearly people who felt they were entitled to pension credit but who will now struggle. What support is available for those people, who are clearly right on the cusp and are now not eligible and do not have pension credit?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member makes an important point. We should encourage people to apply, even if a percentage of those will always not qualify. The criteria under which people have been assessed are those put in place by the previous Administration for pension credit. However, he is right; we want as many people as possible to apply, even if some of them are not successful, for exactly the reason raised by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—we need awareness of pension credit to be higher and we need to encourage claims, because a lot of people who are entitled are missing out. It is not always absolutely clear whether someone is entitled, for example if they are in receipt of attendance allowance.

All the progress since September that I have spoken about is a real achievement, but I am the first to say very clearly that it is far from job done. Far too many people are still missing out on pension credit. We are already building on this winter’s campaign, and that includes writing to all pensioners who make a new claim for housing benefit and who appear to be entitled to pension credit. In the longer term, this Government are committed to bringing together the administration of pension credit and housing benefit, making it easier for pensioners to get support. That was also a policy of previous Administrations at different times, even if delivering it was not prioritised.

We will also undertake new research on what helps boost take-up—that goes to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. There is a slight misunderstanding about people wanting to apply but being reluctant—the evidence does not support that significantly. The key problem is awareness of the system.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The Treasury always says to every new Government, “We have this jolly good idea. Just get rid of the winter fuel payment and save yourselves a lot of money.” We looked at that when I was in the Department and eventually rejected it based on two elements of the impact assessment. First, there was the point about those who were right on the cusp of poverty—80% of them, as has been mentioned, will be damaged by the policy. Secondly, there is pension credit take-up. We get hammered either way, because if we push for pensioners to take up pension credit, the savings are lost and we spend more, but if they do not take it up, they end up in poverty. That was why we rejected the idea and, I think, every other Government up until now have too. Will the Minister have another review of that and ask his team at the DWP whether they should reject this policy now, because it will not work?

[Torsten Bell]

On the question of savings, this measure will make savings, even taking into account the increase in take-up; the evidence of that is very clear. I will also just reflect on the right hon. Gentleman’s point that his party’s Government did not take up the opportunity that the Treasury presented to means-test winter fuel payments. The truth is that the last Government and the new Labour regime before that allowed pension credit to be eroded year after year by inflation. Since the period when he considered the measure, there has been over 50% inflation erosion, so the policy of the previous Government was to cut the winter fuel payment year after year. In real terms, I am afraid that is how inflation operates.

We will not just carry out research; we will put the evidence that it provides into practice. I welcome suggestions from right across the House on what more we can do to drive take-up of pension credit.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My point relates to the cliff edge. Anne Addis from Cullompton is a 76-year-old widow. Her late husband’s Army pension pushed her just £15 over the pension credit threshold. That means that she is one of 130,000 people who are worse off than those on lower incomes who continue to qualify for pension credit. Will the Minister consider introducing a taper to get rid of that cliff edge?

[Torsten Bell]

We have all met constituents who raise this issue, and the hon. Member is right to say that there are challenges with the cliff edge. It is in the nature of the pension credit regime, because the regime is about a minimum income guarantee. People sometimes think about it as if it had a threshold, but it is about providing minimum guarantee of minimum income, so I do not think that that is an appropriate way forward, but I would be happy to discuss this with him, as it is always useful to discuss these issues.

[Mark Pritchard]

Does the Minister agree with the Resolution Foundation, which I think he knows very well, and its enlightening paper “Public Pivot” from January this year, which talks about big implications for living standards? He may well know that document, although he did not actually write that one, for a change. It mentions the winter fuel allowance and states:

“Tax rises on top of lacklustre economic growth make for a gloomy living standards outlook in 2025.”

Is there not a direct correlation between living standards and this cruel cut to the most vulnerable in our society, whether in Swansea West or in the Wrekin in Shropshire?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the right hon. Member, not least for his kind words about a very impressive organisation that goes from strength to strength under far better leadership than it had in the past.

I do not want to get into the details of economic forecasts and living standards forecasts—[Interruption.] “Please do”, Members say. Right—the reason why forecasts of living standards and of growth are often lower than we might like at the moment is that, although we talk about forecasts as forward-looking measures, what they are often actually doing is looking backwards at the disastrous growth this country has seen—[Interruption.] Those are the facts about what is actually going on. The only way we are going to sort this country out is to get growth going once again, and that is what this Government are trying to do—[Interruption.] Well, we actually are. We are currently seeing significantly faster wage growth than we have seen for quite some time.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Torsten Bell]

I must make some progress. I have taken lots of interventions, and at some point even your patience may start to run out, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As hon. Members know, wider help is also available for pensioners. The warm home discount provides eligible low-income households across Great Britain with a £150 rebate on their winter energy bill. This winter we expect to find that over 3 million households, including over 1 million pensioners, have benefited. We have also set out plans to expand the scheme to cover a further 2.7 million households. We are providing £742 million in England to extend the household support fund for a further year, supporting all households, not just pensioners, with the cost of essentials. The devolved Governments will receive consequential funding through the Barnett formula.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Around 40% of properties in Glastonbury and Somerton are not connected to the gas grid. They are more expensive to heat, and people experience more fuel poverty as a result. Off-grid pensioners, who are particularly suffering, are obviously more reliant on their winter fuel payment. Will the Minister commit to developing a rural winter fuel poverty strategy for those pensioners, who are suffering now?

[Torsten Bell]

I have heard from many Members the point the hon. Member makes about the different ways people heat homes, particularly in certain parts of the country, including Northern Ireland. I would be happy to talk to her about that specific suggestion, having asked for suggestions earlier.

As I said earlier, our top priorities are to raise the state pension and to rescue the NHS, which pensioners in particular rely on. It is precisely because the Government have taken some difficult choices that we are committed to delivering on the triple lock throughout this Parliament. It is true that targeting winter fuel payments saves a bit over £1 billion a year, but spending on the state pension is forecast to rise by over £31 billion—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

indicated dissent.

[Torsten Bell]

I have already engaged with the right hon. Member.

Spending on the state pension is forecast to rise by over £31 billion during this Parliament, which puts that into context. What does this mean for individual pensioners? The full new state pension is expected to rise by around £1,900 a year, and the basic state pension by around £1,500, benefiting over 12 million pensioners.

Then there is the health service, the state of which is the biggest betrayal of older generations today. The Conservatives left pensioners far too often not receiving the care and support they deserve and need. We are investing and reforming the English NHS through the 10-year plan by abolishing NHS England so Ministers are accountable for the health service once again. For pensioners who have spent their lives paying into the system, our priority is to ensure a resilient NHS that gives back to them at a time when they need it most.

[James Wild]

During the general election campaign, we on the Conservative side had the triple lock-plus policy to prevent pensioners in receipt of just a state pension from paying income tax. Does the Minister recognise that millions of pensioners in that position will have to start paying income tax, and is he happy with that?

[Torsten Bell]

The vast majority of pensioners started paying income tax under the previous Government because they abolished the age-related allowance for pensioners, so the taxing of pensioners was a decision taken by the previous Government. The majority of pensioners pay income tax because of decisions taken by the previous Government.

This is an Opposition day, so it would be rude not to talk about the Opposition. It is hard to know where to start—maybe with the hypocrisy. It comes in the general form of many Opposition Members claiming that they are in favour of a smaller state, but opposing this targeting of winter fuel payments. Worse, there is the more specific hypocrisy of campaigning against this change, but not being honest about whether they would reverse it.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I will if the hon. Member will tell me whether he plans to reverse that change in government.

[Lewis Cocking]

Does the Minister not agree that it is the hypocrisy from the Labour party, which did not include this policy in its manifesto at the general election?

[Torsten Bell]

While we are on broken promises, the hon. Member promised to tell me whether the Tory party policy is to reverse the change, and I have heard nothing on that front. I will come on to manifestos shortly.

There is the specific hypocrisy of the Opposition campaigning against the change having called for it in their own 2017 election manifesto. Back then, they attacked the winter fuel payment for being “paid regardless of need”, and that is before we get to the Leader of the Opposition’s bold plans to means-test the state pension—

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just said that, as it is an Opposition day debate, he will speak exclusively about what the Opposition think and say. Is it your understanding, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is in order for a Minister at the Dispatch Box not to defend the track record of his own Government?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That is not a point of order.

[Torsten Bell]

I will return to the Conservatives’ policy, because I was just coming to the bold plans set out by the Leader of the Opposition to means-test the state pension. Apparently, she said,

“that’s exactly the sort of thing”

we “will look at.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Torsten Bell]

No. Apparently, means-testing the winter fuel payment is beyond the pale, but means-testing the state pension—the bedrock of pensioners’ incomes—is the future. The Leader of the Opposition’s self-image is of a bold iconoclast, but means-testing the state pension is not bold; it is bonkers. Never mind what the Conservatives say they would do now, what about what they actually did? Let’s talk about pensioner poverty.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I will not. Pensioner poverty halved under the last Labour Government, but the Conservatives’ record was higher pensioner poverty—an increase of 300,000 people on their watch. We are not pretending that all the problems facing the country can be solved overnight, but we are honest that unless we tackle the big challenges and take some tough choices, they will not be solved at all. This is a Government raising the state pension, rescuing the NHS and delivering for pensioners every single day.

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

16:48

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I am sure the Minister almost opposite me felt that it was a brave decision by the Conservatives on my right—in fact, from the noises off during the speech of their spokeslady, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), it may even have been a bit quackers—to choose this topic for a debate. As the Minister highlighted, pensioner poverty increased under the watch of the last Conservative Government. The Tories left the economy in an absolute state. They completely crashed it, leaving the new Labour Government a massive mess to deal with. However—[Interruption.] Don’t worry; I am coming to some Labour-bashing now.

We Liberal Democrats are deeply disappointed about Chancellor’s botched autumn Budget, however, when she balanced the books on the backs of pensioners. Yesterday the books were being balanced on the backs of people with disabilities throughout the United Kingdom. The scrapping of the winter fuel allowance means 100,000 more pensioners in relative poverty. It has been estimated that approximately 800,000 pensioners who could benefit from pension credit have sadly not taken advantage of it. Conservative colleagues to my right have highlighted that there continues to be significant delays, and they are right to say so. When I have asked questions about that, I have been told that there are 90,000 claims in the queue, resulting in pensioners going through the winter unsure about whether it is safe to put on their heating.

The Work and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, received evidence from a medic who said that when people get to the age of about 65 or 70, they find that their bodies begin to become less resistant to cold weather, and they have a much greater need for heating. That is why the winter fuel payment was and continues to be the right decision. In fact, I hope that the Labour party will listen to Unite, which has undertaken surveys highlighting the fact that two thirds of pensioners are feeling the cold more but choosing not to put the heating on because of their fears about bills.

[Sarah Dyke]

A constituent from Tintinhull who is suffering from stage 4 stomach cancer contacted me because he has recently had a gastrectomy, which has caused him considerable weight loss. Despite that, he has now lost his winter fuel allowance, which is making it more difficult for him to keep his heating on as it costs him a lot more. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must urgently reassess exemptions to ensure that all pensioners with cancer are eligible for the vital winter fuel allowance?

[Steve Darling]

My hon. Friend is spot on. In fact, we Liberal Democrats feel that the winter fuel allowance must be reintroduced across the board.

The Liberal Democrats want the introduction of a social tariff that supports pensioners in poverty and pensioners on benefits. We also want to ensure that the whole United Kingdom has a home insulation scheme that gets people warmer in their homes, tackles climate change and gives employment across the country for those who need it. We call upon Members to back the motion and ensure that winter fuel payments go back to pensioners, where they should be.

16:53

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Before I begin, will the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), clarify her earlier comments? Does she not support pay rises for the armed forces? [Interruption.] She is more than welcome to clarify; I can see that she looks a bit confused.

[Helen Whately]

The hon. Lady asks about something that I have never said, so I was surprised to hear it.

[Louise Jones]

I very much thank the hon. Lady for those comments. I know she vociferously criticised pay rises for public sector workers in her speech, so I am glad to have clarified that.

The winter fuel payment was a policy that the Labour Government introduced in 1997, and it stands as one of the great achievements of that Labour Administration. When it was brought in, pensioner poverty was significantly higher than what we face today, and it made a real difference to many pensioners who were struggling with heating, eating, and many other living costs. Along with many things that that Government achieved, we had the shortest NHS waiting times in history, we brought crime down, and we created Sure Start, which made a difference to many young people’s lives. We had record results in schools, we introduced the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, and we brought in the first ever Climate Change Act in 2008. All those things made a huge difference to the lives of people in this country, in particular pensioners.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady really think that going through Tony Blair’s greatest hits is any comfort to pensioners on £13,500 who lost their winter fuel payment in 2024?

[Louise Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his comment. It is important to stress that this was a policy that the Labour party brought in, and the Conservative party voted against it at the time. The inheritance that this Government got from the previous Government was so dire—we really cannot forget how big a black hole £22 billion is. The economic situation of this country as a whole, and the finances that the Government inherited, meant that even the Labour party knew we had to make tough choices that we would never had made if we had had the inheritance we gave to the Conservatives in 2010.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that there is a real problem with Labour’s framing of its choices? Labour Members have made out that there is an absolute necessity to get rid of the winter fuel payment, but at the same time they are spending £8 million on GB Energy. They are spending God knows how much on the Chagos islands—they will not tell us—and hundreds of millions on pay rises for train drivers. Does she accept that the pensioners find it rather confusing that there is a complete necessity to cut winter fuel payments, when the Government are splurging cash on all manner of other weird projects?

[Louise Jones]

One reason why I decided to get into politics—I was quite happy doing something else—was because I was looking around this country and seeing the huge systemic issues that were facing us. None of those issues would go away if the Government just said, “We’re going to keep giving out pots of money to people,” and the hon. Lady knows that. As a proud member of the Labour party, I support people receiving fair pay for their fair work, and I support the rises that we gave to our nurses, our soldiers and our teachers. I am very proud of that. We face so many systemic issues that we know we need to make some big changes. Things such as GB Energy, which was in our manifesto that millions of people voted for, is a huge change that will make a difference.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

My hon. Friend talks about manifesto commitments, and it was a clear manifesto commitment of this Government that we would provide the triple lock throughout this Parliament—something that was only ever suspended under the Conservative party. Does she agree that the £1,500 increase to the state pension that pensioners will see over the course of this Parliament will be a good thing, and put cash into the pockets of pensioners that they did not have under the previous Government?

[Louise Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The triple lock is a serious commitment that we are utterly committed to, and it will make a difference to every single pensioner in this country—far more than trying to pretend that we do not face the systemic problems that this country faces.

[Saqib Bhatti]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Louise Jones]

I was going to go back to GB Energy, but why not?

[Saqib Bhatti]

The hon. Member is being very generous with interventions. She talked about fairness in pay. Those pensioners also worked all through their lives and also deserve fairness. What is fair about the hundreds of millions being given to train drivers as opposed to what has been taken away from pensioners? What is fair about the £18 billion, or whatever the figure is, being spent on the Chagos islands, compared with what pensioners deserve?

[Louise Jones]

What is fair is a 4.1% rise in the state pension and a 5.5% to 6% rise for our soldiers, teachers and nurses, and I will say that as many times as I need to say it.

Many people in this country have been grappling with skyrocketing energy bills, which have caused real poverty. Those bills have skyrocketed largely because we are at the mercy of international markets, so it is vital that we take back sovereign control of our energy and energy prices, and GB Energy is a vital part of that.

[Harriet Cross]

The interim chief executive officer of GB Energy has said that reducing energy bills

“is not in the remit of GB Energy”,

so how is GB Energy going to help with energy bills?

[Louise Jones]

GB Energy will turbocharge renewables across the country. Once we have that, we will have more control over our energy systems and, as the hon. Lady knows, we will have control over what happens with bills.

[Melanie Ward]

My hon. Friend mentions GB Energy, which is headquartered in Scotland. I note that there is a Scottish National party Member in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who I am sure will shortly make a passionate speech about the issue. When she does so, I hope she will remember that the winter fuel payment is already devolved to the Scottish Government and that if they want to follow a different policy, they are able to, perhaps using some the additional funding—record funding of almost £5 billion extra—that they got in the Budget this year.

[Louise Jones]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I will now turn to a quote—[Interruption.] I hope Opposition Members will settle down. The quote states:

“we will look at Winter Fuel Payments, the largest benefit paid to pensioners, in this context. The benefit is paid regardless of need, giving money to wealthier pensioners when working people on lower incomes do not get similar support. So we will means-test Winter Fuel Payments, focusing assistance on the least well-off pensioners, who are most at risk of fuel poverty.”

Does the shadow Secretary of State recognise that quote? No, and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) does not appear to recognise it either. It is taken directly from the 2017 Conservative party manifesto, which I understand both Members stood on. Would they like to stand up now and say whether they regret doing so?

[Lewis Cocking]

Last July, the hon. Lady stood on an election manifesto that did not include the removal of winter fuel payments to pensioners. Is she proud of the fact that she was elected on a manifesto that said something completely different from what she is supporting the Government in doing now?

[Louise Jones]

I am fully committed to bringing forward all our manifesto commitments, including the triple lock for pensioners, fixing the systemic issues facing the country and tackling the backlog in the NHS. Our record is something to be proud of so far.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Louise Jones]

We can carry on with our history lesson—[Interruption.] I am sorry, does the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) wish to intervene?

[Sir Roger Gale]

I intervene simply to inform the hon. Lady that it was David Cameron who introduced the triple lock.

[Louise Jones]

I believe it was then suspended, but I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In his earlier remarks, he raised the valid point that no Member of this House should be receiving the winter fuel payment, and he spoke about the very poorest in this country facing that payment being taken away. We have protected the very poorest pensioners, but whenever there is a threshold, there will always be people who fall on the other side of it. I and my colleagues have been very aware of people coming to us who need us to help them find alternative sources of help.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

rose—

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

rose—

[Louise Jones]

I will just make a bit of progress and then I will let the right hon. Member and the hon. Member intervene. I do not think there is a single Labour Member who is not conscious of the impact of the decisions that we, as a Government, are making. We rightly laud our achievements, but we recognise that we have had to make tough decisions.

Pensioners are not the only group facing poverty in this country. Child poverty has rocketed over the past decade to a shamefully high level. Not one of those children ever received a winter fuel payment. Plenty of others have been facing the effects of poverty, and shamefully that includes a rocketing number of people in work. As a Labour Government, it is our task to ensure that we are ending the scourge of poverty once and for all, whether for children, people in work or pensioners.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Is one of the main causes of child poverty not the two-child benefit cap that the Conservative party introduced and the Labour party is continuing?

[Louise Jones]

Child poverty and the two-child benefit cap are unfortunately sad signs of the legacy that we have inherited. We need to fix the foundations of the economy so that we can start to take measures such as that that may have an impact. We have set up the child poverty taskforce so that we can start to look at that and ensure we make a real and significant difference over the next few years. We have inherited a shameful situation, and we are working very hard to do what we can to change it.

I turn to the triple lock, which I and other hon. Members have spoken about. The commitment to the triple lock is pivotal; it will see the state pension of thousands of people, including people in my constituency, increase by more than £470 this year. Additionally, as a Government we have run a campaign to increase the uptake of pension credit, meaning that we have had an 81% increase in claims, which is good to see. We have also extended the household support fund, so that help is available for all age groups.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I appreciate the hon. Member referring to pension credit uptake. If all the people who are eligible to take up pension credit do so, how much will it cost the Government?

[Louise Jones]

The costings take into account the uplift in the numbers of people claiming pension credit, as they are entitled to do.

[Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes made to the winter fuel payment to secure it for those most in need actually save £1 billion net, with the extra costs of the rise in those claiming pension credit? Does she also agree that the Government’s choices across the board mean that we are able to make the decision to protect the triple lock, nearly double the warm home discount and get the NHS back on its feet? It is pretty shocking that we have so far not heard one example of how the Conservative party would make different choices to do those same things.

[Louise Jones]

Sadly, it is a feature of this debate that it is very easy for Members across the Opposition Benches to say, “You shouldn’t do something,” but very difficult to say what should be done instead.

[Gregory Stafford]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Louise Jones]

I will keep going, because I have been speaking for a long time and I know that lots of Members want to get in. I am terribly sorry.

To cut to the chase, the Government are determined to fix the foundations of this country, sort out the systemic issues that we face, tackle the cost of living and deliver an NHS fit for everybody in this country.

17:05

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

This winter, pensioners across Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages felt abandoned by the Labour Government. Many across this country voted for a Labour Government in good faith, thinking that they would actually have a reduction in their energy bills of £300, only to discover that many pensioners were going to lose their winter fuel payment, which is a lifeline to pensioners, who have served their communities and worked hard their whole lives. It was brought in by a Labour Government and never abolished during the entire time that the Conservatives and the coalition were in power. There is a reason for that: it is fair, equitable and ensures that no one is left behind. The reason why it was not scrapped before is that a means-tested mechanism was not in place, so it was quite shocking to see that the first act by the new Chancellor was to scrap a winter fuel payment that Labour initially brought in without an impact assessment.

[Oliver Ryan]

Will the hon. Lady make it clear whether it is the policy of the Conservative party to reintroduce a universal winter fuel payment at the next election?

[Joy Morrissey]

It is clear that we did not get rid of it in the first place, and we had 14 years. The interesting thing that we keep hearing—

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

Did the hon. Lady hear the question? Yes or no?

[Joy Morrissey]

I think our record speaks for itself—we had 14 years. It is very interesting that the Labour party talks about tough choices. For pensioners, turning off the heat—being made to choose between heating and eating—is a tough choice. That is a choice that this Labour Government have made for the most vulnerable.

[Dr Luke Evans]

My hon. Friend is correct that this is about actions, not words. Labour’s decision on the winter fuel payment was not in their manifesto; it was brought in with a piece of legislation that was voted on without an impact assessment and then put into place. Yesterday, we heard an announcement about disabilities that was also not mentioned in Labour’s manifesto. It was brought forward with a gap before the impact assessment—we will see that in a couple of weeks’ time—and it will then be taken through. Does my hon. Friend agree that the British public are being taken for fools? These are not transparent policies or policies that were put forward in a manifesto; they are being brought forward later on, under the guise of trying to do something better.

[Joy Morrissey]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is about transparency and keeping our promises to the British public, and it lays bare the truth about this Government.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady talks about transparency and honesty, but is it not true that the Conservative party concealed the true state of the public finances from the Labour party when we were preparing for Government? Do they not need to reflect on their own spirit of public service and decency?

[Joy Morrissey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, although the Office for Budget Responsibility contradicts what he is saying. The truth about this Government is that they talk a tough talk, but they are the masters of outsourcing every tough decision for others to make. We see that in the tough choices they have forced on small businesses across this country—whether to stop hiring, cut staff, raise prices, or close altogether in order to deal with this black hole that the Chancellor has created through her socialist spending spree—but we saw it first in stark terms in the way that the Government treated pensioners.

The Chancellor chose—yes, chose—to make pensioners make the tough choice between eating and heating. She was not able to be tough with the train driver unions, and she was not able to be tough with the Energy Secretary to stop him wasting £8 billion on GB Energy or £11 billion on overseas climate aid, but she was able to be tough with the pensioners of this country. She is a Chancellor who can be tough with the weak, but melts before the unions and her Cabinet colleagues. This is a Government who have abandoned evidence-based policymaking, such as by attacking parents who send their children to independent schools, engaging in a tax raid despite the clear evidence that it will damage the life chances of young people in both the state and the private sector.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The hon. Lady talks about abandoning evidence-based policy. Could she set out the basis for the Conservative party abandoning the UK’s net zero targets?

[Joy Morrissey]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for his advocacy on this issue. [Interruption.] I will respond as I go through my speech; he has made a very sound point.

This is about tough choices. We all have to make tough choices, and being in government is hard. Those of us on either side of the House who have been in government know that it is difficult, but we make choices, and then we are held responsible. Conservative Members understand that, because we were held responsible.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

On 20 November 2023, when I was the Paymaster General, I made some comments about the winter fuel payment. The right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, wrote to the Chancellor at the time and asked whether we could confirm that we would not be removing the winter fuel payment, because pensioners would be deeply concerned. My view, having had that put on a list of options when I was Chief Secretary, was that there was no way it would be right to do so. I knew, for example, that 71% of pensioners with a disability would lose that valued and completely necessary extra funding—there was not a rationing mechanism that was efficient for the poorest pensioners. I expected to be held to account, which was why I did not do it. I was therefore somewhat surprised when, 25 days into a Labour Government, they reversed the policy that they had challenged me about several months before.

[Joy Morrissey]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and one that I was going to make. This is about choices, and it is about the most vulnerable—the disabled pensioners who we did not have a way to test for. There was no mechanism to protect them, and I am very glad that my right hon. Friend chose to protect the most vulnerable disabled pensioners. By protecting everyone, we ensured that the most vulnerable were protected, and that was a tough choice that we made when in government. To be honest, I expected a Labour Government to make the same kind of choice, to protect the most vulnerable disabled pensioners, who have been negatively impacted by this choice. I would have expected better from a Labour Government.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Those of us who have been in government know that when new Ministers come to power—perhaps as innocent and heartfelt as the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell)—often ideas that have been rejected by their predecessors are put before them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) described, officials float proposals previously rejected in the hope that new Ministers, in their naive urgency, will embrace them. I feel a little sorry for the hon. Member for Swansea West, actually: I suspect that it was his innocence, his naivety and his lack of wit and wisdom that got the better of him—and I say that kindly—for it allowed his officials to float a policy as hopeless as this one, which was rejected by those with wiser heads, such as my right hon. Friend.

[Joy Morrissey]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. When we try to do the right thing, oftentimes we make a choice that has adverse consequences. What is telling about this decision was that an impact assessment was not published in advance. Many Members from all parts of the House were not fully aware of the consequences or impact of this policy, whereby 10 million pensioners have lost out this year while coping with rising energy costs and rising prices. Nearly 3 million of those pensioners are aged over 80. Some 1.6 million pensioners with a disability are now losing out.

This was a choice that the Chancellor could have avoided by being tough with her Cabinet colleagues or the unions, but she chose to be tough with the weak. This was a choice where the evidence pointed to a terrible impact, but she chose to be tough with the weak. This is a weak Chancellor in a Government who put ideology before evidence and politics before people, but it is never too late to change.

17:17

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

In politics, in my opinion, it matters hugely how we make arguments. My generation of politicians, many of us newly elected, have grown up in an era of ceaseless turbulence. Our world has become more insecure, our economy has flatlined, and our democracy is sometimes strained. That means we have responsibilities as elected politicians in how we make arguments, and that matters for this debate.

First, over several decades this House has ceded too much power to unelected and sometimes unaccountable bodies—agencies, quangos and administrators. Elected representatives must have the power to change the things for which the public holds them accountable.

Secondly, the public are tired of being told that we have no choice, that our hands are tied and that we must do this because lawyers or economists said so. Our job is to make arguments to the public on the basis of principle and not solely of necessity. After all, why vote, if the people we vote for are not in charge, but lawyers, economists, quangos or agencies are? What is democracy for, if the people we elect do not control the things that affect our lives?

To restore trust in politics, we must show that politics matters. That is why it is vital that we articulate our choices in terms of principles.

[Gregory Stafford]

rose—

[Josh Simons]

Hopefully, what I am about to say will answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. [Interruption.] If it does not, he is welcome to come in. Let me make clear the principle behind the reforms that we are debating today: those who need support to heat their homes must get it. Nobody should be cold at home because they cannot afford to turn on their heating. When Gordon Brown introduced the winter fuel payments—

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has just said, but I am sure that, like me, he has received hundreds, if not thousands, of messages from pensioners saying that they are suffering and cannot heat their homes. If his point is one of principle, then clearly he must vote to overturn this policy so that the people who I am sure are contacting him as well as me will be able to heat their homes next winter, as they were unable to do this time round.

[Josh Simons]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Conveniently, I shall be responding to exactly that point in a few minutes, but if he feels that I have not done so, he is welcome to intervene again.

Given that the state pension has risen by £900 and will rise again by as much as £1,900 over the course of this Parliament, the Government’s changes target the winter fuel payment on the basis of the principle of need. That is the right principle. I do not believe that taxpayers should foot the bill for pensioners with millions of pounds to receive winter fuel payments. It is true that some donate the money to charity, but many do not. According to the columnist Fraser Nelson:

“A millionaire I know has a tradition every year: he buys a bottle of vintage wine with his winter fuel payment and invites friends to drink it.”

Targeting the winter fuel payment is not just about the public finances; it anchors and preserves the policy in the right moral principle—the principle of need. It protects the winter fuel payment for those who need it most. Some object that although the principle of need is the right one, the changes set too low a threshold. That has not been my experience, and here I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). I represent more people of pensionable age than most Members, and many of them are struggling.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Josh Simons]

I will not give way at this point.

In towns such as Hindley Green and Hindley, Abram and Platt Bridge, Ashton and Orrell, pensioners who have worked all their lives are facing acute and sometimes painful challenges.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Josh Simons]

I will not, at this point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. May I remind Members that it is up to the Member on his feet to decide whether to take interventions?

[Sir Roger Gale]

The hon. Gentleman should show some respect to a pensioner!

[Josh Simons]

I do. I believe in laying out the argument, and once I have done so, in a couple of minutes, the right hon. Gentleman will be welcome to intervene. That, I think, is partly what the House is for.

After the announcement of this policy, I immediately entered into a partnership with Wigan Council to ensure that every pensioner I represent who is eligible for pension credit and help from the household support fund receives every single penny for which they are eligible. I made it clear to my constituents that I would not rest until my most vulnerable pensioners are protected. In recent months, Wigan council’s fantastic income maximisation team have secured almost £8 million in benefits that would not otherwise have been paid to Wiganers. I have invited the team to all the coffee mornings that I host with residents every month, and these alone have secured tens of thousands of pounds in benefits for the people I represent. I have encountered much the same story again and again. So many pensioners were convinced that they were not eligible for pension credit because they had never received a penny of benefit in their lives, and so many did not know about the household support fund, but it turned out that they were eligible. Opposition Members never wanted them to receive this benefit, but we have made sure that they get what they need and deserve.

[Joe Robertson]

It is heartwarming to hear someone make a speech based on his principles, and the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that it is his principles that will inform his vote on this topic. Can he articulate, very clearly, what principle tells him that someone on £13,500 is too rich to receive a winter fuel payment?

[Josh Simons]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me a few more minutes, I will come to the exact question of the threshold at which pension credit is awarded and at which, therefore, someone is eligible for the winter fuel payment.

In order to reach the most vulnerable people, who are often the hardest to reach because they are not on Facebook and are not coming to my coffee mornings, I wrote to more than 5,000 pensioners to ensure that they received the support they deserved.

Let me end by making a broader point. Today’s debate has underscored a simple truth about Conservative Members. Theirs is no longer the party with the strength and courage to lead, whether in asserting the sovereignty of this place or in making arguments with principle.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Josh Simons]

I will not.

The Conservatives knew that the winter fuel payment needed to change—they said so in their manifesto in 2017—but they did nothing about it. They knew that NHS England was duplicating, wasting taxpayers’ money and failing to drive up standards, but they did nothing about it. They knew that flooding was getting worse in places such as Platt Bridge, Ashton and Abram in my constituency, but they did nothing about it.

Let me give an even more egregious example from this week. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has stomped his feet and shaken his head about new guidance issued by the Sentencing Council. The Lord Chancellor has been clear that independent agencies should not make policy; this Chamber should. However, what the shadow Secretary of State for Justice is unwilling to confront is the fact that his party welcomed that guidance. The unequal treatment in the guidance has not changed, and he knows that. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice typifies what the Conservative party has become, and that has been exemplified in this debate. Conservative Members come to this Chamber shaking with outrage and spoiling for a spat, but they forget that they have been in charge.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Josh Simons]

I will not give way, as I am coming to the end.

Today’s debate is another reminder that Conservative Members are growing comfortable with opposition. They prefer shouting, stomping and shaking with outrage to running the country, and that is the difference between us and them. We believe in calmly but doggedly driving the change this country voted for. We believe in standing alongside working people, and delivering change that benefits them. Conservative Members can put on their Britney mics and prophesise about abstractions, they can stomp their feet, they can wave bits of paper and they can get buzz cuts in a bid to convince working people that they have changed, but they have not. We are the party of working people and of change, and change is what we will continue to deliver.

17:26

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I have been reflecting that I have been in this Chamber for 10 years, and for most of that time I, like many of my hon. Friends now sitting on the Opposition Benches, were of course seated on the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) claimed that we on the Opposition side now resort to stomping and outrage, whereas the Government are acting calmly and doggedly, but I must say to the new hon. Member that if I experienced anything over the last 10 years, it was that the faux outrage from the Labour Opposition on this side over 10 long years was all about the sorts of issues we are raising today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) reminded Labour Members that, in the 14 years that the Conservatives were in government, we did not remove the winter fuel payment. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) added the benefit of his experience, and explained that he had looked at this matter when he was a Minister, but concluded that it would be wrong morally and fiscally to remove the winter fuel payment.

So I say very gently to hon. Member for Makerfield that we on the Opposition side of the House have, for too many years, had to put up with all the false outrage and the anger that hon. Members who are now in government showed us over the years. However, I can tell them that the anger coming to the Labour Government will not be from my hon. Friends but from the pensioners in the hon. Member’s constituency, and indeed in every constituency that now has a Labour MP.

[Mr Brash]

The hon. Member is reflecting on his party’s record in office and how pensioners may feel about it. How does he think pensioners feel about the record of 300,000 more pensioners being in poverty thanks to his Administration over the last 14 years?

[Alberto Costa]

I am afraid that the hon. Member misses the point. The whole point of this debate is to acknowledge that there are poorer and vulnerable people in our society, and that we kept the winter fuel payment precisely to ensure that the most vulnerable pensioners in our society were assisted. What we have heard from Labour party Members—the very Labour party Members who said during the election that they cared for the most vulnerable and the poorest in society—reminds of a comment that they once made about the Conservative party. If there is any nasty party, the removal of the winter fuel payment and the total absence of Labour MPs in the Chamber is proof positive that there is only one nasty party today: the Labour party.

Some of my constituents voted at the last general election for a Labour party that promised to help working people and promised to be the party for the weakest in society. At no point did any of my constituents who put a cross next to the South Leicestershire Labour party candidate think that a Labour Government would remove the winter fuel payment, yet they did that within weeks of taking office. At the same time, they cruelly increased salaries for those who did not require increases. The train drivers were demanding exorbitant salary increases, which the Conservatives resisted when in government. The new Labour Government capitulated, taking money from those who needed it—the most vulnerable in society—and giving it to those who did not need it. That was a betrayal of the British electorate, when the Labour party said it had the most vulnerable people in mind.

[Louise Jones]

Will the hon. Member confirm that he opposes pay rises for the armed forces?

[Alberto Costa]

The hon. Lady has raised that point already and erroneously said that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) had misspoken. The only person who has misspoken this afternoon, and continues to do so, is the hon. Lady. The Conservatives have been very clear. Last year, when the Labour Government chose to give train drivers an exorbitant pay increase, we highlighted that that was a poor decision precisely because it had a negative impact on the most vulnerable in society, the very people we are speaking about today—pensioners.

[Saqib Bhatti]

My hon. Friend is making an impassioned speech and excellent points. It is about not just the pay rises for train drivers, but the fact that they were not asked for any savings in return. In fact, the only people who were asked to make a sacrifice were the poor pensioners.

[Alberto Costa]

Indeed. My hon. Friend continues to make very sensible points. I am sure pensioners watching this debate will, once and for all, see that in 14 years of Conservative government we had protecting the most vulnerable and weakest in society at the forefront of our mind.

[Mr Brash]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way, but I want to press him one more time, because I do not feel that he answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones). He made play of the fact that public sector workers were given a pay rise. I want absolute clarity here: is he saying that he does not support pay rises for soldiers, nurses and teachers? A simple yes or no will do.

[Alberto Costa]

I will give the hon. Gentleman a very clear and unambiguous response: I support pensioners and the weakest in society. It is disgraceful that it is a Labour Government who have taken away money that is needed by the most vulnerable in society.

I will end where the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent, ended. I ask, as she did, what was all this for? Why deny the weakest and most vulnerable elderly people in our society money they desperately needed to keep their houses warm? I add, as she did, that to govern is to choose—the idiom we have heard time and again. Well, the Labour party in government is showing its true colours to the British electorate. It has never been a party for the working people, the most vulnerable or the weakest, and today, it clearly demonstrates that it is most certainly not a party for our pensioners.

17:35

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), a Member for whom I have a lot of fondness, but with whom I am afraid I am going to part ways quite considerably this afternoon.

The point has been made by Opposition Members about the difficulties of government, so I will repeat a point I have made in previous Opposition day debates. Members on the Opposition Benches, for the time being, have considerably more experience of government than Members on the Government Benches. I believe that regrettably, many of the actions my own party took during our time in opposition prolonged that, but as a result, I and many Members on these Benches gained a huge amount of experience of what real opposition looks like, as well as what flawed opposition looks like. I gently remind Opposition Members—not for the first time in this place—that if this is what they consider opposition to look like, they are going to spend a lot more time on those Benches than they might wish.

It is often said that any day in government is better than any day in opposition. I am sure Members on the Opposition Benches are very much enjoying the opportunity to repeat arguments we have heard numerous times already. But every single day in government is also a time when we must make decisions, and we on this side of the House—in this Government—have been very clear about the decision we have taken. We have not shirked from it. We have not hidden it. Our decision on the winter fuel allowance was announced in this place. It was not an easy decision—far from it.

[Harriet Cross]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Ferguson]

I am very, very close to making a point, but why not? There are more people wishing to speak on the Opposition Benches than on the Government Benches, so as someone who has many teachers in the family—we have mentioned teachers in this debate already —I will give way and say, “It’s not my time you’re wasting.”

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I actually do not think it is anyone’s time we are wasting, seeing as we are discussing such an important topic. He talked about a decision that was made. I was just wondering, if Government Members had their time again, would they make the same decision?

[Mark Ferguson]

I would, and here’s why: when there are difficult decisions to be taken, we cannot shirk from them. When the Government shirk from those decisions, they end up with the grotesque chaos of entering a general election having accrued £22 billion of expenditure that there has not been sufficient allocation for, which is why someone else has to pick up the pieces.

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman looks almost proud of the decision to withdraw winter fuel payments. He talks about taking tough decisions—can I offer him a really easy alternative? Scrap GB Energy, which does not produce any energy; do not give Mauritius money and sovereign British territory; and restore the winter fuel payment.

[Mark Ferguson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his talking points from Conservative campaign headquarters —they have been very much received on this side of the House. I do not relish having to take money away from anyone. It is one of the most difficult decisions that any of us will take. I hope that all of us in all parts of the House—every single person here—believes they are doing what is best for their constituents. I believe that every single Member on the Opposition Benches believes that what they are doing is best for their constituents. I do not believe that what they are doing is best for my constituents, but those are arguments I dare say we will continue to have vigorously over the next four years in this place.

[Alison Griffiths]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Ferguson]

I am about to get to the thrust of my argument, if the hon. Lady would not mind.

We have been talking about the winter fuel allowance and money being taken from pensioners, which is a serious point. I wish to talk briefly about what happened four years ago, when, in this place, the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 was passed. That was a very serious decision that the previous Government had to take. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) for some of the enlightening research that he commissioned from the House of Commons Library. In 2021, the Conservative Government made a decision, following the unusual turbulence in the employment market after covid, that the triple lock would become, for one year only, a double lock. The Conservatives, who are very keen to say that they are the party of the triple lock, turned it into a double lock. I think that it is fair to say—as many Members did at the time—that it was a very unusual time in the market—

[Saqib Bhatti]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Mark Ferguson]

I would be happy to give way, but I am coming to the thrust of my argument.

As a result, the state pension did not increase by 8.3%, as it could have done that year. It instead rose by the absolute minimum of 2.5%, and that has had cumulative effects. In year one, pensioners were £470 worse off. In year two, they were £520 worse off. And in year three, they were £560 worse off. As I want to be reasonable in this debate, I make it clear that the Labour party did not support the 8.3% rise, because we believed, as a reasonable Opposition who went on to win the general election, that it was not within the bounds of what would normally be considered a rise in wages and was because of the impacts of covid. However, Members on the Labour Benches—I was sadly not one of them at the time—supported a Lords amendment that asked for the covid-specific elements to be stripped out to allow the Conservative party to maintain their manifesto commitment to a triple lock. That was voted down by the Conservative party.

Labour Members have been attempting to be reasonable and considered in opposition and in government about the impacts of spending on pensioners. Conservative Members are arguing as if they have never had to take difficult decisions that would have impacts on pensioners. We have all had to take difficult decisions, and we will all continue to do so.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for getting to the thrust of his argument. He keeps referring to market turbulence, but I think he means the once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. We have repeatedly said how difficult governing is. The fact is that we would have made different choices from the ones that the current Government are making right now.

[Mark Ferguson]

I thank the hon. Member for his point, but I feel like he has not really listened to what I was saying. The point that I was making was that, at the time, the Government of the day had an opportunity to strip out the covid effects. I have already used the phrase “covid effects” and I have referred to the once-in-a-generation pandemic—my Lord, did we not all live through it? None of us has forgotten about it. But instead of stripping out the covid effects, the Conservative Government argued that that would be too difficult, so, instead, there was a 2.5% rise. That had an effect on pensioners, but I do not feel that the Conservative party has had the same reckoning with that difficult decision that we on Labour Benches have had with the decisions that we have taken.

[Alison Griffiths]

To be honest, I am absolutely delighted to hear the first Member on the Government Benches acknowledge that there is not a fictitious £22 billion black hole that they are trying to fill, and that they have understood, finally, that the effects of covid and the war in Ukraine are part of the issue they are trying to deal with.

[Mark Ferguson]

On the contrary. Of course there are difficulties and complexities caused by a war on the continent of Europe and by a once-in-a-generation pandemic, but they did not cause the previous Government to spend £6 billion on asylum hotels that they have not accounted for.

The point is often made about train drivers. As Labour Members have pointed out, it is not just train drivers who receive pay rises. I was not going to get into this, but while I am here I might as well declare that I am very proud to have been a serving trade union official for Unison, representing care workers, hospital cleaners and catering staff, who all received a reasonable pay rise under this Government. Incidentally, it was a pay rise recommended by an independent pay review body that was ignored and left on the shelf by the previous Government.

[Alberto Costa]

rose—

[Mark Ferguson]

I am very respectful of the hon. Member, and I will bring him in in a moment.

[Alison Griffiths]

rose—

[Alberto Costa]

rose—

[Mark Ferguson]

I will be reasonable and give way to Members, but first I want to point out that some of the money that has been saved will be spent on the national health service. There is £25.6 billion extra for the NHS this year. Unfortunately, I have had the bad luck of being in accident and emergency with a number of family members in recent months. In this place we often talk about the impact of the national health service struggling, and what I saw there shocked me. I have seen children sleeping on their coats on the waiting room floor for 12 hours. I have seen pensioners on trolleys in corridors for days, crying out for help. It is an appalling legacy—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind Members that we are debating the winter fuel payment. It is perfectly in order to try to put that in context, but perhaps we should steer away from a debate on the NHS.

[Mark Ferguson]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your reminder. I have come to the end of my section on context, so let me bring my speech to a close. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) makes the good point that I should give way.

[Alberto Costa]

I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. There is no doubt that we all have sympathy with people who are finding the cost of living a challenge. But as Madam Deputy Speaker has correctly reminded us, today we are addressing the most vulnerable people in society who are no longer able to earn money—pensioners. The Opposition’s questioning of why the Government made the choice to increase the salaries of those still working is valid. The point is that pensioners are unable to earn, and are poor at the £13,500 limit.

[Mark Ferguson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but those in receipt of pension credit are still receiving winter fuel allowance, and all will benefit from this party’s total commitment to the triple lock.

[Mr Brash]

My hon. Friend mentioned the triple lock and the very tough decision that the Opposition took when in government, but what has been the cumulative effect of that for all pensioners in this country to date?

[Mark Ferguson]

As I mentioned, my hon. Friend commissioned research from the Library. The cumulative effect overall will be somewhere in the realm of £1,500 per pensioner. As I said, were I a Member in 2021, I believe that I would have agreed that 8.3% was an unlikely increase. However, the Conservative Government were happy to raise it by 10.1% and then 8.5% in subsequent years. There is clearly a bit of dissonance.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Ferguson]

As I have said, the Opposition’s time is being taken up, not mine, so I will draw this entertaining speech to a close.

I am pleased that Opposition Members are proud of their position on the winter fuel payment. I am very happy for them. But under their Government, the winter fuel allowance was never increased. By my own assessment, it went down by around a third in real terms; the Minister said around 50%, and it is a matter of public record that he is far better at numbers than me, so I defer to him. If the Opposition care about the most vulnerable, they also have to care about our national health service and support the action being taken on the triple lock, and they must consider why in 14 years of government the winter fuel allowance was increased zero times.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Around 15 Members still want to speak. The wind-ups will start at 6.35 pm, so if everyone is to get in, perhaps some thought could be given to the length of contributions.

17:48

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

After such a huge election victory by a supposedly progressive party, it was disappointing to me and many of my constituents that, despite the financial situation that the Government inherited, one of their first acts was to strip vital support from many of the poorest pensioners in our society. I am sure that many of us across the House had hundreds of emails from concerned pensioners, worried about how they would afford their energy bills this winter. Stripping pensioners of this allowance was the wrong thing to do.

The Government said that the removal of winter fuel payments would allow money to be spent in other areas, but as with other attempts to raise money such as increasing employers’ national insurance contributions, any savings will be offset, as pointed out by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), by cold, hungry and unwell pensioners adding to the strain on GPs and social services. It is morally and economically a poor decision.

One of my constituents, Patricia, wrote to me about how furious she was that the winter fuel allowance had been taken away. She is no longer eligible for winter fuel payments, but neither is she eligible for benefits or pension credit. She worked in the NHS for over 40 years, but her NHS pension is not large, and she has been a widow for over 10 years so she is managing on a small, single income. Because her husband died when she was 54, she was not entitled to a widow’s pension, either. She wrote to me saying:

“It is always the middle people who are squeezed, whose pips are made to squeak, the easy targets”.

I could give numerous other examples of pensioners in a similar position to Patricia who do not know what to do.

In January, I held a cost of living advice surgery in Midsomer Norton where I brought together organisations and charities such as Wessex Water and Mind to provide a one-stop shop for constituents to come to me with their concerns about bills and benefits. The majority of those who attended the surgery were pensioners anxious about the cost of their utility bills or confused about their eligibility for various payments. More than 2 million pensioners currently live in poverty—that is unacceptable. The pressure that they are feeling will only be heightened by yesterday’s welfare reform announcements. I have already received a deluge of emails from constituents worried about the likely impacts.

Loss of winter fuel payments, changes to personal independence payments and increases to national insurance for charities and social care providers all pile the pressure on the least well-off in our country while the Government kick tricky decisions like fixing social care into the long grass. The cost of living crisis is going nowhere, and removing winter fuel payments is just another example of a decision that penalises some of the most vulnerable.

17:51

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I start by paying tribute to the pensioners in my constituency. They have worked hard all their lives and made immeasurable contributions to our community by volunteering for others and supporting family members and friends through hardship and sickness. My generation owes them a great debt, and they deserve better than what had become the norm under the Tories.

Tory mismanagement saw spiralling inflation and a £22 billion black hole in the nation’s finances. Tory mismanagement saw an NHS on its knees, with the longest waiting times on record and a social care system that was not fit for purpose.

[Alison Griffiths]

rose—

[Matthew Patrick]

I am not into the thrust of my argument yet, but I will give way.

[Alison Griffiths]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments made by the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who acknowledged that it was indeed the covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine that caused such a problem with the UK finances.

[Matthew Patrick]

The hon. Lady will know that, when it comes to the NHS, the longest waiting times were impacted by the pandemic, but the longest waiting times on record prior to the pandemic were seen the day before it, because of Conservative mismanagement. The Conservatives do not have a record that they should feel proud of on that matter, or on the economy.

[Harriet Cross]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Matthew Patrick]

I am finishing on the intervention that I just took; I might then come to another.

Many constituents in Wirral West really suffered through Tory mismanagement on the economy and on public services. That mismanagement saw a status quo fail our pensioners and fail all of us. Getting the country back on track required us to support those who need it most. No one in my constituency thinks that the very richest in society like Sir Richard Branson need Government support to get by.

[Gregory Stafford]

There is probably unanimity across the Chamber that Richard Branson does not need the winter fuel payment, but it is the poorest pensioners—those who are earning just above £13,500—who are losing out. Let us not have the nonsense about Richard Branson or people swigging champagne; let us actually talk about the people who are suffering and will be going into hospital because they are cold and may end up dying. Those are the people we should be talking about.

[Matthew Patrick]

I will come to that, but I gently make the point, as was just said, that the Conservatives were paying Sir Richard Branson the winter fuel allowance every year. They could have changed that, but they did not.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Matthew Patrick]

I will take interventions—I am happy to do so—but I will make some progress first. Hon. Members may have heard earlier that the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale)—I do not believe that he is currently in his seat—said it was nonsense for him to be receiving the winter fuel allowance. I think he revealed—it was news to me—that the Conservative Government had had plans to means-test it. I will be interested if those who wish to intervene would confirm whether he was right.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Members on the Conservative Benches have said that they do not think Richard Branson should have been receiving the winter fuel payment. They talk about those above £13,000. If the Conservative party had been so concerned about the very poorest pensioners, pension credit would not have been the most underclaimed benefit in the welfare system, with 700,000 people not claiming it. If they really cared about the most vulnerable pensioners, would they not have done more about that?

[Matthew Patrick]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is incredible uptake under this Government because we want to see the poorest pensioners access the support they are entitled to.

[Joe Robertson]

Will the hon. Gentleman take my intervention?

[Matthew Patrick]

I will, but I have a very neat point and so the hon. Gentleman will appreciate why I will not take his intervention right now. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) said it is not all about people quaffing champagne, but one Conservative councillor lambasted me for the decision and for taking away his champagne money. I do not think it can be right for public money to be used in that way while the pressures on vulnerable pensioners and working people are so great.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Matthew Patrick]

I will take interventions in a moment. Hon. Members have mentioned those who are just above the threshold. They will therefore share my relief that this Government have put hundreds of millions of pounds into the household support fund, which can help those worried about their bills if they are just below the threshold. I will give way to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) first and then to the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen).

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the hon. Member for finally giving way. He has won his campaign to remove the winter fuel payment from Sir Richard Branson, but if I take him back a little earlier in his speech, he paints a picture of the sorry state that he claims this country was in when he took over. Just let us suppose that and run with his argument, which he must believe: why does he think now is the time to also take away the winter fuel payment?

[Matthew Patrick]

The hon. Gentleman uses the words “suppose” and “sorry state”. It is no wonder Conservative Members lost; they were in total denial about their failure for this country. Now is the right time to end the status quo, end the incessant decline under the Conservatives and put a huge amount of investment back into our NHS. I, for one, am proud that we have had five months of falling waiting times. I want Conservative Members to welcome such good news for our NHS—news that helps all the people in this country.

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman is very generous in giving way. I have listened carefully to the speeches this afternoon with respect to our tenure in office and regrets that we will have time to reflect on. I accept that. However, having been a Minister and a Parliamentary Private Secretary for 12 years, I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that though making the decision to remove the winter fuel payment for that population may be desirable— I acknowledge and have said that it may be desirable for people in the higher levels—it needs to have a mechanism or a proxy to verify what would be fair and which vulnerable people would be affected. I put it to him that if somebody only has an income of £13,500, they are in a state of vulnerability that means that no Government should take that away. The choice we made was based on the options available. If there had been an easier way of doing that at a higher level, I would have been sympathetic to that. Those are the real choices that one actually has to face in government.

[Matthew Patrick]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member, including for the way in which he puts his point. He will hopefully share my relief, then, about the household support fund, which I often find my constituents do not know about. The fund is not reported heavily in the media, so it would be wise for us all to take the opportunity in this debate to reiterate that that support is available to people who are just above the threshold and who might just miss out on accessing the winter fuel allowance, so that they know that. I signpost many concerned constituents to Citizens Advice Wirral and support them in accessing the money available through the household support fund, hundreds of millions of pounds of which has come from this Government.

Conservative Members rightly talk about the need to relieve pressures and protect the most vulnerable. However, I question where their outrage was when their Government, back in 2021, broke their manifesto commitment and suspended the triple lock; I wonder where their outrage was when their leader recently suggested that we should look at means-testing access to the state pension; and where was their outrage when only months ago the shadow Chancellor suggested scrapping the triple lock all together?

It is Labour politicians who are committed to protecting pensioners’ incomes and delivering support to those in need. I have mentioned the household support fund, and we are ending the Tories’ disastrous plans to drag a record number of pensioners into paying income tax by uprating personal tax thresholds from April 2028. Unlike the Tories, we have an iron-clad commitment to the triple lock, which will see the state pension of millions increase by more than £470 this year. I would like to hear them welcome that. We are supporting those caring for their loved ones by increasing the income threshold for carer’s allowance so that more than 60,000 carers will benefit by the end of this Parliament.

Times are tough and this Labour Government have made tough decisions to get our country back on track. As I mentioned, NHS waiting times have now fallen for five consecutive months. We have not had that for a long time. We have made a deal with GPs so that healthcare in the community works for everyone, we have targeted income support to those in the most difficulty and we have launched the biggest ever drive to ensure that those who can claim pension credit do so, with almost 50,000 more pensioners now getting the money they are entitled to. The Tory status quo meant only decline for this country. With the Government’s plan for change, we will get the country back on its feet.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am introducing an immediate three-minute time limit. I call Bradley Thomas.

18:00

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Constituents across Bromsgrove and the villages, particularly older constituents who have previously been beneficiaries of winter fuel payments, rightly feel short-changed by this Government. I know that from constituents who have contacted me and those I have spoken to directly on the doorstep. The faith that they placed in the Government has not been rewarded by the Government supporting them at a time of vulnerability.

In the limited time that I have, I would like to point out the effect that this policy has on rural communities in particular. It is important to remember that, while about 83% of homes across the country at large are connected to the gas grid, many pensioners who live in rural areas are not connected to mains energy and have disproportionately higher energy costs. They often live in much more exposed older homes that are less well insulated. This means that their energy demands are much greater than those who live in better insulated or more urban residences.

I also want to touch on political choices. I know that this has been stressed many times already today, but governing is about choices. We hear a lot about £22 billion black holes, but we do not hear too much from the Government and Labour Members about the cumulative costs of other choices that they have made. These include the £18 billion for Chagos and the public sector pay award without any increase in productivity. We could say that pensioners are paying the price for the pressure that unions have placed on the Labour party.

It is crucial to remember that, during the election campaign, Labour pledged to bring down bills by £300 a year. Ever since the Government have been pursuing their GB Energy policy, which is a quango funded to the tune of £8 billion that will not own any energy-generating assets, they seem to have abandoned any claim over when that £300 deduction in bills will be delivered, but we have seen the price cap rise. I find it quite spectacular how, in 2025, Ministers are suddenly talking about how market forces are affecting energy prices, when back in 2022 Labour Members said it was the decisions of the Conservatives that caused energy prices and therefore inflation to spike. It is important for the Government to reflect on the reality of what drives energy prices and to restore the winter fuel payment to pensioners, not just in Bromsgrove and the villages but across the country.

18:03

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

It is an honour to take part in this debate, and this is an extremely pertinent time for it. We all hope we are through the worst of the winter—although in my part of the world nobody puts their snow boots away until we have got through lambing season, because lambing storms usually bring snow—but we need to know, as we get through the winter and into the better weather, what the impact of this policy decision has been on our pensioners, on our health service, on A&E admissions and on other allowances and benefits. We need to know the overall cost of the decision.

The hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), who is no longer in his place, suggested that he has more pensioners in his constituency than anyone else. Having checked with the House of Commons Library as I sat here, I assure him that Staffordshire Moorlands has more, because we have 22,197 compared with his 20,909. Of those 22,197, over 20,000 of them have been affected by this decision, and Staffordshire Moorlands, as the name suggests, is not exactly warm. Last winter, we saw a low of minus 14°C; this year, we saw only minus 5°C —it has been a relatively mild winter.

It is incredibly important that we find out exactly what impact the decision has had. At the pensioners’ fair I held in Cheadle back in November, pensioners were terrified. I am holding another fair next week on 28 March in Leek, and I want to hear from my local pensioners what impact the decision has had on them, how it has made them feel and how often they did not switch the heating on.

I am proud that I was part of a party in government that introduced the triple lock. The suspension of the triple lock has been referred to. Those were exceptional circumstances. That was at a point when we had had furlough and earnings had gone down by 20%—that is how the statistics worked. When people came off furlough and the earnings went up by a much higher number, that was the statistical anomaly that meant giving pensioners the increase in line with earnings would not have reflected reality. Earnings had not gone up by that amount; it was that furlough had ended.

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

Can I be clear in my mind that what the right hon. Lady is saying is that at a tough time, the then Government took some tough decisions, and that resulted in the pension level being £560 lower now than if they had not made that decision—a difference far greater than the winter fuel payment amount? That Government made tough decisions at a tough time that are costing pensioners money today.

[Dame Karen Bradley]

What was happening then was once in a generation, and it was not a real increase in earnings; it was merely that people had gone from 80% of their earnings back to 100%. When earnings had gone down by 20%, we did not cut the state pension but continued to increase it in line with the triple lock.

I want to make a point about universal benefits as opposed to means-tested ones. The Labour party seems to think that a universal benefit is bad because somebody who does not really need it might receive it. I take the other view: it is important that we get to as many people as possible who need it, and if that means a few people at the top end of the earnings level get a benefit they might not need—

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

Given that the right hon. Member’s belief is so strong, will she enlighten me on whether she voted to strip child benefit from certain families, as was Conservative policy? That was a universal benefit.

[Dame Karen Bradley]

The hon. Member makes a good point, and that was a difficult decision because it was the way we could ensure that those at the higher end of the earnings spectrum were taxed on their child benefit. That is a different way of dealing with a benefit that some people may not be in need of but are in receipt of. It would have been perfectly possible for the Government to tax winter fuel payments. That would have meant that those on £13,500 were still getting the money they needed and the Richard Bransons of the world would be paying tax on it. That was a choice available to the Government; they chose not to do that. They chose to just take the benefit away.

The fact that child benefit goes automatically to mothers is an incredibly important point, and winter fuel allowance going automatically to pensioners was valuable to them. I ask the Government and the Minister, who I know well and who is an honourable and decent gentleman, whether they might consider putting in some form of transitional arrangements, rather than having the cliff edge that hurts many pensioners. I also ask whether they will give us the information about whether there is fraud and error in the system now. Will the DWP accounts be affected by the fact that the winter fuel allowance has been taken away in this way and more people may be guilty of fraud and error? Will the Minister give us information on the impact that the measure has had on pensioner health? That matters vitally to us all.

18:09

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I start by acknowledging the clear impact that I have had on the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). I am not sure why or how I have had that impact, but it was clear that she was drastically upset at me, despite the fact that I had been sitting quietly throughout the debate until that point.

I will talk about why the Labour Government took this decision—why the Chancellor’s first decision was to target pensioners. It was because the Government talked in their manifesto about the fiscal rules that they would put in place, and said that they would not raise taxes on working people, among a number of other policies. However, they then found themselves in a bit of a bind: “What can we do to reduce the cost in-year? What is an easy target?” The Treasury team obviously said, “Well, how about cutting the winter fuel payment? You can do that in-year. You can make the change in this Budget, in the current financial year.”

That has left the Scottish Government in a rubbish situation. Because those decisions were taken in-year, it reduced our block grant after we had set our budget in Scotland. We could not magically come up with the £147 million that the UK Government had taken from us with no warning, despite saying that they were going to reset the relationship with the Scottish Parliament. They took that money away in-year.

This is supposed to be a Labour Government. My former Procedure Committee colleague, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), talked about the universality of benefits. I wholeheartedly agree that that is what we should have. I believe that we should have universal social security systems and universal basic income, and that everybody who deserves the social security net should be provided with it. Then we should tax non-doms, tax share buy-backs, rejoin the single market and have a more progressive tax system—like the one in Scotland—in order to pay for those things.

Universal benefits mean that, yes, absolutely, one or two millionaires who buy champagne with their winter fuel payment will get it, but they also mean that every single person who needs it will get it. The choices being made will exclude some of those millionaires, but they will also exclude the people who were freezing in the minus 1°C weather in my constituency overnight. That is a shoddy decision by the Labour Government. I do not understand what the point of Labour is just now.

18:12

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I know that, for the Government Front Benchers, I may well be repeating myself, but I think I need to: £300 may not seem like a lot of money, but believe you me, for the thousands of pensioners in my constituency and up and down the country who have missed out on their winter fuel payment, it is a lot. As we have heard this afternoon, and as Labour Members know, it is the difference between heating and eating.

What does the Minister say to someone who is terminally ill or has a life-threatening illness, is just over the pension credit limit, and misses out because of the Labour Government’s callous policy? Does the Minister accept the finding that the chance of an over-65-year-old being admitted to hospital or A&E this winter increased by 9% compared with 2023-24—an increase of 76,190 patients? Has he explained to pensioners that a report commissioned by Labour in 2017 claimed that 3,850 pensioners’ lives would be at risk if the winter fuel payment were scrapped, and that scrapping the winter fuel payment would cost the NHS an extra £169 million a year? It is no wonder that the Government did not want to publish an impact assessment.

[Andy MacNae]

The right hon. Lady is making an eloquent point about how important every pound is for a pensioner, and £300 is a lot of money for a pensioner. But is £560 more or less than £300, because that is what decisions taken by the previous Government in 2021 have cost pensioners this year?

[Wendy Morton]

I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear the position on that.

Let me return to the point we are debating, which is the winter fuel payment. I would like to think, or even hope, that the Government would have a rethink, although it appears that might not be the case. What is worse is that they seem uninterested in assessing the impact of this decision. They will not do it now, they did not do it before they made the decision, and it seems they will not even consider delaying the measure. Pensioners have faced a cliff edge and they could not plan for this, which makes it even harder.

To add insult to injury, more than 30,000 pension credit applications are waiting to be processed. I have been submitting written questions to the Department to try to flush out how many extra staff it has recruited. My figures are different from those given earlier by those on the Front Bench. My numbers are 1,045 full-time equivalent members of staff, and there is still a backlog. Winter is not over and pensioners are still waiting, so why do this Labour Government insist on penalising those who have worked hard all their lives?

Pensioners have worked hard, tried to do the right thing by their families, paid their bills, and perhaps saved a little bit of money, only to be kicked at a time in life when they really need that little bit of help, and when it would make a massive difference in so many ways. Labour Members chose to scrap the winter fuel payment for 10 million pensioners, and the really disappointing thing is that I have sat on these Benches and I have heard not one bit of humility. All I have heard is arrogance—

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Wendy Morton]

No, not now. I will continue to fight for the pensioners—for the friends, families, and residents of Aldridge-Brownhills who I know are suffering as a result of this.

18:16

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The flavour and mood of this debate have been somewhat strange. I expected to be in a debate facing Members on the Government Benches who were at least showing humility, and who at least, in the words they chose, showed that they regretted the decision, even though they reluctantly supported it. But that is not the mood we have faced at all. Government Members have been bullish. We have heard the word “proud”. They have been jovial and, at times, even upbeat in describing this very worst decision of this Government of bad decisions, and pensioners will have heard them. Labour Members may have impressed each other, and they may have impressed the trade unions of which they are members, by talking about and defending train drivers’ pay, but they will have deeply depressed, and depressed further, those pensioners who live in their constituencies, in my constituency and right across Britain.

My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State took us through the issues caused by withdrawing the winter fuel payment, and she made the central argument that has been repeated from these Benches: they are withdrawing the winter fuel payment not from the wealthy, but from those on as little as £13,500.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

My constituent Jean told me that she is now washing in cold water as a result of this measure. She is one of those people right on the cusp. She might also be concerned by comments from the Leader of the Opposition about the potential means-testing of the triple lock after the next election, if the Conservatives are in government. Will the hon. Gentleman offer Jean reassurance that there will not be an even longer winter if the Government were to change next time?

[Joe Robertson]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to talk about means-testing— I did not expect to have that Government argument made by a Liberal Democrat Member, but so be it. There is some sympathy, from across the House, for the argument for means-testing the winter fuel payment, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that nobody on the Conservative Benches thinks that the means-testing cut-off point, if they believe in one, should be £13,500. That means that 10 million pensioners have lost out on the winter fuel payment. Unless the Government can make a fiscal argument for removing winter fuel payments from the very wealthy that actually delivers more funds to the Treasury, this decision should not have been taken at all, and should certainly not have been taken when it harms those on a fixed income of very little.

[Luke Murphy]

The motion talks about ensuring that

“those eligible for Pension Credit receive it”.

To return to the point I made earlier, if Conservative Members were so concerned about vulnerable pensioners, why was there absolutely no movement in the take-up of pension credit under the previous Government? Some 700,000 pensioners are eligible for pension credit, but I do not remember a big campaign on that by the previous Government that made a difference—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is far too long.

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to his own Government’s promise to increase the take-up of pension credit. After the past winter, there are still 750,000 pensioners who have not taken it up, so he should not speak with any pride or seek to deflect to previous Governments when his own Government have withdrawn the winter fuel payment and there are still 750,000 eligible pensioners who are not receiving pension credit.

[Luke Murphy]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Joe Robertson]

I am sorry, but in the time remaining I cannot take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

Without the winter fuel payment, over the winter we have seen a 5% increase in the number of people aged over 65 attending A&E, and of those who have attended A&E, there has been a 9% increase in hospital admission. The motion seeks a proper impact assessment and analysis by the Government of the effects of winter fuel payments being withdrawn. This was not a one-off winter, and it was a warmer winter than average. The same will happen next winter, the following winter and the winter after that, unless the Government bring back the fuel payment.

[Matthew Patrick]

The hon. Member stated that he believes in means-testing the winter fuel allowance, so at what level does he believe that eligibility should be set?

[Joe Robertson]

There are Members across the House who would support the principle of means-testing, and I have invited the Government to come forward with the data that shows us where the bar would be set to bring money into the Treasury. However, I would reject any means-testing that takes money away from those paid £13,500.

18:22

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I do not know whether it is incompetence, pig-headedness or callousness, or indeed all of the above, that has led this Labour Government to take the winter fuel payment away from some of the poorest in society. So often today from the Government Benches we have heard about tough choices, but tough choices do not automatically mean the right choice; in fact, in this case it is entirely the wrong choice.

I expected to see the panoply of the usual greasers and crawlers from the Labour Benches here today, but they are not here. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) mentioned, we have seen Labour Members who seem to have donned the hair shirt and decided that this should be their cause célèbre to demonstrate, either to themselves or to their party, that being tough somehow means that they are being a strong Government, which is absolute nonsense. All that the scrapping of the winter fuel payment will lead to is excess deaths. We had warm words from the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), but warm words will not heat the pensioners who are freezing in their homes this winter.

In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, more than 18,200 pensioners will have lost the winter fuel payment, and many of them are just above the income threshold for the pension credit benefit. These people are contributing to our society but earning only £13,500 a year. They are not the champagne quaffers that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) talked about; they are the people who fought for and served this country. They have put money into the system and rightly expect a tiny bit back to heat their homes.

At a pension credit surgery I held in October, pensioners shared their fears and frustrations. One word kept coming up: betrayal. That is betrayal by this Labour Government of their vote. They are not asking for luxuries or for anything like a handout; all they want is to be able to heat their home in winter. They want to live with dignity, and they want to do so without having to choose whether to heat their home or put food on the table.

The idea that this Government would do this without an impact assessment and, subsequently, without doing any monitoring of the impact is shocking. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister commit to doing a full impact assessment to see the rate of NHS admissions and the mortality rates that he talked about, so that we understand whether this policy has killed people? This is not about money; it is about values and decency. Those who built this country should not have to shiver in their homes because of this cruel policy.

18:25

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

Once again in this House we find ourselves discussing Labour’s failure to protect our pensioners. Time and again we have exposed its false narratives and asked how it intends to use technology to reduce costs, improve services and drive productivity. This Government capitulated to the archaic working practices of train drivers and their trade union paymasters. There has been no serious attempt to modernise, no recognition of the technological advancements of the past five years, and no meaningful reforms to improve efficiency. Worse still, their Employment Rights Bill drags Britain back to 1970s French-style labour laws, rolling back the vital protections of the Trade Union Act 2016. These outdated policies stifle economic growth, make job creation harder and hand excessive power to unions—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the hon. Member that this debate is on winter fuel payments.

[Alison Griffiths]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely wish to set the scene for winter fuel payments.

[Luke Myer]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Griffiths]

I will make some progress.

Who is paying the price for the Government’s economic mismanagement? It is our pensioners. Of the 23,282 pensioners in my constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton—at least 5% more pensioners than in the constituency of Makerfield—nearly 90% will lose their winter fuel payment this year. That is nearly 23,282 elderly individuals being forced into impossible choices because of this Government’s incompetence and poor choices. One constituent wrote to me that

“this policy is especially unfair to older pensioners who receive significantly lower pensions than those born later. We have contributed since the age of 16, yet now we feel penalised”

simply for being older.

This is not just bad policy, but a deliberate choice by this Labour Government. Instead of protecting the vulnerable, this Government have prioritised inflation-busting pay rises for their union backers, waged class warfare on independent schools and forced a burden of at least £5 billion on to businesses through their disastrous Employment Rights Bill. Labour’s decision to strip away this crucial support will lead to more pensioners in A&E, more vulnerable people suffering in cold homes and more lives being put at risk. It is a betrayal. We will not stand by and let this injustice go unanswered.

18:28

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is painfully clear that if this Government believe you did not vote for them, they will continue to turn their back on you. That is clear from their treatment of independent schools, small business owners, farmers, and now—and most cruelly—pensioners. Within just weeks of taking office, this shameful Government scrapped the winter fuel payment for 10 million pensioners. Those individuals, many of whom are frail and some of the most vulnerable people in society, have given so much to our country. They built our foundations, our communities and the national fabric, yet in return, they receive a cold shoulder from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She could not wait to get her hands on their £300.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Bedford]

No, I am not giving way.

That small sum of money allowed pensioners to keep the heating on, helping them to make it through those cold winter nights, and supported them in not having to choose between heating and eating. Wherever I go in my constituency of Mid Leicestershire, I have conversations with older people, and the word they use is “betrayal”. It is a betrayal felt deeply in their hearts, particularly by those who helped build this country.

Let us not forget that 348 Labour MPs are complicit in taking the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners, and 71% of disabled pensioners have lost that vital support. Labour Members have repeatedly told us that theirs is the party of the NHS, but let us face the facts: they are all complicit in costing the national health service an additional £169 million, which is the cost of looking after the 100,000 pensioners who have been left out in the cold.

[Gregory Stafford]

We have heard the argument from Labour Members that taking away the winter fuel payment somehow benefits the NHS, because money is going into it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the chief executive of NHS England has said that actually, every single penny that the Government are putting into the NHS this year is being wiped out through national insurance rises, inflation and drug price increases?

[Mr Bedford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The numbers simply do not stack up.

In comparison, it was a Conservative Government who introduced the triple lock and increased the state pension by almost £4,000. It was a Conservative Government who reduced the number of pensioners living in absolute poverty by more than 200,000, and it is the Conservatives who have pensioners’ interests at heart.

18:31

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

When I was out on the doorsteps during the general election campaign—as I am sure every Member of this House was—I spoke to my electorate in Broxbourne. They said, “Look, Lewis, we know what’s coming. We know we’re going to get a Labour Government. We know they’re going to get into power and then they’re going to tell us how awful it is, and they are going to come for us. They are going to come after pensioners.” The electorate in Broxbourne already knew, so the British public are not fools. This argument about a £22 billion black hole and difficult choices that we are told the Government have to make will not wash with the British people outside of this Chamber, because they did not believe it in the first place.

[Luke Myer]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Lewis Cocking]

No, I will not give way.

The Government got elected on a manifesto. Within eight months, they have introduced significant policies that were not in that manifesto, including the family farm tax, the national insurance increase, and of course withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance. That is what my constituents in Broxbourne are really cross about—it was not in the Labour party manifesto. People went out and voted in good faith in the July election, and lots of the people I speak to in my constituency who voted for the Labour party now heavily regret it because of the choices that Labour and this Government are making. They were not honest about those choices with the British people.

What was in the Labour manifesto, though, was a commitment to cut energy bills by £300. The Government have got in—secured a mandate from the British people—and have then said, “You know what? The manifesto we were elected on doesn’t mean anything. We can throw it in the bin and concentrate on things that we really want to do, rather than concentrate on putting British people first and lowering energy bills by £300.” I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will tell us about the progress that the Government are making towards bringing energy bills down. I suspect that it is very little, because they are too busy concentrating on things that they have not been elected to do.

[Bradley Thomas]

Further to the point that my hon. Friend has just made, does he agree that the Government made promises to the British public that they not only will not deliver, but cannot deliver, such as lowering energy bills? It is not within the gift of Governments to directly control energy bills—that is why the winter fuel payment is so crucial to so many pensioners across the country.

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. What the Government could do to lower energy bills is to secure North sea oil and gas investment in this country, so that we produce here more of the gas that we need to power all the industry in this country, instead of importing it.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that if we were to rejoin a single market in electricity, we would lower our electricity bills by joining the single day-ahead coupling system with Europe?

[Lewis Cocking]

The hon. Member makes a point that he is passionate about, but I do not agree with him. We need to produce more of our energy here at home, rather than relying on imports. That is why the Government should change their policy and issue new oil and gas licences. I urge hon. Members on the Government Benches —lots of them are honourable—to please support pensioners today and vote to keep the winter fuel allowance.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the wind-ups. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

18:35

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

This afternoon, we have heard some fantastic speeches in which Members have set out heartbreaking real-life stories from their constituents about the situation older people have found themselves in this winter. Pensioners have been forced to choose between eating and heating as a result of the Government’s choice to remove the winter fuel allowance from around 10 million of them. That was compounded by shocking delays in processing pension credit claims. Along with those who have just missed the threshold to receive support, it has meant that many, many people who are desperately in need have missed out on hundreds of pounds that would have made a real difference to them this winter.

As has previously been said:

“Although the poorest do receive some help through cold weather payments, they go only to those on income support, who generally have to wait until after the cold weather for help to be available. The payments are no help at all to most pensioners, including…those on the margins of poverty”.

The individual continues that they were

“simply not prepared to allow another winter to go by when pensioners are fearful of turning up their heating, even on the coldest winter days, because they do not know whether they will have the help they need for their fuel bills.”—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 779-80.]

Those were the words of the former Labour Chancellor and Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who brought in the winter fuel payment. It is a great shame that his successors in a Labour Government today have taken a very different view on support for pensioners.

The choice made by the Labour Government—almost their first choice in office last July—is as cruel as it is unnecessary, and it has real-life consequences for vulnerable people. Like many other Members, I suspect on both sides of the House, I have met my local branch of Age UK and other local charities. They all tell me about how hard their services—services vitally important to pensioners, such as GPs, hospices and pharmacies—will be hit by the Government’s jobs tax, the NICs hike. Alongside that impact on services pensioners rely on, this Government have slashed the winter fuel payment for so many. Understandably, pensioners are asking what the Labour party has against them—or, for that matter, against farmers or businesses.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

Let me just complete the point. I know that the hon. Gentleman has only come into the debate relatively late, but I will take an intervention from him afterwards.

The message is, under this Government, do not run a hospice, a pharmacy or a care home. Do not be a farmer. Do not run a business and, heaven forbid, do not get old.

[Jonathan Davies]

We on the Government Benches are disappointed to have had to make this decision, but it is a symptom of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I just remind the shadow Minister of something. I understand that he stood in the 2017 general election. Some of the policies in the Conservative manifesto at that time were to means-test the winter fuel allowance and to reduce the triple lock to a double lock.

[Edward Argar]

I will make a number of points to the hon. Gentleman. I was going to come on to his first point, but I will happily do so now. He seems to be alluding to the mythical so-called black hole that is so often bandied around. The OBR pointedly declined to validate that or back it up in its assessment, and it cannot be deemed a rationale for doing this.

[Luke Myer]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

I want to make a little progress.

We have seen a real black hole emerging following the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s disastrous Budget. It is also not the case that the Government can claim they have saved the pensions triple lock, which was introduced by a Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government back in 2010. The previous Government had already committed themselves to it, in that election’s manifesto and others. Pensioners could rightly bank on the uplift from the triple lock coming through. What they have seen now, however, is a real cut in what they were receiving, and what they had a right to expect, with the slashing of the winter fuel payment.

[Luke Myer]

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the OBR. I wonder whether he has read the report in which it states:

“The Treasury did not share information with the OBR about the large pressures on RDEL”

— resource departmental expenditure limits—

“about the unusual extent of commitments against the reserve, or about any plans to manage these pressures down”.

I wonder whether he will take this opportunity to apologise for that extraordinary fiscal failure.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as I mentioned earlier, I have read the report, and he will know, having also read it—he is gently waving it at me from the other side of the Chamber—that the OBR pointedly declined to back up the claim about the so-called £22 billion black hole.

As we have heard, the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, initiated the winter fuel allowance, announcing it in 1997 and introducing it in 1998; but it is worth remembering that, even in the challenging circumstances of the time, George Osborne did not cut the allowance, despite the appalling financial and economic inheritance in 2010. Why not? Because it was a cost-effective benefit, and because it genuinely made a difference.

[Mark Ferguson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Argar]

Let me just make a further point. I am about to deal with some of the hon. Gentleman’s own points, as he will find if he pauses for a minute, but he may want to intervene at that moment.

George Osborne did not cut the winter fuel allowance because it gave pensioners the confidence to turn the heating up those extra few degrees, knowing that the money was coming. I will now give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mark Ferguson]

I salute the right hon. Gentleman’s quest for clarity. Will he provide others with that clarity? Would his party reverse this policy?

[Edward Argar]

I was about to be quite nice to the hon. Gentleman, because I have to say that, during a debate that has, perhaps, produced a lot of heat and not always a huge amount of light, he addressed the issues before us in a measured way. I did not agree with everything he said, but he was reasonable and made some valid points. Let me gently say to him, however, that our record speaks for itself. We did not get rid of the winter fuel allowance. The fact is that Labour Members are in government, and have a large majority, and, as they are discovering, to govern is to choose. They must be accountable for the choice—the choice—that they have made.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will make a little bit of progress, and then I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

UK pensioners are not fools, so I am sorry that Labour Members want almost to insult their intelligence by repeating the debunked claim about the so-called black hole, or the debunked claim that the triple lock was in some way under threat and has been saved by the current Government. Let me also gently remind them that pensioners are unlikely to forget. They feel let down by Labour; they feel that the trust that they placed in Labour Members when they voted for them has been betrayed, and within a month of Labour’s taking office. So I ask again, why did this Government make the political choice to introduce these cruel, unnecessary cuts?

I now give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

The moment may have passed somewhat, but I think my point is still apposite enough to make. If there are any apologies to go round, they should come from the Labour party. In every single election campaign in which I have been involved for at least the past 25 years, the Labour party has run a scare story about the Conservatives scrapping the winter fuel payment, and the moment they get into office, what is the very first thing they do? They remove the winter fuel payment. That is what has upset so many of my constituents so much.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the former Deputy Prime Minister, who has put the case far more eloquently and succinctly than I could have done. He is, of course, entirely right.

An estimated three quarters of a million people are entitled to pension credit, but do not claim it, even after Labour’s pension credit take-up campaign, so they did not receive the winter fuel payment to which they are entitled. Will the Minister—or the Pensions Minister who opened this debate, whom I see back in his place—commit in the name of transparency to publish an official estimate of the number of eligible pensioners the Government estimate did not receive the winter fuel payment this winter? I am conscious of the time, so I will allow the Minister to respond in his wind-up.

The Government’s own modelling shows that 100,000 pensioners will be pushed into poverty as a result of their choices. Now that the first winter has passed, will the Minister commit to publishing data showing the real impact of changes to the winter fuel payment on levels of pensioner poverty? The number of over-65s attending A&E increased by nearly 100,000 this winter, despite its being a warmer winter than average. We know that multiple factors have an impact on that number, but this is a very large jump. Again, will Ministers publish official data on the number of hospital admissions they believe to be caused by the winter fuel payment cut and what the cost to the NHS has been?

To conclude, because I am conscious of the time and wish to enable the Minister to respond, this money was genuinely needed by vulnerable people—vulnerable pensioners—this winter. In my Melton and Syston constituency, I get heartrending messages about choices between eating and heating, and we should not forget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) mentioned, the impact on rural communities reliant on heating oil and having to pay for that in one bulk payment.

Labour Members have an opportunity this evening to send a message to pensioners. Will that message once again be one of ignoring their concerns, with the Government showing they are deaf to them and do not care, or will they take the opportunity to do the right thing this evening, and back our motion to send the message to their older constituents that they do care and are standing up for them against this cruel and unnecessary cut? This choice, and it is a choice, will tell pensioners in their constituencies exactly where they stand. The Conservatives and other Members on this side of the House are standing up for our pensioners on winter fuel payments. The Conservatives are backing the generation that gave so much to our country. Will Members on the Government Benches have the courage to do the same?

18:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

I am pleased to respond to this important debate. This topic affects millions of pensioners up and down our country. It is one we have debated many times in recent months, and it is right that we do so. Many right hon. and hon. Members have made important contributions that I want to acknowledge.

My hon. Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones), for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) and for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), among others, talked about the inheritance that we as a Government faced when we came into office and the difficult decisions that have arisen as a result, and they were right to do so. I particularly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), who talked about the work he is doing in his community to drive pension credit take-up. I know that Members across the House are doing the same, and I thank them for doing so.

As my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister set out earlier, the decisions we have made have not been easy, but we have made sure that we have protected those pensioners who need support the most. Winter fuel payments will continue to be paid to pensioner households in England and Wales with someone receiving pension credit or certain other income-related benefits. They will continue to be worth £200 for eligible households or £300 for eligible households with someone aged 80 or over. The majority of those payments—over £1 million—were paid before Christmas.

Means-testing the winter fuel payment was a choice we had to make to protect the most vulnerable pensioners, while doing what is necessary to repair the public finances after 14 years of the wrecking ball that is the Conservative party. It is the difficult decisions we have taken that mean this Government are able to provide much-needed additional investment in the NHS, which benefits us all, including pensioners who rely on these services. The Government are working hard to reform the NHS in England through the 10-year health plan to build a health service that is fit for the future.

[Wendy Morton]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, while he may well be putting money into the NHS, which is great, his policy towards pensioners, based on the statistics we have seen, means that more pensioners are going into the NHS and putting more pressure on the service? It just does not make sense.

[Andrew Western]

I dispute the right hon. Lady’s statistics. She is right to highlight that there has been an increase in hospital admissions among over-65s, but that is entirely in line with the statistics for people entering hospital in other age cohorts. That is actually a result of the collapse of the NHS on the Conservatives’ watch, which means that A&E is the only option for so many people.

As I was saying, as a first step at the autumn Budget, the Government announced a £22.6 billion increase in day-to-day health spending in England and a £3.1 billion increase in the capital budget over this year and the next. But we know that even with our long-term efforts to rebuild critical public services, pensioner poverty is a very real concern.

[Joe Robertson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

I will make some progress first.

There will always be those who, for whatever reason, have been unable to make sufficient provision for their retirement. The benefit system provides a vital safety net for those on low incomes who need support the most. This, of course, includes help through pension credit, worth on average £4,300 a year and which tops up income, as well as unlocking access to additional support and benefits. We know there are still low-income pensioners who are not claiming pension credit but are eligible to do so and we want everyone to get the support to which they are entitled. That is why, since September, we have been running the biggest ever pension take-up campaign. Around 1.4 million pensioner households receive pension credit, but too many have been missing out. Thanks to our campaign, we have seen 235,000 pension credit applications in the 30 weeks since the end of July last year, an 81% increase on the comparable period in 2023-24. That has led to almost 50,000 extra awards over the same period.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I wonder if the Minister can ask his friend, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), to get in touch with me about how he managed to find out where the 5,000 pensioners are that he was able to write to. I have tried to get that information so I can write to pensioners and tell them about pension credit, but it has not been available anywhere. If he could ask his friend to write to me, I would really appreciate it.

[Andrew Western]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am sure she is capable of contacting my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield herself, but I recall that he did mention that he was working closely with his local authority. I am sure it has been able to assist in that campaign, which he described as a partnership rather than his own work, to drive take-up in his area.

As detailed earlier by the Pensions Minister, we are directly targeting all pensioners who make a new claim for housing benefit, bringing together the administration of pension credit and housing benefit, and we are introducing new research on the triggers and motivations that encourage people to apply for pension credit, to guide future policymaking.

I echo the Pensions Minister’s remarks on the triple lock. It is worth repeating that over 12 million pensioners will benefit from our commitment here. Over this Parliament, up to and including 2029-30, the OBR forecasts that Government spending on the state pension will rise by over £31 billion. And there is lots of other support too, including the warm home discount and the household support fund, available to pensioners.

I will turn now to some of the other specific points raised during today’s debate. Several Members raised the delays in pension credit processing. It is important for me to recognise here the sheer volume of applications the Department received during this period. We understand that pensioners expect their applications to be processed quickly and accurately, which is why we deployed over 500 extra staff to process the huge increase. The latest statistics also show a positive picture: outstanding claims have reduced from 85,500 in mid-December to just 33,700 by 23 February, which is in line with the Department’s usual number of claims awaiting processing.

Some hon. Members raised the issue of an impact assessment at the time of the policy decision. In line with the requirements of the public sector equality duty, an equality analysis was produced as part of the ministerial decision-making process. That was published on 13 September and placed in the House of Commons Library. It assessed the effects on individuals and households according to protected characteristics set out under the Equality Act 2010. They do not include impacts on the NHS.

Other hon. Members have quoted figures on the poverty impact of the changes to winter fuel payments. I simply note that yes, internal Government modelling was produced as part of routine policy advice. Given the interest from the Work and Pensions Committee and the public interest, the Department published this modelling for transparency in a letter to the Select Committee in November. However, it is essential to note that this modelling is subject to a range of uncertainties, which should be taken into account when interpreting the results, and that it does not take into account any impact of the measures we are taking to increase pension credit take-up and ensure pensioners get the benefits to which they are entitled.

[Harriet Cross]

My understanding is that the impact assessment showed that about 100,000 pensioners would be put into poverty. I was just wondering what range either side of that figure would be acceptable to the Minister.

[Andrew Western]

What I would say to the hon. Lady is that I would never want to see those numbers increase, but that number is significantly better than the 300,000 pensioners who went into relative poverty under her Government.

To those asking about Government action with respect to energy costs, I say that the Government recognise that affording energy bills is a struggle for many and that energy debt is rising. The Government have continuous engagement with energy suppliers and have discussed the support they have in place to support vulnerable consumers, including pensioner households. We are continuing to deliver the warm home discount for eligible low-income households and have recently published a consultation on its expansion, which would bring around 2.7 million more households into the scheme, pushing the total number of households receiving the discount next winter up to around 6 million.

I will turn briefly to some of the contributions from Members on the Conservative Benches, and in particular from the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who, interestingly—given the description used by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) of this side of the House—I felt expressed faux outrage at this decision. It is rich from a party that, as I said, pushed 300,000 pensioners into relative poverty, made pitiful efforts to address pension credit take-up, made a 2017 manifesto commitment to means-test the winter fuel payment and let the value of the winter fuel payment fall by around 50% during its time in government.

The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions went on to make repeated reference to Labour Members’ consciences, which was relatively offensive, but nothing compared with being called the “nasty party” by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. I will not accept those sorts of attacks from the Conservatives—the party of Downing Street parties, the party of the inhumane Rwanda scheme, and the party that drove so many to food banks. My conscience is clear, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is appalling to imagine that theirs is the same after what they did to this country over 14 years.

I listened very carefully to—[Interruption.] I am being chuntered at from a sedentary position about the household support fund. I remind the shadow Secretary of State that it was not fully funded by the Conservatives on a multi-year basis, and it is this Government who have provided that certainty to local authorities.

I listened very carefully to the speech from the shadow Health Secretary and, indeed, the more than dozen speeches from Opposition Members, and I am still no clearer on what their policy actually is. We had one Member standing up and saying means-test, another standing up and saying tax the winter fuel payment, but neither shadow Secretary of State present bothered to stand up and tell us what the Conservatives’ policy is. If they want to stand up now and say that they would reverse this policy decision, I would be happy to give way to either of them. Feel free. Their silence says it all, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We have made the hard choices necessary to bring the public finances back under control after 14 years of Tory misrule.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

At what point would the uptake of pension credit eliminate the savings from cancelling the winter fuel payment? At what number would the uptake overtake that payment?

[Andrew Western]

We have never suggested that they would, and the Minister for Pensions addressed that in his opening statement. The savings put forward do take account of that. I have to say that, in accepting that intervention, I was hopeful that, finally, one Tory would come forward with an actual policy in this area—I would say that I am disappointed, but it is only to be expected. Pensioner households who need support the most will continue to get winter fuel payments. We are getting more and more people on to pension credit, so that they can get winter fuel payments and increase their weekly income.

This motion calls for an apology. The only people who should be giving an apology to pensioners and to this country are those in the Conservative party, for the mess that they left behind.

Question put.

19:00

Division 138

Ayes: 177

Noes: 293

Council Tax Reform

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)

19:15

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Council Tax is, without doubt, the most unfair, regressive and punitive taxation system in this country. It is hammering towns such as Hartlepool. Places with high deprivation and low wages—the very areas that a fair tax system would support—are instead being squeezed to breaking point by a broken system that must be fixed. A Government that stand up for working people, promise change and have a mandate for that change cannot sit back while such fundamental unfairness continues.

The numbers speak for themselves. For a band A property in Westminster, it is £648 a year. In Hartlepool, it is £1,585. A Band H property in Hartlepool pays nearly £3,000 a year more than one in Westminster.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Member makes a good point in comparing his constituency with the situation here in London. To continue that point, on top of council tax, there is the settlement funding for councils, of which London boroughs have received roughly twice as much as shire counties. Does the hon. Member agree that that is also a problem with the current council tax regime?

[Mr Brash]

Certainly, the last 14 years—I note that none of the Conservatives are here—shifted the settlement away from areas of deprivation to more affluent areas. That has had an incredibly punitive effect.

Council tax in Hartlepool represents 9% of median gross pay. Here in Westminster, it is just 2%. Someone can live in a multimillion-pound property in London and still pay less council tax than someone in a terraced house in Hartlepool. It is not right. It is not fair. It must change. An outdated system based on 34-year-old property values can never deliver fairness and has widened regional inequalities.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Sixty-six per cent of Somerset council’s budget goes to fund social care. That budget is funded through the taxes raised on property based on prices from 1991, as the hon. Member has set out. Does he agree that that is archaic and unfair, and that we should enact real reform to the way we fund local authorities?

[Mr Brash]

I absolutely agree and I will come to social care later in my speech, so I will pick up that point then.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I commend the hon. Member for bringing forward the debate? He is getting himself a reputation in this House for being an assiduous constituency worker. I wish him well in continuing to do the good work that we all witness.

Does the hon. Member not agree that with the cost of living crisis, working families—that is what we are talking about here—need to know that every penny of tax is wisely spent? Confidence is clearly at an all-time low. Does he further agree that greater openness and transparency as to the use of tax funds can only be a good thing throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Mr Brash]

I absolutely agree. I should first say that it would not be an Adjournment debate without an intervention from the hon. Member. He is absolutely right: we need transparency in the system. One of the biggest problems with council tax is that it has broken the bond of trust between those who pay it and the services that they receive. I will come back to that point later in my speech.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend and neighbour makes some excellent points about the unfairness of the council tax system. My view is that it cannot be tinkered with and it is fundamentally flawed. For my constituents and my hon. Friend’s, it is nothing less than a regressive property tax. In Blackhall in my constituency, someone living in a modest band A home worth £35,000 pays almost the same in council tax as a band H property in Belgravia worth many millions of pounds. That is indefensible. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are serious about tackling growth and improving living standards in constituencies such as mine and his, we need radical reform?

[Mr Brash]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The tinkering around the edges that has happened in some parts of the United Kingdom will not get the job done.

My hon. Friend mentioned property prices, and they are at the heart of the unfairness. In Hartlepool, 53% of the properties are in band A. Here in Westminster, that figure is 1.2%. In Hartlepool, only 3.7% of the properties are in bands F to H, yet in Westminster it is almost half of all properties. Such a skewed housing base makes it impossible to raise the money to deliver the services that people need. Furthermore, council tax is not a reliable source of income. Nationally, one in 10 people in the UK have been in council tax debt, and nearly 40% of those individuals have reported being threatened with legal action as a result. Outstanding council tax debt already stands at £6 billion.

This week I spoke to Caroline, a development officer in Hartlepool who supports many of the most vulnerable in our community. She told me of one working family for whom council tax, even with the reduction, is now the equivalent of more than a third of their mortgage payment. Dad works and mum is a full-time carer for their disabled son. They live in fear of not being able to pay. They do not understand where their money goes and they do not feel any benefit, only financial pain. How can we sustain such a system? How can we stand by while it punishes the very people we are supposed to represent?

At the heart of this broken system is social care, as has been mentioned already. Nearly 70% of Hartlepool’s budget is spent protecting the most vulnerable children and adults in our town, and that is mirrored in areas of need across the country. No one in their right mind would design a care system funded by a regressive tax levied on small, struggling communities, yet that is exactly what has happened and it has been getting worse. In Hartlepool, officers have made a rough estimate that if social care were removed, a typical band D property would see its bill drop from £2,400 to less than £1,000.

Elsewhere, the scandal in children’s social care is slowly bankrupting local authorities. Private providers, often owned by faceless hedge funds, are profiting on the backs of vulnerable children. The costs are staggering. In Hartlepool, the top four private providers charge an average of £12,000 per child per week. That is £624,000 a year for just one child. For Hartlepool, that is the equivalent of more than a 1% rise in council tax for one child’s care. Local councillors face the impossible choice: protect the most vulnerable or impose even more council tax pain on their residents.

The most pernicious thing about this regressive tax is the impact it has on trust. “No taxation without representation” is the saying, but as council tax bills go up, services are cut. Residents are no longer receiving the representation their money is supposed to deliver. Most people, thankfully, do not need social care, but they do need bin collections, clean streets, well-maintained parks, green spaces, museums, leisure centres and libraries —all things that make somewhere a place—yet these are repeatedly cut because of this failed system.

This is breaking the bond between councils and the public, and when people feel they are paying more but getting less, they stop believing in the system. When voters feel ignored and abandoned, they do not stop voting; they will vote for anyone with easy answers. Populist politicians with no real answers will step into this gap and exploit this frustration. I warn Ministers: fix council tax or face the electoral consequences.

There are alternatives. Andrew Dixon and the Fairer Share campaign have advocated for a proportional property tax that would ensure contributions were based on actual property values. Some 70% of households in the north-east would be better off. Nearly a third would save as much as £1,500 a year—money that could help struggling families put food on the table, heat their homes and buy their children the things that they need. Yes, some would lose out, but it would, and should, be the wealthy in our society shouldering that burden. If we are not prepared to make the wealthy pay so the poor can pay less, what exactly are we for?

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) for securing this incredibly important debate, and I agree with every word he says. Does he agree that a reformed system would reduce the cost of living for ordinary people and, depending on how the Government wanted to reform it, actually increase revenues for the Government to spend on better public services?

[Mr Brash]

Absolutely. A properly balanced system could provide the services we need and put more money into the pot to ensure those services are delivered. That is partly the problem with this system: it is so broken that it punishes people in deprived areas, and it still does not deliver those services.

I know Ministers have said they are not looking to reform the council tax system in this Parliament, but even if an overhaul of the entire system is not possible, there are still ways to improve things, and I hope the Minister will advocate for them. The Casey review of social care should recommend taking social care out of local authorities. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, by promoting regional co-operation, can create economies of scale to take the burden off council taxpayers. Under the English devolution proposals, financial devolution must be part of the discussion. If we are to have larger authorities that are more remote from the taxpayer, the residents must see the benefit in their pockets.

This Government promised change and to fix the foundations, but the public’s most direct contact with government is through local councils, whose foundations are crumbling. If Ministers ignore council tax reform, they do so at their peril. We can fix a broken system, ease the burden on working families, and restore trust in government at all levels. We have a moral duty to right a 34-year-old wrong, find a sustainable solution to this injustice, cut council tax bills and deliver real change for the people we represent.

19:26

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) on securing the debate. He is absolutely right that the system is outdated, regressive and in desperate need of change, and our region is disproportionately impacted.

My constituency is split between two local authorities: Middlesbrough to the west, and Redcar and Cleveland to the east. They are two distinct areas with their own local challenges, but they face similar issues when it comes to council tax. Loftus in Redcar and Cleveland will have a band D council tax rate of more than £2,500 for the next financial year. That means a multimillion-pound property in East Sussex can attract a lower council tax bill than the average family home in our region. That cannot be fair. In fact, owner-occupiers in our region can expect to pay a percentage of their property value that is 2.5 times higher than the average London resident. That is another example of an unfair system based on three decade-old valuations, hammering local residents in areas of high deprivation.

Over 50% of dwellings in Middlesbrough are designated as band A—a much higher percentage than other local authorities—forcing Middlesbrough council to have the 19th highest council tax rate in the country. One way in which that could be helped is if Valuation Office Agency powers were devolved further to local authorities to allow them to more rigorously assess whether a property is incorrectly banded. That measure would just be tinkering around the edges of a system that needs fundamental reform.

As my hon. Friend said, one solution would be to replace the current system with a proportional property tax, removing the antiquated 1991 bandings and instead asking residents to pay a percentage of their up-to-date property value every year. That would create a more progressive system, preventing those in lower-value homes from paying disproportionately higher rates, while ensuring that wealthier property owners elsewhere in the country contribute a fairer share.

As the Institute for Public Policy Research has set out, another method to address the issue would be further increasing council tax premiums on empty and second homes. As my hon. Friend has noted, reforming the children’s social care market, which has been described as “broken” by the Competition and Markets Authority, would go some way to repairing local government finances and delivering value for taxpayers.

The choice is clear: either we keep patching up a system that punishes regions like ours, or we build one that is fair, proportional and fit for the 21st century. Teesside cannot afford to wait another 30 years.

19:29

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) on securing this Adjournment debate on the important issue of council tax. I am grateful for the work and research that he and the all-party group have put into their argument for council tax reform.

The Government take seriously the issue of how councils are funded, and the impact on local taxpayers. Council tax is an important part of the funding that councils require to deliver a range of over 800 vital services. For 2024-25, council tax makes up over half of councils’ core spending power. Individual councils are responsible for setting their own level of council tax, taking into account their local circumstances. Indeed, council tax is the balancing item in the local council budget.

As my hon. Friend will know, the ability to raise revenue from council tax is determined by the number of domestic properties within a local authority area, and by the value of those properties in 1991. That means that places with a high number of more valuable properties are often able to raise more than an area with lower-value properties, despite setting the same or commonly a lower level of council tax. However, as he said, the Government have ruled out a revaluation of council tax in this Parliament. That means that we must find other ways to address the discrepancies in tax-raising ability through other means.

The last Conservative Government committed to improving and updating the way in which councils are funded, through the fair funding review, but that work was not delivered. We will make good on that commitment and implement long-awaited funding reforms through a multi-year settlement in 2026-27—the first in over a decade. We have recently consulted on the proposed objectives and principles for local government funding reform. In that consultation, we propose to update the way we account for council tax in determining local authority funding allocations, so that future allocations more effectively account for the differing ability to raise council tax income across the country.

As my hon. Friend has pointed out, that means that somewhere like Hartlepool, where the tax base is weaker because of the high number of homes in bands A to C, will not be treated the same as an authority in the south-east that has a high number of homes in bands E to H and therefore has greater council tax revenue-raising power. That will be part of a wider set of changes to improve the approach to funding allocations within the local government finance settlement by ensuring that they reflect an up-to-date assessment of need and, importantly, local resources. Those funding reforms are part of a comprehensive set of reforms for public services to fix the foundations of local government. That will be done in partnership with the sector and on the principle of giving forward notice and certainty to allow time for councils to plan for the future.

Although the Government recognise the arguments in favour of council tax revaluation and reform, there are currently no plans to reform council tax in this Parliament, as I have said. Significant changes to local government structures, governance, accountability, audit, standards and financing are taking place alongside an ambitious programme of devolution and, of course, local government reorganisation. I say that because we cannot overstate the amount of change taking place in a very short time within a system that has been left quite fragile, as my hon. Friend will know, after 14 years of mismanagement by the previous Government.

[Sarah Dyke]

Somerset council is in the position of having to raise council tax this year, but a recent external assurance review reported that a significant proportion of the council’s budget shortfall was attributable to decisions taken by the previous Conservative Administration, who recklessly froze council tax for a record six-year period. In the light of the pressures on councils across the country, will the Minister commit to giving us a timetable for reform so that councils can plan well ahead and deliver essential services?

[Jim McMahon]

That is an important point. In a sense, we can draw up a fairer and more balanced system, and build more security into it. What a system can never do is accommodate every localised decision and how it presents. In the end, there has to be local checks and balances, and that must come through the ballot box. It sounds as if voters in the hon. Member’s area have cast that judgment.

We are committed to reform and to moving at pace, but we recognise in doing that that the system is fragile. We are undertaking reform of the business rates system and revaluation, and a lot of devolution deals will come forward where intricated settlements are being worked towards, which will be important. All that, of course, rests on local government being strong and stable enough to support it. We completely recognise all the issues around adult social care, children’s services and temporary accommodation, which mean that councils are being overwhelmed. There is £69 billion available through the funding allocation this year, £5 billion of which is new money, and for the first time ever there is £600 million through the recovery grant, which is about bridging to the multi-year settlement. We have recognised the urgency and depth of the crisis that many councils find themselves in, but we are also honest in saying that it will take more than seven months to repair 14 years of harm. We are getting on with the job, and we are determined to get it right.

[Richard Foord]

Shire counties have had their settlement funding cut from more than £300 per person in 2015 to less than £200 per person now. Does the Minister recognise that counties such as Devon have huge road networks to maintain, and that that difference in funding helps to explain why roads in Devon are falling apart?

[Jim McMahon]

I think that after the last 14 years, roads in quite a lot of England are falling apart. That is why we injected another £500 million into pothole repairs this year, because we know that local people feel that issue acutely. We also recognise, as I said before, that this will take longer than seven months.

On financing, we are clear that the current formula needs to be reviewed. It is not good enough any more to keep on having a formula that is not fit for purpose, and which is supplemented by top-ups that change depending on the whim of the Government of the day. If this is a genuinely fair funding formula, it must be fair when tested. That means that wherever someone is in the country, and whatever their local circumstance, they know that those issues have been taken into account. Some of that will involve deprivation or the ability to raise tax at a local level, but some of it will involve demand on services, including rurality. We must ensure that in the review we rebuilt trust and confidence as well as sustainability, and the hon. Gentleman has my commitment that we are determined to ensure that that work is done with integrity.

We recognise the urgency to fix the foundations, and to tackle the underlying issues that we have talked about. For all the criticisms of the current council tax system—many of which are completely legitimate—it has some advantages. First, it is a settled tax that taxpayers understand, and notwithstanding the uncollected element that was mentioned earlier, pound for pound it has a high collection rate. On that basis, revenues are relatively predictable, which means that local authorities have greater certainty for their financial planning. Council tax is genuinely local. The money is collected locally, retained locally, and authorities will make decisions on the band D level based on their local requirements and delivery priorities.

[Grahame Morris]

Reforming council tax is an enormous problem and I do not underestimate the scale of the task, but does the Minister recognise that council tax is even more regressive than the poll tax it replaced? The system particularly affects my constituency, Hartlepool and the north-east, and other regions as well, where people are paying a premium for living in the poorest communities with the fewest services and facilities. Does he accept that council tax is widening inequalities in our country?

[Jim McMahon]

I accept that there are inherent issues with council tax, not least the way that the banding system works. Because of the inherent land and property values in less affluent places, people in a lower-band property in a poorer part of the country will pay more for public services than those in more affluent properties elsewhere. Those more affluent places can collect sufficient amounts to fund local public services, where other areas clearly cannot do that. The situation has been made significantly worse by a Government who removed that central support over a decade, so council tax is taking on a significant burden of the weight of local public services. We are keen to address that imbalance through the funding review that we are undertaking.

Members will know that local authorities have control over the discretionary working age council tax support scheme, and the council tax system also includes a range of discounts and exemptions to reflect the personal characteristics of occupiers and to support those less able to pay. These include the single-person discount, exemption for student and disregards for carers, the mentally impaired—a term I would not choose to use, but that is the term used in legislation—and apprentices. The Government will consult on the administration of council tax later this year and consider the case for modernising support in the system for those who need it.

However, I recognise the challenges that council tax creates for some taxpayers and local authorities. I therefore want to reaffirm that this Government are keen to continue working with my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool and his APPG to understand the issues in the council tax system and what options for reform are available to us.

Question put and agreed to.

19:40

House adjourned.

Draft Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025

Wednesday 19th March 2025 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Sir John Hayes

† Akehurst, Luke (North Durham) (Lab)

† Bishop, Matt (Forest of Dean) (Lab)

† Blake, Rachel (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)

Chamberlain, Wendy (North East Fife) (LD)

† Cooper, John (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)

† Cross, Harriet (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)

† Fenton-Glynn, Josh (Calder Valley) (Lab)

† Jardine, Christine (Edinburgh West) (LD)

† Jones, Louise (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)

† McCluskey, Martin (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West) (Lab)

† Midgley, Anneliese (Knowsley) (Lab)

† Murrison, Dr Andrew (South West Wiltshire) (Con)

† Owatemi, Taiwo (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)

† Ribeiro-Addy, Bell (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)

† Simmonds, David (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)

† Ward, Melanie (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)

† Webb, Chris (Blackpool South) (Lab)

Noorjehan Piperdy, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Second Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 19 March 2025

[Sir John Hayes in the Chair]

Draft Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025

14:30

[Martin McCluskey (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025.

The draft order was laid on 11 February, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate it. As with all the Scotland Act 1998 orders we have considered since the start of this Parliament, the draft order is the result of collaborative working between the UK and Scottish Governments. Like many others, it is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act, which, following an Act of the Scottish Parliament, provides the power for consequential provision to be made to the law relating to reserved matters or laws elsewhere in the UK. Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action, and I am pleased that this Government have made seven such orders since we came into office in 2024.

The draft order makes provision in consequence of the changes that the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 made to the disclosure regime in Scotland. The Disclosure (Scotland) Act, with which I know many hon. Members may not be familiar, concerns the regime for disclosures made by Scottish Ministers about a person’s criminal history and other information held about them by police and law enforcement agencies, such as fingerprint records. This crucial piece of legislation, which received support from all parties when it was passed by the Scottish Parliament, simplifies the system for disclosure in Scotland. Most people will come across the disclosure system when they apply for a PVG—protecting vulnerable groups—certificate from Disclosure Scotland, often so they may work or volunteer with children or vulnerable people.

The order ensures the continued provision of information from UK law enforcement bodies to Scottish Ministers for the purposes of the disclosure regime. This includes conviction information, cautions, relevant police information and fingerprint records. This cross-border information transfer is necessary to ensure that Scottish Ministers can exercise their vetting and barring functions efficiently and effectively. Importantly, it ensures that the public are protected.

I shall speak briefly to some of the individual provisions. Part 2 places duties on the chief officers of UK law enforcement bodies in relation to disclosure information that are equivalent to the duties that the Disclosure (Scotland) Act places on the chief constable of Police Scotland. That will ensure that the chief officer must provide information to Scottish Ministers in the same way that the chief constable is required to do in Scotland. The law enforcement bodies to which this duty applies are outlined in part 1.

Part 2 provides provisions for a statutory review process of other relevant information before it is disclosed to a third party. This is a central provision of the Disclosure (Scotland) Act, and is intended to enhance the proportionality of the disclosure regime. Finally, part 3 places further duties on law enforcement agencies to make other information, such as central records, personal data to verify identity, and fingerprint records available to Scottish Ministers.

If passed, the order will come into force on 1 April; guidance will be provided to UK law enforcement bodies before that date. The order is about keeping our communities and constituents in Scotland safe. Without it, there would be significant consequences for safeguarding across the UK, because the cross-border disclosure and information-sharing arrangements that are already in place under the Police Act 1997 would no longer operate. That would put our communities at risk and undermine a system that has operated effectively across the UK for many years.

14:33

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks. Disclosure functions are, of course, important and sensitive, and clearly they must work efficiently for the protection of those who are vulnerable, as well as for those subject to disclosure requirements, whether individuals or organisations. As we understand it, the overarching aim of the draft order is to allow for the continuation of the disclosure and safeguarding regime in Scotland and to operationalise the policy intentions of the primary legislation underpinning this statutory instrument, the Disclosure (Scotland) Act.

The order appears for the most part to be technical in nature, but it is concerning that we are having to consider legislation to avert a situation in which ineligible people or even small businesses would have been criminalised before the scheme even became a legal requirement. Clearly, we would not want people being criminalised due to an uneven legal framework.

I shall be grateful if the Minister responds to the following questions. What conversations has he had with the Scottish National party Government about both the problem and the proposed solution, and what steps are the Scottish Government taking? Secondly, is he confident that the right people have been consulted and engaged with on rectification of the problem and that the concerns have genuinely been listened to? What statistics can be offered on the information campaign about these impending changes in terms of the people reached and whether this has resulted in a shift in the level of engagement?

Does the Minister believe that the secondary legislation that the Scottish Government plan to bring forward will be properly calibrated with this draft order? Finally, given the complexities, can we be sure that the guidance due to be published will be genuinely clear and easily understood, to smooth what has not been the most straightforward transition so far?

14:35

[Martin McCluskey]

I will try to pick up on all those questions, but if I miss any, I will make sure that I write to the hon. Lady afterwards. I am not entirely sure I understand her point about criminalisation. The Disclosure (Scotland) Act was put forward by the Scottish Government and passed by the Scottish Parliament to simplify the quite complex landscape of disclosure. It has been well received by stakeholders and others, and as I mentioned, it was passed unanimously on a cross-party basis in the Scottish Parliament by all parties represented in this room. It is an important part of Scottish Ministers being able to carry out those vetting and barring functions.

In terms of the consultation, Disclosure Scotland has worked alongside officials in the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and the Welsh Government on the policy for and drafting of this order. In advance of the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 being introduced in the Scottish Parliament in 2019, there was extensive consultation with anyone affected, including businesses, volunteer organisations and others who make extensive use of the system.

As I understand it, Disclosure Scotland has been running the information campaign for 18 months. I do not have statistics to hand on how it has operated; that would be a question for the Scottish Government and probably specifically for Disclosure Scotland, rather than for the UK Government. However, I know from discussions I have had that the campaign has been extensive, especially with stakeholders who make use of this system. They are waiting for this measure to come into force, and most people who have an interest in it are well prepared for it to come into force on 1 April.

Guidance will be available before 1 April for the public bodies and law enforcement agencies that are affected by the order. The guidance for how the PVG system will work has already been provided to stakeholders, and as I said, they are expecting that to be implemented on 1 April. The guidance I mentioned in my remarks is specifically the guidance that will be offered to law enforcement agencies in the rest of the UK outside Scotland on how they implement the measures and respond to the duties placed upon them.

The hon. Lady mentioned secondary legislation consequential to the Disclosure (Scotland) Act. We are discussing this order today, and the House of Lords will consider it next week. Secondary legislation that the Scottish Government might put through the Scottish Parliament is probably a question for them, rather than us. Through this order, we are discharging our responsibilities to deal with the consequential provisions that cannot be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament because of reserved legislation, in order that the system can carry on working effectively and operate after 1 April.

I hope that answers all the hon. Lady’s questions. If it does not, I am happy for her to intervene again or to write to her on anything I have not covered.

Question put and agreed to.

14:40

Committee rose.

Draft Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025

Wednesday 19th March 2025 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Sir Jeremy Wright

† Atkinson, Catherine (Derby North) (Lab)

† Bryant, Chris (Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms)

† Fortune, Peter (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)

Glover, Olly (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)

† Hinchliff, Chris (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)

† Morello, Edward (West Dorset) (LD)

† Myer, Luke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)

† Newbury, Josh (Cannock Chase) (Lab)

† Obese-Jecty, Ben (Huntingdon) (Con)

† Paffey, Darren (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)

† Patrick, Matthew (Wirral West) (Lab)

† Spencer, Dr Ben (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)

Stone, Will (Swindon North) (Lab)

† Tufnell, Henry (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)

† Turley, Anna (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)

Whittingdale, Sir John (Maldon) (Con)

† Whittome, Nadia (Nottingham East) (Lab)

Sara Elkhawad, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Third Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 19 March 2025

[Sir Jeremy Wright in the Chair]

Draft Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025

14:30

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025.

It is a delight to see you, Sir Jeremy. The order was introduced under the Communications Act 2003—I sat on the Bill Committee in 2002 and 2003—as amended by the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. It does two things. First, there are presently no rules enabling the Secretary of State to decide what “turnover” means in relation to potential non-compliance with a designated vendor direction, such as that on the use of Huawei services. The order corrects that so that it is established and laid down in statute what those provisions are.

Secondly, the order changes the term “provider” to the term “person” because the 2003 and 2021 Acts are not consistent one with another. The order makes them consistent with one another, and in doing so makes the legislation more coherent, more consistent and—to use a valleys word—tidy. I should just clarify for Hansard that that is as in the south Wales valleys and not as in valets—we do not have very many valets in the valleys. With that, I commend the order to the Committee.

14:31

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

The draft Electronic Communications (Network and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025 provides for the calculation of a penalty relating to a designated vendor direction. A designated vendor direction is a power provided for by section 105Z1 of the Communications Act 2003, as inserted through the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. That power is intended to ensure that our critical telecoms networks are secure and protected from foreign state interference. We support the measures being taken forward today through this technical statutory instrument.

In 2022, a designated vendor direction was sent to 35 telecommunications companies to ban the installation of Huawei kit from new 5G installations; remove it from the network core by the end of 2023; remove it from 5G networks entirely by the end of 2027; limit it to 35% of the full-fibre access network by the end of October 2023; and remove it from sites significant to national security by 28 January 2023. Will the Minister update the Committee as to the progress on each of the four latter criteria for each of the 35 providers that received the notice?

I understand that BT did not meet some of those statutory deadlines. Does the Minister expect it to be fined and, if so, when and how much? Does he expect other companies to be enforced against? What work is he doing to ensure that Huawei kit is being removed at pace to meet the 2027 deadline? Can he update us on that? Does he intend to review the 35% threshold in relation to full-fibre access? Given the current geopolitical environment, what assessments has he made of other providers in our telecoms supply chain, and can he update us on current providers of interest?

Huawei kit is not limited to telecoms infrastructure. Can the Minister update us as to the Government’s position on Huawei and its security risks? Were our concerns regarding Huawei raised during the Government’s recent engagement with China, including with regard to the domestic import of high-tech Chinese-made consumer goods such as electric vehicles? Finally, what assessment has the Minister made of the risks that emerging new technologies, including the large language model DeepSeek, which is based in China, may pose to domestic and commercial users? Do the Government intend to provide guidance on that?

14:32

[Chris Bryant]

First, I completely agree with the shadow Minister on the need to act in this area. When Labour was in opposition, I was one of the MPs who clamoured for the Government to bring in legislation, which I am glad it did in 2021. I agree that we need to make sure we have removed all of Huawei’s presence from our telecoms systems, and we believe we are on track to meet the 2027 deadline.

The shadow Minister will know that the previous Government never commented on individual cases, and certainly not in the way he has asked me to. I certainly have no intention of commenting on security-related matters, as he has asked me to in, I think, three of his questions. As I say, the UK is now on a path towards the complete removal of Huawei from the UK’s 5G networks by the end of 2027, and we of course work closely with Ofcom to monitor compliance with designated directions. However, I am afraid that it would be inappropriate in this context to comment on the shadow Minister’s specific questions, because they touch on security-related matters, which could only properly be referred to in security conversations.

Question put and agreed to.

14:35

Committee rose.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-sixth sitting)

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Peter Dowd, Clive Efford, Sir Roger Gale, Carolyn Harris, † Esther McVey

† Abbott, Jack (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)

† Atkinson, Lewis (Sunderland Central) (Lab)

Campbell, Juliet (Broxtowe) (Lab)

† Charalambous, Bambos (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)

† Francis, Daniel (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)

† Gordon, Tom (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)

Green, Sarah (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)

† Hopkins, Rachel (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)

† Joseph, Sojan (Ashford) (Lab)

† Kinnock, Stephen (Minister for Care)

† Kruger, Danny (East Wiltshire) (Con)

† Leadbeater, Kim (Spen Valley) (Lab)

† Malthouse, Kit (North West Hampshire) (Con)

Olney, Sarah (Richmond Park) (LD)

† Opher, Dr Simon (Stroud) (Lab)

† Paul, Rebecca (Reigate) (Con)

† Richards, Jake (Rother Valley) (Lab)

† Sackman, Sarah (Minister of State, Ministry of Justice)

† Saville Roberts, Liz (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

† Shah, Naz (Bradford West) (Lab)

† Shastri-Hurst, Dr Neil (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)

† Tidball, Dr Marie (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)

† Woodcock, Sean (Banbury) (Lab)

Lynn Gardner, Lucinda Maer, Jonathan Whiffing, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 19 March 2025

(Morning)

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

10:00

[The Chair]

Would everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? Tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee Room.

We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I remind Members that interventions should be short and should raise points of clarification or questions; they should not be speeches in and of themselves. Members who wish to give a speech should bob and should continue to do so at the appropriate points throughout the debate until they are called. When Members say “you”, they are referring to the Chair. They should not use “you” to refer to one another; debate should be through the Chair.

Clause 23

No obligation to provide assistance etc

Amendment proposed (18 March): 480, in clause 23, page 15, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) No individual is under any duty (whether arising from any contract, statute or otherwise) to be involved, directly or indirectly, in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act.

(1A) In particular, no individual is under any duty (whether arising from any contract, statute or otherwise) to—

(a) provide information about assisted dying;

(b) participate in an initial discussion;

(c) participate in the request and assessment process;

(d) supply, prescribe or administer an approved substance;

(e) be present at the time of administration of an approved substance; or

(f) dispense a prescription of an approved substance.

(1B) Nothing in subsections (1) or (1A) of this section shall affect any duty to—

(a) signpost someone to where they can obtain information about assisted dying (under section 4(5) or otherwise);

(b) perform acts of a clerical, secretarial, or ancillary nature; or

(c) perform any acts necessary to save the life of or to prevent grave injury to a person.”—(Danny Kruger.)

This amendment would expand the provision of Clause 23(1) to all individuals and clarify the activities in which they are not obliged to participate.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 483, in clause 23, page 15, line 5, after “assistance” insert

“, or in any activity closely related to the provision of assistance,”.

This amendment would widen the range of activities which medical practitioners and other healthcare providers are not under an obligation to provide to include activities closely related to the provision of assistance under the Act.

Amendment 484, in clause 23, page 15, line 8, after “Act” insert

“, or in any activity closely related to the provision of assistance under this Act,”.

Amendment 441, in clause 23, page 15, line 9, at end insert—

“(3) There is no obligation on any care home or hospice regulated by the Care Quality Commission or the Care Inspectorate Wales to permit the provision of assistance under this Act on their premises.”

This amendment prevents there being any obligation on a care home or hospice which is regulated in England or Wales to permit the provision of assistance under the Act on their premises.

Amendment 481, in clause 23, page 15, line 9, at end insert—

“(3) Nothing in subsection (2)—

(a) prevents an employer who has chosen not to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act from prohibiting their employees from providing such assistance in the course of their employment with that employer, or

(b) prevents an employer from specifying occupational requirements in relation to the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act in accordance with Schedule 9 of the Equality Act when hiring employees.”

This amendment ensures that employees cannot provide assisted dying against the wishes of their employers and that employers can still rely, in appropriate cases, on the occupational requirements of the Equality Act to either require employees to provide or not to provide assisted dying.

New clause 22—No obligation for occupiers and operators of premises—

“(1) Any individual, business, organisation, or association who occupies or operates premises has the right to refuse to permit the self-administration of an approved substance on their premises.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) confers any right on anyone with an interest in the land but who is not occupying or operating those premises.”

This new clause would mean that the owners or occupiers of premises—but not landlords not currently in occupation—are not obliged to permit the self-administration of approved substances on their premises.

New clause 23—No detriment for care home or hospice not providing assistance—

“(1) No regulated care home or hospice shall be subject to any detriment by a public authority as a result of not—

(a) providing assistance in accordance with this Act, or

(b) permitting such assistance to take place on their premises.

(2) No funding given by a public authority to a regulated care home or hospice can be conditional on that care home or hospice—

(a) providing assistance in accordance with this Act, or

(b) permitting such assistance to take place on their premises.”

This new clause would mean that regulated care homes and hospices cannot be subject to any detriment for not providing or permitting assistance in accordance with this Act, and that their funding cannot be conditional on them providing or permitting such assistance.

Clause stand part.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, fortified as I am now with a touch of breakfast.

I wish to open my comments on this set of amendments by reiterating the importance of respecting people’s beliefs in healthcare and the contribution that people of different faiths, beliefs and positions make, no matter where they come from, in the context of the activities under the Bill.

I accept and recognise that amendment 480, in the name of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, would do an important job in strengthening the Bill’s provisions. I obviously want to hear what the Minister says, and I note the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, but I would want to see this sort of expansion in the final Bill when it goes back to the House. If they may not be the exact right words today, I repeat the offer that my hon. Friend has made to work across the divide, as it were, to ensure that such provisions are included in the Bill.

With the benefit of an overnight reflection, I feel that last night we got somewhat muddled around some of the objections on conscience, particularly when we go beyond the individual. Amendment 480 and equivalent amendments deal very clearly with individuals not having an obligation to carry out acts that would offend their conscience in the provision of these services. I think we can broadly agree on that. The remainder of the debate got rather muddled between organisations providing assistance under the Bill and the locations at which the final act of an assisted death may take place. I think those are importantly different.

On organisations providing assistance, I want to reset things with a common-sense approach to how it will work in practice. The hon. Member for Reigate made the point that hospices should be under no obligation as organisations to provide specific services. I agree. The powers set out under clause 32 for the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the provision of these services, which we will come on to debate at some point, will operate as they do elsewhere across the health service. An NHS organisation or another organisation will say, “This is the set of services that we provide as an organisation.” I see nothing in this Bill that will compel them to do anything other than that. Healthcare organisations up and down the land now make decisions about what is appropriate for them to deliver, based on skills, expertise and demand and whether they think they are well placed to provide care.

I agree with the hon. Member for Reigate, but it does not follow that the amendments are required to enforce that principle. As I understand it, because it is permissible, every organisation and every individual practising healthcare professional will be able to say, “On my own bat, I’m not going to participate in this, regardless of what my employer believes,” not least because of clinical governance and regulation. There is already a strong body of healthcare regulation around the acts and services that are provided. It is currently overseen by the Care Quality Commission. We do not need to reinvent that regime.

I reassure Members that I think it entirely appropriate for hospices or other providers of palliative care to consider whether they want to participate, should the Bill become law. I imagine we will get to a situation in which some will and some will not, which is absolutely appropriate. Particularly in end-of-life cases, a patient will make a choice on the back of that. I am aware that some end-of-life care providers in my area are actively considering whether this is something that they will do; I am equally aware that there are others that think it is not for them. We heard in evidence that in Australia some providers of palliative care provide integrated, holistic care in which it is one of a number of options, whereas other providers do not.

Amendment 481 would insert a new subsection (3)(a) into clause 23, which suggests that an employer has the power to veto an employee doing an act on their time. That is moot: it is not necessary. In the healthcare environments in which I have worked, a doctor may practise elsewhere, doing their own thing, but while they are employed in a certain NHS trust to do an NHS service, they cannot suddenly decide to do something else.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

The hon. Member is giving a powerful speech. My amendment is only to ensure that if the employee is working in an NHS clinic, they comply with the policy of that clinic. It would not restrict their doing other things in their own time. The wording of the amendment is clear, as I discussed with the hon. Member for Spen Valley yesterday, that it is just while the employee is performing services for the employer.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I agree that that is what the wording says, but my point is that it is moot. The hon. Lady herself states that the amendment is to prevent an employee from going against the policies of the employer. That power already exists. No healthcare professional says, “Even though I’m employed as a doctor today by such and such a trust, I’m going to do a set of procedures or practices that I want to do.” It is moot.

I have no issue with subsection (3)(a) in amendment 481, although I think it is unnecessary. However, I think subsection (3)(b) is deeply problematic. It cuts across employment law protections by referring to selection when hiring employees. There is a reference to the Equality Act, but as others have noted, it is not clear what protected characteristics we are talking about. At a deeper level, if we accept that there is going to be mixed provision, I would argue—and I think this Committee, in a small way, has shown this—that there is some benefit to that. We should not get to a position where every medic of a certain viewpoint on assisted dying works for one organisation and every healthcare professional of a different viewpoint works for another.

That is not to say, by any stretch, that organisations would be forced to offer assisted dying. Clearly they would not. If the Bill becomes law, however, I want a society that is relatively at peace with it in healthcare, recognising people’s ability to conscientiously object as individuals. Setting up a dichotomy from the start, in which where a medic decides to work is determined by their views on such and such a procedure, is not a road that we should go down. I also have serious concerns, in terms of employment law, about subsection (3)(b).

[Rebecca Paul]

The amendment is simply to prevent a discrimination case. Let us take another example. A rape refuge may provide services to women who have suffered sexual abuse; it may be appropriate, in that instance, to hire only women to support those domestic abuse survivors. In order to prevent a discrimination claim when hiring, we have to rely on the Equality Act and the exemptions carved out. All my amendment says is that the same exemption would apply when a hospice or clinic is employing. It is just to avoid those issues down the road.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I am afraid I cannot agree. The situation that I set out, in which a hospice makes an organisational decision that it does not wish to provide assisted dying services, is entirely legitimate under the Bill, as drafted. I do not, however, think it should screen which applicants have a certain view, which would be legal under the amendment. The example that the hon. Lady gives is rather different, because it relates to a particular protected characteristic. I am not an expert in the area, so maybe colleagues can help me, but this relates to specific services.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lewis Atkinson]

I will move on, because we have started slightly late and I am not sure that we are going to add anything on this point.

There is a fundamental distinction between providing assistance and being the location in which people may self-administer an assisted death. In his speech on new clause 22, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire somewhat overlapped those two things, if I may say so. Having established that a hospice would be under no obligation to provide, an individual would clearly not be able to turn up and say, “Your staff must help me to do this.” However, that is different from a situation in which someone living in their own private home— that might include a room in a care home or sheltered accommodation—decides that they want their healthcare team to carry out entirely lawful and appropriate activities under the Bill.

I therefore cannot agree with new clause 22. People are legally resident in these premises. They are registered to vote. In some cases, such as in warden-provided accommodation, they have a lease. It is not a landlord in absentia. I know that the hon. Gentleman has provided an opt-out for some situations, but what about warden and supported housing situations? We would not accept operators or owners policing what lawful activities should happen in someone’s own home within that environment. That is entirely different from the situation that the hon. Gentleman sketched out, in which everyone has to be involved. There would be no obligation whatever on any staff of that establishment to participate in an ancillary manner or otherwise, but in a private residence, such as someone’s room in a care home, we cannot allow that to be prohibited.

[Danny Kruger]

As always, the hon. Gentleman is making a helpful and intelligent speech, and I appreciate the distinction that he is trying to draw. There is a lot to say, and I will respond more when I wind up, but does he think that it would be an acceptable condition of a lease—or whatever the living arrangement is for residents of sheltered accommodation or shared places—for the operator to specify that no assisted dying shall be performed in those premises, and for that to be a condition of coming to live there?

10:15

[Lewis Atkinson]

My instinct is that it would not. If the Bill becomes law, it would be a lawful choice. The hon. Gentleman may not characterise it as healthcare, but it would be part of healthcare and end-of-life services. We would not accept such stipulations on other healthcare services. I can see a sketch that some may choose to draw; someone mentioned housing supported by a religious institution. The reality is that people do not go out of their way to offend, and they try to live in harmony with those around them. If people are clear that they might actively explore assisted dying as an option, they will not choose to spend their last days in a community where others are ideologically opposed to their choice; it would be uncomfortable for the individual. They would, however, have the legal right to do so.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Having also thought about this overnight, I think there is a freedom-of-association argument. If it were a Roman Catholic organisation designed just for Roman Catholics to live in, such as a home for retired priests, or if it were a Jewish organisation just for Jewish residents, I could see that, but that is not a service that is generally on offer to the public. My concern is whether we could see a situation in which the board of trustees of Hampshire hospitals foundation trust has a majority of people who have a strong religious conviction, and they vote that the service shall not be provided across the three hospitals that the trust manages. If the provision is drawn tightly and the freedom-of-association argument could be made, I could see it. Having said that, there is no institutional objection power in law for abortion: people just do not offer it because they do not have the staff to offer it. It feels to me as though that is what the hon. Gentleman is pointing to.

[Lewis Atkinson]

That is entirely right. The response of public bodies such as NHS trusts is a slightly different issue. I would not want to speak for the Government or imagine what the Secretary of State might say, but it would be inconceivable to me for a quasi-independent public body to decide, on a vote on principle by some local governors, not to offer citizens choices that have been enshrined in law. That is a slightly different point, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for East Wiltshire suggested yesterday that if someone chooses to have an assisted death, everyone in the care home or wherever would be part of it. That fundamentally misunderstands the point; I will go for “misunderstands” rather than doubting his intentions, but some would see it as scaremongering. No one is asking for the right to do it in a communal area, where staff or neighbours are forced to observe or participate in any way. Where people live in their own home, they should have rights and dignity at the end of life, whether that is in a care home or in a private residence. We cannot deny them the choice to access end-of-life options, as set out in the Bill. I therefore cannot support new clause 22.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given patient confidentiality, it is highly unlikely that other residents of a care home would even be aware?

[Lewis Atkinson]

That is entirely possible. Clearly it is up to the individual concerned to discuss how far they wish to share with neighbours or friends, in the home or elsewhere, but we must not get to a situation in which, as a policy default, someone’s intentions at end of life are broadcast within a certain radius. My hon. Friend is entirely right and helpful in making that point.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not want to go over ground that we covered in the later hours of yesterday, but this is sort of the issue that my amendment 533 sought to resolve, albeit via regulations rather than in the Bill directly. I am sure that our colleagues on the Front Bench will be doing some thinking about it. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire alluded to, in some situations the question of place—of where we will be able to carry out these procedures—is not black and white. I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying, which is that if someone chooses to end their own life in their own home, they should be able to do so. In some cases, however, the Government will need to give further thought to the issue of place. I think that is really important.

[Lewis Atkinson]

In considering the offer of any health or care-related activity, the appropriateness and suitability of the place is always in people’s mind, and clearly that varies. As I mentioned yesterday, we already have a licensing regime under which the CQC specifically licenses places for particular activity. I think my hon. Friend is right, but this is a normal part of decision making in the provision of health services and I do not think we should try to constrain it in primary legislation. However, as I started by saying, I recognise that we must enshrine the rights of individual conscientious objectors, which I think the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is trying to do with amendment 480, and I hope that we can do that, through some route, with the Bill.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendments 441 and 484, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and in support of new clause 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate.

Amendment 441 would amend clause 23 so that there would be

“no obligation on any care home or hospice regulated by the Care Quality Commission or the Care Inspectorate Wales to permit the provision of assistance under this Act on their premises.”

I think it is clear that “assistance” in this context means the act of administering lethal drugs. That is the sense in which the word is used in clause 18, for example.

Amendment 484 would tighten that restriction somewhat by providing that there is no obligation on any hospice to permit

“any activity closely related to the provision of assistance under this Act”.

New clause 23 would also apply to all regulated care homes and hospices in England and Wales. It would provide that none of those organisations can

“be subject to any detriment by a public authority as a result of not—

(a) providing assistance in accordance with this Act, or

(b) permitting such assistance to take place on their premises.”

The new clause would also provide that no public authority can make its funding for a regulated care home or hospice dependent on the care home or hospice agreeing to provide assisted dying or to allow assisted dying to take place on its premises.

All the amendments have the same goal: to ensure that the Bill does not harm this country’s hospices. We have heard from many witnesses how much hospices do in providing palliative and end-of-life care. Caring for people who are close to the end of life is difficult and vital work. The people who do that on our behalf include some of the very best in our society. We should all hold ourselves responsible for not making the task of hospices more difficult. The idea that the Bill might do that has been raised with us by people working in this country’s hospices.

Hospice UK takes a neutral position on whether assisted dying should be legal in England and Wales, but it has set out clear positions on how the Bill should and should not affect hospices. On funding, its written evidence TIAB 36 states:

“If assisted dying is legalised and becomes part of the health service, steps should also be taken to ensure there is no financial detriment to any hospice, whatever their positioning on the practice.”

I agree strongly with that argument, for several reasons. The hospice sector in this country receives a mixture of public funds and private or charitable money, including donations and the proceeds of charity shops and fundraising events. Like the rest of the population, the people who work in and run hospices have a mixture of views on assisted dying. Many have strong objections on various grounds. If public funds were made dependent on hospices agreeing to assisted dying taking place, we would see several things happen, all of them bad.

In evidence to the Committee on 28 January, Dr Sarah Cox, a consultant in palliative care and president of the Association for Palliative Medicine, said:

“I am also concerned about our palliative care workforce, which we know is already in crisis. Eighty-three per cent. of our members told the Royal College of Physicians in 2023 that they had staffing gaps, and more than 50% were unable to take leave because of those staffing gaps. Forty-three per cent. said that if assisted dying were implemented within their organisation, they would have to leave. This has a massive impact on palliative care, in terms of its potential to develop both our funding and our workforce, who are really concerned about this.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 70, Q83.]

In evidence to the Committee on 29 January, Toby Porter, chief executive officer of Hospice UK, said:

“If hospices were involved in assisted dying, there is a theoretical risk that that would just reinforce an inaccurate perception about hospice and palliative care: the myth that you are helped along your way by doctors in hospices and hospitals. That is one risk.

More briefly, the second risk relates to the duty of care. What do you need for hospice and palliative care services? You need adequate resourcing, which means staff and finances. In terms of staff, the real fragility in the hospice and palliative care sector is a shortage of clinical staff—that is shared nationally with the NHS and other healthcare providers.”

Mr Porter also mentioned the evidence of Dr Cox. He told us:

“You will know from Sarah Cox’s evidence that the majority of palliative care consultants hold views against assisted dying, many of them very strongly. If the consultants felt, for example, that they could not keep their distance from assisted dying in a 12-bed hospice unit in the way they could in an 800-bed hospital, you could very easily see that if this was not done properly and the consultants deserted the hospice sector, you could no longer offer the specialist care that is so important to the Minister, the NHS and every health and social care provider.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 196, Q256.]

Many people would be entirely willing to enter a care home or hospice if they thought they might receive assisted dying there, but others already fear that they might be pressured into taking assisted dying if they enter palliative care. They may be wrong to fear that, but they do. We heard evidence on that point from Dr Jamilla Hussain, who gave evidence to the Committee on 29 January:

“I work predominantly with an ethnically diverse population. I have gone into those communities and I have spoken to them about this Bill. What they say overwhelmingly to me is, ‘We’re scared. We’re really fearful that this is going to result in a disproportionate impact on our community. We have seen that through covid and we’re so scared. We already don’t access your services. We’re really worried that we won’t want to access them any more, and we won’t want to access the hospitals.’”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 187, Q245.]

That fear will only grow if we use public funds to oblige hospices to permit assisted dying on their premises. Hospices should be able to say clearly to their patients that they do not allow assisted dying to take place on their premises. The dedicated professionals who work in hospices and who deeply object to people being helped to die with lethal drugs must also be protected. They should be free from having to work on premises where something they might disagree with happens.

I anticipate that some hon. Members may argue that amendment 484 draws its restrictions too tightly. They might argue that it would mean that a doctor working on a hospice’s premises or making a visit to a patient in a hospice could not have the preliminary discussion about assisted death with that person. However, I want to be clear that these measures relate to the provision of assistance under this Bill. “Provision of assistance” is the phrase used throughout the Bill to refer not to the preliminary discussion, nor to the interviews with doctors, nor to the panel process, but to that part of the process at which the person takes lethal drugs with a doctor present.

10:30

There are clear moral and practical arguments for saying that hospices and care homes should be able not to allow people to take lethal drugs on their premises. There are equal arguments for why they should not face losing public funding for refusing to allow assisted death on their premises.

One thing that strikes me from last night’s debate and this morning’s is about whether people would be discriminating. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central has just spoken about the provision of staffing. My experience is that when we employ people in refuges, for example, occupational qualifications are generally required because of the nature of the business, so we use that legislation to recruit those people.

I think there is a further debate to be had, and I do not have all the answers, but I am concerned about those hospices that have charitable functions, or charitable aims, under the Charity Commission, that relate to a set of beliefs. To give an example in which the principle is the same, we do not say that vegan restaurants are discriminating against meat eaters because they are not providing steak. That is a service that they decide to offer.

Our conversations throughout this debate have been very much about “autonomy, autonomy, autonomy”, but what about those people who want autonomy over how to run their businesses, whether that is from a religious perspective, from an ethical perspective or, for a charity, from a fundraising perspective? It is the month of Ramadan, and one of the obligations on me as a Muslim—one of my five pillars—is giving zakat, which is charity. There is a very clear outline of where zakat can go and what needs it meets, such as educational or other purposes. There are different kinds of charity that I can give for other purposes, but they are specified.

[Kit Malthouse]

This is obviously a difficult and sensitive area, but does the hon. Lady think, for example, that a women’s refuge run by a Catholic foundation should be allowed to evict a woman who wants or has an abortion?

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely do not think that, because her abortion rights are set out in law. However, I also think that when that woman is going into a refuge, that refuge will make it clear that she may choose not to. It is about empowering both sides.

I am grateful for the right hon. Member’s intervention, but let us follow that argument. Let us say that somebody wants to pursue assisted death, and they want to go into a place, but they are informed that that organisation does not want to provide or has not signed up to providing an assisted death. It comes back to the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central rightly raised, which is that people do not deliberately go out looking to offend people. If we were in that space—I cannot imagine being there, but I am trying to understand it—would we want to access that service, because its religious belief differs from assisted dying as a principle?

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Just so I am clear, if a young woman is escaping domestic abuse and goes to a domestic violence space close to her home so that her children can carry on going to school, but finds out once she is there that she is pregnant by the abuser, does my hon. Friend think that that is acceptable?

[Naz Shah]

Sorry, do I think which bit is acceptable?

[Dr Tidball]

That the domestic violence protection centre or home can refuse to let that lady stay there because she has latterly discovered that she is pregnant as a result of the abuse and wants to seek an abortion.

[Naz Shah]

Absolutely not. I would be horrified if that were the case. I know we have had cutbacks and we do not have the access, but I cannot imagine any refuge of any religious belief in this country turning away a woman in the situation that my hon. Friend describes.

[Dr Tidball]

I am glad to hear my hon. Friend’s answer. I ask that question because I can imagine an analogous situation of a woman suffering from breast cancer who is allergic to opioids but does not know that when she enters the care home. If her cancer reaches a stage of terminality but she cannot pursue palliative options because of her allergy to opioids, assisted dying would be the only option for her to die with dignity and not in great discomfort. Under my hon. Friend’s scenario, that woman would not be able to pursue an assisted death in that care home.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I absolutely hear what she is saying. If the woman were going into that hospice or care home when she was pursuing an assisted death, I am not sure how that would work.

[Dr Tidball]

To clarify, in my very clear example—it is a real-life example that reflects the experiences of someone who attended this Committee yesterday—the person has a terminal condition and enters a care home that makes her comfortable and is near her family, but discovers while the hospice or care home is trying to find methods to palliate that she is allergic to opioids and therefore her condition cannot be palliated. In the hon. Lady’s scenario, she would not be able to choose assisted death because that care home has a blanket policy against it. That would discriminate against that young woman, who has an allergy to opioids that means that she cannot be palliated.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which gives me a lot to think about. That is why I said that I genuinely do not have the answers. I want to have this discussion so that I can make the choice whether to support the amendments. I want to explore this issue further, because it is really important.

[Rebecca Paul]

The conversation has moved on a little, but I was just going to make the point that the amendments that I tabled focus very much on the rights of the employer with respect to what they expect from their staff. I wonder whether it would be helpful to explore that a bit more.

[Naz Shah]

If we are talking about employers and employees, not people who are accessing the service as service users, I hope the scenario to which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge referred would not happen.

[Danny Kruger]

There is much to get into, and I will try to respond a bit more when I speak again. I do not want to revisit the whole question of palliative care but, on the scenario set out by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, the strong advice that I have received from palliative care professionals is that it is not accurate to say that somebody’s pain cannot be palliated. It might well be that there is a difficulty with particular opioids, but there are other palliative care options available to everybody. No palliative care doctor ever says that there is nothing they can do.

[Kit Malthouse]

She said exactly that.

[Danny Kruger]

Well, we have been over the whole question of palliative care and alternatives to assisted suicide; nevertheless, I wanted to challenge that scenario.

On the suggestion that there is a comparison with an abortion service no one is suggesting that a woman who goes into a refuge, discovers she is pregnant and wants to have a termination is somehow obliged to have it on the premises of the refuge, which does not believe in abortion. That is not a scenario that could happen, because that is not how abortion operates. What we are suggesting is that somebody who arrives in a care home or hospice that does not want to facilitate assisted suicide would not be able to receive such assistance there. There is no objection to their believing in or desiring an assisted suicide; the point is to protect the institution.

I recognise the difficulty with the specific case the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge raised. Nevertheless, the alternative is to have blanket permission for any resident of any care home or hospice to insist that they can receive an assisted death in that home or hospice, despite what the rest of that community and the management might want. Indeed, the patient might have signed a contract specifying that they will not seek an assisted death in that home or hospice. There is much more to discuss, but I hope that that is helpful for the hon. Lady.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member. What he said is really helpful.

I want to come back to the issue of opioids. As someone who suffers from chronic pain, my understanding is that I have a choice over whether I take opioids or other medication. So when people are allergic to opioids, they can potentially access other medication for pain relief.

[Jack Abbott]

A lot of the focus in the last few minutes has been about a care home having already made it clear that it does not support the process of assisted dying and the fact that anyone entering it would therefore know that. However, there is a clear scenario where some care homes might change their position over time. Someone may be in a care home for many years, but then the care home might change its position and say, “Actually, now we do not support assisted dying.” In that scenario, people would actually have gone into that setting thinking that it supported assisted dying.

Although I am sympathetic to the issue of place being made clear, it has real ramifications. Again, I do not think it is as black and white as saying, “This care home already had a set position.” Some care homes or other settings might change their position over time, even when residents are in situ for a long time. That is the big problem with this particular clause: the situation is not as straightforward as some Members have perhaps suggested today.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point: it is not straightforward. That is why people are tabling amendments and having this discussion—to iron this issue out and make sure we nail it, to make the process as safe as possible.

There are laws in our country that protect people’s religious views—for example, we have the Equality Act 2010—and those laws are there for a reason. Speaking to all the amendments, I would not want to see hospices not being funded because they take a certain position. Also, from an employer’s perspective—I appreciate the scenario that has been mentioned, and I will come back to it—they may be recruiting in accordance with their values. We are all in politics, and we all sign up to a particular view of politics. When we recruit our staff, we put on the application form, or other information, that we would like applicants to believe in our value system. That is not discriminating against somebody who has a different value system. That would be my response.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I just want to nail this point about employers and recruitment. We have said that no organisation will be obliged to provide these services, in exactly the same way as with abortion. The example I would give is this: a provider of women’s services says, “We are not providing abortion. But, in addition, we are going to ask staff members we are recruiting if they believe it is ever legal for abortion to take place.” That is exactly the same test of belief, although on a different medical procedure, that my hon. Friend is proposing in this instance.

[Naz Shah]

That is not what I am saying. I am saying very clearly that when we recruit people to any job, we ask them to have the values that we have as an organisation. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, but what he says is certainly not the point I am trying to make, and I cannot imagine anybody—even for religious reasons, and even if they have changed their position—genuinely treating somebody in that way. We just do not do that.

10:45

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate that, but as my hon. Friend has said a number of times over the last few weeks, some of these things unfortunately do happen. As I am sure we all do, I have had casework involving people with guide dogs saying that they have been refused certain services, including taxis, even though that is a civil offence because they have a guide dog with them. We have said a number of times that there are flaws in every single system. I appreciate that we want to adopt a good-will attitude, and I am sure the vast majority of settings across the country will operate on that basis, but we know that, in certain circumstances, that is not always the case. That is why, if we put anything in the Bill, it needs to have real clarity and not unintended consequences.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to clarify this.

To sum up, this comes back to some of the questions I have for the Minister, and I wonder whether he can answer some of them. I say that especially because the Committee has had lots of debates on amendments tabled by the Government via my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley giving the Secretary of State statutory duties. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to clarify this issue and make it watertight using regulations.

Have we had an assessment of what the impact would be on the provision of healthcare if assisted death were permitted in either a hospice or care home, and is the Minister happy to share that assessment with the Committee? For example, if palliative care specialists are saying, “X amount of people would no longer want to be involved, so there is a real risk of an exodus of specialists from hospices,” we need to know whether there has been an assessment of that. Perhaps the Government can help us to understand that real concern from palliative care specialists.

Given that the Minister mentioned his visit to a hospice this week, has he had any discussions with Care England care homes about allowing this process to happen in care homes themselves? How have the concerns of clinical staff about allowing an assisted death in their healthcare facility been assessed, and have those concerns been put to him? How many staff have indicated that they would need to leave the NHS, care providers or hospices if an assisted death were mandated on their premises?

Coming back to beliefs, there is also the element of charitable bodies. Have we spoken to the Charity Commission about the impact on those bodies if they were pressured by the Bill into changing their charitable aims? Would they be protected from providing assisted death because of their charitable aims?

For me, this debate has raised more questions than answers, and there is much more discussion to be had. I am happy to listen to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, as I can then intervene and probe further.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms McVey, even though it is a little later than originally planned.

Amendment 480 is intended to extend the category of those protected from being obligated to participate in the provision of assisted dying under clause 23 from registered medical practitioners, registered nurses and registered pharmacists or pharmacy technicians to all individuals. The amendment also seeks to clarify what an individual can refuse to do under clause 23(1), by setting out a non-exhaustive list of activities under the Bill that an individual would not be obligated to participate in. The amendment also specifies that the ability not to participate in the provision of assisted dying does not override any duty to signpost someone to information about assisted dying; to perform clerical, secretarial or ancillary acts; or to perform life-saving acts or grave injury-saving acts.

The amendment would introduce significant legal uncertainty and may mean that a person who had opted in to providing services under the Bill could refuse to continue to do so or could use clause 23 as a justification not to perform their duties as described in the Bill. For example, they may use the amendment as justification for not checking eligibility criteria, discussing prognosis or palliative care options, or performing other requirements under the Bill.

Amendment 480 may also conflict with other provisions. It states:

“no individual is under any duty…to be involved, directly or indirectly, in the provision of assistance”,

in accordance with the Bill. That may, for example, mean that although doctors are required under the Bill to notify a cancellation, they would be allowed to refuse to do things under the Bill, even if they have opted in to providing assisted dying services. It is not clear which provision would take precedence, which could allow the doctor to decline to notify a cancellation, by arguing that they are relying on clause 23(1).

Amendment 483 is intended to extend

“the range of activities which medical practitioners and other healthcare providers are not under an obligation to provide to include activities closely related to the provision of assistance”

under clause 23(1).

Amendment 484 is intended to expand the protection from being subject to a detriment by an employer at clause 23(2), to include where a registered medical practitioner or health professional refuses to participate in activity closely related to the provision of assistance. The term,

“activity closely related to the provision of assistance”,

is not defined, and that could create uncertainty as to what types of activity it is intended to cover.

The Bill does not, as currently drafted, specify where the provision of assistance may or may not take place. Amendment 441 would prevent there being any obligation on a care home or hospice regulated by the Care Quality Commission or Care Inspectorate Wales to permit the provision of assistance to be carried out on their premises. The effect of the amendment may be to limit the places where assistance could be provided. It may thereby reduce access to an assisted death for those residing within a care home or hospice, if a care home or hospice did not wish to allow an assisted death to be provided on its premises. The amendment could preclude some people from accessing services under the Bill if they were near the end of life and leaving their usual place of residence was therefore impeded. It may result in inconsistent treatment for patients when seeking to access an assisted death. That could potentially engage a person’s rights under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to respect for private and family life.

Amendment 481 has two parts. The first aims to ensure that employees cannot participate in the assisted dying process in the course of their employment if their employer has chosen not to participate in assisted dying. The effect of the amendment could be to limit the places where assistance would be provided, and it may result in inconsistent treatment for patients when seeking to access an assisted death. That could engage a person’s rights under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to respect for private and family life.

The explanatory notes suggest that the second part of the amendment seeks to ensure that employers require employees to provide or not provide assisted dying under schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010. That schedule enables an employer to specify that having a protected characteristic is a requirement of a job when having that characteristic is crucial to the post and a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The ability to specify occupational requirements is conferred by schedule 9 of the Equality Act, and reference to it in this amendment would not have any additional effect.

The purpose of new clause 22 is to provide that the owners or occupiers of a premises would not be obligated to permit the self-administration of an approved substance on their premises. This right to refuse would not extend to a person who has an interest in the land but who is not occupying or operating on those premises, such as a landlord. It is unclear if the term “premises” would apply to a residential property, care home or hospice. As a result, the amendment may mean that someone who is terminally ill and is residing in, for example, a care home or a hospice could be required to leave that care home or hospice in order to receive assistance under the Bill if the care home or hospice owner did not wish to allow assisted dying on their premises. That could engage a person’s rights under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to respect for private and family life.

[Jack Abbott]

Another example raised by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire was about hospitals under certain trusts—because of the word “premises”. In the Government’s view, would hospitals and other such facilities beyond hospices and care homes also be included within this new clause?

[Stephen Kinnock]

As I was saying, the scope of the term “premises” is unclear. Is it residential property, care home, hospice or indeed hospital? That is one of the challenges with the drafting of the amendment: the scope and definition of the term is not clear.

[Danny Kruger]

We are going to get to the question of the NHS provision, but, surely, if it is the decision of Parliament and the Secretary of State that assisted suicide should be provided through the NHS, then that is what will happen. It might be that there are some trusts that will have some sort of autonomy—to the extent that they can decline to deliver certain services—but, if this is a healthcare treatment that is regulated in that way and if it is to be set out as something that shall be provided by the NHS, surely hospitals will not be in a position to decline to deliver, if they are indeed NHS hospitals. The purpose of these amendments is to protect private and charitable providers. Does the Minister agree?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The challenge is that the way in which the amendment is drafted could well lead to unintended consequences, because the scope is not clear. If we are not clear what the scope is, it could potentially be exponential.

New clause 23 would prevent regulated care homes and hospices from facing any detrimental consequences for not providing or permitting assistance in accordance with the Bill. This also means that their funding must not be conditional on them providing or permitting such assistance to take place on their premises. As a result, a person who is terminally ill and is residing in a care home or hospice could be asked or required to leave that care home or hospice in order to receive assistance under the Bill, if that care home or hospice provider does not wish to allow assisted dying on their premises.

In such circumstances, the care home or hospice provider would not be able to be placed in any detriment as a result of any action or decision taken. This could engage a person’s right under article 8 of the ECHR. Further, public authorities would not be able to persuade care homes or hospices to provide or permit assistance to take place on their premises by offering additional funding if they agreed to do so. Equally, if a public authority gave funding to care homes or hospice providers in recognition of their agreement to provide or permit assisted dying on their premises, and that provider later decided not to provide or permit the assistance, and spent the funding on other matters, the public authority would not be able to recover the funding if it were given unconditionally.

Clause 23 sets out that no registered medical practitioner or other health professional would be under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill. It also sets out that employees cannot be subject to any detriment by their employer for exercising their right to either participate or not participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill. Further amendment to the clause will be required on Report to ensure that the opt-out in clause 23(1) and the employment protections in clause 23(2) work effectively alongside the duties imposed on health professionals in other provisions of the Bill as amended in Committee.

I hope those observations were helpful.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Thank you for stepping into the breach this morning, Ms McVey.

Clause 23 provides that there will be no obligation on medical practitioners and health professionals to provide assistance as set out in the assisted dying process. We know doctors and other health professionals hold a variety of views on assisted dying. A significant number are in support of what this Bill sets out to do, and the experience from other jurisdictions is that that number increases once it is seen to be working safely and effectively in practice. Others, of course, would object to being involved at any stage and I am very respectful of that. The Bill is about giving terminally ill people choice and autonomy, but it is absolutely right that the principle of autonomy is extended to registered medical practitioners, health professionals and others.

As such, I turn to amendment 480. I agree with the intention behind the amendment—nobody should have a duty to be involved with the provision of assistance in accordance with the legislation—and I think there is consensus across the Committee on that.

However, I am concerned about the drafting of the amendment, the lack of clarity around being directly or indirectly in the provision of assistance, and the framing of the selective list of activities. I fear that the amendment could have unintended consequences and an impact on continuity of care, and I take on board the Minister’s comments about the significant legal uncertainty that that would create. I therefore cannot support the amendment as drafted but, as I have said, I am happy to work with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire to consider an alternative amendment that would better achieve the aim of ensuring that no one has an obligation to take part in the assisted dying process.

11:02

We have had a good, powerful debate about institutional opt-outs. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think an abortion could take place within a women’s refuge. My understanding is that women may be given drugs to have an abortion at their place of residence, so I think that is not strictly true. Amendments 441 and 481, as well as new clauses 22 and 23, amount to what is understood as an institutional opt-out. That sounds like a simple principle, but as our discussions have shown, it is not. International experience shows that different jurisdictions have different approaches to this matter, and we should take the opportunity to learn from their experience.

Research on the impact of institutional objections in the Australian state of Victoria shows that the ability of institutions to opt out can create considerable harms. Supportive staff and medical personnel have been prevented from discussing the assisted dying process, and in some cases denied access to their patients. The delivery of legally authorised substances has been blocked, and the taking of the substances has been banned. As a result, which institution a person was in changed their ability to exercise their legal right to an assisted death, and some were blocked from doing so. One relative of a person who had chosen an assisted death was quoted in the study as saying that institutional objections were a “significant challenge” that

“created a whole lot of stress on what was her last day…It will always be a great sadness for me that the last few precious hours on Mum’s last day were mostly filled with stress and distress, having to scurry around moving her out of her so-called ‘home’.”

We should not lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who request an assisted death will already be receiving palliative and/or hospice care, although we know that many will choose to die at home. I am very sensitive to the fact that people who run institutions where the assisted dying process might be accessed may hold very sincere and deeply felt views, but it does not feel right that, were the law to change, people in charge of institutional policy could deny the choice of an assisted death to the terminally ill patients in their care because of those views.

I am particularly concerned about amendment 441, which relates to care homes. As I said yesterday, many terminally ill people want to spend their final days and weeks at home; that is where they choose to die. If a patient is living in a care home, that is their home, and they may have been living there for a number of years before becoming ill. Can it be right to ask them to leave their home if they choose to have an assisted death? Like others, I am also concerned around the concept of shared ownership and sheltered accommodation, as well as limited access in rural areas.

These are sensitive issues, and there is a range of views across the various professions involved in end of life care. Hospice UK recognises that, which is why, representing its members’ different views, its formal position is that it has no collective view. It recognises that staff, volunteers and hospice trustees will look at the Bill’s implications in a variety of ways, and we should give them the time and space to do so, rather than the Bill’s dictating what they should or should not do. We probably all have hospices in our constituencies and local areas, which we visit and have good relationships with, and we probably all have family and friends who have benefited from the care of those amazing places—I know I have. That local dialogue is important—almost as important as what goes into this legislation.

[Danny Kruger]

Obviously, the sentiment that we should work with hospices and let them set their own policy is absolutely right—that is the purpose of the amendment—but does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the Minister just said that if any hospice attempts to prevent assisted dying from taking place on their premises, there will be human rights claims? They can have all the consultations and conversations they want, but unless the Bill specifies that they are allowed to opt out, they will be forced to do it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I am aware of the Minister’s comments. This will be part of the discussion as we take it forward. That is why this debate is really powerful.

In their written evidence, the trustees at Willow Burn hospice, based in the UK, told us:

“Our Mission is to deliver hospice care of the highest standard to our patients and those important to them...We also believe that we should support and enable people to make the choices that matter to them.”

They said they had not decided their position on assisted dying and remained

“open minded about possible future actions. We believe this stance is in the best interests of patients and their families and reflects the wishes of our community.”

I welcome that open-minded approach and their commitment

“to put care, compassion and dignity at the heart of everything”

they do. Contrary to what the hon. Member East Wiltshire has said, the picture is not black and white. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich in that regard.

Colleagues may remember the evidence given to the Committee by the CEO of Hospice UK, Toby Porter. He clarified for us that institutions do not function in the same way as individuals when it comes to conscience-influencing decisions. He told us:

“There is this idea that your individual opinion guides everything, but with a hospice charity the opposite is true. As many Members will know because of their own work as trustees, the trustees and leadership of a hospice team are required to put personal opinion and interest to one side and always act in the best interest of the charity’s beneficiaries, who are the population.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 195, Q255.]

It is also important to remember that international experience shows that up to 30% to 40% of patients who sign up to the assisted dying process ultimately do not access it. Palliative care may meet their needs, or they may simply change their mind. However, we also know that the reassurance and comfort that the choice of an assisted death provides alongside other treatment and care is really important to them, and I do not believe that reassurance should be denied to some people because of the institution they happen to be in.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady is outlining the issues very effectively. No one, of course, is saying that anybody who works at the hospice that may object has to participate. It may say, “No one here will assist.” We have talked about the importance of place. To a certain extent, I have a right as a tenant in a place where I am resident. It seems that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire is proposing actively to prevent someone from being able to access this in a place that they choose. That feels to me the wrong balance. I wonder whether that is broadly where she is heading.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The word that we have used a lot—maybe not enough in some respects—is choice. That is important for individuals, but it is important for institutions as well. Putting an institutional opt-out in the Bill would risk creating confusion and distress for patients and their loved ones, and indeed for staff and volunteers.

[Rebecca Paul]

Does the hon. Lady have any concerns about what this position would mean for the end of life workforce? I know we are here to make law, but we cannot ignore the practical consequences for end of life care. If we do not have this carve-out, we could lose a lot of wonderful and great people who work in end of life care and who feel that they are not able to participate, if the hospice cannot specify.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to acknowledge the wonderful workforce working in end of life care, but there is a range of views within that workforce and there is the individual opt-out. No one has to be involved in this process if they do not want to be. That is clear in the Bill as it stands. I hope that, working together, we can make that even clearer if needed.

Under the Bill, doctors and health professionals already have the ability to opt out for any reason, wherever they work.

[Naz Shah]

Pharmacies have not been mentioned. Would they have the ability to opt out?

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a good point. My understanding—the Minister might correct me—is that pharmacists currently are within the definition of health professionals, but if they are not, that is an important point, which would be covered by making the change to ensure that no one is under any duty. However, I will definitely check that.

Mr Porter also said:

“hospices evolved out of the community. They exist because communities wanted better deaths. In the end, it is the job of institutions to evolve to fit the values and laws of society as they evolve, rather than vice versa.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 202, Q264.]

The polling on assisted dying shows significant public support for a change in the law, which is one of the main reasons we are here discussing the issue today. The latest figures from the British social attitudes survey, published just this week by the National Centre for Social Research, show that support at 79%, which is unchanged or slightly up on a decade ago. Although I cannot support these amendments, this is an important debate. I think we have conducted ourselves extremely well over the past 24 hours. I think it is important that we continue the debate respectfully and sensitively.

[Danny Kruger]

I, too, am very grateful to you for rescuing us, Ms McVey; thank you. I also thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley: it is nice to be commended for our good conduct, so I am grateful for that. This has been a very interesting debate, and I thank all hon. Members for participating. I appreciate the fact that we have made some progress in understanding each other and potentially improving the Bill, although I regret the lack of support from the Government Front Bench for the amendments that I have tabled.

Let me just refresh memories on the purpose of my amendments. The Bill promoter has tabled amendments to clauses 24 and 25, which we will come to and which keep the phrase

“providing assistance to a person in accordance with this Act”,

but add to it these two other phrases:

“performing any other function under that Act”

and

“assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act”.

Those amendments expand the protection from criminal and civil liability. They mean that performing any other function under the Act and assisting a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Act, are both protected from criminal and civil liability. But the hon. Lady has not tabled a similar amendment to clause 23, and there is a real risk. The British Medical Association, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Royal College of Nursing, as I mentioned yesterday, have all warned that the protection of conscience clause is limited solely to the final act, rather than applying to all functions under the Act. I appreciate that the hon. Lady expresses a commitment to trying to ensure that we do cover everybody and all appropriate actions and activities that take place, but I suggest that that is what my amendment would do.

In response to the objections to the amendment, I appreciate the sudden interest in precision in drafting.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is not sudden!

[Danny Kruger]

Well, every time that those on my side of the debate raise detailed, particular points we are told, “Oh, the spirit of the text is clear. We’ll sort that out later. It’ll come in guidance.” We are told that we should not be nitpicking, embroidering and so on. Anyway, I appreciate the attention to detail, and I want to respond to some of the points.

With respect, the Minister made a pretty tendentious suggestion that a doctor could opt in to assisted dying and take part in some of the procedures but then suddenly decide to neglect performing others, and that that would not be negligent. I cannot conceive of any court or tribunal conceding that it would not be negligent not to fulfil the obligations under the Act once the procedure has begun—once the doctor has made commitments and already undertaken activities to progress an assisted dying case.

The hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire objected on the grounds that the amendment might give a gardener or cleaner the right to opt out. Proposed new subsection (1B)(b) of clause 23 actually makes it clear that “ancillary” activities are not protected by the conscience clause, so the gardener would not be off the hook—under the amendment, the gardener would still have to mow the lawn.

I recognise that the drafting might not be perfect, but I emphasise that the PBL “Guide to Making Legislation”—by the secretariat to the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Cabinet Committee—makes it clear that Government should not object to Back-Bench amendments on drafting grounds. If there are issues with particular phrasing that cause the Government or the promoter concern, that can be addressed subsequently, so I regret it if the Minister is using drafting issues to justify a refusal to support these amendments.

On new clause 22 and the issue of premises, which we have discussed very interestingly, a couple of objections have been raised. The first relates to shared ownership schemes, which we are all familiar with, particularly for elderly people. The answer is simple. The corporate owner under a shared ownership scheme is not in occupation. Being in occupation has a particular meaning in land law, and it is not the case here that a tenant genuinely in occupation of their own premises could somehow be denied their right to have an assisted death in their own home because of the freehold arrangement of the premises they occupy.

I am grateful for the indication given by Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, that there may well be circumstances in which it is appropriate for particular premises to opt out of the obligation to facilitate assisted dying, so that a particular institution would have the right to deny permission for assisted death.

11:15

[Kit Malthouse]

To clarify my remarks, I was not necessarily saying that they should have the right to deny, but by default they would if they were, in effect, a closed community that was discriminating in favour of like-minded individuals—a home for retired Catholic priests, for example. By default it would be someone who was unlikely to offer those services. The other point to ask is: if I am in a hospice, in my bed at the last with visitors coming to see me, and one of those visitors is the doctor who is coming to administer to me, I am not quite sure how that would be prevented, unless people are willing for there to be a wrestling match at the door of my room.

[Danny Kruger]

Under the terms of amendment 441, the owners of the premises would be entitled to deny access to anyone who is seeking to deliver an assisted dying service on their premises. They would be entitled to prevent that from happening, yes. Obviously, that is an extremely unlikely scenario; nevertheless, it is one that I think we need to contemplate.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire for his clarification. I had understood that he had acknowledged that it would be appropriate for the management of a Catholic care home to specify that there shall be no assisted dying on the premises, but he is suggesting that it would be illegal or inappropriate for the management to make that stipulation; it just would not happen organically, because no one would want that in that place. I regret that, because I think it should be appropriate for the management of a place—not in some sort of vindictive mission to deny people a particular right or service—to convey to everyone else who lives there that this is, as it were, a safe space in which there will not be state-assisted suicide. I think that is a reasonable hope and expectation that many residents will want when they live in a certain place.

Once this becomes normalised, once it becomes 5% or 10% of deaths, as happens in parts of Canada—if this becomes a normal and standard way to die—I think many people will not want to live in communities in which that practice takes place. I am afraid that we will find a demarcation, a bifurcation in society, for those who do not want to live in an assisted suicide community. It would be appropriate for them to have the option of going to live in a place where they know that will not be taking place.

I concede, by the way, that for many of the institutions that we are imagining here, these shared communities, it would be perfectly appropriate and understandable for it to be an option for residents. Let us think about the different sorts of places we are talking about. The Duchess of Somerset almshouse in my constituency—the sort of place we have in Wiltshire—is a lovely place, beautiful. It has lots of Liberal Democrat voters in it, which I know because I knocked on all their doors—unfortunately, the wrong sort of Liberal Democrat. I can imagine many of them supporting the right in their home, behind their own front door—which they have there—to have an assisted death, and I am sure that the other residents of that place would concede that that is appropriate.

In other places in my constituency, however, a hospice being the most obvious one, neither the management nor the other residents would be comfortable—in fact, they would be extremely uncomfortable—with the sense that assisted suicide might be practised in the next-door room. Whether it is performed, as it were, by the hospice staff, or merely facilitated by them—it would be extraordinary were it somehow to take place without the facilitation of the staff who managed the facility and look after the patients—for it to take place on some sort of parallel track would be an extreme imposition on that hospice and its management. It would be extremely disquieting for everyone else who lives and works in that place. I therefore think it is an appropriate consideration to give such places the right, at a management level, to opt out.

I also want to express my deep concern about what we heard from the Minister—his suggestion that we should not give either individuals or institutions the absolute right to opt out of the facilitation of assisted suicide because we think the European convention on human rights might challenge that. He suggested that a court in this country or Strasbourg would overrule a decision or would negate this law, or challenge it, if we passed it with these amendments to protect hospices and individuals. We would then have a court citing international law in an attempt to overturn this law. I am very concerned about that in terms of both parliamentary sovereignty and the Government’s position. Surely, if the Government think this is the right thing to do, we should do it even if we fear an ECHR challenge. This is a craven submission to a lawmaking body that is not sovereign in our country and would be only advisory. I regret what the Minister for Care said and hope that the Justice Minister can clarify that the Government would not concede an ECHR challenge if Parliament decides to insist on individuals’ rights to decline to participate in assisted suicide.

In response to my challenges on that point, the hon. Member for Spen Valley suggested that it would be an interesting topic for a future conversation. This is the moment to have that conversation. We are deciding on amendments now that will insist on people’s right to decline to take part in assisted death. There will be no further opportunity to insist that people have that right to opt out except on Report, which will be a limited opportunity.

Yesterday, the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire made an interesting point that had not occurred to me—whether a husband living with his wife in their own shared home could legitimately deny her the right to assisted suicide in their home. It is a very good challenge. It is certainly not the policy intention, as I am sure the hon. Lady appreciates, to enable one partner to deny the other the right to assisted suicide in their shared home. I ask her to accept that that is not the intention. The purpose of the amendment is to give an occupier the right to refuse assisted dying.

With the hon. Lady’s permission, given that this clause will be voted on only next week, I propose tabling an amendment that would address her concern. I am happy to work with her or the Government to get to the point where we are satisfied that that concern has been addressed, because she is absolutely right: in someone’s own home, their partner or the person who shares the home with them should not be allowed to deny them.

We have hashed out the question about protected beliefs in relation to amendment 481, so I will move on.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am wondering about the difference between my own home with my partner, and my care home with lots of people that may or may not be strangers, and why I should have the right in one but not in the other.

[Danny Kruger]

I hope my right hon. Friend will understand that there is a difference between occupying one’s own home and living in a community under conditions set by somebody else, which is what happens if someone lives in a care home. There are terms and conditions. People have to comply with the rules of the place and have obligations to their fellow residents. In someone’s own home, whether they are living with a partner or not, they have absolute rights. That is the difference. If someone signs up to live in a care home, they have to follow the rules of the place, just like in a hotel. In someone’s own home, they can do what they like, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

We should acknowledge the reasons that people go into residential and nursing care homes. They go into them because they need day-to-day help to live. Would the hon. Gentleman reconsider what he has just said? It seems to fundamentally discriminate between people who are able to live at home, have families or carers around them and can operate in that way and people who need to go into residential, and particularly nursing, homes.

[Danny Kruger]

The right hon. Lady clarifies the point very well. I concede—that is right. When someone goes to live in a care home, they yield, by necessity, a whole set of freedoms that one has in one’s own home. That is the consequence of the stage of life they are at, the conditions they have, and indeed their own choice to live in that particular care home.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

They might not have one.

[Danny Kruger]

I appreciate that—there might be very little choice or no alternative. I am speaking in terms of the reality of life. We can do everything we can through the law to obviate reality—to give people as much autonomy as possible, even though they are very dependent on other people. That is why it is so important to consider the autonomy of the elderly, the frail and people with disabilities or who are ill. They require other people to give them what fully healthy and able-bodied people are able to do for themselves. I recognise that I am suggesting that somebody who lives in a care home would not have the same freedom of action as somebody living in their own home.

11:25

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting)

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Peter Dowd, Clive Efford, Sir Roger Gale, † Carolyn Harris, Esther McVey

† Abbott, Jack (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)

† Atkinson, Lewis (Sunderland Central) (Lab)

Campbell, Juliet (Broxtowe) (Lab)

† Charalambous, Bambos (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)

† Francis, Daniel (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)

† Gordon, Tom (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)

† Green, Sarah (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)

† Hopkins, Rachel (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)

† Joseph, Sojan (Ashford) (Lab)

† Kinnock, Stephen (Minister for Care)

† Kruger, Danny (East Wiltshire) (Con)

† Leadbeater, Kim (Spen Valley) (Lab)

† Malthouse, Kit (North West Hampshire) (Con)

† Olney, Sarah (Richmond Park) (LD)

† Opher, Dr Simon (Stroud) (Lab)

† Paul, Rebecca (Reigate) (Con)

† Richards, Jake (Rother Valley) (Lab)

† Sackman, Sarah (Minister of State, Ministry of Justice)

† Saville Roberts, Liz (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

† Shah, Naz (Bradford West) (Lab)

† Shastri-Hurst, Dr Neil (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)

† Tidball, Dr Marie (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)

† Woodcock, Sean (Banbury) (Lab)

Lynn Gardner, Lucinda Maer, Jonathan Whiffing, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 19 March 2025

(Afternoon)

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

14:04

[The Chair]

Will everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? As people know, tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee Room.

We now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I remind Members, as I often do, that interventions should be short and raise points of clarification or questions; they should not be speeches in and of themselves. Members who wish to make a speech should bob, and continue to do so throughout the debate in which they wish to take part, 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 23

No obligation to provide assistance etc

Amendment proposed (18 March): 480, in clause 23, page 15, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) No individual is under any duty (whether arising from any contract, statute or otherwise) to be involved, directly or indirectly, in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act.

(1A) In particular, no individual is under any duty (whether arising from any contract, statute or otherwise) to—

(a) provide information about assisted dying;

(b) participate in an initial discussion;

(c) participate in the request and assessment process;

(d) supply, prescribe or administer an approved substance;

(e) be present at the time of administration of an approved substance; or

(f) dispense a prescription of an approved substance.

(1B) Nothing in subsections (1) or (1A) of this section shall affect any duty to—

(a) signpost someone to where they can obtain information about assisted dying (under section 4(5) or otherwise);

(b) perform acts of a clerical, secretarial, or ancillary nature; or

(c) perform any acts necessary to save the life of or to prevent grave injury to a person.” —(Danny Kruger.)

This amendment would expand the provision of Clause 23(1) to all individuals and clarify the activities in which they are not obliged to participate.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 483, in clause 23, page 15, line 5, after “assistance” insert

“, or in any activity closely related to the provision of assistance,”.

This amendment would widen the range of activities which medical practitioners and other healthcare providers are not under an obligation to provide to include activities closely related to the provision of assistance under the Act.

Amendment 484, in clause 23, page 15, line 8, after “Act” insert

“, or in any activity closely related to the provision of assistance under this Act,”.

Amendment 441, in clause 23, page 15, line 9, at end insert—

“(3) There is no obligation on any care home or hospice regulated by the Care Quality Commission or the Care Inspectorate Wales to permit the provision of assistance under this Act on their premises.”

This amendment prevents there being any obligation on a care home or hospice which is regulated in England or Wales to permit the provision of assistance under the Act on their premises.

Amendment 481, in clause 23, page 15, line 9, at end insert—

“(3) Nothing in subsection (2)—

(a) prevents an employer who has chosen not to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act from prohibiting their employees from providing such assistance in the course of their employment with that employer, or

(b) prevents an employer from specifying occupational requirements in relation to the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act in accordance with Schedule 9 of the Equality Act when hiring employees.”

This amendment ensures that employees cannot provide assisted dying against the wishes of their employers and that employers can still rely, in appropriate cases, on the occupational requirements of the Equality Act to either require employees to provide or not to provide assisted dying.

New clause 22—No obligation for occupiers and operators of premises—

“(1) Any individual, business, organisation, or association who occupies or operates premises has the right to refuse to permit the self-administration of an approved substance on their premises.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) confers any right on anyone with an interest in the land but who is not occupying or operating those premises.”

This new clause would mean that the owners or occupiers of premises — but not landlords not currently in occupation — are not obliged to permit the self-administration of approved substances on their premises.

New clause 23—No detriment for care home or hospice not providing assistance—

“(1) No regulated care home or hospice shall be subject to any detriment by a public authority as a result of not—

(a) providing assistance in accordance with this Act, or

(b) permitting such assistance to take place on their premises.

(2) No funding given by a public authority to a regulated care home or hospice can be conditional on that care home or hospice—

(a) providing assistance in accordance with this Act, or

(b) permitting such assistance to take place on their premises.”

This new clause would mean that regulated care homes and hospices cannot be subject to any detriment for not providing or permitting assistance in accordance with this Act, and that their funding cannot be conditional on them providing or permitting such assistance.

Clause stand part.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I was just concluding my remarks on the amendment. I will quickly finish responding to the hon. Member for Spen Valley and others, who suggested that it would be improper to deny people living in a care home, hospice setting or other communal environment the right and opportunity to request assisted dying. I was suggesting that that right needs to be tempered by an acknowledgment that they do not live there alone, and that there are also rights, properly held, by the occupier of the premises, the individual’s neighbours and others.

My concern is that, just as suicide itself is contagious, so the practice of assisted suicide will have social ramifications. We fully recognise that, if the Bill is passed, people will have the absolute right to request the service in their own home, but when someone is living among others, that right needs to be tempered by the consideration that the occupier should ultimately decide whether he or she is prepared to allow the practice to take place on his or her premises.

Some hon. Members suggested that, if an institution receives public funding, it would be appropriate for it to be obligated to deliver the service. I am concerned about the implication of that, which might be that institutions that did not wish to provide or facilitate assisted suicide but did receive public money, for instance care homes or hospices, would be at risk of losing that money—essentially being defunded—on the grounds of their conscientious objection to participating in assisted dying. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Spen Valley or Ministers would confirm that it is not their intention to penalise bodies that do not deliver assisted dying by withdrawing public money.

On the impact on staff, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for acknowledging that we might need to tighten the Bill to ensure that it is clear that people will not be required to participate in any stage of the process of assisted dying, and not just in the actual provision of assistance towards the final act. Nevertheless, my concern is that if we do not give institutions the right to opt out of provision, there will be an exodus of staff who object to being involved in any way with, or working for an institution that facilitates, assisted dying, as has happened in other jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal.

I point particularly to evidence we heard from Australia. We were told that, in consequence of assisted dying being legalised in Australian states, there was an exodus of workers from the healthcare system—nurses and others—and the social care system. It was therefore no coincidence when one of the Australian witnesses who supports assisted suicide declared breezily that, although there were significant objections among the care workforce to the introduction of assisted dying when the law was first debated, five years later there was overwhelming support for assisted dying among them. Well, that is no surprise, because all the objectors had left, and I am afraid that is what we will see here.

A comparison would be the exodus of care workers that we saw after the last Government mandated covid vaccination. Some 40,000 care workers left their jobs rather than accept compulsory vaccination. If they were prepared to do that on those grounds, I fear we might see a similar phenomenon if we mandate that institutions facilitate assisted dying.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

May I check that the hon. Member’s understanding is the same as mine—that nothing in the Bill compels an organisation to participate in the way that he describes?

[Danny Kruger]

No, I am afraid I do not concede that. At the moment, it is not apparent from the Bill or the amendments that have been accepted that an organisation would be enabled to decline to facilitate the provision of assisted dying. No organisation will be compelled to do so, but if a resident were to request assisted dying in their care home, my understanding is that the care home would be obliged to facilitate it.

It might well not be the intention behind the Bill, because I know that the hon. Member for Spen Valley and Members who agree with her recognise the importance of a conscience exception; they have been very clear on that, and I am grateful to them. Nevertheless, my concern is that on human rights grounds, as we have heard from the Minister, the likelihood is that there would be a claim on behalf of an applicant against the institution they reside in that assisted suicide must be provided to them in that place. I am afraid the Bill at the moment does not give an adequate exemption to institutions.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Does the hon. Member accept the distinction that I made between an organisation choosing to provide assisted dying services and the instance he outlined of this being done in someone’s home that happens to be a care home? They are entirely different points, and I fear that, particularly with regard to hospices, he is conflating the two.

[Danny Kruger]

I am conflating the two because they are conflated in reality. A care home where somebody lives is a residence, but it is also a community, a facility and a place where professionals work to support that individual. A clear demarcation between their living arrangements and the support they receive from the institution they live in does not exist in reality. That is why they are living there—because that distinction does not apply in their particular case. They require the support and help of the workers in the place where they live.

I am afraid it is not enough simply to say, “This is their home, and they should have exactly the same rights and freedoms as they would have if they were living alone in their own flat or house.” We have to recognise the reality of the situation, which is that they are living in a community, and what happens in the community affects them all. That is the nature of communal living. This is not individualised healthcare in the way that the hon. Gentleman imagines it is, and that is fundamentally our point of difference. This is separate or adjacent to healthcare, and it is delivered, by definition, by somebody else. By virtue of the Bill, it would have a separate regulatory environment to other healthcare treatments. Of necessity, it should have an appropriate legal framework to protect other people who are impacted by assisted death in a communal setting. That is my crucial point: if someone is living in a communal setting, what they do affects their neighbours.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, although this is different from the healthcare services we currently have, we have a legal framework that deals with many of these conflicting issues as and when they arise in lots of different circumstances that are not completely adjacent to these?

[Danny Kruger]

I do not know what those might be, but I would be interested to hear. That might well be the case. I am afraid that no hard-and-fast rules can be clearly applied here; or, rather, we have to apply hard-and-fast rules in the knowledge of the grey areas, the exceptions and the situations in which we might feel that the law is unjust in particular cases. We have heard examples of that, such as the evidence about the lady in Australia cited earlier by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I can well imagine the distress involved if someone suddenly finds themselves in an institution that does not permit an assisted death, but they want one and are in their last days.

The alternative, however, is a different blanket rule. If we were to have a blanket rule that we can do an assisted death anywhere—that is one situation—there would be significant knock-on effects. Serious moral injury would be suffered by other professionals and residents. I recognise that my amendment could lead to someone having to relocate if they want to have an assisted death—I am sorry for that—but I think that we have to draw the line in a way that makes most sense.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

It would be interesting, if my hon. Friend’s amendments go through, to see the series of plebiscites taking place in care homes and communal situations across the country as to what the residents do and do not want, presumably by a majority. He asserted that there had been a mass exodus of healthcare workers when VAD came in, but I am struggling to find any evidence to support that claim. In fact, the evidence seems to say that that is not the case. Although there have been some resignations, that has largely been because of pay and conditions, as one might expect.

[Danny Kruger]

My right hon. Friend seems hung up on this suggestion that there needs to be a plebiscite or communal decision making—some kind of citizens’ jury. I am not suggesting that for one moment. In fact, I am sure that I have said explicitly that what I want, and what the amendment would enable, is that the owner or occupier, who would probably be an individual or a board of directors, would decide what happens. If they are a decent, compassionate organisation, they might well consult residents—in fact, I would very much expect that to happen if they are doing their job properly—but I am talking about the importance of communal living; and the fact is that a communal living arrangement has leadership. The residents have signed terms and conditions, in a contract, under which they have agreed to abide by certain rules of the house. My suggestion is that if the charity, company or organisation that is managing a care home wants to stipulate that there shall be no provision of assisted dying in that care home, they should have the right to do so. I hope my right hon. Friend would acknowledge that that is consistent with English property rights.

On my right hon. Friend’s second point, I am grateful to him and he might well be right. I am happy to consult my evidence pack, which I do not have at my fingertips, about the effect on the Australian workforce in consequence of the introduction of assisted dying. My memory is that we heard such evidence, or had it submitted to us in written form—his knowledge of the 500 submissions might be better than mine. Let us check and we will have it out, perhaps on social media; I know how much he enjoys those forums.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 62

Ayes: 4

Noes: 17

Amendment proposed: 484, in clause 23, page 15, line 8, after “Act” insert

“, or in any activity closely related to the provision of assistance under this Act,”—(Danny Kruger.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 63

Ayes: 4

Noes: 17

Amendment proposed: 441, in clause 23, page 15, line 9, at end insert—

“(3) There is no obligation on any care home or hospice regulated by the Care Quality Commission or the Care Inspectorate Wales to permit the provision of assistance under this Act on their premises.” —(Danny Kruger.)

This amendment prevents there being any obligation on a care home or hospice which is regulated in England or Wales to permit the provision of assistance under the Act on their premises.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 64

Ayes: 4

Noes: 17

Amendment proposed: 481, in clause 23, page 15, line 9, at end insert—

“(3) Nothing in subsection (2)—

(a) prevents an employer who has chosen not to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act from prohibiting their employees from providing such assistance in the course of their employment with that employer, or

(b) prevents an employer from specifying occupational requirements in relation to the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act in accordance with Schedule 9 of the Equality Act when hiring employees.”—(Rebecca Paul.)

This amendment ensures that employees cannot provide assisted dying against the wishes of their employers and that employers can still rely, in appropriate cases, on the occupational requirements of the Equality Act to either require employees to provide or not to provide assisted dying.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 65

Ayes: 4

Noes: 17

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Criminal liability for providing assistance

14:20

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 504, in clause 24, page 15, line 11, leave out from second “of” to end of line 12 and insert

“—

(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with this Act, or performing any other function under this Act in accordance with this Act, or

(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with this Act, in connection with the doing of anything under this Act.”.

This amendment provides that it is not an offence to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 505, in clause 24, page 15, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert

“—

(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025, or performing any other function under that Act in accordance with that Act, or

(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act, in connection with the doing of anything under that Act.”.

This amendment ensures that it is not an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill.

Clause stand part.

I remind Committee members that we expect four or five votes at about 2.50 pm. In that case, we will suspend for an hour, similarly to last night, and come back at 3.50 pm, but we will cross that bridge when we get to it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

These amendments relate to criminal liability under the Bill. They get to the heart of why the legislation is needed. Amendment 504 seeks to clarify the language of clause 24 and provide reassurance that it will not be considered an offence to perform a function under the provisions of the Bill or to assist a person seeking to end their own life in connection with anything done under the Bill. It will ensure that those acting within the law, and with compassion, to assist terminally ill individuals who wish to end their suffering and take control at the end of their life are protected under the law.

Amendment 505 ensures that the provisions of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025 will supersede the Suicide Act 1961, providing clarity that actions taken under the new Act will not be subject to the outdated legal framework established under the 1961 Act. That is a crucial step in modernising our laws to reflect the values of compassion, dignity and personal autonomy. These amendments bring us closer to a legal framework that is clear and safe.

Our Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the former Director of Public Prosecutions, stated in relation to assisted dying, “The law must reflect the changing moral landscape of society, and in cases such as this, where the individual’s autonomy and suffering are at stake, our legal framework must offer clarity and compassion.” During his tenure as DPP, Sir Keir also emphasised the importance of not criminalising individuals who act out of compassion, particularly in difficult and morally complex situations. He said, “The law must be clear, and it must ensure that those who act with the intention to relieve suffering are not penalised, as long as their actions are in accordance with the law.” That sentiment is echoed in the amendments before us today, which ensure that those who assist individuals under the Bill are protected by law, offering clarity and reassurance to both the public and professionals who may be involved in such decisions.

Sir Max Hill, another former Director of Public Prosecutions, remarked in 2019, “The law around assisted dying is often unclear and creates a great deal of uncertainty for both individuals and healthcare professionals. What we need is a system that balances compassion with protection, ensuring that people who are at their most vulnerable are supported in a way that is both legal and ethical.” Sir Max Hill’s words emphasise the need for clear, compassionate guidance, which these amendments will provide. They will help to eliminate the legal uncertainty that can cause fear and hesitation in those who act in the best interests of individuals facing terminal illness.

The 2010 DPP policy clarified that assisting someone to end their life was not automatically criminal and that each case would be assessed on its individual facts. However, that has not changed the law and many people are still being failed by the law as it stands. These amendments create clarity and prevent ambiguity around what constitutes a criminal act versus an action legally protected by the new law.

I will finish with a very powerful testimony from Louise Shackleton from Scarborough. Louise accompanied her husband to Dignitas last December. I believe she was the first person to make that trip since Second Reading. Louise talks about the trip she made to Switzerland with her husband. She says:

“This is not an easy process as some against Assisted Dying might have you believe, might try and convince you. It is a robust and thorough almost an ordeal in itself. Then there is the cost, not just financially but mentally and physically as he had to be able to get to Zurich and someone had to assist him to do this…My husband did not deserve this to be his end nor did I deserve this to be his end, my last memory of him…I accompanied my husband to Switzerland, where we had 4 wonderful days together, my husband’s mood had lifted, he was at peace, it was as if the weight of the world had been lifted from his shoulders. He was not scared, no anxiety, his emotional suffering had ceased. You cannot imagine unless you see and feel this he was looking forward to his peaceful death, looking forward to leaving his pain, suffering…At the end, my husband was able to die on his own terms, pain-free and peaceful, held in my arms as his heart gently slowed and finally stopped, granting him the dignified and serene farewell that he had wished for. But where was I? alone in a strange country alone, scared, bereft, organising an Uber to take me away from the…Dignitas House, I was vulnerable and in utter shock, now having to leave my dead husband alone, leave his body to be cared for by people I had never met…Due to our draconian laws my husband had to be in a foreign country, had to be cremated to be brought back home. No funeral that he would have chosen, no mourners, no ceremony, cremated with no Reverend to pray for him, returned to me in a cardboard box. The pain is excruciating beyond any other loss I have experienced”.

She then says:

“I have been arrested and spent just under three hours being interviewed by two CID officers. Four days after my husband left my world there I was stuck in a Police station being cautioned, questioned, having to relive my trauma, for my crime, a crime made by love, a crime made by adoration, a crime of compassion and respect of my husband’s last wish.”

She now faces a prolonged police investigation. She tells us,

“My husband was the first British person to go to Dignitas after parliament debated on Friday 29^th Of November 2024. You have the power, the power is yours to be human, to follow Gods wish, to ‘suffer’ choices that other people may make even if its uncomfortable for you. Palliative care I hear you say, My Husband did not want palliative care…Please give others the gift of dignity and a good death in their homes…You have the power to do something amazing, give people the choice.”

I commend these amendments, which will help many people. Sadly, it is too late for Louise, but they will help many other families who will potentially go through what she has been through.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I rise to speak briefly on clause stand part. As I noted a few weeks back—it feels a long time ago—when we debated amendment 82, the clause leaves the law in a strange position. I hope that we will now have the opportunity to explore that and make sure that we are comfortable with the position and have identified whether any changes are needed.

Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 criminalises both assisting and encouraging suicide:

“A person (‘D’) commits an offence if—

(a) D does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person, and

(b) D’s act was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.”

It is a single offence, but can be committed in two ways: either through assistance or through encouragement.

Clause 24(3), both as drafted and as amended by amendment 505, would make an exception from criminal liability under the Suicide Act, but in respect only of assistance, not of encouragement. It would cover:

“(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025, or performing any other function under that Act in accordance with that Act, or

(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act, in connection with the doing of anything under that Act.”

In other words, it is strictly limited to assisting suicide. It only covers the actions in the Bill around conducting the preliminary discussion, assessing the applicant, giving the applicant the approved substance and so on. What happens to the other half of section 2 of the Suicide Act: the offence of encouraging suicide? I will not rehash the debates that we had over amendment 82, but I must point out that as that amendment was rejected, the law does not dovetail. Encouragement would still be very much an offence under the Suicide Act, as it has not been excepted under the Bill.

Because my amendment was not agreed to, we will have the absurd situation in which somebody can commit the crime of actively encouraging someone to take their own life, yet that will not be looked for or taken into account when assessing someone’s eligibility for an assisted death. On the flipside, there is a very real risk for families and friends of loved ones who could inadvertently overstep the mark and move from support of a loved one to encouragement. It does not take much imagination to realise that that could lead to accusations and potentially even to prosecution if the law is not sorted and clarified at this stage.

We already know how difficult it has been for family members who want to accompany loved ones to Dignitas but fear that they could face prosecution; the hon. Member for Spen Valley has made that point so eloquently. No one wants that, so it is important that we ensure that the Bill does not create a similar situation in which someone could be unfairly prosecuted for encouragement, which is still very much a crime under the Suicide Act.

14:30

Let us make the law really clear on the point so that we know which behaviours are criminal and which are not. One cause of the lack of clarity is the word “encouragement”. What is its meaning? What types of activity would a court consider to be encouragement under the Suicide Act? I know that we started this debate a number of weeks ago, so I look forward to the Minister clarifying the point and setting out whether she is happy with the Bill as drafted.

Under clause 26, coercing or pressuring a person into an assisted death is a criminal offence, and rightly so. There has, however, been much debate on whether undue influence and encouragement are also covered. The Minister advised previously that undue influence is covered, and I seem to recall that encouragement could be covered as well. If that is correct, we would have the sloppy situation in which encouragement could be a criminal offence both under the Bill and under the Suicide Act. It would be really helpful if the Minister set out the position clearly on the point, to make sure that we do not inadvertently end up in that situation. I imagine that best practice is to have only one criminal liability in one Act or the other, if it is appropriate at all.

[Danny Kruger]

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate; I very much agree with the points that she made, and I hope that Ministers will respond. I will try not to repeat her arguments.

The hon. Member for Spen Valley says that clause 24 is, in a sense, the heart of the Bill. I agree. Without the clause the Bill would be ineffective, because the service that we are proposing to legalise would be illegal. We have heard many objections to the term “assisted suicide”, but the necessity of the clause exposes the fact that what is being legalised, at least in part, is assisted suicide. Calling it assisted suicide is therefore not improper; it is simply using the correct terminology, as I believe we should in this place. That is particularly important because the use of the euphemism “assisted dying” masks what this is really about and what the Bill would actually legalise: that somebody could help somebody else to commit suicide.

It is no surprise that the euphemism is deployed, because support for what is called assisted dying is driven in part by a failure to realise what it actually is and what the words mean. I cite a 2024 Nuffield Council on Bioethics survey of the public, which found that 39% of people think that assisted dying means withdrawing life support, 19% think that it means providing people who are dying with drugs that relieve symptoms of pain or suffering, and 13% think that it means providing hospice care, all of which is legal currently and is good medical practice.

[Lewis Atkinson]

The hon. Gentleman says that he is clear that those actions are assisting suicide and that he thinks that they are illegal. Is it right that members of the public, in the instance to which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley referred, be investigated by the police on their return from trips to Switzerland?

[Danny Kruger]

Let me come to the question of investigation by the police in due course, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman heard me clearly. I was not talking about offences that I think are rightly criminal; I was talking about offences that are not offences at all. Providing hospice care, helping people to relieve symptoms of pain or suffering and withdrawing life support are all perfectly permitted and legal in our system. The issue is that a significant proportion of the public think that those activities are what assisted dying entails. I do, however, recognise the point and the power of the testimony recited by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, to which I will come on in due course.

I understand that in order to make the Bill effective, an exception must be made to section 2 of the Suicide Act. Section 1 says that someone is allowed to commit suicide; section 2 says that one cannot help somebody else to do so. I agree that such an exception is necessary if we are to pass the Bill, but I cannot follow why clause 24(1) is needed. I will be grateful if the hon. Member for Spen Valley or the Minister can explain which other offences would necessarily be committed by a doctor properly carrying out his or her functions under the Bill. What other offences might be caught that require clause 24(1)?

Clause 18 will forbid a doctor from engaging in euthanasia. One criminal law from which an exemption is not necessary is the law on murder, yet ostensibly subsection (1) has no such limitation. I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that subsection (1) will not afford a defence when the charge is murder. I presume that that is not the intention.

What about manslaughter, and particularly gross negligence manslaughter? Under the Bill, a pharmacist performing the function of prescribing or dispensing the legal drugs would be, to use the wording of amendment 504, “performing” a “function under this Act”. If a pharmacist makes a grossly negligent mistake and mislabels a drug, which is then sent to another patient who takes it and dies, that would quite clearly be gross negligence manslaughter. Can the Minister explain why clause 24(1), as amended by amendment 504, would not allow someone to benefit from an immunity in respect of gross negligence manslaughter? To be clear, I agree that if the pharmacist intentionally mislabelled the drug, he could not be described as

“performing any other function under this Act”,

so he would not have that defence. However, in a case where, in good faith, he had made a fatal and grossly negligent mistake, surely he would have been performing such a function, albeit performing it very badly.

Can the Minister clearly set out the reasoning to explain why there is no chance of such a defence under the clause? Of course the hon. Member for Spen Valley does not intend to exempt from criminal liability a pharmacist acting in that grossly negligent way, but I am trying to make sense of the drafting of the amendment. If there is any criminal offence, other than in the Suicide Act, that requires an exemption, it would be best to say so clearly in the Bill rather than relying on a catch-all term, as subsection (1) does.

I concur with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and will not repeat them, but I do find it interesting that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has chosen to retain the offence of assisting and encouraging suicide. This is because two arguments made by proponents of the Bill lead to the logical conclusion that the offence should either be repealed entirely or limited to self-conduct, as is the case in Switzerland. Let us look at the two arguments in turn.

The first argument relates to autonomy. If an autonomous individual with capacity decides to end their own life and requests the assistance of another person, why should that other person be criminalised? After all, that person is simply helping another person to do something to their own body that the law has not prohibited since 1961, so surely it is a violation of autonomy to criminalise such conduct of assisting in suicide.

Lord Mance, a former justice of the Supreme Court, put the matter as follows on Second Reading of the Meacher Bill in the other place:

“Suicide is decriminalised, yet assisting suicide remains criminal—probably a unique exception to the principle that you can only be an accomplice to an act that is itself criminal.”

It is bizarre that the act is not itself criminal but being an accomplice to it is. Lord Mance went on to say:

“If a person may choose freely to commit suicide, what justifies a refusal to allow them to obtain willing assistance?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2021; Vol. 815, c. 408.]

I believe in the value of a prohibition on assistance, but the logic of the argument from autonomy—that someone should be allowed to request assistance to help them to die—surely obviates the distinction. I do not see why we have kept section 2 at all, and I would be interested in hearing from the supporters of the Bill what the limiting principle is. Why do they think assisted suicide should remain a crime, despite its being a limitation on autonomy, outside the scheme created by the Bill? Why are we simply creating a scheme within the Bill?

The second argument given, which I think relates to the intervention from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central and to the point made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, is based on the fact that the current law requires people to travel to Switzerland. The argument against the current system comes in three forms. One stresses the toll that it places on families to know that the people who assist have committed a criminal offence and could be investigated by the police, even though the chances of prosecution are remote. I fully recognise and share all the concerns among Members about the terrible distress faced by people who may in any way have assisted their loved one to take their own life.

The second objection to the status quo makes the point about the unfairness that the situation creates. The hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) said on Second Reading:

“I do not want choice to be available only to those who can afford to pay. That is not just or equitable.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 797, c. 1073.]

The suggestion is that to have to pay to go to Switzerland is a violation of equality.

The third is a constitutional argument. It is said that it is constitutionally improper for the Director of Public Prosecutions to have effectively decriminalised assisted suicide for people who travel to Switzerland. But the point I am trying to make is that under the Bill, anyone helping their relative to travel to Switzerland, or any other country, would still be committing an offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act.

Research from My Death, My Decision, a campaign group pushing for a wider Bill than the current one—it supports the Bill but clearly wants it to go further—has found that 50% of cases going to Dignitas would not be eligible under the Bill. It helps to make my point, which is that I am afraid that if the Bill were passed we would still have stories like the very moving testimony read out by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, there is a significant likelihood that there would be more prosecutions. If the Bill were enacted, the conclusion of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police might well be that, given the existence of an assisted dying regime within the UK, assisting one’s relative to go to Switzerland should be subject to a greater likelihood of prosecution. That is a legitimate concern.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is actually one that I made yesterday. I appreciate that we are on entirely different sides of the debate, but that is exactly why I was talking about ensuring wider eligibility—the point he makes in relation to My Death, My Decision—and ensuring the provision of assistance for people who might have illnesses such as motor neurone disease. We have had to put a cut-off somewhere, and some people fall outside it, but does he accept that fundamentally this is about making sure that there are safeguards? That is the key point: that we should ensure safeguards. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is exactly that.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful. With great respect to other members of the Committee, I think the hon. Gentleman is the most honest advocate of assisted dying among us, because he genuinely recognises that autonomy demands the widest possible range of eligibility. It might be that other Members feel that we have the balance exactly right. I recognise the force of his argument that if we are going to introduce a new human right, it is very difficult to circumscribe its boundaries. He himself thinks that there should be some boundaries: he proposed an amendment that specified 12 months, and he thinks that only certain people should be able to ask someone else to perform assisted death to them. Nevertheless, he is acknowledging that if we believe in autonomy, the Bill would not satisfy some people.

I think it would be intellectually coherent and more logical for proponents of the Bill to want to repeal section 2 of the Suicide Act, and I do not understand why they are not doing so. We could certainly continue to insist on prohibitions against any form of coercion, persuasion or inducement to take one’s own life, but if somebody is clearly in their right mind and wants to receive assistance to kill themselves, that is the principle of the Bill. It would be neater if we amended the Suicide Act accordingly.

The fact that proponents do not want to do so suggests that they see some value in the law and that they consider that that value trumps concerns about autonomy and the impact of the law on family members of someone who wishes to travel to Switzerland to end their life. I agree that there are such principles—namely, the intrinsic value of life and the protection of the vulnerable—but I do not see why proponents of the Bill consider that such principles trump autonomy when it comes to terminally ill adults in England.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. My remarks, as ever, will focus on the legal and practical impact of the amendments to assist Members in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny. In exercising our duties to ensure that legislation that is passed is legally robust and workable, the Government have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to reflect her intent.

Clause 24, as amended by amendments 504 and 505, will mean that individuals who assist a person to end their life in accordance with the terms of the Bill are not subject to criminal prosecution. Currently, it is a criminal offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 for a person to do an act that is

“capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person”

and intended

“to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.”

That offence attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. Amendment 504 would amend clause 24(1) to ensure that a person is not guilty of an offence—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order.

14:46

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

16:09

On resuming—

[Sarah Sackman]

I was introducing amendment 504, which amends clause 24(1) to ensure that a person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of providing assistance in accordance with, or performing a function under, the Bill—for example, by undertaking the first or second assessment or providing the approved substance. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that a person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with the Bill. The phrase “in accordance with” the Bill is key. For example, where someone accompanies a person to the appointment at which they will self-administer the substance, the amendment would carve out any criminal liability for the accompanying person.

As originally drafted, the wording would have limited the protection offered by subsection (1) to the far narrower situation of the medical professionals providing assistance under clause 18. The amendment will give effect to the policy intent of the hon. Member for Spen Valley of applying that protection to all those who provide assistance in accordance with, or by performing a function under, the Bill. Subsection (2) clarifies that the clause does not override other ways in which a court may find that a person is not guilty of an offence.

Clause 24(3) inserts proposed new section 2AA into the Suicide Act 1961. As amended by amendment 505, that new section ensures that it is not an offence under the Suicide Act to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life by doing anything under the Bill. That is for the same reasons that I set out in relation to subsection (1). The new section also provides a defence to the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide, where a person reasonably believes that they were acting in accordance with the Bill, and that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.

Taken as a package, the effect of these amendments is to make the Bill legally workable. To do that, it is necessary to ensure that those who assist a person to use the lawful route are not then subject to criminal liability for doing so. Clause 24 clause, taken together with amendments 504 and 505, gives effect to that.

Let me address some of the issues raised by Opposition Members. There was a question as to whether there is any overlap between offences under the Bill—we will come to some of those offences in due course with clauses 26 and 27—and offences that remain on the statute book under the Suicide Act. The short answer to the question from the hon. Member for Reigate, although I know she has written to my Department, and I will ensure that she receives a full written answer, is that it would remain an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 to encourage suicide, including an assisted death under this Bill.

To the extent that any overlapping offences remain, that is not an unusual approach to drafting in the criminal law. However, the effect of the clause is that it would remain an offence under the 1961 Act to encourage someone to commit suicide. Where a person’s “encouragement”—the hon. Member focused on that term—is such that it amounts to what the courts would understand to be pressure or coercion, that could be an offence under clause 26, which we will come to. As I said, it is not unusual to have a degree of overlap in criminal offences. Again, what someone is charged and prosecuted with falls to the prosecutor, depending on the specific circumstances of the case and what would be most appropriate in that scenario.

I also want to address the scenario that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire posited, about whether a pharmacist who acted in a way that amounted to gross negligence manslaughter would benefit from immunity under clause 24(1) as amended. Again, with the important caveat that it will depend on the particular facts of the case, the offence of gross negligence manslaughter is committed where a death is the result of gross negligence in what would otherwise be a lawful act or omission on the part of the defendant, and where the defendant owes a duty of care to the victim—there are a number of actors within the Bill’s process who owe a duty of care to the person applying for assisted dying.

Let us assume for a moment that, in the hon. Member’s scenario, we do have gross negligence manslaughter on the particular facts; in those circumstances, the Government are content that the pharmacist could not be properly said to be performing a function under the Bill, or in accordance with the Bill, so clause 24(1)—the carve-out from criminal liability—would not apply. I think that that covers most of the questions that were posited earlier.

[Danny Kruger]

It may well be that the Minister has clarified the case sufficiently, but will she explain something for my sake? She is suggesting that the pharmacist inadvertently but negligently caused the death of a patient, having performed the duties under the Bill and believing that they were doing so. Surely, they were performing duties under the Bill, so they would potentially be captured by the carve-out.

[Sarah Sackman]

Again, it would depend on the actual facts. However, if they were attempting to perform duties under the Bill, it is highly unlikely that, in circumstances where the facts establish and meet the threshold of gross negligence manslaughter, they could be said to have carried out those duties in accordance with the Bill. They might have been carrying out duties that they thought were what the Bill prescribed, but if they have done that in such a way that it amounts to gross negligence manslaughter, then clause 24(1) would not apply.

The hon. Gentleman makes the point about what the pharmacist in that scenario believes they are doing; that belief has to be reasonable, and that is a test that our courts are well used to applying. That is why the amendments introduce the belief that someone is acting in accordance with the Bill. It is not enough that they think they are doing it; it has to be a reasonable belief. That is an objective standard.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the Minister for those helpful clarifications. Was any consideration given to also exempting encouragement as an offence under the Suicide Act? I am interested in why it was not exempted in the same way as assistance, particularly given that if it did fall within coercion and pressure—based on what the Minister said—it would get picked up as a criminal offence anyway under the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister will write to me on some of this, but the issue comes back to what is encouragement. As the hon. Member for Spen Valley set out—

[The Chair]

Order. As I have said time after time, if it is a question of receiving clarification, Members should keep their comments short, rather than expanding on them.

[Rebecca Paul]

My apologies, Mr Dowd, but it is a technical point. I think the Minister understands what I am asking.

[Sarah Sackman]

Helpfully, the hon. Member has also set out her questions fully and precisely in a letter to me, so I think I know what she is asking and I will try and answer it as best I can. I reiterate, as I and the Minister for Care have said throughout, that the policy choices have been for the promoter—the Government remain neutral. The offence of encouraging or assisting suicide or attempted suicide in section 2 of the Suicide Act is well established. Encouraging someone to go through the assisted dying process under the Bill with the intention of encouraging suicide or an attempt at suicide would therefore remain a criminal offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act. That is what I made clear earlier.

What we are talking about will always depend on the particular circumstances of the case. It is the Government’s view that in a scenario—I think this is what the hon. Member for Reigate is getting at—where a family member or friend simply suggests to a person with a terminal condition that the option of assisted death under the Bill is something they may wish to consider, and nothing more, it is unlikely—dare I say, inconceivable—that that would amount to an offence under the 1961 Act.

However, if someone encourages a person in a more tangible way, such as encouraging or pressuring them to make the first declaration, that could well amount to an offence under the 1961 Act. Where that encouragement crosses the threshold into what, interpreted in line with their natural meaning, the courts would understand as pressure or coercion, that could amount to an offence under clause 26 of the Bill, which we will come to in due course. I hope that that addresses the hon. Lady’s question. I will set that out to her in writing, and she is welcome to write back if there is any ambiguity.

I hope that that assists the Committee. I am going to sit down before anybody else intervenes.

[The Chair]

May I make an observation? I understand where the hon. Member for Reigate is coming from, but if letters have gone back and forth to the Department and other Committee members are not privy to what they say, the debate gets a little abstract. That is all I am trying to get to—we should not get too abstract, so that everybody knows what is being said.

[Rebecca Paul]

I appreciate that, Mr Dowd, which is why I was elaborating—I wanted to make sure that everyone understood the nature of the question without having seen the letter. In order to summarise, following your instruction, I refer to the letter.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 504 agreed to.

Amendment made: 505, in clause 24, page 15, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert

“—

(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025, or performing any other function under that Act in accordance with that Act, or

(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act, in connection with the doing of anything under that Act.”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment ensures that it is not an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Civil liability for providing assistance

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 501, in clause 25, page 15, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) The doing of any of the following does not, of itself, give rise to any civil liability—

(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with this Act;

(b) performing any other function under this Act in accordance with this Act;

(c) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with this Act, in connection with the doing of anything under this Act.

(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply—

(a) in relation to an act done dishonestly, or in some other way done otherwise than in good faith, or

(b) to any liability in tort arising from a breach of a duty of care owed to a person.”.

This amendment ensures that the exclusion from civil liability applies in relation to persons performing functions under the Bill, and persons assisting a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of things under the Bill. It also excepts, from the exclusion from civil liability, things done dishonestly or not in good faith, and any liability arising out of negligence.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 502, in clause 25, page 15, line 34, after “life” insert

“, or to attempt to do so,”.

This amendment and amendment 503 are consequential on amendment 501.

Amendment 503, Clause 25, page 15, line 36, leave out subsection (3).

See the statement for amendment 502.

Clause stand part.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The amendments ensure that the exclusion from civil liability applies in relation to persons performing functions under the Bill and persons assisting a person seeking to end their own life in connection with the doing of things under the Bill. Importantly, they also rightly exempt from the exclusion from civil liability things done dishonestly or not in good faith, and any liability arising from negligence.

Proposed new subsection (1) in amendment 501 makes it clear that anyone providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Bill will not face civil liability simply for doing so. That is crucial in offering clarity and confidence for healthcare professionals, family members or others who might otherwise hesitate due to fear of being sued for assisting a loved one or patient who wishes to end their life as a result of their terminal illness.

However, although we are providing protection, amendment 501 does not allow for unfettered actions without any accountability. Proposed new subsection (1A) ensures that any actions that are dishonest or done in bad faith are not protected from civil liability. Additionally, it states that breaches of a duty of care, such as negligence, are also not exempt from liability. This provision is a critical safeguard. It ensures that, although we provide legal protection for those acting with compassion and integrity, we also prevent exploitation or irresponsible actions, by making it clear that there is no immunity for actions that are dishonest or negligent. That strikes the right balance between compassionate assistance and legal accountability.

The amendment particularly reassures doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers—those who are most likely to be involved in the process. Often, they are deeply committed to palliative care and to supporting patients through their end of life journey, and the amendment ensures that they will not face legal risk if they provide assistance to eligible individuals under the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

I rise to speak to clause 25 as a whole. First, though, I welcome the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, because I recognise that she is attempting to fix a problem with the Bill.

However, I am afraid that my objection remains: the fact is that no other assisted suicide law in the world—including in common law jurisdictions similar to our own, such as Australia or New Zealand—has such a clause. There can be no justification for it. If, in the course of providing assistance under this Bill, a doctor commits a civil wrong, they ought to be liable for it in the usual way.

I am glad the hon. Lady has realised that a total exclusion of civil liability is not justifiable, but her change does not go far enough. Her amendments would preserve civil liability where an act was done dishonestly—not in good faith—or for liability in tort, based on the breach of a duty of care, or in other words the tort of negligence. However, it is worth noting that that still excludes civil liability in other respects, and we should ask whether that is justifiable.

First, the clause would still exclude civil liability under a contract, so a patient who has received improper care in breach of contract would not fall within either of the exceptions of proposed new subsection (1A). I take the point that, in the case of negligent care, there would often be a concurrent liability under the tort of negligence, and that that is preserved by new subsection (1A)(b), but that is not the case for other forms of contractual arrangements.

That might be particularly relevant in the situation of subcontracting. An example would be where an outsourcing company is tasked with transporting the lethal substance. Given the risks involved, the contract specifies strict rules that must be complied with, but the company does not comply with those rules. Under clause 25, even as amended, my concern is that they could not be sued for that breach of contract. What is the justification for excluding civil liability in contracts?

Secondly, there is the tort of trespass to the person, which is commonly relevant to medical practice, as it is under such torts that cases where there was no consent or capacity are handled. Those torts can be committed recklessly, but recklessness is not the same as bad faith or dishonesty, so liability could not be established under new subsection (1A)(a). Such torts are also different from negligence—they do not involve a duty of care—so they would not be covered by new subsection (1A)(b). I appreciate that, in many cases, liability could also be established under the tort of negligence, but that would not be the case in all cases. So I ask again: what is the justification for this exclusion?

Finally, and most concerning, we were told in previous debates that if it turned out that the criteria for an assisted death were not met, one could always apply for an injunction. Leaving aside the practical and financial obstacles involved in seeking an injunction at the last minute, which we have discussed before, my concern is that a private law injunction requires that a civil wrong either has been committed or is about to be committed. However, in a case where the doctors consider, in good faith and without negligence, that the criteria have been met, but the family has new evidence to show that that is not the case, the effect of clause 25, even as amended, would be that no civil wrong has been, or would be, committed in that instance, so the test for a private law injunction would not be met.

I might be wrong, so I would be interested to hear whether the Minister or the hon. Member for Spen Valley disagree with that analysis. I would be grateful if they could point out how the private law test for an interim injunction is met in such an instance.

All this could be much simpler if clause 25 were left out of the Bill entirely. Australia and New Zealand do not have such a clause or a civil liability exemption for practitioners of assisted suicide, and I am not aware of that having caused problems for practitioners, so I would be interested to understand why we need such a measure here.

16:30

I understand that Members might be concerned about vexatious litigation but, first, if such claims are meritless there is no need for this provision, as the courts already have the power to deal with vexatious litigation. Secondly, the clause, with or without the amendments, will not be enough to stop vexatious litigation if it occurs. The strongest protection would be to retain the role of the High Court judge. In that way, the fact that the criteria have been met has been established by a court, and that makes it very unlikely that another court would want to reopen the matter. We have not done that, and we are left with this civil liability exemption, which remains too wide. I welcome the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, but they do not go far enough. I believe the whole clause is unnecessary and should be removed.

[Jake Richards]

I welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. As I think she accepts, given that she tabled the amendments, there is an oddity with the Bill as drafted that has to be fixed, and I think the amendments would do that.

I appreciate that there is some force to the argument of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. I would be interested to hear what the Minister says, but it seems to me that there is a balancing act between ensuring that medical practitioners and clinicians are working in an environment in which they do not constantly feel the heat of a lawyer’s breath on their neck, and ensuring protections. There is some force to the argument for removing the clause altogether, but on balance I see more force in the argument that we should have more clarity.

I want to raise some more issues that need to be considered in the light of the provision for aspects of civil liability in this process. That is why last night I supported the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, which was not passed, relating to guidance for doctors in certain circumstances during this process. I raise those points about the standard of care and the duty that doctors and clinicians will be working to throughout the process for the record, and so that the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley can take them forward. I raise those questions not because they are unanswerable—I think they are answerable—but because we need to work out exactly what we are asking our doctors to work to, and what form that guidance comes in. Does it need to be legitimised by Parliament, or can it be undertaken by a Minister?

I do not think I need to expand greatly on the point, but we can all imagine circumstances in which clinicians are compromised in their view of the duty of care that they have to the patient. When this process begins in this jurisdiction, it needs to be clear what that is.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Well done for arriving on time, by the way.

These amendments aim to ensure that, if passed, this legislation will be legally and operationally workable. I will offer a technical, factual explanation and rationale for them. Amendments 501, 502 and 503 replace clause 25(1) and instead provide that the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill will, of itself, not give rise to civil liabilities in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are where an individual provides assistance in accordance with the Bill, where an individual performs any other function under the Bill in accordance with the Bill, and where an individual assists a person seeking to end their life under the Bill, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill. Proposed new subsection (1A) would create an exception to the exclusion of civil liabilities, providing that civil liabilities can arise in cases when an act is performed dishonestly or otherwise than in good faith, as well as in cases of negligence. Without this amendment, there is the possibility that clause 25(1) could provide blanket immunity to a person from all civil liabilities, even when they may have been negligent in their actions in providing assistance in accordance with the provisions in the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will speak briefly on this issue. An important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley about the protections that clause 25 and these amendments provide for medical practitioners. I think the clause strikes the right balance, but it is important to remove the blanket immunity. My hon. Friend referred to codes of practice and codes of conduct. We have talked a lot about good medical practice from the General Medical Council, and we have a clause in the Bill on codes of practice. I feel confident in the clause, but I am still having regular meetings with officials about the legal implications of the Bill. I will continue those conversations, but I am happy that the clause as it stands serves the correct purpose.

[Kit Malthouse]

Will the hon. Lady respond to the point about injunctions? The Minister might want to respond to this as well. My understanding is that in order to obtain an injunction, someone does not have to establish that there is either a civil wrong or a criminal offence. They have to establish that there is a serious matter to be adjudicated, and that there is a strong likelihood of harm taking place. In those circumstances, a court would consider granting an interim injunction, subject then to a further hearing, ex parte or otherwise. The idea that some kind of civil tort needs to be established is not actually correct in seeking an injunction.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That would be my understanding as well, but I am not a lawyer. Fortunately, a lawyer just tried to intervene on me, so he might want to step in.

[Jake Richards]

My intervention is on something completely different. I have been reminded that in Australia, there is a specific clause that relates to the provision in this amendment almost word for word, so I think the hon. Member for East Wiltshire may have been incorrect in his comments.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Unless the Minister has anything to add on injunctions—

[The Chair]

Order. Can the Committee address all remarks to me, please? I have said this time after time. This is not a dialogue or a chit-chat across the room.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you, Chair.

[Sarah Sackman]

I will address the point about injunctions, which we have touched on at a number of junctures in our debate. In terms of applying for an interim injunction in a civil case, a very well-established test is the American Cyanamid test, which all the lawyers in the room would have learned at law school. The first of those tests is, “Is there a serious issue to be tried?” Someone does not have to establish to the civil standard—

[The Chair]

Order. Can we get the order of debate right? Members may make a speech for as long as they want, on the issues they want. They may intervene to get clarity from another Member, but that has to be short and sweet. There is nothing to stop a Member from making another speech, even if they have spoken before. I exhort Members, if they want clarity, to make a speech separately, unless it is a very short intervention. If it is going to be a long intervention, they may well want to make another de facto speech and get clarity through that. They are entitled to stand up as much as they want. I am not encouraging Members to do that, but that is the gist. If the Minister wants to stand up again and clarify the point in its own speech, that is fine.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you, Chair, and apologies. I thank the Minister for the intervention and I think she did make the point that needed to be made.

[The Chair]

I hope my remarks were of some help. I might repeat them again in due course.

Amendment 501 agreed to.

Amendments made: 502, in clause 25, page 15, line 34, after “life” insert

“, or to attempt to do so,”.

This amendment and amendment 503 are consequential on amendment 501.

Amendment 503, in clause 25, page 15, line 36, leave out subsection (3).—(Kim Leadbeater.)

See the statement for amendment 502.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Division 66

Ayes: 17

Noes: 5

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Dishonesty, coercion or pressure

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 506, in clause 26, page 16, line 7, leave out “in accordance with” and insert “under”.

This amendment provides that the offence under subsection (2) applies in relation to an approved substance provided under the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 507, in clause 26, page 16, line 9, leave out “or (2)”.

This amendment limits subsection (3) to offences under subsection (1).

Amendment 508, in clause 26, page 16, line 10, at end insert—

“(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (2) is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.”

This amendment provides for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for an offence under subsection (2).

Amendment 509, in clause 26, page 16, line 10, at end insert—

“(5) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

This amendment provides that proceedings for an offence under this clause may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Clause stand part.

[Kim Leadbeater]

These amendments to clause 26—and clause 27 to some degree, which I will come on to shortly—are intended to clarify offences under the law. The changes refine the language to ensure that offences relating to dishonesty, coercion and pressure are more clearly defined. The amendments serve to clarify the details of four categories of offences, and I will provide a summary of the four categories.

The first category is when someone

“by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to self-administer an approved substance”.

This offence, in clause 26(2), is the most serious offence. It is coercing or pressuring someone to take their own life; it includes coercive control and pressure, and it attracts as the maximum a life sentence—the most severe punishment that the law can impose.

The second category of offences includes

“by dishonesty, coercion or pressure,”

inducing

“another person to make a first or second declaration, or not to cancel such a declaration.”

This is in clause 26(1). It is where the criminal conduct has coerced or pressured someone to execute or not cancel the declarations—a step in the process, but not actually ending their own life. It is the second most serious offence, and attracts a maximum of 14 years in prison.

The third category of offences involves making or using a false instrument—first declaration, second declaration, medical report or within-six-months-or-less diagnosis—or failing to notify the cancellation of a relevant declaration, with the intention of facilitating the provision of assistance under the Act. That actually comes under new clause 24, which will be discussed in relation to clause 27, but I think it is important to look at the offences in the round. This is the third type of offence. It is a new offence, and it covers cases where a person helps another person to obtain assistance under the Act by falsifying documents to get that assistance or to prevent it from being removed. This is still very serious, and attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years. It will most often be applied where the person seeking the assistance wishes to get round the safeguards. The safeguards must be rigorously enforced, hence the same maximum as for the second category of offence.

16:45

The fourth category of offence involves making or knowingly using a false instrument which purports to be a first declaration, second declaration, certificate of eligibility, or relevant medical certificate, or wilfully ignores a cancellation of a first or second declaration, or fails to comply with the cancellation. This fourth category of offence is designed to deal with any failure, with knowledge, to comply with the requirements of the Bill in relation to documentation. This carries a maximum of five years in prison. This is different from category 3, because it does not depend on proving that the intention is to facilitate the provision of assistance. This is designed to deal with any case where the doctor or other person knows there is something wrong with the relevant document yet continues to use it, or inserts material into the document that is false. It does not matter why they have done it.

The original draft had a potential life sentence for someone who uses the false instrument with the intention of causing death. Having spoken to criminal law experts, we recognise the need for differing degrees of seriousness. I consider that the life sentence should be available, but for the most serious offence, which is coercing or pressuring someone to take their own life. That is reflected in clause 26(2).

Of the four sentencing categories in the Bill, categories 2 and 3 carry the same maximum sentence as the current “assisting or encouraging” offence under the Suicide Act 1961. Therefore, 2 and 3 correctly mirror the activity under the existing law. However, category 1 exceeds anything in the current law. This is because the Bill, for the first time, captures coercion and control in the way that so many who are cautious about the Bill want; and I agree with that. In other words, the protection for the vulnerable enshrined in the new Bill goes further than existing law. That is why the Bill is the answer for those who worry about terminally ill people who may succumb to family pressure to end their life. Category 4 is also new, meaning the types of offending and the sentencing powers that follow mean the Bill is comprehensive and caters for levels of seriousness where the current law is silent.

Amendment 509 ensures that prosecution for any offence under this clause can only be initiated by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is an important safeguard, ensuring that prosecutions are handled with the utmost care and consideration. By involving the Director of Public Prosecutions, we make sure that decisions to prosecute are made fairly, consistently and with proper oversight. This also aligns the approach to assisted dying with the principles of prosecutorial discretion seen in the Suicide Act. This will ensure that cases are reviewed for their individual circumstances before a decision to prosecute is made, ensuring that the individual circumstances of the case are assessed based on the case’s merits. The amendments refine and clarify the Bill’s provisions by ensuring that legal terminology is more precise, penalties are more aligned with the seriousness of offences, and stronger oversight mechanisms such as the DPP’s consent for prosecutions are in place. They aim to protect the integrity of the assisted dying system while offering greater accountability, punishment and deterrence against fraudulent or coercive practices.

[Rebecca Paul]

I will be fairly brief. I welcome amendment 508, which would ensure that conviction for the offence leads to a necessarily serious result. However, it is not just the strength of the sentence that we need to think about; there is also a question about how difficult it can be to detect and demonstrate coercion in the first place.

Domestic abuse prosecutions have followed an overall downward trend over the past decade, according to Women’s Aid. A report from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in January found the criminal justice system unfit to hold abusers to account and safeguard domestic abuse victims. Domestic abuse victims are being failed by the criminal justice system at every stage, from police to probation. Victims seeking safety in justice routinely face a lack of specialist service referrals, poor enforcement of protective orders, court delays and early release of abusers. The commissioner also found that just 5% of police-recorded domestic abuse offences reached conviction and that less than a fifth of victims have the confidence to report to the police in the first place. Within the police workforce itself, only 4% of alleged domestic abuse perpetrators are dismissed.

Women’s Aid says that trust in the criminal justice system is at an all-time low, with domestic abuse survivors not feeling that they will be believed and supported when reporting abuse. That is even more challenging for black and minoritised survivors, who face additional barriers and poor responses when they seek help.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady is making a point that we have already covered several times in the debate. It is an important point, but I hope that she is reassured by the offences to be included in the Bill, which create sentences that do not currently exist.

[Rebecca Paul]

I am absolutely reassured by the hon. Lady’s amendment, and I welcome it, but it is worth drawing attention to the fact that the sentence is important but identifying coercion and pressure can be difficult too.

In written evidence, a social worker called Rose has cast doubt on the workability of the Bill. She was writing when the High Court safeguard was still part of the Bill, so we need to bear that in mind, but what she said applies to the panel too. She wrote that

“based on lived experience…there is no authentic provision mechanism or route that cheaply and swiftly would allow an approved palliative care professional…or social worker to act to protect a vulnerable person under the grounds of coercion….Place yourself in a position of being sick or older, coerced by family for financial gain or by a practitioner wanting to save public costs to pursue assisted suicide, the social worker senses it by body language, a squeezing of their wrist, a sharp silencing look. Can you see a judge saying: ‘the social worker sensed a tension in the air and a look’.

Do you think that would serve to reach the threshold to override a request for assisted suicide in a court of law?

In practice, what would happen would be, the social worker will record her concerns on the system, share them with her manager who will go to her manager who will say we do not have funds to consult legal and your evidence provided does not reach threshold anyway.”

[The Chair]

Order. I am genuinely trying to give as much latitude as possible, but the issue of coercion has come up before. In the context of the offence, I am not sure that this is necessarily pertinent or relevant. Will the hon. Lady bear that in mind during her speech, please?

[Rebecca Paul]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. In that case, I will stop there. I was just making the point that this is important.

Amendment 509 states:

“Proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

I would find it useful to have more clarity around how the offence is used currently, why it is used and why it is appropriate to use it in this instance. Those are all genuine questions. I simply do not know, so I would be grateful for some input. I will leave it there.

[Danny Kruger]

I will be grateful if the Minister or the hon. Member for Spen Valley can explain the situations in which behaviour criminalised by clause 26(2) would not also amount to an offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act, as amended, or indeed to murder. What behaviour would be criminalised here that is not already criminal? Can the hon. Lady think of any instance in which there would be no crime under section 2 of the Suicide Act, but there would be an offence under clause 26(2)? If there is no such instance—I cannot think of one—it strikes me that, at least in respect of coercion and pressure, the offence being created here is redundant and duplicative.

Ministers have rightly stressed the importance of their duty to the statute book. My understanding is that having redundant or duplicative legislation, or indeed duplicative offences, would be inconsistent with our duty to the statute book. One might ask, “What does it matter? Wouldn’t it be helpful to have additional belt-and-braces safeguards in the Bill?” I agree in principle, but I note that when other Members have deployed that argument in relation to adding terms such as “undue influence”, the neutral Ministers have rebuked them by appealing to the duty that we are supposed to have to the statute book. I think the point cuts both ways. Why are we embroidering the statute book with duplicative offences?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I would have thought, given the hon. Gentleman’s views on the Bill, that he would welcome having an actual offence for the purposes of the Bill. Surely that is something that we should all support.

[Danny Kruger]

I support the principle of insisting that inducing people by dishonesty, coercion or pressure to kill themselves should be illegal, but my understanding is that it already is. If it is not illegal, or if there are circumstances in which we need this additional offence that are not already captured by the Suicide Act or the law on murder, I would like to understand what they are. As I say, while it might be helpful to duplicate the offence, I understand that the very sensible convention in our law is that it is not helpful to have two offences relating to the same act because of the opportunity for offenders to play off one offence against the other.

Having duplicative criminal offences can make prosecuting cases harder because the defendant can raise abuse-of-process arguments about whether they have been charged with the most appropriate offence. I understand that the Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice are therefore usually very keen to avoid duplicative offences.

Let me give an example of the difference in the treatment of the offence. It is proposed that this offence would be subject to a life sentence, which requires the consent of the DPP. But at least in the one case where it overlaps with murder, this would provide a more favourable treatment for the accused than the other obvious charge. Can that be justified?

Duplicating criminal liability by introducing new offences has far-reaching implications that can disturb the coherence and certainty of criminal law. If one introduces a law that gives prosecutors two criminal offences to choose from to cover one act, some prosecutors will choose one and some will choose the other. This is generally undesirable; indeed, it is unprecedented in the case of homicide, where there is every reason to suspect that it could cause chaos for grieving families in search of justice. Such chaos is all too predictable, for a number of reasons.

Let me give an example. A defendant proven to have procured a suicide by deception will be well advised to plead guilty to the offence contrary to section 26(2) and then contest any attempt to introduce murder proceedings. This matters profoundly. A decision to prosecute is an administrative decision and is subject to judicial review. This is not an academic point; it could cause real distress for bereaved families in deep turmoil seeking justice.

Let us imagine that a person, A, is a new coercive and controlling partner of person B and procures by deception their suicide in order to profit from a will. The family of person B grow suspicious and provide the police with a convincing case for a murder prosecution. The CPS agrees and charges A with murder. A accepts that he procured the suicide by deception. On that basis, he appeals, seeking a remedy in judicial review, saying that the CPS should have charged him with a clause 26(2) offence, not murder. The JR is backed by wealthy pressure groups and is beset with administrative adjournments and so on. From the filing of the claim form to the final judgment of the administrative court within the High Court, the case takes 24 gruelling, painful, awful months for the bereaved family.

Throughout this time, the lawyers for A, the defendant, tell him to stay the course and continue to offer the plea to section 26(2), because the family will be exhausted by the reality of litigation. The family have no legal aid, no support, no charity backing and no one interested in their case. The war of attrition in litigation finally defeats them. They advise the CPS that they will accept a plea under the section 26(2) offence, and not the murder that actually occurred. That is the reality of duplicating criminal liability. In that example, A has got away with murder by judicial review.

We must be clear about what we are being asked to do. It is not simple. We are being asked to innovate in the law of murder. We are being asked to do so without the assistance of the Law Commission, without the careful eye of legal or judicial bodies alive to the difficulties of duplicating liability and without the input of any bodies that represent the victims of crime on how this might affect them. There are no Government consultations with such bodies before us. There is no expert assistance from judicial or legal figures on how the good intentions around clause 26(2) might unintentionally lead to serious and undesirable consequences such as those that I have described.

17:00

We cannot legislate in the dark on a matter so serious. If the law of murder is to be altered so fundamentally, these questions cannot remain open. They cannot be passed over to the CPS and the judiciary. They cannot be left like a ticking time bomb for someone else to address. Whether Committee members support or oppose this legislation overall does not matter for these purposes; there is a direct challenge here to the integrity of the statute book.

We cannot risk an innovation in the law of murder with the unintended consequence that some murders go unprosecuted and unpunished. We must pass quality law that solves rather than creates problems. I do not intend to oppose the amendments, except amendment 509, as I do not see why the consent of the DPP should be required in the case of dishonesty, coercion or pressure. It is good that there is clarity on what people are prohibited from doing, but I am anxious that the Government discharge their duty to the statute book and that they do so in an even-handed manner.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, who has raised some concerns for me. I rise to speak in support of the amendments, but also to raise some points. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but let me begin by speaking about the bits that I feel pleased with and able to support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has already explained the amendments and may explain them more later. I am pleased that they tidy up errors in the original construction of the Bill. In its original form, subsection (2) rightly states:

“A person who, by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to self-administer an approved substance provided in accordance with this Act commits an offence.”

Unfortunately, in the Bill as drafted, the penalty for such an act is only a prison sentence of 14 years. It is quite right for that to be the penalty for the offence detailed in subsection (1), namely when someone,

“by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to make a first or second declaration”,

but does not actually succeed in getting them to the end of the assisted dying process. However, it is easy to agree that 14 years is an inadequate penalty for successfully coercing or pressurising somebody into an assisted death. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has recognised that problem and has tabled an amendment that would impose a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for such an offence.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central made a powerful speech in this Committee the other day, in which he said that abusive or coercive people are already likely to be forcing their victims to starve themselves or refuse treatment. That is true, and I thank him for raising that important point. I will welcome all measures to make it harder for abusers to do so and will gladly work with hon. Members to do so. However, I want to sound a strong note of caution.

Creating an offence and giving it a strong maximum penalty is only one of the ways to deter abuse and coercion, and perhaps the easiest. As I have mentioned before, the conviction rate for coercion is only about 4%. There are other things that we need to do to deter and prevent abuse. We need the people who may come into contact with it to be aware of what could happen; we need them to be able to spot the signs that it may be happening; we need ways to investigate those signs carefully. Only when we have done those things can we move on to the CPS potentially prosecuting somebody for an offence and, if they are found guilty by the court, to sentencing that person. Those are matters that this clause deals with, and they come at the end of a process.

I welcome the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), which makes training in domestic abuse and coercion mandatory for professionals working on assisted dying cases, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has accepted. However, new training on its own will not be enough to make it near-impossible for abusers to succeed. Having unfortunately had lots of experience in the area—having seen it in my own life, the lives of people close to me and the lives of constituents—I know that sometimes abusers are not subtle. Even so, they can be hard to catch, because their victims cannot recognise that they are being abused. The classic—I wish I had a pound for every time I heard it—is “He’s changed.” There are hundreds of justifications and some are very subtle indeed. These people can be very hard to catch, or they may never be caught at all.

I have heard hon. Members say—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said it earlier—that the Bill strengthens the safeguards around people who are terminally ill, because those are not there in the first place. I appreciate that idea, but that is just for those people who are terminally ill. I want to strengthen safeguards more generally. In some ways, the Bill offers people a new opportunity to be coercive, controlling and dishonest. That is why I have been banging on about safeguards so much in this Committee; perhaps people find it a bit much, but I do it because abusers are very persistent and clever people and we have to be clever and persistent in how we devise our safeguards against them.

Although I welcome the clause and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, I am disappointed that other safeguards have been rejected. I still say that the panel procedure could and should be much tougher. That would not guarantee that abusers would be caught, but it would make it more likely.

[The Chair]

Order. Members cannot continue to talk about the substance of amendments that have already been rejected, and we are now going into that territory. I am not going to stop the hon. Lady talking, but rehashing debates about amendments that we have already had is not in order.

[Naz Shah]

I apologise, Mr Dowd. I will not refer to them.

I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about DPP consent. I will be grateful if the Minister picks up some of these queries. In this place, we make laws. My experience of the law on forced marriage—I was a victim of forced marriage—was that we made a law but never got any convictions. Very little moved on it, because we already had laws in place to prosecute that offence. I am not saying that the same is happening here, but I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we may be making a law that already exists. If it already exists in the Suicide Act, are we just making a law for the sake of putting something on the statute book or on the face of the Bill?

We have talked a lot about how we should not complicate things. The word “complication” has been used quite a lot in this Committee. Are we adding another layer of complication by putting this measure in the Bill, when we are not prepared to do so for other things that people feel strongly about? This is also something that already exists.

My understanding is that if we were prosecuting coercion, for which unfortunately the prosecution rate is only 4%, that would not need DPP consent. It would be needed, potentially, for assisting suicide, but not for coercion. Do we need some clarity about the application of the law in this regard? Suppose we had a scenario in which somebody was murdered: it was premeditated, and somebody had thought through how to use this process as an avenue to kill that person. I do not want us to make a law that would allow somebody to literally get away with murder. More thought needs to be given to that. I am not an expert or an eminent lawyer like the Minister, but I am concerned by the comments of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, having looked more closely at the issue. I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 19 March 2025

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

Transport Connectivity: North-west England

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered improving transport connectivity in the North West.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am delighted to see so many Members here today. The issue at hand affects many constituencies in the north-west, including mine. Leigh and Atherton, once a beacon of industrial activity, lies between the great cities of Manchester and Liverpool. With our main source of industry gone, we are now part of a commuter belt, alongside constituencies such as those in St Helens, Warrington, Wigan and Salford. Our road networks, originally designed around mills and factories, now struggle to cope with the ever increasing volume of traffic, and I know the same is true in our neighbouring regions of Merseyside, Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria.

A lack of connectivity in one place affects another. Congestion that starts in Leigh does not just disappear when crossing a border; it blocks the roads of our nearest neighbours. The rush-hour struggle to connect to our motorway or city networks means that the A580 East Lancs Road is a source of constant annoyance for many. When my constituents are asked about public transport, they say that, without a rail or Metrolink connection in the centre of Leigh, buses are stuck in the same traffic—it is all part of the increasing frustration.

The lack of efficient transport links is a key barrier to growth. Leigh ranks in the top 1% of the country for transport-related social exclusion, meaning that people are unable to participate in routine, everyday activities because of a lack of viable travel options. A 2024 Transport for the North report highlighted that people in the north-west with access to a car can reach nearly six times as many jobs as those who rely on public transport. Poor connectivity, limited infrastructure and an overreliance on cars leads to high levels of social isolation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing a debate on this important issue, and I welcome her back to the House and wish her well. She is outlining the issues in the north-west. Does she agree that social isolation in rural areas in particular is exacerbated by infrequent, costly public transport, and if we in this United Kingdom are serious about addressing mental health concerns in our rural communities, we need to bring them out of isolation, physically as well as mentally?

[Jo Platt]

Yes, I do agree, particularly for those who are vulnerable due to age, poverty or disability, as this will have a hugely negative impact on their life chances.

This stark disparity underlines the need for better transport systems and new road networks—ones that boost economic productivity and ensure fairness and opportunity for all. Without the necessary infrastructure, these benefits will remain out of reach for far too many. The narrative often goes that people must leave to succeed, and I am determined to change that story.

We are a proud community, but we are often overlooked when it comes to investment. Growth goes where the growth already is, which stifles the potential for outside business investment and growth for existing businesses. Despite the many positives that Leigh and Atherton has to offer, we still see many young people with great potential leaving to seek opportunities elsewhere.

It can take over an hour and 40 minutes to travel the 18 miles from Leigh to Manchester airport by public transport, while a car journey takes only 30 minutes, if we are lucky—that is not in rush hour. This huge difference cannot be overlooked, especially given the economic and employment opportunities offered by Manchester airport, which provides thousands of jobs to the region. Many of my constituents are missing out on those opportunities due to poor transport links, or have no other option than to use their cars, which obviously does not help with emissions.

It is not just a matter of growth and job opportunities either. After speaking to our borough-wide police force, I discovered that response times in the Wigan borough are slower than in other Greater Manchester areas, and this is due to congestion. Our local health trust, operating sites in Wigan and Leigh, routinely factors in an hour’s travel time for consultants and staff moving between sites—it all adds up.

This is an injustice we must rectify. I am grateful to Wigan council for recognising the issue and its commitment to improving the situation. That aligns with the Government’s broader ambitions on education, skills, growth and revitalisation. Ideas for strengthening our higher education offer are met with questions about how students from the wider region will get there. And when Manchester United’s women’s team play at home, the challenge is how to get fans to the game at the wonderful Leigh sports village.

We have an issue, and we need more train and Metrolink routes in our region. Specifically, it is time to make the case for a Metrolink connection to Leigh. For our wider region, we need improved train frequency, better station accessibility, increased capacity at station car parks, and expanded park and ride facilities for key transport routes. I am sure other hon. Members will speak on those matters.

It is not all doom and gloom. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has done much to improve connectivity across the city region, including Leigh’s famous guided busway: the V1 in Leigh and the V2 in Atherton. Those services have been incredibly successful, with usage exceeding expectations. With the commitment of a £2 bus fare cap, people are using our Bee network more than ever. The next step is to fully integrate towns like Leigh into Greater Manchester’s transport system, making it easier for people to travel seamlessly across the region and unlocking the growth potential of the north-west.

The 2024 boundary changes brought two train stations into my constituency—Atherton and Hag Fold—which is a positive step forward. In addition, the Government’s recent announcement of the reopening of Golborne station brings much-needed investment into the area. I thank Andy Burnham—the Mayor of Greater Manchester —Transport for Greater Manchester, Wigan council and our local councillors for their continued work to make that campaign a reality.

I am also thrilled by the Government’s recent announcement that Leigh is one of the 75 places eligible for the plan for neighbourhoods, benefiting from £20 million-worth of funding over the next 10 years. With that funding, we have an opportunity to build on our strengths and unlock the potential of our high street. However, it is important to note that Leigh remains one of the largest towns in the country without a metro or train connection. This clear gap in our infrastructure must be addressed.

We must focus on linking not just Greater Manchester but Merseyside, Lancashire, Cheshire and Cumbria, and all the towns in between, including in my constituency. Those often overlooked towns, rural or coastal, are vital to the region’s growth and success. A strategic cross-boundary approach is essential if we are to grow a region that benefits everyone.

Will the Minister support us in that approach? Will he work with me to make the case for Metrolink in Leigh, as part of a connected transport system that benefits not only Leigh but my nearest neighbours? It is vital to focus on a strategic approach to managing connectivity in the north-west, connecting those areas to growth. Only then can we all thrive and fully participate in the region’s growth and prosperity.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

A lot of Members want to speak, and I want to accommodate everybody. The Opposition spokespeople have agreed to five minutes each, but the Minister will take the full 10 minutes. That will give everybody else four minutes.

09:39

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing a debate on this important topic for our constituents. Transport connectivity is about economic growth and opening up the world so that our constituents can make choices about their lives that allow them to fulfil their potential.

Reliable, affordable and accessible public transport is not just a convenience; it is an essential pillar of our economy, our communities and our future. Yet for too long the north-west has suffered from under-investment, unreliable rail services and disconnected transport networks that leave too many of our constituents struggling to get to work, school or essential services. That is why I am asking the Government for three things today. First, we need more frequent and reliable rail services with simple, affordable fares that encourage people back on to our trains. Secondly, I urge the Government to work with Stockport council and the Greater Manchester combined authority to bring Metrolink or tram-trains to my constituency. Thirdly, the Government need to make public transport the default for my constituents by expanding current bus and rail connections.

Many in my community and in the surrounding areas of Greater Manchester and beyond will remember the absolute chaos towards the end of last year when, almost every day, commuters on Northern-operated trains saw swathes of red cancellation notices. I received dozens of emails from constituents talking about how they could not rely on the trains to get to work or to pick up their children from school. Some even told me that they had to reject job offers because the trains were just too unreliable.

Since the pandemic, constituents commuting on the Rose Hill to Manchester Piccadilly line have faced an irregular timetable, and passenger numbers across the north-west have struggled to recover to pre-pandemic levels. I welcome the plan to integrate our trains, trams and buses, and I look forward to the streamlining of ticketing this will offer. However, it would be remiss of me not to mention that Metrolink does not yet extend into any part of Stockport. Our brilliant new interchange is Metrolink-ready, but we have no indication of when Metrolink will be ready for Stockport. We have even less idea of whether Metrolink or tram-trains will eventually reach into the towns and villages of my constituency.

Many of my residents have to rely on buses to get where they want to go, and some of those buses are not operated by the Bee network because we are right on the edge of Greater Manchester. We need more frequent bus services that link to our rail services, but the ridiculous traffic levels on the roads in my constituency will prevent them from reaching their potential. Whether it is the A6 or Stockport Road, journeys that normally take 20 minutes can take over an hour in the morning and evening rush hours. Public transport is the obvious solution. We should make it easier for those who can take the tram or the train so that the roads are freed up for those who cannot. Trams and trains offer commuters the ability to bypass rush hour congestion in a way that buses cannot.

Transport for Greater Manchester has an ambition to restore regular passenger rail services on the Stockport to Stalybridge line. This provides a unique opportunity to reduce rush hour journey times significantly for commuters heading to Stockport from my constituency. The rail line from Bredbury to Piccadilly crosses over the Stockport to Stalybridge line near Reddish Vale. I encourage the Department for Transport and TfGM to explore the possibility of linking those two lines, whether in the form of a new interchange station or a chord linking the two. The message from my constituents is clear: they need public transport that works for them. That means a railway system that people can rely on, bus routes that connect communities rather than isolate them, and investment in new transport links that drive economic growth.

09:43

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. In the few minutes available to me, I would like to put transport in the north-west into perspective. I would not like anything I say to be taken as a criticism of the mayor or of Transport for Greater Manchester. The Bee network, which is an excellent scheme, has put Greater Manchester to the situation London has had for the last 45 years, which we see as progress.

As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) has just said, investment in transport is vital for economic growth. However, when we look at the national objectives, and as we have seen forever—since the second world war—more money is going into London and the south-east than the north-west. For all of Transport for Greater Manchester’s successes, it has had to fight the Department for Transport to get extra investment for Metrolink and fight Labour and Conservative Ministers to get money for investment.

There is great potential in the north-west. In fact, we would get more out of investment in transport links in the north-west than the south-east, because of what we are, in effect, doing when we invest in London and the south-east. All transport investment creates jobs and growth, but in London and the south-east we are then, in effect, subsidising congestion, because we get so much congestion that we need more investment afterwards. That is not the situation in Greater Manchester and the north-west. I am not against the Lower Thames crossing, but three quarters of a billion pounds has already been spent on assessing whether it will be any use whatever, and that money would benefit transport in Greater Manchester, and jobs and investment for the whole country, much more than it will the Lower Thames area.

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

We have suffered, in that we are not getting High Speed 2 at the moment. I think the campaign to get the rail link from Birmingham to Manchester and Manchester airport should continue. It is extraordinary to see the billions of pounds that have been spent on high-speed rail from London to Birmingham, mainly on tunnels.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the benefits of HS2 have been masked by the name High Speed 2 and that one of the main benefits of HS2 is actually capacity, which we desperately need on the railways?

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend is precisely right: the real case for High Speed 2, as I am afraid it will always be called, was capacity. We are not getting that extra capacity between Birmingham and Manchester without HS2. If that capacity were to happen—it should happen—it would lead to the necessity of extra investment in the rail system east, west and internally within Greater Manchester. It would lead to more investment, so we need to campaign for it. All we have at the moment is an extension to the London underground system, which will benefit London and Birmingham.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned the Metrolink going to Stockport, and I agree with her. For the first time for nearly a quarter of a century, we do not have viable plans that we know will happen, and we may have to carry on fighting Ministers and the Department for Transport for the next stage. Obviously, I would like trams to go to Middleton, as I represent part of it, but I agree that trams going to Stockport and other parts of the conurbation—perhaps Leigh as well—would mean transport and economic development. So I think we have to keep campaigning and making the case that bucks spent on transport in Greater Manchester will get us more than money spent in London and the south-east.

09:49

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important debate.

My constituency is semi-urban and semi-rural. Without good public transport, my constituents cannot get around, and the visitors we so enjoy having in our area cannot get in. A lot of people in my community struggle with access to services such as GPs and hospital appointments and with getting to work. That creates more pressure on services such as patient transport services and GP home visits. It also affects the nature of my constituency, in that we have an ageing population, with fewer young families able to move in. My rural businesses and organisations that represent them, such as the Sedbergh Economic Partnership, also tell me that transport connectivity in rural areas is a massive bar to growth, because businesses cannot get the staff they need to expand.

Sedbergh itself is struggling at the minute. There has been a bus service change, so the service is now less accessible and frequent. At my suggestion, Sedbergh set up a bus users’ group—I am a big fan of buses and bus users’ groups. In Lancashire we have a fantastic bus users’ group, the Lancaster Bus Users’ Group, of which I am a proud member.

I thank the Government for their investment in bus services—£27 million in Lancashire and £4.2 million in Westmorland and Furness. I hope to see my local authorities take on the new powers that the Government will give them, so that we ensure we have rural bus services that serve my constituents, work together, fit together and fit in with people’s lives.

I am also a big fan of trains. My constituency has the highest main line train station in England, in Dent. It is beautiful, although it is not actually in Dent village, which causes some confusion. We have some other fantastic stations, such as Garsdale, which is also beautiful, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) will know, and Arnside. However, we have real problems with accessibility, so older people and people with disabilities cannot get the train—when the train turns up. Because these are not areas with huge populations, they struggle to access grant services, such as the Access for All fund. There is real inequity in how some of the funds for station improvements are allocated.

Finally, I want to talk a little about active travel, which is important. Active travel means moving ourselves around, whether by wheeling in a wheelchair, cycling on a bike or walking. It is good for our health, and spending more time in London, with its fantastic public transport service, I have walked a lot more. I have actually lost weight since the election—I think that is unheard of—because I am walking so much. That shows the health benefits of an integrated public transport system and proper transport connectivity.

I want to highlight a visionary project in my constituency, the Lune Valley Greenway, which is a path that people can walk, wheel or cycle on from the coast at Morecambe right into the Yorkshire Dales national park. It currently goes from Morecambe, via Lancaster, up to Bull Beck near Caton. The ambition is for it not only to go from the coast to the national park, but to link up with public transport systems, so that people visiting our area, as well as people living and working in my constituency, can access the countryside and good public transport. I would love to invite the Minister to visit.

09:53

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing the debate.

I will lay out my case in simple terms: north-west public transport is not up to scratch. Specifically, our railway journeys are nowhere near good enough. They are holding our region’s economy back, and we need change. Take my constituency, for instance: there is no direct public transport link from one side of the constituency to the other, despite it being overwhelmingly urban. Try to take public transport from Birkdale to Rufford—a journey of 10 miles—and a single ticket will cost £21, while the journey will take one hour and 11 minutes and involve changing trains three times. It is literally 10 miles away; it would almost be quicker to walk.

Even the rail services that we do have are incredibly unreliable. Just this morning, at 6.47 am, Merseyrail sent out a message on social media saying:

“Due to a train fault, some services on the Southport line face cancellations”.

The first reply said:

“Another day, another train fault”.

The second reply blamed the politicians.

The service to Manchester is even worse: in November, there were no services at all on Sundays for three weeks in a row, and more than a quarter of all journeys were either delayed or cancelled. When the trains do turn up, passengers are greeted with what the chief exec of Northern Rail has called

“some of the worst-performing rolling stock in the country.”

That cannot be allowed to continue.

The constituency’s connectivity has also been directly impacted by the well-known 1960s cuts to railway services. The closure of two simple railway curves in Burscough, just outside of constituency, means that the seven-mile journey from Ormskirk to Southport takes 85 minutes by train, and that the notional 20-mile journey to Preston involves passengers changing at Wigan, which is itself 20 miles out of the way. We are lucky, though, because unlike in other parts of the country, the railway curves at Burscough were never built over—they are still there, just overgrown and unloved. It would cost an estimated £30 million to reinstate them, which would once again connect the towns of Merseyside and west Lancashire, and strengthen travel-to-work routes, promoting the economic growth we all want so desperately.

It is not all bad. The Liverpool city region combined authority is maintaining the £2 bus fare cap, including in Southport, and we are moving forward with trials of bus franchising across the region. Despite problems, Merseyrail still received the second highest overall customer satisfaction levels nationally in the latest surveys. And although there is perhaps an element of empire-building, I welcome the fact that our line to Manchester is set to be brought into the Greater Manchester Bee network in 2028, which will finally allow a tap-in, tap-out ticketing system, integrating with Manchester’s.

Those positives point the way forward, as more devolution on transport and greater statutory powers for the coming Lancashire combined county authority ensure that the rest of the north-west is linked up, in the way my constituency already is.

09:57

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, albeit slightly unexpected, to serve under your chairship this morning, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important and clearly popular debate.

I will focus my remarks on the rail network. In Pendle and Clitheroe, slow and unreliable rail services, along with disjointed connections, cause daily frustrations for my constituents. Those issues create barriers to work, education and healthcare, and ultimately hold our local economy back.

In my constituency we have two rail routes. The Colne to Preston line operates just one train per hour, taking an hour and 15 minutes to cover only 25 miles. The Clitheroe to Manchester line is no better—again, with just one train per hour, and taking an hour and 20 minutes to travel just 30 miles. If a train is cancelled in the south-east of England, there is often another coming in 10 or 15 minutes, whereas if one train is cancelled in an hourly service, the whole day is ruined.

Those routes are not fit for purpose; we all know that that level of service would not be tolerated on routes going into London. If we want to unlock the potential of our towns, we need investment in order to increase frequency, cut journey times and improve service reliability. Would it be so impossible to have two trains per hour on those routes and speed them up? Would more rolling stock be required? Yes. Would more staff be required? Yes. But can it be done with the right political will? Of course it can. The economic benefits would be profound.

Right now, the connection times do not even make sense. If someone took that slow train from Colne to Preston this morning, hoping to travel south to the capital city, they would wait nearly an hour at Preston for the next train. For public transport to be a viable alternative to car travel, services and timetables must be co-ordinated and designed around the needs of passengers, which currently is simply not the case.

In the longer term, reinstating the Colne to Skipton rail link would be a game changer for east-west travel and our local economy. Reopening the 11-mile stretch, the track bed of which has been protected—that was a theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley)—would open up huge opportunities for jobs and businesses. The project would dramatically improve economic prospects for deprived areas across east Lancashire, well beyond my constituency, and I will continue to campaign for its reinstatement.

Regional inequality in our country is stark, and nowhere is that more obvious than in public transport. Time and again, we have seen rail projects prioritised in the south-east while towns across the north are left waiting for long-overdue upgrades. I know that the Government understand the issue, but I urge them to be bold, act now and commit to delivering a transport system that truly works for the north-west.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

It would be good if other contributions could be similarly brief, to allow as many colleagues as possible to speak.

10:00

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing this debate; it is clearly very popular. I refer to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to my trade union memberships, particularly donations from the RMT to my constituency Labour party.

I will add to the points made by several colleagues on extending the Metrolink tram network. I would like to see it extended into Hazel Grove, as my neighbour the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said. I would also like to see it extended into Stockport town centre. I understand that the Greater Manchester combined authority and Stockport council are developing a strategic outline business case, which should be completed by autumn this year. I want to see the work start as soon as possible, and I would welcome a meeting with the Minister as soon as possible, perhaps with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, to discuss that.

I have limited time, but I have a couple of points to make. The first is on Stockport railway station, which recorded almost 3.8 million entries and exits in the last reporting period. It is a major hub for Greater Manchester and the north-west region. I am aware that several of my colleagues from Greater Manchester travel to Stockport on a Monday to take the train to London, because it is easier, and several local services often have poor connectivity. However, unfortunately the station is in a dire state. The roof leaks often, the toilets are outdated and the lifts are frequently faulty, which particularly disadvantages passengers with mobility issues or heavy luggage. I want to see real investment in Stockport station. I know that Network Rail and Avanti are doing some work, but we need to be bold about investing. Avanti employs about 48 staff at Stockport station. I know almost all of them, if not all, and many share my concerns about the state of the station. I am grateful to all of them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) made a point about step-free access at railway stations. The Access for All scheme is just far too slow and not ambitious enough. Sadly, three out of five rail stations in my constituency—Brinnington, Heaton Chapel and Reddish South—do not have step-free access. I want to see that addressed as soon as possible. I also want to use this valuable time to pay tribute to Nathanial Yates from my constituency. He has done a lot of work on step-free access. He is a champion for public transport, and I want to place on the record my thanks to him for his work, not just in Stockport but across Greater Manchester.

Reddish South station in my constituency has a train service once a week. Every Saturday morning, a train arrives and goes into Stockport. A few minutes later, that same train comes from Stockport via Reddish South. In the last reporting period, Reddish South recorded 80 passengers in an entire year. Friends of Reddish South Station is quite active on that issue; I meet its members frequently. I pay tribute to all their work, but we need to address the situation. The increase in housing around Reddish South and the changes in Reddish over the years mean that we need proper services to that station, to improve connectivity into not only Stockport town centre, but Manchester and other parts of the north-west.

My last point is that before covid, we used to have a direct service from Stockport station into Manchester airport. That service was withdrawn during the pandemic and sadly has not returned. Passengers often have to go into Manchester Piccadilly and then wait to change trains. Many who travel to Manchester airport have heavy luggage, so it is not an ideal situation. We need to see that service reinstated as soon as possible.

I like to end on a positive point: I welcome bus franchising. Mayor Burnham has done a lot of good work. There is obviously a lot more to do on public transport, but I am grateful to colleagues at Transport for Greater Manchester—particularly Ben, whom I am always asking for information—and colleagues at Network Rail.

10:00

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing and so ably leading this debate. Mid Cheshire’s towns play an important role in our nation’s economy as one of only two sources of rock salt, as well as chemical, pharmaceutical and plastics manufacturing. Yet when I speak to businesses—or indeed anyone—they tell me that poor transport infrastructure is one of the biggest issues holding back businesses, jobs and investments in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich.

That is far from a new phenomenon; the Middlewich eastern bypass project has been the subject of local campaigns for more than 40 years, and was shamefully kicked into the long grass by the previous Government, despite earlier promises to fund it. Campaigns for better sustainable transport, such as more frequent rail services from Northwich and Winsford, a station for Middlewich— I sympathise with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton, as Middlewich is the largest town in Cheshire without a railway station—or a functioning bus service anywhere in the constituency, have hit barriers to progress. While I would love to use my time to ask the Minister to look kindly upon any or all of those projects, the issue is deeper than any one single project—although he is of course welcome to intervene.

We can and must fix the foundations of our economy, but we must also tackle the structures that systemically disadvantage our region—particularly areas outside the big cities—in the allocation of infrastructure investment. On that, I will limit myself to one point, which is fundamental to this debate. The Green Book, developed by the Treasury, is the Government’s primary guidance for evaluating and appraising public sector projects on value for money, but it utterly fails to adjust for regional disparities. The reality is that, as of right now, salaries are higher and high-value sectors are more likely to be located in London and the south-east than they are in the north-west.

On a like-for-like basis, it will always be easier to demonstrate a higher return on investment from a project here in London than it will be in my constituency. That is a problem. It is a problem because it undervalues the benefit of economic regeneration or better social cohesion, and it underprices the exacerbating effect that it has on London’s housing crisis, the pressure on its public services and the benefit that will be brought by distributing growth across the country. IPPR North estimated in 2020 that, on transport alone, if the north had seen the same per-person investment as London over the last decade, it would have received £66 billion more. The Chancellor has announced a review of the Green Book; I urge the Minister to exercise whatever influence he has to ensure that this moment is seized to finally fix this issue, which has been a barrier to growth for so long.

Our region, from our big cities to our small towns and from our industrial powerhouses to our rural hinterland, is ambitious for our future. We are hungry to play our part in our country’s economic recovery. We are impatient for the Government to see our potential after so many years of undelivered promises. This Government finally have us facing in the right direction on valuing and investing in our bus network, and on ensuring that railways deliver for passengers, not shareholders. They are progressing devolution in Cheshire and Lancashire that will finally give us the powers we need to set our own transport investment priorities. I hope that the comprehensive spending review and the Green Book review are opportunities to go further—not just to talk about handing power and money to the regions, but to set the rules to ensure that it happens.

10:08

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important debate. Good transport links are a vital component of any economy that aspires to achieve economic growth and good opportunities for its citizens. There is simply no point in having a job for every person if those people cannot physically get to where those jobs are.

In the time that I have, I will focus my remarks on rail. If Heathrow is a hub for aviation in the south, from which investment and growth ripple outwards, Crewe station is that hub for rail in the north. Crewe provides 360° connectivity to all major cities across the UK, and that unrivalled connectivity makes it a vital hub for both passenger and freight rail. It is uniquely positioned as a gateway to the midlands engine, the northern powerhouse, Scotland and Wales. However, the west coast main line, a vital artery for our region, has been grappling with significant capacity challenges. Reports have shown that

“There is no available capacity without significantly impacting performance and causing a reduction in timetable resilience”—

something that I believe every Member in this place experiences, perhaps weekly. That leaves little room for additional services, causing frequent delays. The impact of lack of capacity on rail services affects every single one of our constituencies, and the capacity for economic growth that that additional capacity could unlock cannot be understated.

We simply require new infrastructure in our region to tackle that problem. The Conservative Government’s approach to infrastructure was nothing short of Jekyll and Hyde, with communities and industries not knowing whether they were coming or going. We saw a stop-start approach to major projects, with promises made and then broken, dither and delay and a lack of active oversight, which saw costs spiral. The management of and the decision to cancel HS2 phase 2a is a prime example of that. The cancellation has not only undermined the promise of greater connectivity for northern towns and cities, but has left a gaping hole in our region’s economic growth prospects.

Ahead of the comprehensive spending review, Ministers are looking carefully at the situation the Government have inherited. It would be remiss of me not to once again ask the Government whether they would consider how new infrastructure connecting the midlands and the north of England, utilising Crewe station, with the right investment, could be a key driver for connectivity and growth in any plans to address the capacity challenges that I have outlined.

It is absolutely clear to me that better connectivity between our towns and villages and major cities in the north can be a major lever in our efforts to create those opportunities that our people need and deserve to fulfil their potential, and that is what people elected a Labour Government to do.

10:12

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this debate on a topic that is popular in our region—as is clear from attendance this morning. For decades we have suffered cuts to bus routes, unreliable train services and fragmented transport planning. Economic growth has not been the only thing impacted. Social isolation has worsened and the changes have impacted vulnerable groups who rely on public transport—especially, in places like St Helens, on buses. I am pleased that the last two issues have already been mentioned, as they are sometimes overlooked.

Eighty-two per cent of all public transport journeys in the Liverpool city region are made by bus, but our region, including St Helens North, has been hit hard by the national decline in bus services. Since 2020, we have lost 15 routes. Much of St Helens North is rural; the cuts have left many areas, such as Rainford, reliant on infrequent, heavily subsidised services. Across the entire Liverpool city region, a staggering 6 million service miles have been withdrawn since 2018, directly impacting our residents. For 40 years, since Thatcher’s failed deregulation experiment, we have suffered a system in which private operators dictate routes based on profit rather than public need.

As the leader of St Helens borough council before becoming an MP, I was a member of the Liverpool city region combined authority, and strongly supported the pursuance of bus franchising, bringing our buses back under greater public control. I am delighted to say that, thanks to metro Mayor Steve Rotheram and other local leaders, including St Helens borough council leader Anthony Burns, St Helens will, from September 2026, be the first area in the Liverpool city region to benefit from publicly controlled bus services. That means that routes, fares and timetables will be set by the combined authority, not dictated by private companies: passengers first, not profit.

The story is similar when it comes to our rail network, with delays and cancellations plaguing too many people who are reliant on trains to travel for work or leisure. The state of some of our stations is not good enough either, particularly when it comes to accessibility. In 2025, it is surely not too much to expect that every station should be fully accessible to all passengers. It is a scandal that stations including Garswood and Earlestown in St Helens North do not have step-free access. This is something that local Labour councillors, campaigners and our metro Mayor are all keen to fix, and they have my full and ongoing support. I should be grateful if the Minister would share his view on that, either when summing up or outside of the debate.

St Helens North and our wider borough is in a great location, in one strong city region and bordering another, with the M6, the M62 and major rail routes running through it. With affordable and reliable public transport, there is no limit to the growth that we could unlock. As in so many things, all we are looking for is fair funding and the opportunity to fulfil our potential.

10:15

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this crucial and popular debate. Improving transport connectivity in Bolton is a priority that matters deeply to me, and I am proud to join fellow north-west MPs in fighting for a better, fairer transport system for my constituents.

A good transport network does more than move people; it moves society forward. It connects us to education, jobs and businesses that drive our economy and to the family, friends and communities that shape us. It is the foundation stone of a thriving society, because if we get our transport infrastructure right, everything else follows. For too many people in Bolton, however, transport is not a bridge to opportunity, but a barrier with real consequences. No child in Breightmet should have to miss an after-school club because they cannot find a bus. No college student in Little Lever should have to turn down an apprenticeship because fares are too high. No adult in Bromley Cross should have to miss a job interview because their trains are cancelled again.

For too long, under-investment in transport has held back Bolton’s communities. Loneliness and isolation among young and elderly people are at an all-time high, and we know that good transport can mean the difference between precious time spent with loved ones or another day spent alone. Complicated routes and unreliable services are leaving pensioners and teenagers stranded—isolating not just individuals, but entire communities.

When transport in Bolton fails, everything else suffers. That is why, since my first speech in Parliament, I have called for Metrolink to be extended to Bolton and that call remains urgent. Metrolink is expanding, yet Bolton—one of Greater Manchester’s largest towns—remains forgotten. For those who say that our rail services are already good enough, I invite them to catch a train from Bolton late at night or at the weekend, or indeed on their first day of work and be met with a cancelled train, as I experienced on my first day travelling down to this place.

One third of all trains into Bolton arrive late, and almost half of TransPennine Express trains. Bolton residents deserve better, and I look forward to working alongside Mayor Andy Burnham and the Greater Manchester combined authority as we build the business case for a long overdue extension.

My hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for St Helens North (David Baines) mentioned accessibility. We also desperately need to think about parents with prams who get left out. When we fix the rail system, we empower towns such as Bolton to thrive. Of course, it is not only about rail: in just 18 months, the Bee network has been a huge step forward for Bolton, proving what is possible when people, not profit, come first.

Finally, we must fight for regional fairness. In London, over-60s travel for free. In Greater Manchester, they do not. Why should older people in the north-west settle for less? I will push to introduce free travel for over-60s in Greater Manchester, because affordable transport helps older people to stay active, connected and independent.

As north-west MPs, we are united in our fight for a better, fairer transport system. Better transport means stronger businesses, connected communities and a fairer, thriving north-west region. When transport works, everything else follows. I sincerely hope that the Minister agrees and that he will commit to making collaboration on improving Bolton and north-west transport a priority.

10:18

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing this important debate. I had originally prepared a lengthy speech that laid out in great and eloquent detail the huge number of issues that we have in Rossendale and Darwen around transport.

Those issues include the challenge of simply walking or cycling to school or work; our patchy bus services and isolated villages; the congested, unsafe and potholed roads; and of course our railway connections—or lack of them. Darwen’s transport could generously be described as wildly unreliable, while Rossendale is the only local authority area in the north with no commuter links at all. I therefore look with envy at my hon. Friends with merely unreliable services.

Time does not allow for a full explanation of all those issues, and it would clearly be unnecessary, as this debate shows that the picture is shared and understood by hon. Members. I am sure that the Minister recognises it too. We are all too familiar with cut-off small towns and villages with so much unmet potential, yet the investment never seems to come our way.

We know the problems and the legacy that we have been left with, and we know the massive benefits that true transport connectivity can deliver, but we also know the solutions. The Government have made a start by investing in rural bus services and pothole repair, while committing to act on some long-standing regional rail priorities. However, the question remains as to how we make sure that left-behind towns get the connectivity they need to unleash their full potential. The previous Government and the systems that they put in place manifestly failed to do that, but I believe we have two big opportunities under the new Government to do things differently and to deliver the change that the north-west needs.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) eloquently—indeed, brilliantly—put it, the Green Book is a massive issue that has resulted in a sustained long-term bias towards wealthier areas. We have to change that. The Treasury review is a huge opportunity for us, and we must ensure that it is carried out with true ambition, rather than just tweaking the rules. The existing bias must be removed and the long-term strategic impacts of investment fully recognised, as opposed to overvaluing short-term returns. We also need to ensure that the social wellbeing and enabling aspects of projects are properly valued. Indeed, why not bias projects towards deprived areas?

We also need to recognise that guidelines are just guidelines, and that there are entrenched cultures within appraisal mechanisms that, regardless of what the guidelines say, will tend to default to outdated benefit-cost ratio metrics. That review is a huge opportunity that we must grasp and I am really glad that the north-west is speaking with one voice on the issue.

Of course, our other great opportunity is devolution. The north-west could be the first region in England to have a full set of elected mayors with devolved budgets. That would give us the chance to join up our transport investment across the north. We have seen what innovative transport thinking can do in Manchester, so let us imagine what could be achieved across the north with a fully devolved regional transport budget and mayors working together to unlock our potential.

I find that possibility hugely exciting, but I also worry that opportunistic and self-interested local politicians may try to derail the process. For instance, the Reform candidates in the Lancashire county council elections are standing on a platform opposing devolution. They are defending a status quo that may be in their own interests, but it manifestly does not meet the interests of residents of Lancashire—what madness! We need to reject such pessimism and put the north-west back in the fast lane.

It is in small towns such as Rossendale and Darwen that the next election will be won and lost. We cannot be left behind as our cities forge ahead. Truly integrated transport could connect our futures, and I believe that the Government and our empowered communities can grasp that opportunity.

10:22

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.

In my constituency, we have had a large amount of housing growth in the last few years, and we expect to have much more. My constituents are not nimbys; they absolutely recognise that it is a huge problem that young people cannot afford to leave home in our area. It is also a huge problem that there is an absolute shortage of care workers in my area alongside an older population, and that we do not have sufficient nurses and teachers. We need key worker housing, but we also need the infrastructure to go with it.

Transport is primarily about roads in my local area, which consists of a series of small towns and villages that people drive between as much as they can. I live in my constituency, so I despair of the potholes in exactly the same way that my constituents do. Our roads are dark and dangerous, and far too many of our young people are dying on them completely needlessly. The A500 is a complete mess. The A34 is the major road to Manchester and lots of people commute on it, but it is single-lane, unlit and frequently flooded. It is completely dangerous; indeed, it is a disaster. I could carry on ad infinitum—I could list so many roads—but the only other one that I will mention specifically is the Middlewich bypass, which would unlock major employment opportunities. We need the Government to fund work on it.

When I talk to young people in my area or to older people who cannot drive, the major mode of transport they talk about is buses. For example, I had the pleasure of talking to Shipton explorer scouts about their experience of trying to use buses in our local area. They told me about buses being so full that the drivers simply drive past them on the way to school and will not pick them up. There are not enough services and, as I say, they simply do not stop.

If someone tries to take a bus from Alsager to Royal Stoke university hospital or Leighton hospital, for example, it will take them nearly an hour, despite the distance being only 9 miles. If someone tries to take what might be one of the most important journeys they are ever going to make, for example from Holmes Chapel to one of our local hospices, it will also take them a really long time. Similarly, there is no direct bus from Congleton, a town of 30,000 people, to Macclesfield district general hospital, which is our nearest major general hospital. Bus services are fundamental services. We want to invest in the NHS, and it is vital that we do so, but there is no point in us creating additional appointments if people simply cannot get to them.

And don’t get me started on trains in my constituency. They are unbelievably unreliable. There have been no Sunday services for literally years: Congleton’s last train from Manchester is at about 9 o’clock on a Saturday night. I reiterate: this is a town with 30,000 people. Sandbach, a town of 20,000 people, has no accessible route across the platform, so people with disabilities, with buggies or with luggage—it is a route to Manchester airport—simply cannot get there and have to go backwards to Crewe to make the journey to Manchester. It is absolutely crackers.

I could talk about that in more detail, but I really want to talk about the fact that the decisions about transport investment have historically been incredibly short-sighted. I reiterate the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper): we would have had £66 billion more in the last decade alone if we had had the same per person investment as London. I do not want to take money away from London. I want us to have a thriving capital, but I want my constituents to be able to get there. I also want them not to have to get there—to have opportunities in my constituency and in the wider north-west in the first place, and to be able to access them.

10:26

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my neighbour, my hon. Friend Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), for securing this debate about connectivity; we are well connected, as I am sure she appreciates.

Efficient, affordable and accessible transport options are crucial to north-west workers, its economy and the ability to unlock growth. A well-connected transport system broadens access to opportunities and enhances our region’s competitiveness. Transport infrastructure and the affordability of transport options directly impacts the jobs that people are able to take, where they are able to live, and their access to essential services, as so many hon. Members have said. That is particularly true for those living in commuter belt towns and suburban areas in my constituency of Worsley and Eccles. We must do more to ensure that the different modes of transport on offer are interconnected, ensuring smooth and efficient journeys, and making it as easy as possible for everyone to move around our region.

Driving remains the most popular mode of transport in Worsley and Eccles, but high levels of congestion are a real issue for all of us, including rush hour commuters of all forms. An improved public transport system can reduce the strain on our roads, benefiting all commuters, including those for whom driving will remain the most appropriate form of transport.

I am a north-west MP and, like all Members here who regularly come to London, I can see with my own eyes what can be achieved with proper investment, funding and Government focus on our transport system. To give one small comparison, from Eccles in my constituency to Manchester Piccadilly, we have one or maybe two trains an hour on the main commuter line. From Surbiton in south London to Waterloo, there are 10 an hour. That is a world of difference and makes trains a viable option for many people as an integral part of our network.

As I am sure the Government recognise, delivering greater transport connectivity is one of the most effective tools available to increase vital access to opportunities and deliver the growth we all need, which will underpin all our services and fundamentally improve the living standards of everyone we are here to represent. In Greater Manchester, we are making great progress via the expansion of the Bee network, including the roll-out of tap and go contactless ticketing, and daily and weekly fare caps, which are coming this weekend, but we must go further to bring trains into that network and to deliver the comprehensive, interconnected transport system that will deliver the benefits that we have all been talking about.

It is absolutely vital that we continue the mission to expand and improve our transport networks, so that everyone across our whole region can benefit from them in getting around more easily and getting to those jobs. That will make everywhere a viable place to live, to attract investment and to deliver on the potential that we all know that our region has.

10:29

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing this crucial debate.

Constituencies such as mine have long faced challenges of poor connectivity. Warrington South is located at the crossroads of the north-west. It is strategically placed between Manchester, to the east, and Liverpool, to the west. Our town is successful: it is a desirable place to live and has grown considerably in size over recent years but, sadly, investment in transport has just not kept up. We have congestion on the roads, limited, poor-quality crossing points over the Manchester ship canal, ageing infrastructure and unelectrified rail lines. Towns such as mine deserve better.

It is critical to understand how poor connectivity is constraining growth, limiting our potential and leaving us behind. Uncertainty about infrastructure projects such as Northern Powerhouse Rail, slimmed-down projects such as HS2 and delayed projects such as the Western Link congestion relief road are part of the problem. According to data published at the end of last year, every region of the country falls behind London in public spending on transport per head. The capital receives about £1,313 per person, but the north-west receives only £729. That shocking £584 difference shows the north-south divide in practice once again.

A report by Transport for the North revealed that one fifth of people living in northern England are prevented from taking up opportunities and participating in communities around them due to poor connectivity and mobility. The focus must be not only on the big cities: it must also include towns such as Warrington and Leigh.

Investment in transport infrastructure can be transformational. It can act as a catalyst for growth, unlock potential and drive forward the Government’s plan for change. We need a co-ordinated effort that better links our communities and recognises the contribution that our towns and villages make to the wider economy and the potential they have to offer. We cannot allow the transport challenges of the past to restrict our potential in the future. With the right investment in the right places, we have the opportunity to grow the national economy and our local economy.

10:32

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing this crucial debate on transport connectivity in the north-west—an issue that impacts the day-to-day lives of many of my constituents and people across the whole region.

Our region has historically been neglected when it comes to transport, but I want to begin with a positive: I reiterate my wholehearted support for the electrification of the Bolton to Wigan train line, properly funded under this Labour Government. I also welcome the extension of the excellent Greater Manchester Bee network out towards my constituency.

Given that other Members have spoken so eloquently about planes, trains and automobiles, I will focus on a particular issue in my Bolton West constituency: the Hulton Park housing development. Hulton Park is a significant development, but it suffers from a critical oversight: a complete lack of sustainable transport options. Local public transport links are virtually non-existent. That will force future residents to rely almost entirely on cars and will snarl up the already overly congested roads for my constituents.

I am sure colleagues agree that we should not rubber-stamp major housing projects without properly considering how people will get to work and school and access sustainable essential services locally in a convenient manner. In Bolton West, we already have severe congestion at Four Lane Ends in Hulton, where traffic bottlenecks daily and pedestrian facilities are extremely limited. The recent proposal for two additional housing developments in Leigh, one of which is particularly large, will only compound the issue.

To be clear, I wholeheartedly support the Government’s housing plans, which are necessary given that the previous Tory Government sat on their hands for 14 years. We have built 4.3 million fewer homes than comparable countries since the second world war, and house prices are now 8.3 times the average income, pricing many of my constituents out of home ownership, but we must strive to deliver those new homes in a way that does not force residents into car dependency and exacerbate existing congestion issues. For me, the Hulton Park development is emblematic of a broader failure to link transport planning, house building and, crucially, economic growth.

We must ensure that new developments are served by cycle, pedestrian, bus, rail and tram networks from the outset, rather than as an afterthought. We should be planning how to mitigate existing congestion before spades are in the ground. This is about more than convenience; it is about the future of our towns and our cities. It is about delivering economic growth by ensuring connectivity between new developments and workplaces. It is about reducing emissions, improving air quality and ensuring that everyone has fair access to transport. I urge the Minister: let us not only build the homes that we need but build them with the infrastructure they deserve.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Well done, everybody; all Members have got in. I call the Lib Dem spokesman, Tim Farron.

10:35

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your guidance this morning, Dr Murrison. It is also an honour to follow the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), who admirably led this debate, as well as many other colleagues from across the north-west who have made excellent contributions on behalf of both their constituencies and the north-west as a whole, which is of course the greatest region on planet Earth. It is home to the greatest towns and cities, and indeed the greatest and most beautiful landscape that we have to offer.

The north-west is the birthplace of the industrial revolution, yet it is appalling that our region performs 6.8% below the national average on productivity. Indeed, the only regions with productivity above the national average are London and the south-east. Over the last 60 or 70 years, we have become a steadily unipolar country, and the north-west, like lots of other parts of the UK, has become undermined. We saw levelling up from the last Government, which had some admirable aspects, but essentially—dare I say—it felt like a whole load of pork barrel with no strategy. Let us hope that we can have some strategy.

The cancellation of HS2 summed up that lack of strategy. I completely agree with the hon. Members for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who is my neighbour; they talked about HS2 being about capacity and not speed. If we had a proper HS2 line to the north-west that mirrored and upgraded the west coast main line, which is the most congested rail line in western Europe, that would give us the opportunity to reopen many stations along the existing main line— I will throw out Tebay, Shap and Milnthorpe, just to name three. We must also think about how important it is for the north-west to relate to not just London but other parts of the north of England. East-west connectivity is crucial. What we used to call High Speed 3, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, is hugely significant, and we want to see and hear more about it.

As an MP in Cumbria, I am bound to say that often, when we talk about the north-west, we seem to stop thinking about anything that exists north of junction 32 —I can confirm that it does exist. In particular, I would love the Minister to focus on the A66, which is a hugely important road for connectivity that links the A1(M) and the M6, so it connects the ports in the east and the west of this country. In a parallel universe, it would have been a motorway. However, for 12 miles it is a single carriageway, where there are hideous numbers of deaths that are always concentrated in that small section.

I urge the Minister and his colleagues to say yes to the A66 upgrade as soon as possible. Everybody in my neck of the woods is on tenterhooks waiting to hear. Likewise, there is work that has to be done on the M6 near junction 38. While it is massively important to the whole motorway network in the north, the people of Tebay must not be isolated during that work, and I ask the Minister to pay special attention to the so far inadequate levels of mitigation from National Highways, as those eight bridges have to be replaced in the coming years.

It is also important to talk about trains, and to think about what train services are like across the whole of the north-west. I want to highlight the situation with Avanti, and its failure to serve the northern half of the north-west adequately. It is worth bearing in mind that rail services on the west coast managed to meet their timetable obligations only 43.5% of the time, and last year, more than one in 20 services were cancelled. Any of us who live north of Preston know that any problem in the borders of Scotland or Glasgow means a train cancelled at Preston. Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle and Lockerbie are often completely overlooked, and that must stop.

I also want the Minister to think very carefully about what can be done to expand existing railway lines to make better use of them. The most visited destination in the United Kingdom outside London is the Lake district, yet we have a single railway line that goes from the main line to Windermere. It is possible, quite cheaply, to double capacity by having a passing loop at Burneside, and I would love the Minister to look at that possibility and see whether he agrees to it.

[Graham Stringer]

In the context of the north-west, we are all friends on this matter. The hon. Member probably does not know, but a few years ago the Transport Committee did a study into north-west trains and found that train schedules in the north-west—not when the trains actually run—were slower when there was a Liberal Prime Minister. Even more surprisingly, it was not Campbell-Bannerman; it was Gladstone.

[Tim Farron]

May I point out that there were many more railway lines then, and therefore more trains to be slow? It was also mostly pre-electricity—so there we go. I am grateful for the hon. Member’s point.

The industrial capability of the west coast of Cumbria—not in my constituency—is significant to the economy of the whole country, and includes BAE at Barrow and Sellafield on the west coast. The railway line that serves them—the Furness line—saw a derailment a year ago and a flooding-related near disaster just a few weeks ago. We need to pay special attention to keeping the Furness line open, upgrading it and electrifying it if possible. I also want to make a case, on behalf of all my Cumbrian colleagues, for the Cumbria coastal line, which needs significant investment.

It is great to hear colleagues from metropolitan parts of the north-west talk about keeping the £2 bus fare cap, but for many of us in areas that are far less well funded, and where devolution has not really happened, such as Cumbria, we are stuck with the £3 cap, and we are worried about that being got rid of altogether. Before the cap came in, the most expensive bus journey in the United Kingdom was Kendal to Ambleside, which cost more than an hour’s wage for somebody working in the hospitality sector. Will the Minister confirm that the £3 cap will not be raised or got rid of any time soon?

It is my great privilege to represent a very rural area, but that means that even when the £3 cap exists, it is of no good whatsoever. It does a fat lot of good if we do not have any buses. Giving our local authority, Westmorland and Furness council, the ability to run its own buses is key to meeting the needs of many rural communities. I am honoured to chair an outfit called Cumbria Better Connected, to which all these issues are regularly fed in. One of the most important issues is connectivity and integration between bus and rail, but it is no—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the shadow Minister, Jerome Mayhew.

10:42

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing the debate, and congratulate all hon. Members, who have put very forceful cases for transport in the north-west. Their combined contributions have demonstrated that there are many shared problems in the region.

I do not have time to mention every hon. Member who has contributed, so I will limit myself to commenting on the contribution of the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton, who highlighted that her constituency, like I suspect many others in the area, is a post-industrial commuter belt that is struggling to cope with the consequential increase in traffic. Because of the over-reliance on cars, the society suffers from high transport-related social exclusion. There are a number of issues, but I will try to mash them together into three headlines.

Let us start with the positive news, which is the welcome devolution of transport policy. It was implemented by Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, but it was of course a Conservative policy that was brought in in 2017, so while we welcome it, we should share the plaudits. I welcome the success of the Bee network, but we have to recognise that it was expensive—there was £1 billion of Government support.

That raises a big issue, because as well as that £1 billion, Bee is supported by considerably north of £130 million a year from central funds, by my calculations. Its parent, as it were—Transport for London—receives in excess of £1 billion a year. There is therefore a fundamental question here for the Minister. The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill is going through the House of Lords, and I have with me the consultation on Great British Railways and “A railway fit for Britain’s future”. If this is the model for the future, can the Minister shed some light on where the increased funding will come from? It is a good development—it was Conservative policy—but where it is expanded beyond the large mayoral combined authorities to other combined authorities, there will inevitably be an associated cost.

The second related issue is the potential conflict when regional policy butts up against national policy, when a strong regional mayor rightly wants control over a combined transport policy, whether that is buses, rail or road. We potentially have a directing mind under Great British Railways—intended to be one of its key benefits—coming up against Andy Burnham, for example. The consultation paper refers to that, but has no detail on how those potential conflicts will be resolved and who will be the final arbiter. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to respond on that.

Many hon. Members called for the reintroduction of the northern HS2 extension, focusing not on speed, but on capacity. We have to recognise that, again, it comes back to money. The cancellation of the northern part of HS2 redirected £19.8 billion to other transport projects for the region. This is not a comprehensive list, but it gives a flavour: £2 billion for the new station at Bradford and a new connection to Manchester; £3 billion for upgraded and electrified lines from Manchester to Sheffield, Sheffield to Leeds, Sheffield to Hull and Hull to Leeds; about £4 billion of additional transport funding for the six city regions; £2.5 billion of additional funding for outside the city regions; and £3.3 billion for road improvements, albeit largely filling potholes.

[Mrs Russell]

I understand that in that announcement there was £180 million for Cheshire East council, but council leaders were told it would be weighted towards the back end of the seven years. They feel strongly that it was made-up money that was always predicated on borrowing, and that there was never any real intention to give that money to the north-west.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Their concerns were wrong. I had a minor position in the Treasury at the time, and I can assure the hon. Lady that that was genuine redirection of funds, albeit over a period, as one would expect, with the release of funds associated with the development of HS2 in the northern sector.

To conclude the list, we had £3.3 billion for road improvements and an additional £11.5 billion for Northern Powerhouse Rail from Manchester to Liverpool. The question that is easy to miss in opposition but impossible to avoid in government is this: where do the Government want money to be spent? That money could be used for those widespread improvements or be rediverted to a northern branch of a version of HS2, but it is impossible to spend the same money twice. If the Minister wants to do both, where is the money going to come from?

Finally, many hon. Members referred to the seeming disconnect between investment decisions in London and the south-east and elsewhere in the country, the north-west in particular. The hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton used a good phrase:

“Growth goes where the growth already is.”

The previous Government at least took the first step in tackling an injustice in the Green Book analysis. That was undertaken to unlock some of the levelling-up investment that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to. I am concerned that the new Government—certainly the new Treasury—are reverting to type. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer had her growth panic a few weeks ago—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister.

10:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on raising the important topic of connectivity in the north-west—an area that was a cradle to so many transport innovations and is home to beautiful countryside and some of our greatest cities and towns. It is not quite Yorkshire, but it is still a pretty special place.

Kick-starting economic growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission, and the economic performance of the north-west is vital to successful delivery. It is essential that we deliver our plan for change to create more jobs, put more money in people’s pockets and help to rebuild Britain—but, as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises, we cannot have good growth without the transport connectivity to support it.

A truly connected transport network must be designed and built in collaboration with local leaders. That is why the English devolution White Paper published last year is so important. It is an opportunity to reset our relationship with local and sub-national government and to empower local leaders and mayors to make the right decisions for their communities. We are already seeing the benefits across mayoral areas with the introduction of the Bee network in Greater Manchester, alongside mayors in the Liverpool city region and West Yorkshire who are working towards taking back control of their buses. I will just put on the record how pleased I was to hear yesterday that South Yorkshire will also be taking back control of its buses.

The Government will be still more ambitious, however. First, we will make the process for taking buses back into public control faster and simpler through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill. Secondly, we will give mayors a statutory role in governing, managing and planning the rail network, working alongside Great British Railways. Thirdly, through the English devolution Bill, we will put the roles of mayors on a primary footing, setting out a clear and broad set of powers that will be available to mayors and local leaders.

Our transport network has seen decades of decay. Communities have been cut off and short-changed. Fragmented networks have hindered meaningful change, and the state of our local roads is a result of past under-investment. We are determined to reverse that. An uplift of £200 million was secured at the autumn spending review for city region sustainable transport settlement areas for 2025-26, which was welcomed by the mayoral combined authorities, including Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region, which are receiving over £1.7 billion from the current CRSTS programme.

The autumn Budget announcement also included a commitment of over £650 million in local transport funding in 2025-26 to ensure that transport connections improve in towns, villages and rural areas, and a funding uplift of £500 million for 2025-26 for highways maintenance. Of that £500 million, the north-west region is receiving over £64.8 million in additional funding. In the Budget the Government confirmed investment of over £1 billion to support and improve bus services and keep fares affordable. Local transport authorities across the north-west have been allocated nearly £150 million for the 2025-26 financial year.

The Government are committed to improving transport across the north, including boosting rail connectivity from east to west. We are already taking forward the trans-Pennine route upgrade—TRU—which will improve rail performance and support growth and housing by reducing journey times and providing more passenger services on the line between Manchester and York. We are delivering the Manchester taskforce programme, which is central to the Government’s ambitious multibillion-pound rail investment across the north. As announced in the autumn Budget, we are maintaining momentum on Northern Powerhouse Rail by progressing planning and design works to support its future delivery.

On our strategic road network we are developing a five-year third road investment strategy that will cover 2026 to 2031. The RIS will be published before the end of 2025. Our vision is for a network that connects more people to more places, making our day-to-day journeys easier and simpler, and building a network that can attract investment, whether that is through boosting efficiency or unlocking land for development.

The integrated national transport strategy will be published this year and will set a long-term vision for transport in England, focusing on how transport should be designed, built and operated to better serve all the people who use it and enable them to live fulfilling lives. We will develop the strategy through collaborative and open engagement with our stakeholders and people who use transport.

It is impossible for me to cover every point raised today, but I will touch on a few. On Northern Rail, it has been made really clear to Northern’s management that the current performance is not acceptable. That is why Rail North Partnership, through which the Department for Transport and Transport for the North jointly manage Northern’s contract, issued it with a notice of breach of contract, which has required Northern to produce a detailed plan to improve its services.

On HS2, transport is an essential part of our mission to rebuild Britain, and I am committed to delivering infrastructure that works for the whole country and of course to improving rail connectivity across the midlands and the north. My ministerial colleagues and I are carefully reviewing the position we have inherited on HS2 and wider rail infrastructure.

On the previous Government’s commitments on investment, I will just remind the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about the £22 billion black hole. They left this Government to pick up the pieces.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not give way.

We acknowledge that rates of step-free access remain low across Great Britain, which is why the Access for All programme is working to address that. In the Greater Manchester area—

[Tim Farron]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not give way, because I have a lot of points to make, but I am happy to have a conversation with Members afterwards. In the Greater Manchester area, about 50% of stations already have step-free access, approximately double the national average. We remain committed to improving the accessibility of the railways and recognise the valuable social and economic benefits that that brings to communities. However, the programme continues to be heavily oversubscribed, so we welcome opportunities for external funding to improve the accessibility of the network.

The objective of the Treasury’s review of the Green Book is to understand whether it is being used in a way that ensures fair, objective and transparent appraisals of proposals outside London and the south-east of England. DFT officials are working closely with the Treasury on that review and will take forward any relevant actions following its conclusion.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton very much for raising this important issue. I hope that I have been able to reassure her that the Government recognise the importance of transport connectivity across the north-west. That is why we are investing and that is why we are devolving to local leaders. I look forward to continuing to work with her and other hon. Members on this key issue.

10:57

[Jo Platt]

Thank you for chairing the debate, Dr Murrison. There is not much time left, so I will not go through everyone’s contribution, but I express thanks to everybody who attended and everybody who made such valid points about how we improve our transport infrastructure for the north-west. I just hope that as we go forward, we can all work together and speak as one voice, working across the parties and with our Minister and this Government, to get the improvements that we desperately need.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered improving transport connectivity in the North West.

Defence Industries: West Midlands

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered defence industries in the West Midlands.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Global threats are evolving, making defence investment more critical than ever. A strong defence underpins our security and sovereignty, but we must scale up to meet the modern challenges. The warning flags were raised in 2014, yet the UK lacked a long-term strategy. The defence industry drives innovation and economic growth, but skill shortages and supply chain volatility risk holding it back. Our armed forces are only as strong as our defence sector.

Across the west midlands and the UK, the defence industry provides security, supports thousands of jobs, and fuels innovation in areas such as AI, cyber and advanced manufacturing. The region is home to major players, including Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems and Babcock, with BAE Systems alone working with 11 small and medium-sized enterprises, including one in my constituency of Tamworth.

The Government’s renewed focus on defence as part of their industrial strategy is welcome. I also support the recent commitment to the largest defence spending increase since the cold war, meaning that we will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. With post-war alliances shifting, we must continue investing in our defence capabilities.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I recently visited Somers Forge in my constituency—it is the 10th oldest SME in the United Kingdom, and has been supplying defence equipment since the Battle of Blenheim in 1704. It was great to meet with its team, and see the important work that it does. Does my hon. Friend agree that our defence industrial strategy will help SMEs access defence investment and boost businesses such as Somers Forge in the west midlands?

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree. This industrial strategy is essential in making sure we have the focus to support our businesses right across the region, and in making sure that they are successful.

The upcoming defence industrial strategy must prioritise British businesses, including SMEs, ensuring that investment creates jobs and strengthens our national security. Currently, nearly 18,000 people work in defence SMEs in the west midlands, and the Ministry of Defence spends £1.6 billion annually in the region, making it the UK’s third largest defence hub. By backing UK industry, and fostering co-operation between Government, business and workers, we can build a defence sector fit for the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward, and she is certainly making a reputation for herself as an assiduous MP on these issues. I welcome what she said in relation to the Government’s commitment to 2.5% increasing to 3%—there is nobody in the United Kingdom who does not welcome that. I know that we in Northern Ireland have very strong sectors in the work we do with the Royal Navy and Thales, but does the hon. Lady agree that we must ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom can get the advantages that she has referred to, in terms of not just security, but the economy, jobs and opportunities? If we can all be part of this process going forward, that could support the Minister and the Labour Government.

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. In fact I will go on to talk about just how important it is that all our regions and nations are embedded in this process, and that they all contribute different skills that are of value. There are so many different aspects to defence, and our defence industries that contribute and go well past into other areas of manufacturing. I thank him for raising that point.

Last week, the Business and Trade Committee heard from Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems, Leonardo and MBDA on the global combat air programme, which is an alliance between the UK, Italy and Japan, who are designing Tempest fighter jets. That alliance integrates advanced air combat technology, ensuring that our defence capabilities match evolving threats. Defence alliances are a cornerstone of trade diplomacy, driving both national security and industrial growth. They have been cited as having the potential to drive our export growth, while cementing important alliances for our defence.

One issue raised with the Business and Trade Committee was the short-term nature of defence funding cycles; even major companies operate on a one-year funding cycle, making it difficult to sustain long-term projects such as Tempest. National security priorities do not fit neatly into parliamentary terms, and our defence sector needs stability. It was suggested that moving to a three or five-year funding model would provide certainty, drive innovation and ensure that the UK remains a global leader in defence. What conversations is the Minister having on the contractual arrangements currently in play for companies and the assessment that he has made of their ability to help the Government to reach their goals for the sector and national security?

Export-led growth will be essential to the defence industries that need a wider base than just their own sovereign purchasing power. By exporting technology and products, companies will be able to keep the continuity of build programmes going away from that boom-and-bust cycle. We could use industry to foster diplomatic relations of bilateral importance. The future of the defence industry relies on a workforce equipped with the right skills and adaptable to the evolving demands of our armed forces and the Ministry of Defence.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my on. Friend and neighbour for securing this important debate. Every year, Bedworth residents show their pride in our armed forces with their Armistice Day parade, which I was privileged to take part in this year. Many of my constituents already work in the defence and security sector in small and medium-sized enterprises around the west midlands. I am glad that this number will only go up with the Government’s increased investment in our defence and security. Does my hon. Friend agree that the west midlands should be proud of the contribution we make towards the defence and security of our nation, and should look forward to seeing more people benefiting from the skills and training that come from joining this industry?

[Sarah Edwards]

That contribution is paramount to the debate; the west midlands is very proud not only of being the third largest region in terms of our contribution to the defence sector, but that our constituents work very hard to contribute to that. It is incredibly important that people see that they are a part of this endeavour, and it is not something that is happening far away from them. They are an essential part, so I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point.

To achieve this, we must create clear, skills-based career pathways that allow individuals to upskill or transition into the sector at different stages of their career. One effective way to address that challenge is through closer collaboration between further education centres and the defence industry. These partnerships are critical in identifying skills gaps and shaping education programmes that directly address industry needs. By doing this, we can provide young people with a clear vision for how they can step into the defence industry. Young people too often underestimate the transferability of their skills across industries. Many assume that the expertise they gain in education or early career roles is limited to a single sector, but abilities such as problem solving, teamwork, communication and technical proficiency are in high demand across multiple fields. An engineering student may not realise that their expertise is equally valuable in defence.

At the same time, we must ensure that those already in the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence have the opportunity to reskill and upskill—a zig-zag career approach, where individuals move between roles and gain new skills. That would allow personnel to adapt to the changes, ensuring that the MOD retains experienced talent, while keeping pace with technological advancements. In my constituency, we are fortunate to house Defence Medical Services Whittington, which hosts the defence medical academy. That institution is dedicated to advancing the training and research that can provide our military personnel with the best medical care and knowledge required to tackle complex injuries on the battlefield.

Linking our industries with our military centres provides opportunities for skills development and transfer. The social value created by defence industries is strategic value. Larger companies in the west midlands are capitalising on key skills. Some companies, such as Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems, are currently creating their own apprenticeship training programmes. How is the Minister working with the Minister for Skills on developing pathways and opportunities that directly respond to the needs of the sector?

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I attended a roundtable in my constituency held by the Manufacturing Technology Centre and chaired by the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), and the Minister for Nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), who is one of my neighbouring MPs, to discuss with local businesses their involvement in the defence supply chain. I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying about large companies investing in skills development.

GE Vernova is a 130-year-old company based in Rugby that specialises in electric propulsion systems for naval vessels. It has supplied propulsion systems for the Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigates, and it developed and delivered the world’s first fully electric warships. Indeed, 92% of the Royal Navy’s fleet is powered by its electric propulsion systems. This is vital, because it is creating new jobs in Rugby and across the country. Does my hon. Friend welcome the Government’s commitment to spreading the economic benefits of the defence sector across the entire country?

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree. It is almost as though my hon. Friend predicted what I will speak about next, because I will soon tell a story about a visit that I made. The fact that the company has been in his constituency for 130 years shows that Britain has this prowess, and we do not want to lose it. Through this strategy, we have to ensure that such businesses are still going and that that innovation is being incorporated into technology.

The Business and Trade Committee went to Scotland on Monday. Although ships are manufactured in Scotland, it takes a whole country to build them. The Committee witnessed the incredible shipbuilding work taking place at the BAE Systems site in Govan. The commitment to skills development in Scotland is impressive, with competitive apprenticeship programmes open to all ages, allowing career changes and retraining. The programmes are more competitive than gaining a place at Oxford University, highlighting the value of practical skills and apprenticeships. The narrative that university is the only option to success has, in part, fuelled a shortage in skills.

During our visit, I stood onboard HMS Cardiff in its fit-out stage and saw where HMS Birmingham will soon start the next phase of its construction, in a giant hangar that is large enough for two ships to be built side by side. The Type 26 frigates being built in Scotland are world-class and, when used properly, will be crucial for our trade diplomacy strategy, with many countries eager to buy British.

A key theme raised as being important to the success of the defence industrial strategy was the continuity of work to preserve an essential skills base. For example, steel may come from Port Talbot in Wales, making up 4% of the cost of a ship, but 25% of the cost is in the combat systems, requiring digital engineering and design expertise found in places such as Hertfordshire. Fostering innovation across the defence and civil sectors such as aerospace is crucial, as demonstrated by the evidence given to the Business and Trade Committee yesterday by Airbus, which said that more than 50% of the supply chain is both defence and civil.

Our visit reinforced the importance of a collaborative, nationwide approach to defence. From steel manufacturing to advanced digital systems, every region and nation of the UK contributes to defence and innovation, playing a part in our national security. Will the Minister meet me and defence companies in my constituency to talk about how they can continue to play a part—and, indeed, play a greater part—in the endeavour that the Government have set out? To ensure the long-term security and strength of our defence and industrial sectors, we must build that greater resilience in our supply chains.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for the way she is leading it. In my constituency, we have JCB, which is a major employer and manufacturer, but we also have Crestchic Loadbanks, which is an SME that often finds it difficult to get access to Government contracts. Does she agree that, as we look at the defence industrial strategy, we have to ensure that we are backing British business and that all those companies can make a contribution to our shared national defence?

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree. We have to back British, we have to buy British, and we have to keep the west midlands in pole position, innovating and ensuring that companies working across civil and defence can get the maximum benefit from the new procurement contracts coming from the MOD.

A comprehensive review of the UK supply chain is essential to ensure that SMEs have visibility and fair access to Government contracts. Smaller businesses often struggle to break into large procurement processes dominated by major players, and access to funding is difficult. Again, the annual funding cycles were cited by Flare Bright and Gibson Robotics as problematic for growing SMEs in the evidence we heard yesterday.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her generosity in giving way and for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue. She is clearly setting out the value of the defence sector in Tamworth, the villages and our region more widely. In Cannock, engineers at Briggs Equipment have extended the operational life of the RAF’s fleet of bespoke air-transportable forklift trucks by at least 10 years. This might not be the most high-profile equipment, but those specialist forklifts are being used for everyday logistics and for military and humanitarian missions as far afield as Cyprus, Ascension Island and the Falklands. Does my hon. Friend agree that such local businesses are essential to the wider defence supply chain, providing high-quality jobs, boosting skills and contributing to Staffordshire’s success?

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree, particularly with my hon. Friend’s shout out to his constituency and, of course, Staffordshire, which plays an important role. As hon. Members have said, we have a concentration of hard-working companies, and there is a benefit to their dual-use aspects. That is something we should push as a nation to ensure we get the most for all our regions.

RAND Europe, commissioned by the MOD in 2021, found that

“SMEs and mid-tier suppliers report difficulties accessing and engaging with both top tier suppliers and the MOD”.

Barriers included a lack of corporate functions and challenges in marketing their businesses to prime contractors. UK defence supply chains also struggled to attract non-traditional suppliers due to slow, inflexible and bureaucratic processes. It concluded that the MOD’s approach to contracting is seen as “inflexible” and disadvantageous to lower-tier suppliers, which “discourages innovation.”

Examples of how the MOD could support smaller suppliers and foster innovation were cited as being, in part, possible due to the defence and security accelerator programme, or DASA, because it creates a contract for revenue, which is vital so that firms can demonstrate to other investors that they are viable—grants cannot be treated in the same way. Can the Minister reflect on how the DASA programme could be expanded to align more closely with the challenges that SMEs face in developing products and solving problems?

The DASA programme has an element of mentoring, which those who have used it have cited as very valuable. The US also uses a model in which technical liaison officers scout for companies and then support them through the complex military procurement and due diligence processes. Has the Minister considered a similar scheme in defence industrial policy, and has he spoken with his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade on how to align those goals for maximum impact?

Yesterday, the Business and Trade Committee heard that procurement towards capability might better suit the fast-paced environment that military technology now inhabits. Ukraine has shown that innovation is happening in weeks, not years, so the procurement need —rather than defined items—may in some circumstances foster better results. The strategic defence review will also be an important part of informing those decisions. It is a vital first step, taken by this Government, to ensure that we have the right force capability fit for the future and that, when we spend money, we spend it well.

It has been suggested that one large innovation hub could be created, establishing facilities for testing programmes that could then enable smaller companies to continue developing, leading to small-scale buying programmes that could later be scaled into larger ones. That sets a clear pathway that could be stewarded by an individual liaison. Those are some of the things the Committee has heard that we think could support the Government’s ideals.

The west midlands is showcasing the incredible potential of the UK’s defence industry as a driver of security, economic growth, innovation and skills development. Investing in reskilling and upskilling is crucial for those currently serving in the armed forces and the MOD, as well as for future-proofing our defence workforce. Building resilience in our supply chains by prioritising UK businesses, especially SMEs, in procurement decisions is essential. I thank the Members present for showcasing the work of their constituents, and of the companies in their constituencies, to support the defence industries. By making funding more accessible and breaking down barriers to entry, we can harness British innovation and ensure that our defence industry remains competitive globally.

The Government have taken decisive action by focusing on an industrial strategy that prioritises defence. Amid global uncertainty, we must provide calm and focus on developing security systems that prepare our nation for any eventuality. Including our regions in the strategy unlocks opportunities and high-skilled jobs that benefit local communities everywhere, including those in my Tamworth constituency. We have talent, expertise and ambition, and now we must make the right choices to unlock that potential.

11:20

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

It is good to see you, Dr Murrison. As a former Defence Minister, you will know these subjects well. I might be a proud Janner—someone from Plymouth—but my great-grandfather, Alfred Carey, worked in the automotive industry making Hillman Minxes in the west midlands, so I feel that the debate has a connection with my past.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) for securing this debate and for speaking so passionately about not only why we need to defend our national security and learn lessons from Ukraine, but how we can spend the increased defence budget announced by the Prime Minister to create more British jobs and more opportunities for our young people to develop skills that will last them a lifetime and support the growth mission, which is this Government’s No. 1 mission.

As a native of the area, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth knows better than most the importance of defence to the west midlands. Although it is clear that defence makes a considerable contribution to the west midlands in jobs, investment and prosperity, today’s debate also reminds us of the huge contribution that the west midlands makes to UK defence, and the possibility of doing even more. Billions of pounds are injected annually into west midlands defence enterprises by industry and Government, but we know that our military is only as strong as the supply chain that supports it. What we have heard today is not only a clarion call of support for the big defence companies in the west midlands—the Rolls-Royces, the BAE Systems, the Babcocks—but a call for further investment in SMEs, which I will come back to.

As a Government, we are determined to nurture and develop the region’s defence cluster and defence businesses. As part of that, we need to invest more in skills, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth spoke about that. We know the world is becoming more dangerous and Britain is facing rising threats. The Government also face the challenges of rebuilding and reinvigorating our armed forces after a decade and a half of underfunding and hollowing out. That is why we launched the strategic defence review: to assess the dangers we face and determine the capabilities we need to meet them. It is why we brought forward our promise to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence to April 2027, and 3% in the next Parliament when economic conditions allow. It is why we are working hard on defence reform and the new defence industrial strategy: to unlock the potential of suppliers across the country.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth alluded to, there is a well-known phrase in military circles that soldiers win battles, but supply chains win wars. She was right to make the case that we need to invest more in our defence industry, because there are companies out there that will not regard themselves as defence companies.

People who work in data, digital or advanced manufacturing, or who support the wider supply chain, are defence companies in waiting. They are the innovative people who could support the next generation of military equipment and military operations. In making the case for investment in defence businesses, the Government need to be aware that if we get defence procurement right, we can expand the number of companies involved. That increases the economic benefits of spending, but also enables us to access skills, ingenuity and innovation, especially among SMEs.

[Sarah Edwards]

The Minister has mentioned the examples of the automotive sector and cyber-security, and how many people do not realise that they are working in comparable industries. As parliamentarians, how can we work to showcase the different ways that people are contributing to the defence industry, or could be working in it? How can we promote that? What does the Minister think we can do to make sure people realise that this is a wider, shared endeavour and that their skills are very transferable?

[Luke Pollard]

That is an excellent question. It comes down to how we implement the defence industrial strategy that my colleague, the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, is leading within the Department. That needs to tie in with the whole-of-Government and whole-of-society effort for our national defence, which is something Parliament will need to speak more of in future. To defend our nation and support our allies, we will need this mission to be held passionately not just by people in uniform and the Ministry of Defence. We will need every Department to understand its contribution to that mission. When we invest in skills, we will have the opportunity to do that.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend mentioned the Type 26 builds in Scotland. As the MP for Devonport in Plymouth, where the Type 26s will be based, I know how incredible these frigates will be, how they will deter Russian submarine activity in the north Atlantic, and how they will contribute directly to the security of our nation and our allies.

To build those frigates, we will need to invest in skills on a long-term basis. We are looking at how we can have multi-year budgets, to invest more in skills and supply chains, rather than having the annual cycle. Frankly, and as the Defence Secretary has made very clear, defence needs to spend money better than it has in the past. That is why he started a programme of defence reform to make sure we reform not only how we fight and how we are configured, but also how we procure. The recruitment for a new national armaments director is a significant part of driving the defence reform needed to support SMEs as well as primes.

[Alex Ballinger]

We are talking about procurement. Just this week I met Members of the European Parliament in Brussels to talk about our collective response to Ukraine. One of the challenges that Somers Forge in my Halesowen constituency faces is the struggle with European supply chains and the trade barriers between the UK and Europe. As we go through a new reset with Europe, will the Minister commit to push for greater access for defence industries to the European market?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for talking about Somers Forge and those opportunities. It is certainly something that my Cabinet Office colleagues, who are leading that reset work with Europe, are very conscious of. It is also something that the Defence Secretary picked up with High Representative Kallas from the European Commission yesterday. They looked at the opportunities for UK industry, which is already integrated across our European partners, to work without some of the obstacles in the way of delivering the defence capabilities we need to deter Russian aggression. There is an opportunity here.

A number of Members have spoken about the importance of SMEs in their constituencies and the jobs that they provide. Five years ago, the Ministry of Defence spent 5% of its direct spend with SMEs. In July 2024, we inherited a situation where that had fallen to 4%. The Department has now set an ambition to spend more direct spend with SMEs across the country. We are consulting on what the level should be, so that it is achievable but stretching.

We are working with organisations such as Make UK to understand what barriers need to be overcome and removed to support SMEs to access that direct spend—rather than just supporting the brilliant work of our primes as subcontractors—because we know that if they have a direct spending relationship with the MOD, they are more likely to be able to access overseas export markets. It is precisely for that reason that we are adjusting how we deliver defence procurement within the Ministry of Defence. It could not only spend the money better in the UK and create more jobs, it could also increase the size of our economy by receiving export orders from abroad.

In their interventions on my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, Members talked about how we can invest more. I am keen to invest more in SMEs, and I am keen that we speak about the opportunity for young people to find a brilliant career in defence. The zig-zag career proposal is absolutely vital. We need to make sure that we do not create cliff edges and that transferring from regular service to the reserves is easier, so that people can serve in our military, move into industry and then return to service without there being cliff edges that get in the way. There are huge opportunities.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth secured this debate and that we have had this conversation about how we can invest in our defence, grow our economy and provide jobs that will benefit our young people for their entire careers.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Miscarriage of Justice Compensation

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner in the Chair]

14:30

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered miscarriage of justice compensation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I wager that the majority of citizens are unfamiliar with the workings of the criminal justice system, and still less familiar with miscarriages of justice. Perhaps, if they are aware of miscarriages of justice, they are aware of certain high-profile exonerees or miscarriages of justice, such as the Cardiff Three, the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six. Most people will understandably and reasonably assume that victims of miscarriages of justice are compensated, particularly if they spent time in custody before being pardoned or having their convictions quashed. However, this is not the case. In England and Wales, compensation for the wrongly convicted is the exception rather than the rule. The current compensation scheme enables only some people in England and Wales who have had their convictions overturned, or been found not guilty at retrial, to receive compensation.

I make it very clear that my concern is not that miscarriages of justice happen. Sadly, no system in the world is perfect. Miscarriages of justice happen—we cannot get it correct 100% of the time—but when they occur, citizens expect the state to right that wrong. In a survey by Opinium in December 2024, 71% of those asked believed the Government should ensure fair and swift compensation for those who are wrongly convicted. Many will therefore be appalled to learn that this is not the case, that victims of miscarriages of justice seldom receive compensation for the wrong that has befallen them, that the wrongly convicted often have to fight for years, at great cost, to clear their name, and that the justice system unnecessarily forces the innocent to suffer continued injustice.

The issue in this debate is the failure of the state to right these wrongs. We should be clear that a miscarriage of justice inflicts considerable harm on the wrongly convicted. A 2018 report by the campaign group Justice, “Supporting Exonerees: Ensuring Accessible, Consistent and Continuing Support,” underscores the grave hardship and difficulty that the wrongly convicted have in adjusting to life after conviction, and the trauma that they have gone through, which they must deal with for years after the event. The report highlights how victims of miscarriages of justice struggle to adjust. Having spent time in prison, becoming institutionalised and grappling with the fact that they should not be there, they struggle to trust authorities.

The unfairness of the current system was brought into sharp relief for me when I met my constituent Mr Brian Buckle and his family and learned of their experiences. I am pleased that they have made the journey from Fishguard to join us in the Public Gallery.

In May 2017, Mr Buckle was convicted on 16 counts of historical sexual offences and sentenced to a total of 15 years’ imprisonment. He had always maintained his innocence, and in September 2022 the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction and ordered a retrial. He was immediately released on bail, having served five years and four months of his sentence. The retrial took place in May 2023. Mr Buckle and his defence team, led by Mr Stephen Vullo KC, who is also in the Public Gallery, prepared a detailed defence and presented new witnesses and forensic evidence. After three long weeks in court, the jury returned unanimous not guilty verdicts in just over an hour.

I cannot fathom the strain that Mr Buckle has endured as a result of years of legal proceedings and the travesty of being imprisoned for a crime that he did not commit. Let us remember what the wrongly convicted must go through and its impact. He missed important family milestones, such as his daughter’s 18th and 21st birthdays. His imprisonment cost him over £500,000 in lost income and devastated his plan to retire at 55 with a private pension, because he had been unable to make any contributions following his imprisonment. Furthermore, his state pension is now in jeopardy, given that he was unable to make any national insurance contributions for more than five years.

The impact on Mr Buckle is not limited to the period in which he was deprived of his liberty. Indeed, I am afraid to say that he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder because of the impact of his wrongful conviction and imprisonment. His mental health is such that he has been unable to work since his release.

Prior to this awful state of affairs, Mr Buckle travelled every week from west Wales to London because he was in charge of an engineering firm. He performed this very important role, which had a lot of responsibility, for more than 15 years. He made the weekly journey on the great western main line or the M4 that the Minister and I also make.

This travesty of justice could befall any of us, through no fault of our own. Although it is difficult to comprehend the nightmare that has befallen Mr Buckle and his family, one can estimate the financial impact of his ordeal in terms of the income and pension that have been lost. Perhaps we can also put a figure on the costs incurred for appeals and legal defences, but how can we begin to calculate the impact on his health or the loss of precious time with his family?

I am sure we would all agree that that is a difficult dilemma, but it was not difficult, it would seem, for the Ministry of Justice, which issued a cruelly simple response to Mr Buckle after he applied for compensation under the statutory scheme. In the decision letter, which was issued almost a year after the application was submitted, the MOJ rejected his claim out of hand:

“Having carefully considered the particular circumstances of the reversing of your conviction, I do not consider your case demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not commit the offences for which you were convicted.”

Mr Buckle spent five years and four months in prison, and he had his conviction overturned by the Court of Appeal. He produced a detailed defence, including new witnesses and fresh forensic evidence, at retrial, at which the jury unanimously returned not guilty verdicts to all 16 counts in just over an hour. Having been subjected to that ordeal and having jumped through all the hoops that one could expect him to jump through, the Ministry of Justice’s response was not only to deny him compensation but, worse, to state that it does not consider that his case

“demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not commit the offences for which you were convicted”—

the same offences of which he was acquitted.

There was no reference to the harm he has suffered, to the impact on his family or to the Court of Appeal being concerned that the original trial was so flawed that the jury had failed to approach their task correctly that it ruled the conviction unsafe, such that the new witnesses and fresh forensic evidence were ultimately unnecessary. All that Mr Buckle received was a pretty meaningless reassurance that the matter had been “carefully considered.” If this is what comes from careful consideration, I dread to think what would result from reckless handling, but it surely could not be much worse for Mr Buckle. After years of legal battles following his wrongful conviction, he has been told that, although he is not guilty, the state will not compensate him for the years spent in prison because it does not believe that he has proven his innocence.

One does not need to be a King’s Counsel to see the unfairness of this situation. There can be no doubt that such a decision prolongs the miscarriage of justice in Mr Buckle’s case. That is a wrong that this new UK Government can and, indeed, must put right.

Before I discuss how the Government can do that, it is worth our reflecting briefly on how we have arrived at the current situation. Before 2006, the Government operated two compensation schemes for victims of miscarriages of justice in England and Wales: a discretionary scheme and a statutory scheme. The discretionary scheme was abolished in 2006, but the statutory scheme afforded the Justice Secretary the discretion to pay compensation to a wrongly convicted person when:

“his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice”.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the meaning of “miscarriage of justice” for the purposes of the statutory scheme should not be restricted to applicants who are able to conclusively demonstrate their innocence, and should be extended to cases where a new or newly discovered fact

“so undermines the evidence against the defendant that no conviction could possibly be based upon it”.

However, in 2014, the then UK Government legislated to reverse the effect of this decision. The test for eligibility for compensation under the statutory scheme, as set out in section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, was amended by section 175 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in such a way as to restrict compensation to those who can prove innocence “beyond reasonable doubt”. Therefore, for applications made to the statutory scheme on or after 13 March 2014, there will have been a miscarriage of justice

“if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence”.

That modest rewording of a single section of an Act of Parliament has proved devastating. Indeed, it is legally illiterate to effectively reverse the burden of proof in this way, for it places a burden on the victim of a miscarriage of justice to prove their innocence. This is such a high bar that, in the words of the joint dissenting opinion of judges in the European Court of Human Rights case of Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom, it:

“represents a hurdle which is virtually insurmountable”.

Such a claim is not solely a matter of opinion, but an observable fact. The data on applications to the miscarriage of justice application service shows that less than 7% of applications submitted between April 2016 and March 2024 were successful.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have always believed—and the hon. Gentleman is probably the same—that someone is always innocent until proven guilty. It seems that the Ministry of Justice is saying: “You are actually guilty. Now prove yourself innocent.”

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Gentleman has got to the nub of the matter. That is precisely the effect of the change implemented in 2014. It has devastated the number of successful applications for compensation, because if we consider the data for the period between 1999 and 2024, we can see that, prior to the introduction of the new section 133 test, 45.6% of applicants received compensation for their wrongful convictions, but, following its introduction, just 6.6% of cases were successful—a drop of 39 percentage points. This new test has virtually put a stop to compensation payouts for these kinds of miscarriages of justice—an insurmountable hurdle indeed.

Members may wonder about the purpose of restricting eligibility in this way, and I am sure we will hear arguments that it was done to prevent those exonerated on a technicality from receiving compensation, but the cynic in me fears that the restriction was introduced to cut costs. Prior to 2014, the Ministry of Justice made average annual payouts of £5.9 million. Following the change, we have seen the average annual payouts under the scheme drop by 95%, to an average of £297,000. Even successful applicants have seen their individual compensation payments fall, with the average pre-2014 payment totalling just over £267,000, falling to an average of £61,000 after the change.

I am reminded of Cicero’s teachings, over two millennia ago:

“Justice looks for no prize and no price; it is sought for itself”.

He also said, of course:

“The worst kind of injustice is to look for profit from injustice.”

It is for others to consider whether anyone profits from this injustice, but the savings that the 2014 test realises for the Ministry of Justice perhaps offer an answer to that age-old question of, “What price do we put on justice?” Well, I can tell you, Mr Turner: it is around £5.6 million a year on average, compared with the pre-2014 payments.

The current system therefore places an almost impossible burden on the applicant—one whereby they are required to find a new fact that shows beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence for which they have been acquitted. The perverse situation into

The perverse situation into which the 2014 change forces the wrongly convicted can be summarised as follows: they are required to prove that they are innocent of a crime for which they have already been exonerated. I appreciate that this is an academic point, but it is worth considering whether some high-profile exonerees—the Cardiff Three, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six—would receive compensation if they applied under the scheme today.

To the layman, it is difficult to understand how such a situation is compatible with the principles underpinning our justice system, because it undermines the well-understood principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty. I know there might be a challenge to that assertion, but the fact remains that the current rules place the obligation on the defendant to prove that they did not commit a crime to the criminal standard of proof, which is beyond reasonable doubt.

In Mr Buckle’s rejection letter, the Ministry of Justice, as well as reassuring him that his case had been carefully considered, asserted that, despite rejection of his claim for compensation, he is still presumed to be, and remains, innocent of the charges brought against him. If you were ever looking for a definition of Orwellian doublespeak, Mr Turner, that response is a perfect example. It illustrates how the 2014 change, by reversing the burden of proof, undermines the presumption of innocence and forces the Ministry to perform quite impressive but legally illogical linguistic gymnastics.

For if Mr Buckle is in law presumed to be innocent, surely he must be treated as such by the state. A man presumed to be innocent who has spent more than five years in jail should be compensated. If the state wants to treat him as though he were a guilty man and deny him compensation, why should the burden not fall on to the state to prove his guilt? Claims by the Ministry of Justice—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for approximately 65 minutes for multiple Divisions in the House. If we get back earlier than that and all Members are in their place, I will recommence the debate.

14:47

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

16:00

On resuming—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

We will start where we left off. Injury time will be added to the debate, so I expect it to finish at 5.13 pm. I call Mr Ben Lake.

[Ben Lake]

I am grateful for the additional time to conclude the debate.

Prior to the Divisions, I was reiterating the perversity of the situation that the 2014 change has forced the wrongly convicted into. It can be summarised as follows: they are required to prove that they are innocent of a crime of which they have already been exonerated. To the layman, it is difficult to understand how such a situation is compatible with the principles that underpin our criminal justice system, for it undermines the well-understood principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty. I know that this can be challenged in practice, but the fact remains that the current compensation rules place the obligation on the defendant to prove that they did not commit a crime—a crime, of course, of which they have already been acquitted to the criminal standard of proof, which is beyond all reasonable doubt.

Let me return to the case of my constituent Mr Buckle. In its rejection letter, the Ministry of Justice, as well as reassuring him that his case had been carefully considered, asserted that, despite rejecting his claim for compensation, he is still presumed to be and remains innocent of the charges brought against him. If we were ever looking for a definition of Orwellian doublespeak, this response is a perfect example. It illustrates the way in which, by reversing the burden of proof, the 2014 change undermines the presumption of innocence and forces the Ministry to perform quite impressive, but illogical, linguistic gymnastics. For if Mr Buckle is presumed to be innocent in law, he must be treated as such by the state. A man presumed to be innocent, who has spent more than five years in jail, should be compensated; if the state wants to treat him as though he were a guilty man, and deny him that compensation, why should the burden of proving his guilt not fall on the state?

The Ministry’s claims that Mr Buckle is still presumed to be, and remains, innocent of the charges brought against him ring rather hollow when he is also denied a single penny in redress. It is clearly an affront to justice that the eligibility test prevents those who have been wrongly convicted from enjoying the full and unconditional benefits of being presumed innocent.

There is a growing acceptance of the need for action on this matter. Sadly, the list of miscarriages of justice that have perhaps not received as much media attention, but which are just as deserving of compensation, grows ever longer. I could mention cases such as that of Sam Hallam, who was imprisoned for seven years; Victor Nealon, who was imprisoned for 17 years; or Oliver Campbell, who spent 11 years in prison and a total of 34 years fighting to clear his name.

All have suffered unimaginable harm as a consequence of their wrongful convictions and, just like my constituent Mr Buckle, deserve justice. The new UK Government have an opportunity to provide it, and I urge them to address this injustice without delay. I know that the Minister will agree with the principle that the state should compensate those who have wrongly been deprived of their liberty by the state, and I would welcome confirmation from her that this is the Government’s position.

The Law Commission is consulting on reform to the law governing criminal appeals, because it, too, acknowledges that the current state of affairs is completely unfair. The Law Commission’s intervention is to be welcomed, in so far as it acknowledges the unfairness of the current position of the wrongly convicted. In its consultation, the commission suggests that, if the burden is to fall on an accused to prove innocence to obtain compensation, it should be to the civil standard, rather than the criminal standard, as is the position in every other situation in a criminal case where the evidential burden shifts to the defence. That would bring things into line with the normal state of affairs. Will the Minister offer the Government’s position on the Law Commission’s proposal? Would the Government accept such a recommendation? If they are minded to accept, will they ensure that the recommendation is applied retrospectively to those wrongfully convicted since 13 March 2014?

Although I cautiously welcome to the intervention of the Law Commission, and agree that it would make the current situation fairer, it still does not explain why someone presumed innocent has a further obligation or burden to prove it, nor would it address the failings made by the scheme in determining Mr Buckle’s application for compensation, or prevent other claims from being rejected after similar careful consideration.

If the Government maintain that it is necessary for a person presumed innocent to prove it to receive compensation, I do not believe the appropriate authority to make that decision is an official at the Ministry of Justice, someone who, through no fault of their own, will be unfamiliar with the facts of the case and will not have witnessed the evidence given under oath, but who instead must work solely from the papers. Such an individual is not best placed to decide on such applications.

Surely it is the trial jury that is best placed to decide whether the evidence proved Mr Buckle—in this case—to be both not guilty and innocent. I request that the Minister meets us to discuss the handling of Mr Buckle’s specific application and also the merits of amending the law to allow a judge to ask the trial jury, in circumstances where they have acquitted the defendant on all charges, to consider also whether they are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant is innocent of those same charges.

If it is the Government’s intention to ensure that true victims of miscarriages of justice are fairly compensated, asking the trial jury to make the decision must be the fairest way. It is difficult to see any rational argument against it. I ask the Minister to be kind enough to agree to a meeting to discuss how we can ensure that Mr Buckle is granted that opportunity, so that this miscarriage of justice and the ordeal that he and his family have endured is finally brought to an end. Urgency is key, because justice delayed is justice denied.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to catch my eye to be called. I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

16:08

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve for the first time in a Westminster Hall debate that you are chairing, Mr Turner. It has also been a pleasure to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake). I thank him for selecting this topic for debate and for the outstanding representation he has given to his constituent, Mr Buckle.

There are concerns about miscarriages of justice that go beyond compensation. This debate is specifically about compensation, which I will come to, but it would be remiss of me not to note at the beginning of the process that there are various concerns, particularly around the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and more generally—I will come to the Law Commission report later. I will say no more than that there has been recent turbulence at the top of the CCRC and that the Justice Committee is holding a public session on that body on 1 April, when we might also touch on the subject of compensation.

I will briefly take this opportunity to say to the Minister that we are awaiting the appointment of an interim chair, following the resignation of the previous chair. We need an interim chair, and we need a strong interim chair. We also need a good process for selecting a permanent chair of that body. She will know that the Justice Committee has asked to be involved in that process as part of a pre-appointment approval hearing, and I hope that can happen. If she has anything to say on either of those matters today, that would be most welcome.

It is right that there are concerns about the process for identifying miscarriages of justice. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), who very ably chairs the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice, is here, and no doubt she will say something about this issue. Unless we clearly identify cases, and do so in a timely manner, the issue of compensation will come even further down the line or will perhaps not even come to the fore.

We have heard that the Law Commission is producing a substantial report—it is a very substantial consultation exercise, at some 700 pages so far—looking at the way that the CCRC operates. The Law Commission correctly says that the test that exists for referring cases is a faulty one. “Faulty” is my word; what the Law Commission says is that there is a real possibility that referred decisions would not be upheld due to a new argument or evidence not raised in the original or appeal proceedings, which effectively means that the CCRC is having to second-guess the view of the Court of Appeal. The Law Commission is consulting on that, and it says that it is provisionally persuaded that the current test should be replaced with a non-predictive one.

The second important change that the Law Commission is putting forward for consultation is that the CCRC should return to what I think it was originally intended and have an investigatory function. In so many cases, evidence presented to the CCRC is not looked at in good time, and when it is looked at, it is looked at purely on the merits of what is submitted, rather than the CCRC going behind the case to see whether there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Let me turn specifically to the issue of compensation. This issue has been added to the Law Commission review, and it has said, in very strong terms, that it believes that the law as it stands is incoherent on that point. The concluding paragraph in that section of the report, paragraph 16.75, says:

“The current compensation scheme seemingly prioritises minimising the risk of the guilty receiving compensation at the expense of the innocent receiving compensation. Some people who are provably innocent – on the balance of probabilities, which would ordinarily apply in civil compensation proceedings – are denied compensation. The stringent requirements of the current compensation scheme seem to be in tension with the overall objective of the criminal justice system. As noted by Lord Phillips, requiring a wrongfully convicted person to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt is a ‘heavy price to pay’ to ensure that no guilty person receives compensation. We consider that imposing the criminal standard of proof on an applicant is indefensible and inconsistent with the fundamental principles that underlie our criminal justice system.”

That is incredibly strong language from a body that is as thoughtful and reserved as the Law Commission.

It has also been said that some of the recent, and of course welcome, compensation schemes that have been devised to deal with the injustices in the Post Office Horizon scandal—there are four separate schemes for that—have had to be devised to deal with something that was a national outrage, affecting many thousands of people, because the current system simply does not work on its own merits.

I say gently to the Minister that all those factors are reasons why we have to look at both the issue of wrongful conviction and the issue of compensation for wrongful conviction. I do not want to go over the same ground that has been very assiduously described already by the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli, who secured this debate, but it has been said that, with each passing decade, there have been more and more restrictions.

There have been some positive steps. The previous Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, was right to end the disgrace of those who had been exonerated having to pay for their bed and board while in custody out of their compensation. That compensation is already heavily limited. The circumstances under which that compensation becomes available have, as we have heard, become extraordinarily limited. I can give one statistic in relation to that.

In 2005-06 the compensation actually awarded to victims of miscarriages of justice was £14.6 million. Ten years later—this is the total sum—it was £12,493. To all intents and purposes, compensation has ended as far as victims of miscarriage of justice are concerned. Of course, that is not everything. The important thing is to get people out of prison and clear their names once they have been exonerated. But the financial, material and other damages, including emotional damages, that in any field of civil law would be compensated, simply have not been addressed. People are still being punished.

As in the case of Mr Buckle, people are still being punished despite being exonerated. The state should not just be apologising, redressing wrong and vindicating people who have been shown to be in that situation. The idea that the “beyond reasonable doubt” test is a reasonable test, if there was ever an argument for it when it was introduced in 2014, has been disproved. The rationale was that if somebody was cleared on a technicality, it would be wrong for the state to compensate them for that. Well, the system is able to deal with cases like that. What it has done is caught everybody in its net, including the most deserving cases.

The only thing we have to think about when it comes to whether we have a just or unjust system at the moment is which historical cases would now be caught. At the invitation of the chair of the APPG, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside, I attended a 50th anniversary event of the Birmingham Six a week or two ago at which there were representatives of many other miscarriages of justice. The fact remains that were the Birmingham Six now being exonerated, or the Guildford Four, the Cardiff Three or many other cases, they would not receive compensation. The line has moved so far to one side that in almost every case there is an injustice.

Yes, it is vital that we get right the way we deal with miscarriages of justice, whether that is in the Court of Appeal, the CCRC or through legislation. Clearing someone’s name and getting them out of prison when they have been undeservedly sent there is one thing. Ensuring that they, their families and their lives are put back on track requires substantial sums of money—not thousands of pounds, but often hundreds of thousands of pounds, or in some cases millions of pounds.

There are arbitrary limits and insuperable barriers, which is itself a grave injustice. The sooner that we can change that system, the better. I do not know what my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say today, but within the next weeks and months we have to see not just a review of the rules on compensation, but a review of the whole way that the miscarriages system functions—in particular a review of the role of the CCRC, which appears to have severely lost its way.

16:18

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I wish you well in your new role. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for raising this issue. I watched him on TV this morning being interviewed with his constituent. He should be commended and applauded for his efforts on behalf of his constituent to find justice. In my intervention earlier I said to him that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round, and that is the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman has put forward. Like him, I cannot comprehend it.

Someone found not guilty is not guilty. If the court cannot prove it and feels that he or she should be freed, then for me the matter is clear. As has been alluded to, Northern Ireland does not operate under the same scheme as England and Wales, but we do have a scheme that has been accessed. Cases can be referred to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The CCRC investigates wrongful convictions in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was set up by the Government in response to a number of high-profile miscarriages of justice, including the case of the Birmingham Six. It receives some 1,400 applications a year from across the United Kingdom, including some 40 from Northern Ireland. Anyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can apply to the CCRC about a miscarriage of justice.

I recently read a BBC article on compensation for miscarriages of justice in Northern Ireland. It highlighted that more than £9 million

“has been paid in compensation since 2010 to 16 people who have had their criminal convictions overturned in Northern Ireland.”

So there is a compensation system under the CCRC, which has compensated at least those people in Northern Ireland. That is why the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli is right to pursue similar compensation for his constituent. The article noted that

“New figures show that 84 people were wrongly convicted of crimes between 2007 and 2017. Charges ranged from murder to rape and included people serving life sentences. At least half of those who had their convictions overturned spent time in prison, amounting collectively to more than 100 years in custody.”

Of those 84 convictions, 30% were for sexual crimes, 90% of those wrongfully convicted were men and 31 cases led to a retrial.

I am always mindful of the victims of crime—this week I have been highlighting the issues of victims in other circumstances. Even in cases where convictions are quashed, we should consider the words of Dr Hannah Quirk—a former CCRC caseworker and criminal law lecturer:

“it’s important to also understand what is meant by wrongful conviction. It would be very unusual for the Court of Appeal to say someone is innocent, instead it decides whether any new evidence has come to light that makes a conviction unsafe. So not all these cases will necessarily be about innocence and more about if the criminal justice system applied the rules fairly at the time and whether or not if the trial happened today that the person would be convicted based on the latest available evidence.”

That last phrase, about whether the person would be convicted based on the latest available evidence, shows why the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli is correct to pursue compensation for his constituent. We need to ensure for victims of crime that justice is carried out. Unsafe convictions are not justice and for those who are innocent, there should be compensation.

The old saying “There’s no smoke without fire” is often used when considering someone’s guilt, but a wrongful conviction leads to people having to restart their lives. What does that mean? I was thinking about it before this debate. It sometimes means that families have to move home, move their children to a new school, seek new jobs, and work out how they are going to take care of their mortgage. The issue of compensation is focal to what has to happen for those people who have to make a fresh start because of failings in the system and not because of their own deeds—the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli referred to that. It is right and proper that there should be help to start a new life for those who are genuinely innocent. However, the criteria for that compensation must be strict—we are not saying that it should not be. However, whenever there is a clear case of innocence, there should be no reasonable doubt from impartial eyes.

In Northern Ireland, compensation for victims of the troubles has been skewed, in that perpetrators of crimes can receive compensation for those crimes. Gerry Adams could receive compensation, or Gerry Kelly, who shot a prison officer in the head during a prison escape. Those people should never receive a single penny adorned with our King’s head, and that is why we must retain a very close scheme for these matters.

When there is a clear case—as the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli clearly illustrated in the TV and radio coverage, as well as today in this Chamber, where he has put forward an admirable case on behalf of his constituent —I support access to redress, but not for any purpose. I believe the judiciary must continue to have courage in its convictions and be supported to deliver real justice in every way possible.

16:25

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Turner. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for securing this important and timely debate, and for the vital work that he is doing in support of his constituent Brian Buckle and, by extension, all victims of miscarriages of justice, including those convicted under joint enterprise. I also declare my interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice.

As mentioned, earlier this month I held an event in Parliament to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the conviction of the Birmingham Six, and to remember the Maguire Seven and the Guildford Four, all of whom were wrongfully persecuted and convicted and all of whom fought tooth and nail for exoneration and justice. We heard some harrowing testimonies from Paddy Maguire, who was just 13 at the time of his arrest and suffered immense police brutality, and served time for his alleged handling of explosives. He and his family were eventually cleared of all wrongdoing, but the scars still run deep.

We hoped to hear from Paddy Hill, a titan of the justice world who dedicated his life not only to clearing his own name but to fixing the systemic issues that facilitated his wrongful persecution and prosecution in the first place. Unfortunately, he passed away in December last year, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to his life and work. Paddy was wrongly imprisoned for 16 years following the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings in one of the most profound examples of injustice in the UK legal system. Following his release, he campaigned tirelessly for justice on behalf of other wrongfully convicted prisoners.

Paddy’s dedication and the widespread outcry after the wrongful convictions of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven led to the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to prevent similar injustices. It was the first state body in the world established to help those convicted who claimed to be innocent. However, as we have heard, years of cuts and overlap in personnel with the police and courts undermined the CCRC’s effectiveness and independence.

There have been many recent scandals, including the outrageous case of Andy Malkinson, who served 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit in what has been called one of the worst miscarriages of justice in UK legal history. In the months after leaving prison, Malkinson was reliant on food banks and universal credit, suffering from mental ill health due to his wrongful conviction. Last month, he was finally awarded a six-figure sum as compensation, but he is one of only a handful of people wrongly convicted of a crime to be compensated in recent years.

Since the 2014 overhaul of the compensation policy by the coalition Government, the bar has been raised insurmountably high for most victims of wrongful convictions. The result has been a virtual halt in all compensation payouts for these devastating miscarriages of justice. In reality, only those who can demonstrate that new DNA or alibi evidence proved that they did not commit the crime will receive compensation—an absurdly high threshold that reverses the burden of proof and does not reflect the principles of just law. In practice, it is impossible to achieve that for the vast majority of cases.

Between 2020 and 2023, the MOJ paid out less than £1.3 million in compensation to victims of miscarriages of justice, following a two-year period when not a single penny of compensation was paid out. To put that in context, between 2007 and 2009, a total of £20.8 million was paid out.

Following the Post Office Horizon scandal and the infected blood scandal, we know that public sympathy and support for victims of miscarriages of justice are strong. The principle of fair justice is universally held, but it should be the true rule, not the exception. We should not need significant political campaigns and interventions from the top for justice to be accessed. Our justice systems should work according to the law and the principles on which they were founded. Where wrongdoings are done, there should be checks and balances to ensure that justice is achieved.

Instead, we see significant backlogs in the CCRC, with only a trickle of cases making it through to the Court of Appeal. While the recent resignation of the chair is welcome, we know the systemic failings and the lack of funding reveal the need for a complete overhaul, not just a change of leadership. Cases like the Birmingham Four are still awaiting a decision on their application to appeal. People who believe they can prove their innocence and who have a right to appeal their convictions are rotting in jail, while the system creaks.

If the public are to have confidence in the underfunded and struggling criminal justice system, they need to have confidence that the processes are both fair and appear to be fair. Checks and balances are needed throughout the system, and they need adequate resourcing and support. Miscarriages of justice ruin lives, not just for the victims but for their families and loved ones. Compensation must be paid where it is due, and victims should not have to wait and fight for years to secure it when they have already been put through so much.

The British legal system is supposedly predicated on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. I hope today’s debate will help us get back to that principle and make sure that those who have been wronged have access to justice.

16:31

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for securing this important debate. I also declare my interest as a member of the Justice Committee.

I read about Brian Buckle’s case this morning, and I want to express how sorry I am for what he went through and the injustice he and his family have suffered. Compensation payments awarded to victims of miscarriages of justice can be life-changing for the individuals involved. As a solicitor before becoming an MP, dealing with negligence cases where I pursued compensation claims for clients who had suffered injustice, I appreciate how important compensation can be for victims of miscarriages of justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) mentioned that such cases are not just about compensation, and he mentioned the Law Commission’s consultation, which I will not repeat here.

Just as important as obtaining financial compensation is the need for access to justice, so that those victims of miscarriages of justice can have their names cleared, their experiences acknowledged, and the harm inflicted upon them and their families recognised, together with a commitment to prevent future injustices. Very often in my career as a solicitor, I came across clients who had been very badly injured, but what they ultimately wanted was a proper apology and an acknowledgment that they had been wronged, rather than seeking maximum levels of compensation.

Access to justice is something that we, as parliamentarians, should be advocating for. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act means that those wrongfully convicted must not only overturn their conviction but prove they are innocent beyond all reasonable doubt to be eligible for financial compensation. That unfairly reverses the burden of proof, where a person is presumed innocent until their guilt is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This reversal of the burden of proof makes no sense at all and is contrary to the basic principles and rules of criminal justice in this country.

Mr Buckle’s KC, Mr Stephen Vullo, said he believes that the law was changed in 2014 to ensure that money is not paid out to victims of miscarriages of justice, and that it was a policy decision deliberately made to avoid the payment of compensation. It is therefore no surprise that, following the 2014 Act, there has been a huge decrease in the number and value of compensation payments that have been awarded.

Between 2016 and 2024, of 591 applications, the Ministry of Justice compensated only 39 claimants, representing a rejection rate of more than 93%. The law needs to be changed because justice and the opportunity for redress must be available for all in our society. A former criminal defence solicitor and specialist in miscarriages of justice at the University of Manchester, Suzanne Gower, says the current system is “inhuman” and “cruel” and sends a message that the state does not accept responsibility when it causes harm—that is clearly wrong.

It is essential that proper compensation payments are made so that victims of miscarriages of justice can recover the costs they have incurred in proving their innocence and be compensated for all they have suffered. However, alongside the correction of historical injustices, more needs to be done to ensure that we prevent these incidents from occurring in the first place. We need to learn lessons about why things have gone wrong by investing in investigative processes, ensuring accountability within institutions and promoting a culture of transparency. Those measures would not only save the Government and the taxpayer from a financial burden in the long run but, crucially, they would prevent more people from being harmed and prevent further miscarriages of justice.

16:37

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your inaugural chairmanship, Mr Turner. I look forward to speaking in the debates that you chair in the weeks, months and years to come.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) on securing this debate, the focus of which strikes at the heart of our justice system: principles of fairness, accountability and, ultimately, the duty of the state to right its wrongs. There are no two ways about it: those who have been wrongfully convicted are not merely victims of an unfortunate mistake; they are victims of a gross failure of the state. These individuals have lost not only their liberty, but their livelihoods, their families, their reputations, their dignity and much more. For all the talk of compensation today, no amount of money is able to restore a loss of such profound dimensions.

On the subject of compensation, the miscarriages of justice compensation scheme was set up with the best of intentions to ensure that those who have suffered the gravest injustices are properly compensated. However, as we have heard both in the Chamber today and beyond, that system has perpetuated the injustices it was meant to put right. How? We have heard that in cases where a person’s convictions are quashed, our system forces them to jump acrobatically through legal hoops to access even the most basic financial redress.

We have heard about the case of Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years in prison following a conviction that transpired to be unsafe. He had to wait years beyond that for his first tranche of compensation, and he is still waiting for the rest. Such waits and injustices are a national disgrace, not least because they are experienced by so many across our country.

The hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) mentioned the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who also suffered such gross injustices after being wrongly convicted in the Horizon Post Office scandal. People like Kathleen Crane, the former sub-postmistress at Old Town post office in Eastbourne who was wrongly convicted of fraud and made to “pay back” £18,000 that she never owed before her conviction was overturned last year. Despite the injustices that those caught up in this scandal faced, the Horizon convictions redress scheme and the Horizon shortfall scheme—the two special compensation schemes—have been paying out compensation at much too slow a pace, which is a great dishonour to those who were unfairly convicted. I thought the Business and Trade Committee put it aptly when it said of the process that it was,

“akin to a second trial for victims”.

Many folks in this Chamber and beyond, across party political divides, have long campaigned for a fairer approach to addressing miscarriages of justice. The Liberal Democrats are proud to have been part of that tradition, and we continue to be. We believe that when the state wrongfully convicts an individual, it has a moral and legal duty to provide full and proper compensation without unnecessary bureaucratic barriers, or barriers that undermine fundamental maxims of our legal system. That is why urgent reform is necessary. We must ensure that compensation is granted promptly without retraumatising legal battles, and must ensure that it reflects not just the financial cost, but the emotional and psychological toll of wrongful imprisonment. When the state gets it wrong in such a profound way, it must have the courage to put things right.

I conclude my remarks by touching on an insightful comment made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about victims and survivors. What we are talking about today, being passionate about correcting these injustices, is not incompatible with supporting those victims and survivors who are brave enough to come forward, who report what has happened to them to the police, who take what has happened to them to the court, but who ultimately do not get the conviction they hoped to secure. To have a criminal justice system that works for those victims and survivors, it is critical that everybody can have confidence in how it functions on both sides of the dock and both sides of the courtroom.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s take. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli for securing this debate.

16:43

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I join everyone else in congratulating the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) on securing this debate and putting it front and centre of the Minister’s timetable, which is always an important achievement. The hon. Gentleman has done an ample job of representing his constituent, whose experiences we have heard about today.

Overall, the UK’s justice system is one of the most respected in the world, and it is built on a long-standing foundation of trust in, and respect for, the rule of law. At the heart of that trust and respect is the belief in the ability of the law to right injustices, including those caused by the justice system itself. Ensuring that miscarriages of justice are rectified is vital to preserving that belief, and providing compensation to victims where appropriate is an important part of the process.

Work began under the last Government to reform compensation for victims. In 2023 the then Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, removed the guidance on miscarriage of justice compensation, first introduced in 2006, that allowed deductions for living expenses saved while in prison. That common-sense change applied to all future payments with immediate effect, and it was vital in restoring fairness to this aspect of the compensation schemes.

The last Government’s legal aid reforms have also been important in improving fairness and reducing delays to compensation applications. As a result of these new reforms, payments made through the miscarriage of justice compensation scheme no longer make people automatically ineligible for legal aid, helping to improve access to justice for those wrongly convicted.

In the light of the concerns about miscarriages of justice, comprehensive data on compensation applications was made available by the last Government. That data has proved vital in informing the ongoing debate on compensation for wrongful convictions. I urge the Government to show similar transparency in that area.

It remains clear that a comprehensive assessment of miscarriages of justice was needed, which is why the Government asked the Law Commission to review the law relating to criminal appeals in criminal cases. That review expanded to include compensation for wrongful convictions, and it raised a number of important points. I understand that it focused particularly on whether the UK is meeting its obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights.

The Law Commission has now recommended a number of reforms to compensation and support for the wrongly convicted, including replacing the requirement for people to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt—an issue on which we have focused considerably today—with only needing proof of innocence on the balance of probabilities to receive compensation. It is important that those proposals are thoroughly considered before any final decision is made, and I welcome the ongoing consultation by the Law Commission to that end.

It is important that the additional costs that any changes to miscarriage of justice compensation would entail are thoroughly assessed and understood. I urge the Government to conduct a thorough cost assessment of any proposed changes and to make that data publicly available for scrutiny before any final decision on reforms to compensation are taken. I am sure that all Members here would agree on the importance of providing appropriate compensation for the victims of miscarriages of justice. I urge the Government to consider the responses to the Law Commission’s consultation carefully, and to consider how we might better support the wrongfully convicted.

16:44

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

It is a privilege to serve under your inaugural chairship today, Mr Turner, and what an important debate for that chairship. I also place on record my sincere diolch yn fawr iawn to the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for bringing this important debate to this place, and for highlighting the case of his constituent, Mr Buckle, and his family.

Fairness is a core pillar of our justice system. Miscarriages of justice are thankfully very rare, but they have a devastating impact on those who suffer them. They are victims of the state, so it is right that the state should help and support those people in rebuilding their lives. It is also right that we should seek to redress the occurrence of miscarriages of justice and to reduce them by learning lessons when things go wrong. Ensuring people are better protected from miscarriages of justice is one part of the Government’s “Plan for Change.”

Any miscarriage of justice is a tragedy, both for the person who is wrongfully convicted and—as was eloquently expressed by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—for the victim of the original crime and their family, who have not seen justice done. As the Minister with responsibility for victims and violence against women and girls, I know how important it is that victims have confidence in the criminal justice system and that we have safeguards in place such as the Court of Appeal and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We work hard to ensure that, when errors occur, changes are put in place to prevent similar cases from ever happening again.

As we have heard, the last year has seen some miscarriages of justice that have shocked all of us as a society, including the Post Office Horizon scandal and the appalling case of Andrew Malkinson, who was convicted of a crime he did not commit. While those cases are the exception, they require serious and swift action, which we are taking.

The Lord Chancellor has met Mr Malkinson to hear how his case has affected him. Following her meeting with him, she acted swiftly to ensure that those receiving a compensation payout for a miscarriage of justice will not have their financial eligibility for legal aid affected. The Lord Chancellor has stated her conviction that justice must be a reality, not an ideal, and I wholeheartedly agree. Following the agreement of Parliament to overturn the postmasters’ convictions, this Government acted swiftly to stand up a compensation scheme specifically for those affected. As of February this year, 273 final claims have been paid along with 407 interim payments, with the Government issuing £190 million in compensation.

As I turn to the issue of compensation, which is what this debate is about, I feel it is important at the outset to clarify what we mean when we talk about a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal is a vital safeguard in the criminal justice system. If someone appeals their sentence within the time limit, which is normally 28 days, and the Court of Appeal overturns their conviction, that is the system working as it should to correct any errors. That is not a miscarriage of justice. The interest here today is in those who have exhausted the usual appeal processes, and have often referred themselves to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. If the CCRC finds that there is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will not uphold the conviction, it will refer the case. If the conviction is then overturned, the person may have a qualifying miscarriage of justice for the purposes of compensation. It is important to outline that here.

The miscarriage of justice application service, known as MOJAS, pays compensation to those who have suffered a qualifying miscarriage of justice. References today to a 93% refusal rate do not necessarily provide the full picture, because the Department routinely receives applications from people who do not pass the initial triage stage. Reasons for that may include that they had their conviction overturned simply following an in-time appeal, or that they had not had their conviction overturned at all; in some cases, there is no criminal conviction in the first place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) highlighted, in the six years to April 2024, there were 591 applications received, but only 133 passed the triage and were eligible for full consideration. Of the 133 applications that passed the triage, 39 have been awarded compensation, with the Government paying out £2.4 million.

Understandably, there is some debate about where the line should be drawn for the purposes of compensation, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for outlining that. However, I highlight that there are a number of reasons why someone might have their conviction quashed on appeal, and we believe it is right that there should be a process by which eligibility for compensation from the Government should be assessed. That will ensure that taxpayers’ money is used appropriately and effectively. The test is designed so that only those who can demonstrate that their conviction has been reversed on the basis of a new or newly discovered fact that shows beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence can receive compensation from the state.

The 2023 European Court of Human Rights judgment, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli, considered the test by which eligibility for compensation was assessed in the case of Nealon and Hallam. In its judgment, issued in 2024, the Court found that the test did not breach applicants’ rights under article 6, specifically the presumption of innocence.

MOJAS is just one route by which someone whose conviction is quashed can receive compensation or support. For example, it may also be open to someone to bring a civil claim in cases where a particular agency is at fault. Support is also available through the miscarriage of justice support service, which is part of Citizens Advice, based at the Royal Courts of Justice. The support service provides advice and support to those who have their convictions quashed to help them to rebuild their lives. That could involve helping someone find accommodation, assisting with benefit claims or signposting to psychological support services. Anyone who has had their case referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission is eligible for that support.

I also highlight the work that we are doing in this area both to reduce occurrences of miscarriages of justice and to improve the Government’s response to them. The Post Office scandal highlighted the lack of oversight of prosecutions brought by private prosecutors. On 6 March, the Government launched a consultation on the oversight and regulation of private prosecutions, with the aim of ensuring that any organisation bringing a private prosecution does so according to rigorous standards and is subject to appropriate scrutiny. In addition, we have launched a call for evidence on the use of evidence generated by software in criminal proceedings. That will inform potential reforms to the law, to ensure that evidence produced by software can be properly assured.

As the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli mentioned, the Law Commission is currently consulting on a wide range of changes to the laws relating to criminal appeals. The consultation is rigorous, with more than 100 questions, including questions on compensation for miscarriages of justice. We look forward to the final report in 2026, and we will consider all its recommendations in the round before deciding on any necessary reforms.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the process is fair for all involved in the criminal justice system, and a key part of that commitment is the effectiveness of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which carries out the vital work of investigating potential miscarriages of justice. As highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), the Chair of the Justice Committee, the Secretary of State is in the process of recruiting an interim chair as a matter of priority. The interim chair will be tasked with conducting a full and thorough review of how the organisation operates. The findings of that review, together with the final report of the Law Commission, will provide us with the evidence we need to ensure that any change we make to the system will promote fairness and justice for all involved in criminal justice proceedings.

I will ensure that the request for a meeting is passed to the Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), who is responsible for this brief. Unfortunately, she cannot be here today as she is in the assisted dying Bill Committee, but I will ensure it is passed on. I will also take a keen interest in the case, which I am sure the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli will mention to me at every opportunity.

It is an important principle of the justice system that people who are convicted should have the right to seek leave to apply to a higher court to review their conviction. It is also vital in the rare cases when things do go wrong that the system works effectively to correct errors and ensure that those who have suffered can rebuild their lives. I emphasise again that when the wrong person is convicted, it fails those who are wrongly convicted and also the victim of the original crime. The Government have acted and will continue to act to ensure that lessons are learned and justice is done.

16:54

[Ben Lake]

I begin by apologising, Mr Turner, for failing to acknowledge that this is your inaugural session in the Chamber. May I say how admirably and professionally you have chaired the debate, especially given that we had the unexpected interruption of Divisions? Thank you very much for doing so. I also thank my fellow Members from every part of the United Kingdom for their contributions. It is heartening to hear a great degree of consensus that there is a wrong to be righted and that the new Government have the opportunity to do that.

In summing up, I will make a few quick points. We have this opportunity to right a very clear wrong. There are far too many people who have had their convictions overturned, and who have been found not guilty at retrial after spending years in prison, but who are still awaiting compensation. We need to appreciate that any delay to this justice is effectively justice denied. While appreciating the need to proceed with caution and reasonably, we need to make sure that we do not waste any time, because too many individuals have already suffered ordeals for far too long.

We have an opportunity here, as Members of Parliament and with a new Government, to do something that I think is very honourable. It is something that a far more honourable Member than I, who sat just over here, once told me: we are sent to this place to right wrongs. I think today there is a great consensus in that endeavour.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered miscarriage of justice compensation.

16:57

Sitting suspended.

Supported Internship Provision

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

17:06

[Karl Turner (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 a 30-minute debate.

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered supported internship provision.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner.

Yesterday, we heard some dreadful statistics about the stifling of the ambition of people with additional needs who would choose to work but face too many barriers and limited opportunities. The most striking statistic that I heard yesterday was that only 1% of people with health issues who have claimed limited capability to work benefits actually return to work.

I know people with significant disabilities who have thrived in truly exceptional and inclusive businesses, such as the King’s Award-winning Nuneaton Signs, which is not only one of the biggest manufacturers of road signs in the country but boasts a workforce of whom an incredible 70% are disabled, including those with learning difficulties.

We know that as many as 86% of those with learning difficulties who are not in work would like to be, but workplaces need to make the adjustments that our young people need, and they need to be ready for work. We must break down the barriers, and supported internships are a way to do that, both for those wishing to enter the workforce and for businesses wishing to provide a more inclusive employment offer.

Previously, the Department for Education has recognised the value of supported internships. It provided grants for local authorities and partner organisations to double the number of internships between 2020 and 2025 under the Internships Work consortium.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. She clearly has a heart for her people, including her young people, and I commend her for that. I thank her for getting here on time, too; I am not sure how fast she ran, but well done to her. Does she agree that supported internships provide not simply confidence for our young people, but valuable assistance for businesses, and that more businesses perhaps need to be aware of the potential to recruit skilled permanent staff through a different avenue, offering those staff a different opportunity?

[Jodie Gosling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and note that only 23% of businesses have applied for adjustments to accommodate disabled people to enter the workforce. These internships are crucial, and they are a really good, supported way into work.

There are four key principles to the supported internship programme. First, the majority of the intern’s time is spent at the employer’s premises in a work placement, allowing a structured introduction to the work environment. Secondly, alongside their time at the employer, the intern follows a personalised study curriculum, including in key skills such as maths and English, which creates a bespoke package to support young people and enable them to progress into paid employment. Thirdly, a job coach is central to the study programme. They support the young person to access training in line with the national occupational standard for supported employment, and provide crucial support for the employer to make necessary adjustments and reflect on their inclusivity practices.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for securing this debate. Several of my constituents with special educational needs are taking part in the supported internship programme at George Eliot hospital in her constituency. I am delighted that they have been able to take up that opportunity to learn important skills and to engage in independent work. I was glad to hear that between 50% and 75% of people who undertake the internships get full employment afterwards. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should continue to support these internships to deliver opportunities for students with special educational needs and disabilities across the west midlands, and will the Minister highlight these excellent programmes, particularly to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Before Jodie Gosling continues, I remind Members that interventions are meant to be very short; they are not meant to be speeches.

[Jodie Gosling]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and absolutely—the crucial aspect is enabling people into good, well-paid jobs.

The final principle of supported internships is for young people to gain paid employment that fits not only their passions but their long-term career goals, while providing the flexibility to overcome barriers. Supported internships have demonstrated evidence that, with a compassionate scaffolding, the proportion of young people with an education, health and care plan who enter the workforce, which is currently a woeful 5%, can be vastly improved to 60%, through the delivery of the four key principles that I have just stated.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I recently visited Asda in Spondon in my constituency, where there is a supported internship under way called Project SEARCH. It is delivered with the YMCA and the Direct Education Business Partnership. It is a fantastic scheme, and when I met those young people, it was clear that the initiative had transformed their lives. In some cases, they had struggled to get employment elsewhere. May I encourage my hon. Friend to welcome that initiative?

[Jodie Gosling]

Absolutely. I will come to this later, but we were inspired by a visit to Asda and its supported interns.

The supported internship scheme builds on the applicant’s interests and passions, and it provides them with flexibility to try different types of employment opportunities and build skills in a range of sectors with organisations such as the NHS, Asda, Amazon and Goldman Sachs.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

There is a lot of talk about Asda, and I pay tribute to the Asda in Tunstall in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, which has an excellent supported internship programme that helps young people to step up into employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as outlined in the Green Paper published yesterday, we must ensure that Access to Work is strengthened for adults by raising awareness of the scheme and clearing the backlog?

[Jodie Gosling]

I absolutely agree that we need to remove the backlog and get more people into good, paid employment with the skills that they need to become independent.

Paragraph 59 of the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper clearly demonstrates an ambition to change working practices to support employers to make workplaces accessible and inclusive. The Green Paper discusses the

“‘scarring effects’ from youth employment and inactivity.”

Not only is delayed entry into the workforce costly, but it has a negative impact on the individual, damaging their long-term mental and physical health.

The youth guarantee scheme—a commitment to offer every young person a guaranteed place of employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a training scheme within four months of leaving formal education—is also set to bring about monumental change. If we are to achieve such clear ambitions, then work, and support for young people, especially those with SEND, needs to adapt rapidly.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I have seen how supported internship programmes at City of Wolverhampton college and Adult Education Wolverhampton have made a real difference for 16 to 24-year-olds with EHCPs. However, with one in eight young people not in education, employment or training, does my hon. Friend agree that widening participation for NEETs would be one further way to support more young people into work?

[Jodie Gosling]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that, with success rates moving from 5% to a dramatic 60%, the model could be applied more widely to the 1 million NEETs, or to people re-entering the workforce or retraining.

In January, I had the pleasure of meeting five supported interns at Nuneaton’s branch of Asda, and their job coaches from the brilliant North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire college. The exciting thing about supported internships is that the interns learn by doing: they have a chance to develop new professional and personal skills while working alongside employees in a real employment setting. The combination of meaningful experiences of the world of work and a study programme creates great opportunities for interns to develop marketable skills in preparation for paid work, by providing access to in-work qualifications such as health and hygiene certificates.

We know that paid employment brings young people financial independence, builds their confidence and self-esteem, and provides them with opportunities to gain new friendships and to improve and maintain their health and wellbeing. There are also wider benefits to our community, including broader economic growth and the promotion of diversity and inclusion in all workplaces. The benefits to interns of taking part in these schemes are numerous.

Ethan, one of the students I met at Asda, told me that the internship had helped with his anxiety and with talking to new people, both staff and customers. Adrian, who is also on the scheme, said that he finds it much easier to talk to people and, importantly, feels able to approach people for help, not only when he is on the placement but as part of his everyday life. The structured environment, alongside ongoing support, allows interns to acquire and practise essential organisational skills that they will need to join the workforce.

Leo told me that his timekeeping and attendance had improved since he started at Asda, and that he was happier—an outcome commonly reported by the thousands of students on the scheme, and one shared by their parents, who we know have worked incredibly hard to fight for their children’s EHCPs through a tricky system, just to ensure that their children had access to a suitable education and that their needs were met. Supported internships give parents a vital break from caring to take time for themselves and do the millions of other things that they have to do, while still playing a supportive role and having a say in their children’s future.

In 2013, Social Value Lab found that parents of interns reported increased peace of mind that their child was better prepared for the future, and that their child found it easier to handle change and was more resilient in the workforce. Supported internships were also found to improve family relationships as a whole—happier children and happier parents. The same Social Value Lab report demonstrated that DFN Project SEARCH, a supported internship provider, creates considerable social value of £3.80 for every £1 spent on the scheme.

For me, the most meaningful outcome was that the interns reported having a sense of purpose. That speaks to the broken system that we heard about yesterday, wherein disabled people are written off and those who want to seek employment are locked out of contributing to the world of work. Importantly, Asda as a provider also saw huge benefits in hosting the interns. The staff culture on the shop floor embraced and welcomed the interns, and the scheme made the management re-evaluate the accessibility of its hiring process, which is an insurmountable barrier to most people with disabilities trying to enter employment. How on earth can we get people working if the first step to employment is an insurmountable barrier?

With yesterday’s announcement on pathways to work, and the Government’s aim to get people working, the timing of this debate could not be more pertinent. We all know that young people want to work and want independence, but some require specialist support to transition into employment. Supported interns are the key to achieving this. They have been proven to succeed in getting young people back into employment. Will the Department for Education commit to continuing to invest in supported internship programmes and getting people back to work? Will the Minister give an update on the decision to extend the Internships Work consortium?

The profound success of supported internships is reason enough to extend the criteria to young people without an EHCP, those with mental health conditions and those struggling with persistent absenteeism from school. Will the Minister commit to boosting supported internships further and widening the criteria for interns?

We talk regularly and passionately about the damage done and the inherited SEND crisis, but a key issue is the lack of focus on outcomes and transitions to adulthood. As an early years SEND specialist, I have first-hand experience of the importance of early intervention, but I recognise that we cannot write off those the system has already failed. We need to support young disabled people as they leave school. For too many people with SEND, the support runs out after they graduate the classroom.

We cannot prioritise educational provision without considering the educational and employment outcomes. Is the Department for Education working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that those outcomes are considered when addressing the SEND crisis? After seeing the success of the supported internships during my Asda visit, I will meet more supported interns at our local NHS hospital, to hear their experiences. I invite the Minister to join us—I believe the email is in her inbox.

Finally, it is my honour to host the first parliament of young people with SEND on Monday, as part of National Supported Internship Day, when 70 young people who have taken part in the supported internship project will come to Westminster to discuss what matters to them. I hope it will mark a historic step towards greater inclusion, representation and advocacy for some of the most marginalised voices in our society. All interested colleagues are welcome to attend the parliament to promote inclusive policymaking. I thank the Minister for her time and all those who came to listen and contribute.

17:22

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) on securing this debate on an incredibly important topic. It is clear from her speech and the work she does that she has a keen interest in supporting children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and supported internships in particular, and it is clear from the other contributions that her passions are very much shared.

Supported internships are excellent study programmes that provide 16 to 24-year-olds with EHCPs with the skills they need to transition to paid employment. Over the last couple of months, events have been held in each region to celebrate the progress made on supported internships in local communities, after three years of Government investment. A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of speaking to interns, parents and carers when I attended an event celebrating success in London. At that event I met Rayhan, who had a work placement with Transport for London, and whose confidence had grown hugely thanks to the supported internship programme. I met and spoke to many of the young people at that powerful event; they were very proud, but the parents who were with them were even prouder. It was wonderful to see good practice being shared around the country.

Looking ahead to one week tomorrow, the third National Supported Internship Day will take place on 27 March, with more events scheduled throughout the country, including a youth parliament and webinars to raise awareness of supported internships among young people, their families and employers. Many interns, education providers and employers will also be planning local events to show the incredible achievements and capabilities of young people on the programmes.

To shine a light—literally—even further, Harry Georgiou, who works at DFN Project SEARCH and is CEO of the charity 6 Percent & Rising, has led the drive to have national monuments such as the University of Derby and the Northern Spire bridge, which is not far from my constituency, lit up in orange to celebrate supported internships on National Supported Internships Day. What a fantastic way to mark the day!

I know how important it is to ensure that young people with special educational needs and disabilities are prepared for adulthood and employment. In my own city, Newcastle City Learning has a partnership with Northumbria University and Sodexo, whereby young people complete work placements in various roles, including in ground maintenance and sports centres. There are also placements in hospitals in Newcastle, run by Project Choice; my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton mentioned that there are in her area too. These opportunities provide young people with practical experience and valuable skills that help them to secure paid employment. It is so good to witness all the innovative approaches that have been taken, including in my own area, to champion the inclusive practice we need to see everywhere.

Since 2022 the Department for Education has invested up to £18 million to build capacity in supported internships, to support more young people with education, health and care plans to gain the skills to needed transition into employment. The Internships Work consortium—made up of the National Development Team for Inclusion, the British Association for Supported Employment and DFN Project SEARCH, which I mentioned earlier—has been delivering the investment programme. It has worked closely with local authorities to establish SEND employment forums, focused on improving local supported internship provision; rolled out a quality framework and facilitated peer reviews; trained more than 760 job coaches to provide high-quality support to interns while they are on work placements; and recruited almost 800 employer ambassadors, who advocate for establishing supported internships in businesses.

The data from local authorities shows that we are on track to reach our aim of doubling the number of supported internships to 4,500 when the funding ends at the end of this month. That is a great achievement and will provide real employment opportunities for many people. We know that high-quality programmes achieve employment outcomes, because 60% to 70% of their cohorts go on to employment. That is why the investment has also been focused on improving the quality and consistency of the offers across the country.

The indicative data we have from local authorities shows that last year more than 1,500 young people secured paid employment following their internship. The interim report from the evaluation of the programme also shows progress. It shows that the majority of supported internship providers reported offering more supported internships and an improvement in the quality of intern placements with employers. Although it was from quite a small sample, nearly half the interns surveyed had jobs six months after finishing their internship, with three quarters of them working more than 16 hours a week, which is fantastic news for them.

We know that the right preparation and support are essential, and that with that the overwhelming majority of young people with SEND are capable of sustained, paid employment. But not enough people are getting the support they need. To build on the investment, the Department has been running a pilot in 12 local authority areas to test the supported internships model with young people with learning difficulties and disabilities who are furthest from the labour market but do not have education, health and care plans, to see whether that can be an effective way to support them into employment. Indicative data from the Internships Work consortium shows that, across this year and last, about 240 young people have enrolled on non-EHCP pilot programmes, with at least 60 people gaining employment last year. This shows there is demand for this kind of pathway and that it can lead to good outcomes.

I know my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton is keen to know about funding. The funding for Internships Work and the pilot for interns without education, health and care plans is committed up to the end of March 2025. It was designed as a three-year investment to build capacity in the system to deliver more high-quality supported internships throughout the country. We have seen huge progress towards achieving those aims, thanks to the hard work of Internships Work and the commitment we have seen from local authorities, education providers, job coaches, employers and, of course, the interns themselves.

The Department received a settlement for the 2025-26 financial year in the autumn Budget, and we are still working through, with the Secretary of State, how we will allocate the budgets for specific programmes. We hope the process will be completed soon, but unfortunately I do not currently have any further information on budgets for next year. It is fantastic to hear that, despite the financial pressures that many local areas face, some plan to continue their SEND employment forums and value the important work that is taking place on supported interns.

A challenge raised by many stakeholders involved in delivering supported internships is the delays that interns can face when they claim DWP Access to Work funding, which can fund interns’ in-work support needs during their work placements. Demand for Access to Work has been growing, and the personalised nature of the scheme means that it can take longer to identify a customer’s specific needs. Several measures have been put in place, including on streamlining delivery processes and recruiting additional staff, and the DWP has been taking steps to modernise the Access to Work customer journey, with all core parts of the scheme having been fully digital since April 2024.

Access to Work has a dedicated supported internship team in the DWP, which manages all the intern applications. That provides a central point of contact and a direct route for applications. To enable supported interns to have confidence that support will be in place before they start their internship, they can submit Access to Work applications up to six months before they start their work placements.

Despite the DWP having a dedicated team within Access to Work to process supported intern applications, delays are still occurring due to the high demand for Access to Work funding. To make it easier for supported interns to apply, the DWP is working to reduce the administrative burden and paperwork for learning providers. Work is under way to develop a claims process whereby learning providers can claim Access to Work funding for multiple interns using one claim form. The DWP is also working to improve the supported intern application process and the support plan, to reduce the need for additional contacts. My Department is working closely with the DWP on these issues.

Every child and young person, regardless of their individual needs, deserves the opportunity to thrive, succeed and achieve. However, we are aware that there are challenges in the SEND system, and the Government have made a clear commitment to addressing them. We are prioritising early intervention and inclusive provision in mainstream settings, as we know that early intervention prevents unmet needs from escalating and supports children and young people to achieve their goals while still being alongside their peers. We are committed to working with the sector to ensure that that approach is fully planned and delivered in partnership.

We have already begun the work by appointing a strategic adviser on SEND to engage with sector leaders, practitioners, children and families; we have established an expert advisory group on inclusion, to improve the mainstream-education outcomes and experience for children with SEND; and we are setting up a neurodivergence task and finish group to provide a shared understanding of what provision and support in mainstream educational settings should look like for neurodivergent children and young people, within an inclusive system. We recognise that these are complex issues, and we need a considered approach to deliver the change we want to see in a sustainable way that will deliver the outcomes we want for young people.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton for bringing this matter forward, and all who have contributed to the debate. I know we all care passionately about ensuring that there are high-quality pathways to employment for young people with special educational needs and disabilities. I have seen at first hand the great work done by employers, local authorities and education providers to break down the barriers for young people with additional needs.

Supported internships are a key part of the Government’s mission to ensure that all young people are supported to achieve the skills they need to be successful in the workplace, regardless of their background. We have made a clear commitment to address the challenges raised today, to support all children and young people to achieve and thrive, and to improve the wider SEND system. I am determined that progress will be made.

I conclude by thanking all those who work in education and employment in the interests of children and young people with SEND throughout the country. I know that they share the desire—and we are determined to work with them—to deliver the very best for all our children and young people, including those with SEND.

Question put and agreed to.

Down’s Syndrome

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

17:35

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Down’s syndrome.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I assume that the Minister responsible for this area of policy is still the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock)—the Minister for Secondary Care is nodding. I understand that he has to be somewhere else, but it is great to see the Minister in her place.

I organised the debate to call on the Government to implement the Down Syndrome Act 2022, which received Royal Assent three years ago, as Members will be interested to note. Here in the mother of Parliaments, an Act was passed with the democratic engagement of Members from both sides of the House, but three years later it has still not been implemented. It is therefore about time that it was; we need it.

The first requirement—the first command—of the Act is that the Government should issue guidance because of the specific needs of people with Down syndrome. They were supposed to issue such guidance for local authorities, health authorities, education authorities and everyone else engaged in the support of people with Down syndrome.

Various versions of draft guidance have been produced, but none of them even completely covered what was required, let alone adequately. In 2022, the then Minister for Care and Mental Health, my former right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, assured us that the guidance would be “fit for purpose” so we can ensure that people with Down syndrome can access “the support they need”, and that the final guidance would be published in the next year. The previous Government did not fulfil that pledge, and as we sit here today, people with Down syndrome still have not seen that historic Act fully in force.

As I said, the draft versions of the guidance so far, according to my understanding—although I do not claim any great expertise—are flawed in a number of ways. Instead of recognising the unique needs of people with Down syndrome, they simply reduce Down syndrome to a subset of a type of learning disability. That limited perspective does a disservice to those with Down syndrome.

For instance, individuals with Down syndrome often require tailored speech and language therapy, yet the most recent version of the guidance, published in December, makes only vague references to specialist therapy. My friend, my former right hon. Friend Sir Liam Fox, who was the driving force behind the Act, put it perfectly. He said:

“This legislation was specifically for those with Down Syndrome as a definable collection of predictable medical conditions and specific life challenges.”

The Act says that it is

“to make provision about meeting the needs of persons with Down syndrome; and for connected purposes.”

In trying to cater for all individuals with learning disabilities, the guidance misses the mark, failing to provide for the very people it was meant to support when the Act received Royal Assent three years ago.

There are reasons to be optimistic. The Prime Minister has rightly pledged to lead a Government of builders, not blockers. Members on both sides of the Chamber, from all political backgrounds, can all stand united in a shared consensus that the guidance needs to be built and issued, and that we need to get the blockers out of the way. We can agree that people with Down syndrome must be recognised as having specific needs, not just generic ones, and that support must be in place to ensure that they have equal access to opportunities to thrive in all aspects of life.

What is truly disappointing is that the blockers of progress are not really elected representatives or indeed Ministers, but, I fear, civil servants—those entrusted with carrying out the will of Parliament. Too many of them have obstructed the efforts of Ministers in two different Governments to implement the Act. Despite repeated promises, we still have not seen the creation of an effective cross-ministerial taskforce. I hope that the Minister will comment on that, because if there is blockage and resistance within the Government machine, Ministers need to come together. There would not have to be a permanent taskforce, but there should be one, two or perhaps three meetings at maximum where Ministers get together and ensure that the will of Parliament is brought to fruition.

Engagement with key stakeholders has been less than adequate. When the stakeholder group was formed to lead on this work, there was no consultation with Sir Liam Fox, the promoter of the Bill that became the Act, or with Rachael and Ken Ross, the founding officers of the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, who also should have been included, and who were a driving force behind the thinking around the Act. That is not good enough—it is not a party political point. The Prime Minister has my full support to ensure that the Minister here today and her colleague the Minister for Care are empowered to do what they were partly appointed to do, which is to fully implement the Act.

I will say a little more on Down syndrome, which is a genetic condition caused by a chromosomal anomaly. While most people have 46 chromosomes, individuals with Down syndrome have three copies of chromosome 21 in each cell, rather than two. There are an estimated 47,000 people living with Down syndrome in the UK, making it the most common chromosomal condition. The good news is that people with Down syndrome are achieving more than ever before: attending mainstream schools, gaining meaningful employment and making invaluable contributions to our communities, as well as living longer.

There is a risk, however, that we see that progress as a reason to rest on our laurels. Instead, it shows the huge potential of people with Down syndrome, if only we can unlock it, and the urgent need to do more. There should be no limit to our ambitions for people with Down syndrome, which is why we should not wait one day more than we need to in order to deliver the guidance promised in the Down Syndrome Act.

The first step towards meaningful change is the improvement of healthcare. People with learning disabilities die, on average, 24 years younger than those without, and are twice as likely to die from treatable conditions. Whether due to significant delays in diagnoses, unsafe hospital discharges or poor co-ordination between the NHS and other services, one thing is clear: many of those deaths are preventable. Doctors certainly do not mean to harm people with Down syndrome. Instead, it is likely that poor healthcare results from a lack of specific knowledge and training needed to give people with Down syndrome the tailored support that the condition requires.

Following the passage of the Act, NHS England issued statutory guidance in 2023, mandating that every integrated care board appoint a named executive lead at board level to drive better outcomes for people with Down syndrome. That was to provide accountability within the system, so we could say that the Ministers are responsible, not civil servants. However, in the implementation —in the delivery on the ground across the country—of course civil servants are responsible. That is why it was an explicit part of the campaign around the Act, and an explicit promise from a Minister at the Dispatch Box, that we would see people appointed—not so that they could be hidden, but so they could be publicly available, contacted and asked what they are doing within their area.

That was so that we could challenge not only the health system, but schools on what they are doing and why, in so many parts of the country, a Down syndrome child is automatically assumed to need to go to a specialist school when a lot of the evidence is they do better in mainstream—but only, of course, if the people in the schools have been given the support and skills to deliver that improvement. A few days ago, however, when I sought to find out who those named accountable individuals are to allow the Down syndrome community to hold the Government and the system to account, I was able to find a publicly nominated lead in only three of the 42 ICBs in England, and two of those leads are called David Jarrett.

I ask the Minister, what is going on? Can we make sure that those leads are publicly named and prominent on the websites of ICBs; that lists are issued and kept up to date; and that everyone in the Down syndrome community can easily find out who is responsible for the delivery of those services? That would ensure that not only health, but the wider community of public services is a servant of people with Down syndrome, rather than turning a person with Down syndrome into a supplicant.

After healthcare, I turn next to education, which is crucial to the life chances of people with Down syndrome. As I have said, research suggests that people with Down syndrome often achieve better outcomes in mainstream education than in specialist schools, provided that it is appropriate for their specific needs. Officials in the Department for Education are best placed to offer guidance on that, which highlights the importance of an effective cross-ministerial taskforce.

The Minister will have already discovered in her relatively short time as a Minister—we all know what it is like—that Departments other than where such Acts are made tend to be quite resistant to them. Sometimes the only way to cut through and make sure that sufficiently senior civil servants take on board these Acts of Parliament and do what they are obliged to do on a statutory basis is for Ministers to be called together to issue such an instruction and push the system to do what it is supposed to do. Otherwise those Departments will sit in their own lane, following the particular priorities of their Secretary of State, and utterly ignoring their statutory obligation to deliver on an Act of Parliament.

Some progress has been made, but there is more to do. Statistics from NHS Digital reveal that only 6% of working-age adults with learning disabilities who receive long-term social care are employed. In other words, 94% are not. When we meet the people who are and see what they can do, we ask, how many more are there? If only we put in place the right co-ordinated system, how many more could have much more fulfilling lives?

We should get the incentives aligned. If there are fears now about a person with Down syndrome losing benefits, it might not be them deciding—they may not even be spoken to—but members of their family or their social worker might decide, “Oh, it is best to take no risks and just keep them on benefits,” rather than supporting them into a job where they can be full members of society, contribute and benefit from that activity.

Even more troubling, 68% of those who are employed work less than 16 hours a week. Those figures are not just numbers; they reflect the deep systemic barriers that still limit opportunities for people with Down syndrome in the workforce. Despite a range of initiatives, it is clear that we need stronger, sustained efforts to ensure that people with Down syndrome can access fulfilling long-term employment. Only then will we truly break down the barriers to their independence and potential. I hope that it is by now clear to the Minister why we must break down those barriers, and why it is critical that the will of Parliament, in the form of an Act of Parliament that is now three years old, is upheld and implemented, and that change is delivered without further delay.

The time for action is now, so I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. When will the promised cross-ministerial taskforce be created? At the very least, could she speak to her colleague the Minister for Care and push for one? I know that it is hard to get Ministers to turn up for some other Department’s cross-ministerial taskforce, so it often takes personal contact, an agreement that it is not going to run on forever, and someone saying, “Look, this is important. Let’s get this over the line. Please come along.” We need to get the right Minister at the right time, with sufficient seniority around the table and a real will to enact change and make a difference. If that could come out of this debate, it would be fantastic.

Will the Minister ensure that the consultation group contains only Down syndrome-specific organisations, so that the legislation supports people with the condition, as is set out in the Act? There has been a tendency to open up consultations to everybody engaged with learning disability, so people with little or no understanding of the specifics of Down syndrome have been engaged in the consultations run by civil servants. The whole thing has run into the ground and lost the specific focus of the Act.

The National Down Syndrome Policy Group informed me that the draft guidance issued to sector groups contained significant omissions. I always find it much easier to commit to meetings on behalf of colleagues than to commit myself, so I hope I can tempt the Minister to do so. Will the Minister commit the Minister for Care to meeting Rachael and Ken Ross—I would also love to attend—as soon as possible? They are the founding officers of the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, and they do exceptional work for people with Down syndrome. They are in the Public Gallery alongside Millie, who recently gave evidence to the all-party parliamentary group. Millie is always available to correct any of us when we get our policies wrong, as she will attest. Given that it has been three years, will the Minister provide a clear date—an aspiration from the Government —for when we will get comprehensive guidance? When can we get it ready, in a final version, to go through all the sign-off processes of Government? When can we expect it to be officially issued? Those are not just procedural questions; they are vital to ensuring that the promises made to people with Down syndrome are delivered, and that we move forward with the urgency and specificity that this issue demands.

Hon. Members in this Chamber will speak for themselves, but I am sure they all stand with the Minister in this effort. On behalf of the 47,000 people with Down syndrome across the country, we urge the Minister to ensure that a suitable and proper version of the guidance is produced quickly, and that is truly reflects the experiences and needs of people with Down syndrome, specifically. If alongside that exercise someone wants to produce separate, more generic guidance, that is fine; but can we ensure that the guidance described in the Act is delivered for people with Down syndrome, and that it is published and fully implemented without delay?

A great opportunity lies ahead for all of us. We can be part of delivering meaningful, lasting change for thousands of people, now and for generations to come. I am sure support will come from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, and I hope we will send the Minister out from this debate determined to ensure that her colleague, the Minister for Care, does the right thing.

17:52

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this important debate.

Down’s syndrome regression disorder is an aspect of Down’s syndrome that has been, until now, largely overlooked. It affects roughly 1% to 2% of people with Down’s syndrome and usually presents between the ages of 10 and 30. It is a truly horrific condition. People with Down’s syndrome regression disorder change, almost overnight. I met a mum whose son developed Down’s syndrome regression disorder. Overnight, he became non-responsive, uncommunicative and catatonic. She said it was like everything that was him had left.

Young people who previously held down jobs or voluntary positions, and had many interests, hobbies and a love of life, lose the ability to speak, lose continence and retreat into themselves. The change is not gradual; it is stark, unexpected and profound. There is a fundamental lack of awareness of the condition. It is often wrongly diagnosed as early-onset dementia or late-diagnosed autism, even though it does not fit the profile of either of those conditions. There is currently no pathway for diagnosis, and progress is often fraught. Finding a clinician who recognises the symptoms and will treat is, by and large, impossible. However, there is hope: 80% of people who receive the right treatment in a timely manner achieve some prospect of recovery.

I want to be clear: if a typical child who does not have Down’s syndrome stopped eating and taking any interest in jobs overnight, and if they suddenly became catatonic and completely unresponsive, it would be treated as a medical emergency. People whose children have Down’s syndrome, and who have finally managed to speak to the right clinician, have been told, “You need to take your child to A&E.” If it was a typical child, that would be happening, but because that child has Down’s syndrome, it is overlooked. Will the Minister meet with me and individuals affected by this disorder to discuss how we can best create awareness, and what their thoughts are on how we can create a pathway to diagnose and treat it?

I would also like to touch briefly on my reflections as a parent of a child with Down’s syndrome, and what I think would be generally helpful in the space. Many of us feel that some kind of pathway for parents whose child is born with Down’s syndrome would be extraordinarily useful. When their child is born, or when they receive an antenatal diagnosis, they very often think, “What lies ahead? What can I expect? What does my future look like?” Down’s syndrome is the most common chromosomal condition, and we know that 50% of children born with Down’s syndrome will have a heart condition, and there is a higher prevalence of conditions such as leukaemia. By and large, those with Down’s syndrome do not have a very strong immune system—as I know every flippin’ winter, when my child gets cold after cold.

I have had lovely responses and gained a level of knowledge about what to expect from various parts of my child’s condition. We have cobbled that together from speaking to other parents, through WhatsApp groups and Facebook groups, and sometimes from speaking to professionals and support groups. It would be helpful to have that set out officially, so that parents know what lies ahead, what to expect and what to look for.

This is a very small thing, but when people with Down’s syndrome have a fever, their temperature sometimes goes down rather than up. It is really unusual, but it is normal for the condition, and it is quite useful to know as a parent. It is also useful to know how to diagnose things, because people with Down’s syndrome do not present conditions typically, including conditions that can be really awful. Parents have lost children to sepsis because it does not present as it would with a typical child, so knowing how to diagnose it is really useful.

As people transition into adulthood and make those steps into the adult world, it is important to have an idea of how people with learning disabilities and Down’s syndrome can expect to be treated. What kind of things help them to live full and happy lives? As their parents and caregivers, what kind of things should we be encouraging them to take part in? That is extraordinarily helpful to know.

I will keep my speech brief, as I know other Members want to speak, but I will just end by reflecting that Friday is World Down Syndrome Day. In our community, we typically see it is a day of celebration, as well as an opportunity to present a challenge to policy makers. This year, we are asking them to ensure that we have the right support.

People will see this debate who have just received a diagnosis of Down’s syndrome. They might be receiving it today; they might be receiving it antenatally or postnatally. When I received that diagnosis seven years ago, it was a shock. I felt like the carpet had been pulled from under my feet, and I was devastated. I look back at that moment with shame at the thought that I was so devastated at the news of this person who became the beating heart of our family. She is joyous, although she is not always happy. That is a misconception—she is not—and if people say that, I will say, “Oh, did I get a wrong one?” Of course, I did not. She is stubborn—I like calling girls stubborn—she is determined, and she is feisty.

She is also a fantastic dancer. At a community event we went to, I was there as an MP, but she had me up dancing in the middle of the floor. I was not in the background; I was right there, and she dragged me into the heart of it. She is really funny, and she is so kind, especially with her sister. There is a really brilliant statistic that 95% of people who have a sibling with Down’s syndrome think that they have enhanced their life. She has made me a better person, and she has made my husband a better person. When she loves, she loves deeply, and she loves hard. People who meet her share that and feel that love with her.

The brilliant thing is that, if a parent has a child with Down’s syndrome, they join this wonderful community. I have met some of my best friends through that community and we are there to support each other. There are some brilliant groups; I will give a shoutout to Faye and Claire from our local Down’s syndrome group, who welcomed us with open arms and showed us what our life is. We are taking what we call the scenic route, not the quick path. It is a lot better than the casual straight line. Who wants normal? It is boring, and they showed us that joy.

Upwards with Downs in Harlow is a fantastic group that organises so many wonderful events, including a holiday we have been on with people who get it. There is also Downright Excellent in Hackney, and I say to my wonderful friends Charlotte and Kirsty: what a brilliant and fantastic community we have. Happy World Down Syndrome Day—I love all of you. If anyone is ever worried about what the future looks like, come and talk to me, or to any of us, because we can tell you that it is not just going to be okay; it is going to be brilliant.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I am imposing a time limit of four minutes. To show us how to do it very well, I call former Education Secretary Damian Hinds.

18:00

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It truly is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner, and it truly is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft)—I do not know if I can. There are times in this place when it is a real privilege to have heard from a colleague, particularly when they share something very personal that helps to inform our democracy, and she has just done that many times over, and I thank her. Indeed, I am sure we all thank her very much for it.

I also thank and commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this important debate. As the hon. Lady said, we are coming up to World Down Syndrome Day. It is already Down’s Syndrome Awareness Week, so it is particularly apt that we should be having this debate.

It is my honour to co-chair, with the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), the all-party parliamentary group on down syndrome. Down syndrome was not something I knew a lot about beforehand; it just so happens that the co-founders of the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, Ken and Rachael Ross, happened to be constituents of mine. But my God, through that link I have come into contact with the community that the hon. Member for Thurrock was just talking about, which is the most enormously wonderful thing. We had an event a couple of weeks ago over in Portcullis House. There was a flash mob in Portcullis House, there was dancing and there was singing, but there were also challenging speeches from members of the Down syndrome community, who it is always important to hear from directly.

In the APPG, we have heard a number of testimonies about people’s frustration with the education system. I am pleased that Down syndrome is now included as a category in the school census, which means that it is possible to take a more targeted approach, but those issues carry on into employment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness said.

There is so much work to be done, but the Down Syndrome Act 2022, which was carried through by Sir Liam Fox, was a really important milestone and a really important achievement to build on. I do not really have time to say it all, so I will just very quickly commend Sir Liam again for the work he did then and for his continued advocacy today.

I also want to recognise the work of Ken and Rachael and everything they did to support the Act through Parliament, and everything they have done since. That includes their work locally with Portsmouth hospitals on a Down-specific maternity pathway, which I know as a constituency MP; in a completely different way, their work with the British Academy of Film and Television Arts to make sure that the voices of people with Down syndrome are heard in mainstream films; and also their work on special schools and making sure that more children with Down syndrome can be in a mainstream setting when that is right for them. I also want to recognise the work of all the MPs involved, including the Minister, who was on the Bill Committee with Sir Liam Fox to consider his private Member’s Bill.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness said, it is now several years since that Bill was enacted. It is really important that we press on with the guidance and that it is specifically about Down syndrome. That is not in any way to reduce the issues faced by people with a broader set of learning difficulties or disabilities, but this is specifically the Down Syndrome Act 2022, to look at those particular issues and challenges. We need that ministerial cross-departmental taskforce, to make sure that the guidance is as sound as it can be and is produced as quickly as it can be.

I also thank the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), for his continued engagement. We continue to extend an invitation to him, and to the Minister, to join us in the APPG when they can, to hear further from members of the community about how important all this work is to them.

18:00

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on his comprehensive speech and on securing this debate, which holds immense significance for individuals with Down syndrome and their families, especially as we approach World Down Syndrome Day on Friday. That day was chosen because the 21st day of the third month represents the triplication of the 21st chromosome, which is the cause of Down syndrome. I will focus my comments today on the Down Syndrome Act, a landmark piece of legislation that recognises the unique needs of people with Down syndrome, and the ongoing work to update and implement the guidance that will help bring it to life.

As we have already heard, there are an estimated 47,000 people with Down syndrome people in the UK, yet, despite its being the most common chromosomal condition, people with Down syndrome continue to face barriers to achieving their full potential. That is where the Down Syndrome Act comes in. For the first time ever, we have legislation focused specifically on this community, taking into account the distinct health, developmental and educational needs unique to people with Down syndrome. With the right interventions, many people with Down syndrome can lead full, independent lives, attending mainstream schools, gaining employment and participating fully in society. To achieve that and to improve life outcomes for people with Down syndrome, we need more than just general disability support: we need Down syndrome-specific strategies.

This is where the long-overdue guidance will play its part. The guidance will determine the success of the Act and be a practical road map that provides clarity on how the principles of the Act should be implemented. Without it, the Act will just remain words on the page. The preparation and implementation of the guidance, however, has faced challenges. We know that there have been significant delays in updating the guidance. More importantly, there are concerns that the current draft of the guidance does not reflect the original intent of the Act and lacks the Down syndrome-specific focus in line with the Government’s statutory duty.

I thank the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), for writing to me yesterday to assure me that he has listened to those concerns, and that he is engaging with stakeholders and working with all relevant Departments to produce a second draft of the guidance, with a view to putting it out for consultation by the summer. My ask of the Minister is to ensure that the second draft of the guidance reflects the feedback raised by the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, the Down’s Syndrome Association and others. I am sure he will agree that we need guidance that is robust, inclusive, and reflective of the needs of the community it is intended to support.

Importantly, an accountability mechanism must be included to ensure that individuals and organisations responsible for the implementation are held to their obligations. Additional direction and training should be considered for external bodies to help them to understand fully their roles in effectively implementing the guidance in the first place. I hope the Minister will give due consideration to these points as the second draft is prepared.

The Down Syndrome Act and its guidance offer an incredible opportunity to improve outcomes for people with Down syndrome, but we must ensure that the guidance reflects the specific needs of the community it aims to serve. To ensure that that is the case, I hope the Minister will agree, on behalf of the Minister for Care, to meet with representatives of the APPG on Down syndrome and the National Down Syndrome Policy Group to discuss and address our key concerns. By working together, we can create a future where people with Down syndrome are not only included, but truly empowered to reach their full potential.

18:08

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time today, Mr Turner. I wish you well in this new role, and I hope we will have many engagements in this Chamber. I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for raising this issue and introducing the debate. He has taken the mantle on well and I congratulate him. In the short time I have, I will give three inspirational examples of those with Down’s syndrome from Northern Ireland. I know the parents of one of them personally.

First, many people will have seen James Martin from Belfast; the Minister, who always has a close eye on what is happening in Northern Ireland, will know him. Last year at the Academy Awards he was an inspiration to so many, showing that the opportunities are limitless for that young man. There is a place in our society for so many different skills and abilities. I am truly thankful for those who are at pains to portray acceptance in the mainstream. James did us all proud at the Oscars, and set the scene for more to be done.

Secondly, young Kate Grant was Northern Ireland’s first Down’s syndrome model to walk at London fashion week. What an inspiration that young lady was. Our society has made limits, but they are being changed, which can only be a good thing. In setting the scene, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness talked about how we must change the limits and ensure that young people have opportunities.

Thirdly, my parliamentary aide volunteers in a local Campaigners clan in Newtownards. In her clan is a young boy called Harry; he and his younger sister are integral members of the group. Harry played the role of a wise man in the nativity play this Christmas, delivering his iconic line, “Look at the star!”, with great confidence and gusto. He attends a special school but is well integrated in this wee group, and the inspirational aspect is that he is not treated as different by the children around him. They just see him as Harry; they attach no Down’s syndrome label to him, but accept him as he is.

I love to see and hear those stories of integration and I think the right hon. Gentleman hopes to see that sort of integration across society. We all know the days of stigmatising Down’s syndrome children are well in the past, and rightly so. Now is the time to step up and help these children and adults to find their place in our society. I believe that that is happening more, and that is very positive.

I have one concern, which is that children with Down’s syndrome can be aborted up to birth in Northern Ireland, under the horrific imposed abortion regime. It is an absolute stain on this House that it made the decision to impose that regime in Northern Ireland. I cannot highlight the wonderful steps forward that society is taking without begging once again that allowing abortion until birth simply because a child has Down’s syndrome is removed from our legislation. We voted against that measure at the time, but this House passed it for Northern Ireland.

I will never forget the words of young Heidi Crowther, who has Down’s syndrome, urging people not to allow abortion until birth, saying:

“My life has as much value as anybody else’s.”

That is so true, and the worth of people like her to communities around the world is beginning to be understood. We must encourage and support children and adults—and parents, too. I look to the Minister, as I always do, to ensure that families have access to help and support throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is only made richer and stronger by our differences.

18:12

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this debate. The Down Syndrome Act is simple, but brilliant—but it is powerless without the guidance to accompany it. That is why this debate is timely.

I also call it timely because the elements of the Act determine the very structure that can support a child through to adulthood, from birth through to work. The Act depends on three main pillars, the first of which is healthcare. At this time, we are putting in place a 10-year NHS plan, putting together the NHS of the future, and looking at how we can keep ourselves well; we are putting in early intervention measures and ensuring that we have the workforce needed in the future. If this guidance is to have effect, we need the workforce and the structures to support individuals and their families. Now is the time to look at that and to put in the additional screening and support that a person with Down syndrome needs to optimise their health and keep well throughout their life.

The second pillar is that we are having a massive review of the education system at the moment. We are looking at curriculum change, recognising that the broadening of the curriculum will be much more inclusive. As we review SEND and the whole education system, it is timely to bring in this guidance. It cannot just be guidance around Down syndrome looking in; it must be looking out at other Departments. Again, the time is now. Look at the data: the figure of 80% of children with Down syndrome attending primary school drops to between 25% and 37% in secondary school. That deficit in itself indicates that we need significant change in our education system. We need a schools system that is nurturing, therapeutic and integrated, so that no child feels on the outside of the education they are rightly entitled to.

The third pillar is the place of work. We need to ensure that there are more opportunities for people with Down syndrome to engage in the labour market. Just yesterday, the Government published their plan “Pathways to Work”, which I see as a plan in two halves. The first half will enable more people to access the labour market, to follow the career of their dreams, and to have their skills and talents recognised. We need to ensure that everybody with Down syndrome has that opportunity where it can be afforded—if not in a formal workplace, by volunteering in the community or being able to have the most life-enhancing opportunities available to them. When I talk about the second half of the plan, I have deep concern for people with Down syndrome, looking at the proposed thresholds for personal independence payment in which people will have to score at least four points to meet the threshold to access vital funding to keep them independent —the key word in personal independence payments. We need to ensure that we feed into that debate.

When we get this right, it will be for the benefit of the whole of society. In York, I think of those people who work in West Offices, where the café is run by United Response and provides real work opportunities, and of the Once Seen theatre company, where I see such talent on display. We must get this guidance—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Bobby Dean.

18:16

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing the debate today and for articulating the key points of the Act so well. I cannot move on without also thanking the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for her inspiring contribution. She really did her community proud today.

This issue came to my attention because I have a constituent called Lucienne who sits on the National Down Syndrome Policy Group and runs a local group called Get On Downs. I was at its annual celebration this morning—we had tea and cake, we threw balls around a ball pit, and I wore funky socks as demanded by the event—unfortunately, you cannot see them, Mr Turner, but I am still wearing them. I got to meet Noah, Lily, Stephen and Charlotte, all people living with Down syndrome and thriving in that loving space. I asked Charlotte what she would like me to say to the Minister, and she said she would like me to tell the Minister that she is fantastic—so I have done that.

I also spoke to parents there, who told me about the relief of having that space, including for themselves, so they could talk to other parents and share experiences. They also had some serious points to make about the Act, which they were all aware of. A common theme was the education system and that the specific needs of Down syndrome children are not being met, even though the smallest of adaptations and interventions can make such a massive difference. Schools are not aware of that and we need to get the guidance sorted for them.

I also heard a story about someone moving on to post-16 education and the demands on them to take maths and English to a particular level, when what they actually need is the vocational skills. They want to become an animal carer and wish they could just have access to a vocational course without the hard maths and English requirements. I also heard about the need for more support to stay in work. Charlotte did Christmas cover in retail, but companies were not looking to keep her on.

There were warm words for Lucienne—or Lu, as she is known—and she was described as a “life saver” for setting up that local group. She has also set up an amazing initiative with the local hospital trust. The healthcare information provided at birth can be daunting, warning about some of the things that parents of children with Down syndrome will have to face. Lu wanted to flip that on its head and provide care packages to new parents of children with Down syndrome that congratulated them and talked about all the joys ahead of them. I want to recognise that brilliant initiative.

It is fitting to give the last word to Lu, and these are the questions that she wants to ask the Minister. What is happening with the guidance, and why the delay? Will the Minister agree to meet the National Down Syndrome Policy Group? Can the Minister reassure us that the draft guidance will be Down syndrome-specific? Lu wanted to labour the point about the specific learning profile that requires specific interventions. She asks, “What is the point in a Down Syndrome Act if it is not specific to people with Down syndrome?”

18:19

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this important and timely debate ahead of World Down Syndrome Day this Friday.

What a pleasure it was to take the opportunity before the debate, as we were slightly delayed, to chat to marvellous Millie, who is an incredible advocate for those who have been touched by Down syndrome.

In my constituency of Chichester we are fortunate to have an incredible charity, the Chichester and Arun Down Syndrome Support Group, which works tirelessly to fill the gaps left by failings in public service provision. Ahead of this debate, the charity highlighted to me many of the challenges that people with Down syndrome face, particularly in accessing the support they need throughout their education. One of its core initiatives as a charity is the bespoke schools outreach programme, which ensures that children with Down syndrome receive the tailored education they require. They require additional support throughout their education, yet many families struggle to obtain EHCPs from local authorities.

In West Sussex, the picture is stark: only 3.6% of EHCPs were issued within the statutory timeframe of 20 weeks in 2023, and the situation has not got much better. Those delays force children with Down syndrome to remain in unsuitable educational environments where their needs are not met, which hinders their opportunities. Most importantly, when an EHCP is issued, we need the accountability to see that that EHCP is delivered.

The charity also highlighted to me the cliff edge of support that people living with Down syndrome face at the age of 18, when they are no longer in an education provision. I was pleased to visit Together Our Community at its exciting new venue in Chichester, which is due to open next month. That will provide a space for TOC members and a public-facing café where adults with additional needs between the ages of 18 and 35 will have the chance to learn and develop essential skills. For people with Down syndrome, charitable organisations such as those provide vital support and services and give these incredible people the opportunity to thrive, not just survive.

The Down Syndrome Act recognised the needs of those living with Down syndrome and rightly acknowledged that public services must take those needs into account across health, social care, education and other local authority provisions. However, the Act must be properly resourced. The NHS website lists a range of specialists that a person with Down syndrome may need to see, including speech and language therapists, physiotherapists, opticians and occupational therapists. Yet local organisations consistently report a lack of those essential services, which undermines the opportunities for people with Down syndrome to live comfortably or independently. Three years on from Royal Assent, the Act is not supporting those who it was designed to support.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for all individuals with long-term conditions or disabilities to have access to a named doctor, which would shift care from the corridors of hospitals to local communities. That is especially crucial for people with Down syndrome, who not only have learning disabilities but are at a significantly higher risk of conditions such as dementia, seizures and leukaemia, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) mentioned.

The impact of social care on people with Down syndrome cannot be overstated, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a comprehensive overhaul of social care policy. While we welcome the cross-party commission to establish a long-term agreement on social care, we strongly believe that it can be concluded within one year, not three.

While the Down Syndrome Act was a step in the right direction, real change requires more than warm words; it demands proper funding and meaningful action. From healthcare and social care to employment and independent living, people with Down syndrome deserve better. As the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness stated, the guidance is where we are severely lacking at this moment in time. The Government must prioritise this issue, and we will continue to push for the improvements necessary to enhance quality of life for all.

18:23

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to respond in this debate. I credit the now Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who said, when speaking about this issue in January 2022:

“Our constituents expect us to see guidance and perhaps be part of scrutinising it, raising objections and problems and improving it—that is the role of a Member of Parliament”.––[Official Report, Down Syndrome Public Bill Committee, 26 January 2022; c. 7.]

We have seen that exemplified here today. I give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for all he has done to raise this issue, but he was actually trumped by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), to whom I pay tribute for her ability to speak so openly, so personally and in such an informed way about the issues at hand.

In January 2022, the then shadow Minister closed by saying,

“this is an example of how Parliament and the proper role of Members of Parliament can be made real. That is only for the good of our constituents.”––[Official Report, Down Syndrome Public Bill Committee, 26 January 2022; c. 7.]

I agree with her entirely.

Turning to the debate itself, it is unusual to have unanimous feelings from across the House, but that is what we have heard in this debate. It is an accolade to everyone that we have got this far, but some things are still outstanding, particularly two issues—the progress of seeing the guidance and ensuring that it is accurate and effective. It is important to ensure that the guidance is robust and reflects the needs of the community. We do not want to rush publishing the guidance, which could mean that key issues are not addressed, because it would undermine the efforts of the last three years and fail the very people the Act is aimed to support.

My former colleague, Sir Liam Fox, who has been mentioned here and introduced the private Member’s Bill, has written to the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee about these reforms; with your permission, Mr Turner, I would like to quote some extracts. He said:

“When the House of Commons unanimously passed the Down Syndrome Act, it felt like a real dawn had arrived for those with Down Syndrome and their families. We were promised new government guidelines covering health, education and social care that would phenomenally improve service provision and provide accountability to service users”.

He said later:

“Despite repeated promises we have not yet seen the formation of an effective cross Ministerial task force. There has been little Ministerial engagement with stakeholders, with many identical letters being sent out in response to demonstrably different queries. Now, three years after the legislation reached the statute book, this is completely unacceptable.”

He finished by saying:

“I believe that it is now time for both Ministers and officials to be held to account for the lack of progress in producing coherent guidelines, something that is regarded as a betrayal by many of those who were so encouraged and inspired by the passage of the Down Syndrome Act itself”.

Therefore, to echo many of the sentiments expressed in this Chamber today, I have some gentle questions about the guidance.

First, though, it was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) that a letter has been sent out, which I welcome. I wonder whether the Minister might take back to the Department the suggestion that a copy of the letter might be placed in the Library, for the public and all of us to see.

For my first question: can the Minister clarify whether the updated guidance will be published, and if so, when? Secondly, will she commit to holding a debate or a statement on the guidance, on having it laid before Parliament? Thirdly, how will the Government monitor compliance with the guidance?

To help with the above, the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, which drafted the original Down Syndrome Bill and worked with Sir Liam Fox and previous Ministers to support its journey through Parliament, has been trying to engage further with Ministers. It has highlighted to me multiple requests for Ministers to meet the APPG on Down syndrome, the policy group and MPs, which have yet to be successful. I echo that call: will the Minister commit today to her fellow Minister meeting with the policy group and the APPG to follow this up?

The theme of World Down Syndrome Day, which is indeed this Friday, is “improve our support systems”. We know that, with the growth in life expectancy for people with Down syndrome, access to social care will be critical. Therefore, can the Minister confirm whether the needs of people with Down syndrome will be considered in the first stage of Baroness Casey’s commission into adult social care? With the Government’s 10-year plan in production, could the Minister outline how Down syndrome will be addressed in the context of that plan?

I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how this Government will build on the foundations of the Down Syndrome Act, and about the strengthening and enabling of support. If we see it through that prism, the world shines brighter when we see people for their abilities rather than their disabilities.

18:28

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this debate, and for giving us all the chance to mark World Down Syndrome Day on Friday. No one has done that better than my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) this afternoon. Her child is the beating heart of her family, and that joy is absolutely with all of us. She has spread that joy today and we are grateful to her.

I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness for his support for the Down Syndrome Act. As he highlighted, I was pleased to support the Act with his right hon. Friend and my constituency neighbour at the time, the former Member for North Somerset, Sir Liam Fox. It was a marvellous thing to be part of. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, it was a simple but quite brilliant piece of legislation. I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Luke Evans) for quoting my comments from different times at the Dispatch Box; hopefully they were all carefully chosen.

This Government want to see a fair Britain where everyone lives well for longer. I absolutely recognise the importance of the Down Syndrome Act in helping to achieve that. The Act gives people with Down syndrome the building blocks they need for a healthy life, and we have heard about some of those today: access to the health and care services they need, receiving the right education, securing living arrangements that work for them and being supported into employment were mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, as well as the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller).

By raising awareness and understanding of the needs of people with Down syndrome, we can help ensure that every person with Down syndrome has the opportunity to live a full and fulfilling life. Today’s debate is an excellent opportunity to come together to mark World Down Syndrome Day. I commend those in the Public Gallery, and the many people who have been in contact with or are known to Members. This year’s theme is “improve our support systems”, which is incredibly important. It is something that we are striving to achieve through developing the statutory guidance under the Down Syndrome Act.

We are committed to ensuring that people with Down syndrome receive the care and support they need to lead the lives they want to in their community. However, as we have heard this afternoon, there is significant work to be done to make that a reality. The Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), is working hard to implement the Act. Under the Act, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is required to give guidance to relevant authorities in health, social care, education and housing services on what they should be doing to meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome.

As Members have highlighted, the Act was formally commenced on 18 March 2024 by way of regulations. That brought into force all the provisions of the Act, and it was a necessary step towards the publication of the guidance. I do not think it has been mentioned today, but shortly after that point we had the general election, and I appreciate that the delays are frustrating for campaigners and people involved. The Minister for Care has written to sector partners and the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome with an update on the guidance and next steps. That includes our intention to put the guidance out for consultation by the summer.

Engagement with people with Down syndrome, their families and supporters, sector colleagues and experts has been invaluable throughout the development of the guidance. Over 1,500 responses were received to a national call for evidence, which is being used to inform the guidance, in addition to sector engagement and a review of the evidence to gain a better understanding of the specific needs of people with Down syndrome and how those can be best met by relevant authorities.

On 26 November 2024, the Minister for Care convened a roundtable of partners to discuss how we can improve life outcomes for people with Down syndrome, and the opportunities that the guidance presents in support of that. We are grateful for the collective efforts and insights of individuals and organisations across the country, which have enabled us to make great strides in our development of this important piece of guidance. We recognise that some time has passed since the Act became law in April 2022.

[Graham Stuart]

Several colleagues have mentioned the need for specificity—if the Minister is coming on to that, then great. Would it be fair to say that it is the intent of the Government—I am not looking for cast-iron promises, because we know how challenging these things are—that we should see the guidance issued before the end of this year, all things being well?

[Karin Smyth]

We want to ensure that the guidance is published as soon as possible, and we appreciate patience while we make that happen. It is important that we continue to work with people and organisations with lived experience to develop the guidance. We hope that the update we provide will assure everyone of the priority attached to that important piece of work.

As for the scope of the guidance—with regard to other genetic conditions or learning disability—a commitment was made during the Bill’s passage through Parliament to consider the links and overlaps with other genetic conditions and/or a learning disability. Therefore, the guidance will be Down syndrome-specific, in line with the Government’s statutory duty—which we are clear about—under the Act. It will also include references to where it could have wider benefit. We want to take the opportunity of the guidance to help as many people as possible and to provide examples of good practice to support relevant authorities to implement improvements in practice.

On employment, we heard through engagement with our partners that employment is crucial to improving life outcomes. People with Down syndrome can bring many skills and strengths to the workplace. We want every person with Down syndrome who can and wants to work to have the right support and opportunity to do so. That is why a dedicated chapter on employment will be included in the guidance.

On implementing the guidance, we know that ultimately much depends on how the guidance is put into practice across our communities. To support implementation, NHS England published statutory guidance on 9 May 2023 to require that every ICB had a named lead for Down syndrome. I think that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said that there was only one, and I recognise the name, because it is my own area—well done, them. That might not have happened, but it was said in 2023.

The executive lead on Down syndrome will lead on supporting the chief executive and the board to ensure that the ICB performs its functions effectively in the interests of people with Down syndrome. We recognise the importance of ensuring that people with Down syndrome are able to make complaints, if they have concerns about the quality of and access to care. We expect the named lead to ensure that concerns are acted on at the local level.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I am sorry, but I think I have only a minute to go.

This week has been a powerful reminder of how far we have come regarding awareness of Down syndrome. It has also made us reflect that much more remains to be done. When the guidance is launched for public consultation, we will welcome Members’ support to ensure that the communities they represent are aware of it and can share their views.

I will just highlight the issue of regression, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned. The guidance will deal with specific health needs, and regression will be part of that.

I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness again for securing the debate and other hon. Members for joining the discussion. In particular, I thank the co-chairs of the APPG, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for their work, and everyone who works tirelessly to improve our support systems and services. It is incumbent on us all, working with people with Down syndrome, their families and carers, to get this done.

I appreciate that a number of requests have been made for different individuals and groups to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Care. He is keen to do that. I will not make specific commitments, although the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness tempts me to do so, but I will make the commitment that my hon. Friend will be in touch via his office with colleagues who made such requests, to ensure that we make best use of the time and bring people with us on the implementation of this guidance, which is so crucial—I remember my time on that Bill well. I am thankful for the opportunity to be part of the debate this afternoon.

18:37

[Graham Stuart]

We have had 10 speeches in this debate, which is fantastic. I think we all agree that the stand-out speech was that of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). It is great to have the whole House coming together in this way—a number of colleagues focused on that—and to have the pledges from the Minister. I think we can move forward with enthusiasm and engage with the Minister for Care. Led by the co-chairs of the APPG, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), we can ensure that we have a streamlined meeting or meetings to ensure that the Minister’s time is best used, the voices of the community are heard and the guidance is swiftly produced.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Down’s syndrome.

18:37

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statement

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Written Statements

Wednesday 19 March 2025

Support for Victims and Survivors of Terrorism

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

The impact of terrorism on individuals and their families is long lasting and evolving. In a single moment, their worlds are turned upside down and lives are changed forever. We hold in our thoughts everyone tragically lost, bereaved, and injured, physically and mentally, by terrorist attacks, both at home and abroad.

It is essential that each and every one of these individuals receives timely and compassionate support to help them recover from the impacts of an attack.

The Home Office has carried out a comprehensive review of the support needs of victims and survivors of terrorism, to identify ways to better address the needs of victims and survivors. The Government pay tribute and give thanks to each and every victim and survivor who contributed to the review and to those who continue to raise awareness of the lived experiences of victims and survivors, and to campaign for better support.

Today we have published the review’s findings, which fundamentally signal that more needs to be done to better support victims and survivors of terrorism.

The review identified that victims and survivors need consistent and co-ordinated support, with streamlined communications to enable clarity on what support they are eligible for, how to apply, and where to receive help in applying. The review also found that acknowledgement of victims’ and survivors’ lived experiences is crucial to their individual recoveries.

Today the Government have affirmed this commitment by announcing plans to implement a dedicated support hub to deliver timely and compassionate support to victims and survivors nationally. The Government have also launched a consultation on a national day for victims and survivors of terrorism to better recognise those impacted by terrorist attacks.

Next Steps

Today we have announced that we will deliver a dedicated support hub for victims and survivors of terrorism. The support hub will better support victims by streamlining communications through a single point of contact and will provide specialist support addressing their diverse needs in the immediate and long-term aftermath of an attack. We are aiming for the support hub to be available to victims and survivors from next year.

There is currently no single focal point to allow the nation to come together in reflection and remembrance of those sadly lost and impacted by terrorism. It is only right that we consider the ways the Government could appropriately acknowledge their experiences.

In recognition of this, today the Government have also launched a public consultation on a national day for victims and survivors of terrorism. The consultation seeks specific feedback on the proposal for a national day, together with exploring other forms of recognition for victims and survivors. It also seeks respondents’ input on key aspects of a national day, including their views on a potential name, date, the ways it could be commemorated, and any consequences that may arise. We welcome responses from those impacted by terrorism including, victims, survivors, their loved ones and those that support them.

The consultation has launched today for a period of 12 weeks. It is available on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk and is open to members of the public.

We understand the outcomes of the review have been long-awaited. It is important to this Government that we are transparent about the unique challenges victims and survivors experience. Today we have also published a summary of the review and its key recommendations. The review summary is available on the www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk website and accessible to all members of the public.

These reforms are an important first step towards better support and recognition for victims and survivors of terrorism. I personally pay tribute to their courage and resilience, and I pledge my commitment to ensuring they receive the support they deserve.

A copy of the consultation—and related privacy information notice—and the review summary will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS533]

Grand Committee

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

Wednesday 19 March 2025

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

Announcement

16:15

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords. if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

Committee (1st Day)

Relevant document: 17th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

16:15

Clause 1: Armed Forces Commissioner

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(5A) The Commissioner must—(a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions;(b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of its responsibility.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, there is always time for a new experience. Despite having been in your Lordships’ House for 10 and a half years, this is the first time that I have ever moved an amendment as the first amendment in Committee, which means that I do not have any experience of quite what I am supposed to do, other than to stand up and say that I am moving the amendment in my name.

I am very aware that, at various Committee stages of Bills, the movers of amendments seem to talk at great length. The bit that I do know is that I am not supposed to give another Second Reading speech—but I also noted before I arrived that it said that movers should not speak for more than 15 minutes, and I am moving the first amendment in two groups. For the benefit of everyone in Grand Committee this afternoon, noble Lords will all be extremely relieved to know that I do not plan to speak for more than 15 minutes in total, across all five groups, unless I am interrupted or heckled. We were all very clear at Second Reading that this is an important Bill and that we all broadly support it and wish it well. Any amendments that we bring forward are intended to improve it and not in any way to undermine it. It is very much in that spirit that the first amendment is proposed.

This amendment is in a little group all on its own, because it refers to the Armed Forces covenant. When the Armed Forces covenant has come up previously, it was very clear under the previous Government that there was a commitment to it and a desire that it should apply to businesses and maybe to schools, the health service or to other branches external to government—but the Government themselves and the MoD were not subject to the Armed Forces covenant. From these Benches, we always felt that that was a bit of a gap. In looking at this new role for the Armed Forces commissioner, it seems entirely appropriate that the person appointed should pay due attention to the Armed Forces covenant and that they should

“uphold and give due regard”

to it, in the wording of the amendment.

We also think that it would be helpful for the Armed Forces commissioner to monitor the Armed Forces covenant and how far the principles and commitments are being upheld. It is an important document and an important covenant, yet sometimes it seems to be honoured more in the breach than in the reality. Therefore, in that spirit, we want to ask His Majesty’s Government at least to think about the relationship between the Armed Forces commissioner and the covenant. With that, I beg to move.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said that this is the first time she has ever moved an amendment in Committee—

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The first amendment.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

In my case, it is the first time I have ever been at a Committee on a Bill on the Armed Forces. When I walked in the door and was handed the latest regulations and so on, for which we are all very grateful, I must admit that when I looked at some of the amendments, I wondered where the disagreements are going to lie. As someone who comes fresh to this, I should have to say briefly—I am going to be briefer than the noble Baroness—that I thought, “This seems like a reasonable amendment. What’s wrong with it?” So when my noble friend the Minister replies, I should be grateful to have explained what may be the objections to this amendment, because if there is something I do not understand about the relationship between the Armed Forces commissioner and the covenant, I should very much like to know.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords as always, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and I thank her for opening the Committee’s considerations of this Bill on a matter as important as the Armed Forces covenant. She has done a commendable job of reminding noble Lords of the three principles of the covenant; so I will not repeat them. However, I should like briefly to comment on some of the great work that has happened as a result of the covenant.

The Armed Forces Act 2021, which was taken through the House by my noble friend Lady Goldie—who sends her apologies for not being present in this Committee today; she is otherwise detained in the Chamber—imposed new duties on public bodies to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant. This means that housing organisations, health services, educational establishments and local authorities must all take action to ensure that service personnel are not disadvantaged. This has led to considerable improvements in service welfare.

For example, the Armed Forces community in west Norfolk raised concerns that there was insufficient dental service provision near the local base at RAF Marham. The views of families, supported by research from Healthwatch Norfolk into local health provision and user needs, were fed into the Norfolk health overview and scrutiny committee, ensuring the commissioning process reflected local and regional needs. This was all led and negotiated by the Norfolk Armed Forces covenant board, with partner organisations then collaborating to find a solution to meet those needs. NHS England worked closely with RAF Marham and the Defence Infrastructure Organisation to address the gap by opening the first NHS dental practice based on an MoD site. This is a direct positive consequence of the Armed Forces covenant.

The previous Government took significant steps, as I have mentioned, to incorporate the covenant into law. Given that it is somewhat axiomatic that the commissioner will already have due regard to the principles of the covenant, I should say, therefore, that the amendment does not seem quite necessary. I am glad, however, that the noble Baroness has moved it to highlight the positive impact of the covenant.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

Perhaps I may start by welcoming everybody to the Committee, and I look forward to the consideration of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for the way in which she introduced the amendment, and in particular the points she made about the general approval that everyone has with respect to the main thrust of the Bill. But of course, that does not negate the opportunity and chance for us to discuss how we may test what the Government are thinking and, where appropriate, suggest improvements.

I shall reflect widely on the various points that are made and my intention is that, between Committee and Report, we will have meetings between ourselves so that we can discuss how we might take all this forward. I say that as a general view as to what my intention is in order to make progress on the Bill, so that everyone will feel as though the contributions they have made have helped. I cannot promise the answers will necessarily be those that everybody would want, but certainly it is my intention, following Committee, to work with people to look at the various discussions that have taken place.

I apologise for the fact that the draft regulations dealing with the definition of what we mean with respect to a family have been made available online only an hour or two ago. Certainly, we gave them out as people came into the Room. There is, I am afraid, nothing I can add other than to say it was an administrative oversight, and I apologise profusely to everyone for that. I also know how irritating it is, having sat where the noble Earl, Lord Minto, is, to have to wait for regulations that do not appear. I can only apologise to the Committee for that.

It may have been the first time that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, introduced an amendment, but nobody would have known. It is a very important amendment. I thank noble Lords and Baronesses here today for turning their expertise to the scrutiny of the Bill and for offering their board support to its principle and purpose. The ongoing welfare of our serving personnel and their families must remain a priority for this Government and the commissioner. The amendments we are considering today will do much to keep their welfare at the forefront of our minds in both Houses of Parliament.

I declare an interest, as my son-in-law is an active member of the Reserve Forces.

Amendment 1 is on the important issue of the Armed Forces covenant. As the noble Baroness said, its effect would be to place a requirement on the commissioner to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant principles as part of their general functions. It would also require them to monitor and report on compliance with the covenant in all areas of their responsibilities. As I am sure noble Lords know—and as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out—the Armed Forces covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether regular or reserve, and those who have served in the past and their families, including the bereaved. This Government, as the last Government were, are fully supportive of the Armed Forces covenant. Indeed, our manifesto included a commitment to place the covenant fully into law with an ambition to include that in the next Armed Forces Act.

An important aspect of the covenant is that it applies to the entirety of the Armed Forces community, which encompasses both serving and former members of the Armed Forces. As the noble Baroness knows, the Armed Forces commissioner is very focused on the serving community and their families. It will, of course, be perfectly proper for the commissioner to consider covenant issues where they relate to serving members of the Armed Forces and their families, and I would imagine that those issues will be very much at the heart of the “general service welfare” matters that are within the remit of the commissioner to investigate. However, I strongly believe that there is a separate and pressing need to address the issues of our serving community, and it is in that role where the Armed Forces commissioner will have the powers to make the real impact that we all want.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness that the commissioner will be fully able to investigate covenant issues where they apply to the welfare of serving personnel and their families. Therefore, it is not necessary to specify this in the Bill, but I do not, in any way, decry the importance of the Armed Forces covenant, which every member of this Committee supports. We aim to extend and develop that in the Armed Forces Act that is coming in the not-too-distant future. With that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, but I thank her for the thrust of the point that it made.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response. If I may give a slightly flippant response to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who said that the amendment looks straightforward and is difficult to disagree with, so “How can the Government not agree with it?”, it sometimes feels with legislation that, however relevant an amendment might be, Governments of whichever flavour say, “No, we can’t possibly agree with this amendment, but we might be able to come back with something worded a little differently”. Government amendments might look similar to opposition amendments, but they may be accepted.

On this occasion, I hear what the Minister said on the specific reasons why the target audience of the Armed Forces commissioner is somewhat different to that of a wider role that would include veterans and other members of the Armed Forces community. However, I am still slightly concerned. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out that it is axiomatic that the Armed Forces commissioner would be bound by the Armed Forces covenant, but one of our concerns is that the Government seem to think that the Armed Forces covenant is something that other organisations should implement; they have not bound themselves to it, somehow. I look forward to seeing what the Government bring forward in the next Armed Forces Bill—they seem to come along quite regularly, a bit like Christmas. We look forward to that but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

16:30

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

2: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“(7) For the purposes of this section, “persons subject to service law” includes people going through the recruitment process to join any branch of the armed forces, and “relevant family members” includes the family members of people going through any such recruitment process.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow those currently going through the recruitment process to join the armed forces to use the Armed Forces Commissioner for its intended purposes.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, both the amendments in this group are in my name, and Amendment 10 is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

Amendment 2 relates to a matter of particular concern to my honourable friend in the other place: that we need to be very mindful of those who are going through the recruitment process. The legislation is obviously about those subject to service law, but one of the concerns is that, as people go through the recruitment process, they are potentially vulnerable. Clearly, that would not apply to somebody just walking into an Army recruitment office, but if somebody has got to the point of applying, going through the medical process and then going through various assessments to see whether they are suitable to be recruited—apparently there is sometimes a requirement to stay overnight, for example—there is a real concern that we need to make sure that they are not put in any difficulty, particularly when it comes to young people.

If there is no Service Complaints Commissioner because the role is being taken over by the Armed Forces commissioner, will it be possible for those going through the recruitment process to be part of that? I know that the Minister is not minded to accept this amendment, but it would be helpful if he would at least explain to the Grand Committee how the interests of those going through the recruitment process, particularly the very young, will be maintained and if he would confirm that safeguarding will be in place.

Amendment 10 is to some extent related to the draft regulations that have just appeared. At Second Reading the Minister said that he would make sure that the draft regulations would be out in good time before Grand Committee—I think he may have said that it would be not just half an hour before. They arrived a good two hours before Grand Committee, so we are probably winning. The draft regulations talk about deceased service personnel’s family, so that bit of our amendment has already been covered, but I have two questions, one of which is linked to the amendment as initially tabled, which is about kinship carers and whether the language used in the draft regulations is intended to cover that or whether we still need to think about a more specific amendment on kinship carers coming back on Report.

At the moment, the various clauses in the draft regulations talk about “relevant family members”, including those for whom someone

“has assumed regular and substantial caring responsibilities”,

but there is very little definition of what is meant by that. It may be that there is other, not necessarily Armed Forces legislation, where there are very clear definitions, but it would be helpful for Grand Committee to understand how His Majesty’s Government understand that.

As the draft regulations happen to be in front of us, I wonder whether this is the right place to ask the Minister my second question relating to them, regarding Regulation 2(3)(b) about

“a former spouse or civil partner or a person whose relationship with A was formerly akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”.

I am just wondering how far the remit of “relevant family members” is intended to extend. If we are talking about someone at the time of a bereavement, it is usually clear who is the spouse or civil partner. Where we are dealing with people who have previously held those roles, is it anyone who has previously been in the role of something similar to a spouse or civil partner? How do His Majesty’s Government intend to define that? Is the Armed Forces commissioner supposed to deal with all those relationships, or will we be looking at a narrower definition? I beg to move.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I will speak against Amendment 2. I declare my interest as a member of the Army Board.

I understand the intent, but my objection to Amendment 2 is based on practicality. The recruitment process has changed dramatically in recent years. Indeed, you can start your recruitment process not by going into an Army recruitment centre but simply by going online and clicking a button. Last year alone, we had over 100,000 applicants to the Regular Army and over 30,000 applicants to the Army Reserve. That was just for a single service, so I think it is fair to say that probably in excess of 200,000 people will have applied to join the Armed Forces over the past year. If we were to allow these people to access this system, I think the system would simply be overwhelmed and goodness knows what the cost would be.

The principle is that those who are subject to service law are subject to the Bill, and service law does not kick in until the point of attestation, when you actually join the Army. I was privileged to be in Nepal only three weeks ago to witness our next 372 Gurkhas being attested into the British Army. I understand the sentiment, but, with the greatest of respect, I think it is simply impractical. We would open the aperture of the system to so many people that we would run the risk of the system simply not working because it would be overwhelmed.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

That is a very helpful intervention, and we are probably all delighted to hear that there were so many applications for the Army last year, given that recruitment has been an issue. Could the noble Lord continue with some of that exposition? Obviously, it is possible to apply by going online and clicking a button and, clearly, the applicant should not have recourse to the Armed Forces commissioner at that stage. But at the stage where somebody is going through a medical or being assessed, could there be concerns that we need to think about, even if that is not through the Armed Forces commissioner?

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a reasonable point, which is why I said at the start of my remarks that I understood the intent behind what she is trying to achieve. Without getting distracted, the challenge that we face at the moment is a crisis not of recruitment but of conversion. One of our biggest challenges is that we have a conversion rate—forgive me if this figure is not quite right—of about 13 or 14 to one in the Army and about 20 to one in the Army Reserve. The challenge is in the process of recruitment and the time that it takes. I am straying beyond my role here today, but I can assure the noble Baroness that the Armed Forces are seeking to address that. Those who are frustrated in that process probably should have the ability to have redress, but I am not sure that this process is the right one.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I too am persuaded that Amendment 2 is not necessary, but, with an eye to what one might consider bringing forward on Report, could I take the opportunity to ask the Minister to reflect a little more widely than simply the recruitment process and go into some detail on recruit training? Recruit training will be covered by the Armed Forces commissioner, but it is as a blanket coverage just like everything else.

But we are only too well aware of the serious concerns that exist about the abuse of recruits undergoing training. This is a particularly serious problem that, in my view, needs to be looked at outwith the general subject of the treatment of people in the Armed Forces. Why do I say that? Recruit training is and must be a tough and stressful endeavour. It has to turn civilians into effective members of a military organisation. It has to forge new bonds of loyalty and duty, and that will never be an easy or gentle process. But, simply because of that, recruit training becomes a particularly potentially dangerous area, because recruits are particularly vulnerable. Anyone in charge of recruits who steps over the bounds can cause serious harm.

The abuse of recruits is not just wholly wrong legally and morally; it is also damaging to the image of the Armed Forces more widely, and indeed it could be damaging to recruiting. So it seems to me that this area deserves some particular and special attention. The Minister might like to reflect on whether something should be included in the Bill, or in the regulations that flow from it, that pays particular attention to this.

It is not, of course, because commanders do not care; they do care. We have had the very recent example of the Chief of the General Staff expressing his shame at some of the some of the recent cases. But we have seen these cases year after year, stretching back as far as any of us can remember. The care, concern and statements of commanders have not changed things. As the Minister will be aware from discussions we had at Second Reading, the critical thing in the Bill is what it will do to change things on the ground. Recruit training, it seems to me, is an area that deserves particular consideration. I wonder whether he might reflect on that and perhaps have some further discussions before we get to Report.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I intervene at this point to say that I am very grateful to follow the two noble Lords who have just spoken because I learned a great deal. On Amendment 2, I hope that, when the Minister comes to reply, he will be as precise as possible in indicating exactly when the Bill will take effect on people joining. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, referred to attestation: is that in fact the moment at which you go from being an applicant to being, as it were, a serving member of the Armed Forces—and hence the Bill applies?

Secondly, with respect to Amendment 10 and its reference to the regulations, which I got a copy of as I walked through the door, my noble friend the Minister made his declaration of interest again today, and I made one during the Second Reading debate—I will not bore the Committee with it again, except to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for his enthusiastic reply. Looking at the list of relevant family members, and bearing in mind my declared interest, am I right that someone who is engaged to a serving member of the Armed Forces does not come within the current definition of family members?

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a serving Army Reserve officer. I was not going to speak on this group, but the discussion so far has prompted me because, without wishing to prejudge the Committee too much, I am probably the one who went through the recruit process most recently—albeit six years ago. Things have probably changed for the better since then.

I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that recruit training needs to be vigorous and arduous, because you are turning civilians into soldiers, sailors and airmen. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Lancaster that applying service law, and benefits thereof, at the point at which someone becomes an applicant would be too early. But, to pick up on the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, yes, attestation is exactly that point.

I can speak only for the Army recruitment process. It is very good at training you and telling you where you need to be, at what time, and with what kit and equipment, and it is good at telling you what you are going to do. What this amendment perhaps points towards is that it could communicate better to recruits not only their obligations but their rights. The National Recruiting Centre holds everyone’s personal information. It could be as simple as an email from the Armed Forces, subbed by the Armed Forces commissioner, saying, “You have now attested. These are your obligations, rights and benefits”. That would take care of all of these issues.

16:45

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I sense that we are in danger of confusing the recruitment process and recruits. The recruitment process is the process through which you apply to join the Armed Forces. That ends at the point of attestation, when you join the Armed Forces. You then become a recruit in training. It is unfortunate that the two words are similar; we run the risk of not understanding that the point at which service law applies is attestation.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, although I appreciate the intent of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we believe that this Bill should retain clarity and focus.

It is important that the commissioner is responsible for those who are subject to service law. That is the language used in the Bill and the term defined by Section 367 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. As per that that section, those who are subject to service law include every member of the regular forces at all times; every member of the Reserve Forces while they are undertaking any training or duties relating to their reserve duties, are on permanent service on call-out, are in home defence service on call-out or are serving on the permanent staff of a reserve force.

As per chapter 18, Terms and Conditions of Enlistment and Service, recruits become subject to service law once they have sworn the oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King. I swore mine 53 years ago; that is a slightly awful thing to say. They would, therefore, already have access to the commissioner. The issue arises when we try to include all those going through the recruitment process, as we have just discussed. They are still civilians, and many may not complete the process of joining up. Therefore, they would not be likely to experience general service welfare issues in the same way that fully attested service personnel may do.

In Committee in the other place, the Minister for the Armed Forces pointed out that there can be up to 150,000 individuals going through the recruitment process at any one time. If the commissioner’s remit were to be expanded in this manner, their case load would, in essence, double. This seems like rather an onerous imposition that could hinder the commissioner’s ability to serve service personnel as the Government intend.

On Amendment 10—I very much thank the Minister for the draft regulations—the only thing I would like to say is that I believe that there is already a precedent definition in legislation. The Armed Forces (Covenant) Regulations 2022 define relevant family members for the purposes of Section 343B of the Armed Forces Act 2006. The Government already have a list that defines family members, and it is fairly comprehensive. This begs the question: what differences will there be between that definition and this new definition? Also, since we have just received this latest definition, I ask the Minister: could we perhaps consider it and revert at a later stage?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Although I do not agree with her on Amendment 2, let me just say that I think the fact that she spoke to both that amendment and Amendment 10 has provoked a very interesting and important debate. I will deal with some of the issues that she raised when I make the formal government response to it.

First, I want to respond more widely and openly to the various questions that have been raised. I very much agree with the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. The Government are looking at ways to improve the recruitment process before the point of attestation through a review of recruitment and how it takes place, in order to try to improve the whole process, but that is separate to the whole point of the commissioner. None the less, the noble Baroness made an important point about how we could improve that experience for those who are applying to join our Armed Forces.

The noble Baroness spoke about kinship, and I will make some remarks about that in my formal remarks. Our belief is that the draft regulations she has received— I emphasise that they are a draft—are intended to be broadly drawn with respect to that. We have noted the comment the Delegated Legislation Committee made on how these draft regulations should be agreed using the affirmative process, rather than the negative process as is currently in the Bill. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and others, that we will come back and look at that on Report to reflect the views of the committee.

Our intention in the draft regulations is to ensure that anyone who is closely connected to a serviceperson and feels the impact of service life should be covered by the commissioner’s remit. We recognise that this could be a wide-ranging and diverse set of people. Before I forget, I will say to my noble friend Lord Stansgate that engaged people are covered by the commissioner.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

They are getting married in September.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I know it will change in September, but engagement is covered. Trying to overly constrain this definition may risk suggesting that family is more of a traditional nuclear family, and it may not reflect differing circumstances, such as the bereaved or non-traditional family set ups. We have tried to reflect that in the draft regulations; again, I apologise for their being late to the Committee.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I read the regulations very closely, but I am not sure how it includes engaged couples unless they are covered by an interdependence in terms of finances. If an engaged couple were not living together or did not have a joint bank account, for example, would they be covered? It used to be the fact that, in terms of considering casualties, there had to be a connection of financial dependency between the two.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am advised that Regulation 2(3)(a),

“a person whose relationship with A is akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”

includes engaged people. If that is wrong, I will come back to it, but that is the whole point of having the draft regulations before us. As I said, these regulations are draft and will come back as secondary legislation in due course.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I am afraid I have to say to the Minister that I think that is very woolly. As a Minister who dealt with casualties—I am sure other Members who have served in the Ministry of Defence will be aware of this—I can say that the Armed Forces family is very complicated. At a sudden death or tragic event, various emotions come together and, unless that is defined, you will have difficulty.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a really helpful comment from my noble friend. These are draft regulations; we are not going to legislate them now. The Bill will give us the power to create secondary legislation, and those draft regulations can be changed when people make various comments, including the ones my noble friend has made. Those can be taken into account and, if there needs to be change, there can be.

The whole point of the draft is that it gives the opportunity for noble Lords to make various comments on them. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, may reflect that kinship is not covered in the way she would expect, and therefore could make that point in response to the remarks I have made and will make. That is the whole point of what we are discussing. If this draft is not drawn tightly enough, of course it will have to be changed.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

In my time, I have seen some mind-bogglingly complex family arrangements, some of which would not be comprehended by these regulations. I say to the noble Lord that I do not believe that it would be possible to write something out that will cover all possible contingencies. I wonder what degree of flexibility there will be in all of this to take account of the unforeseen when it comes to very complex family arrangements.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

One would expect the complexity of modern family life to be reflected in the regulations. In the end, one would hope that the commissioner would exercise some professionalism and care with respect to that. I take the noble and gallant Lord’s point and my noble friend’s point, but it is extremely difficult to do this and to capture every single potential arrangement.

However, as I said in response to the noble Baroness, we are trying to have as broad a definition as we can, including as many different arrangements as we can, with some flexibility to try to capture the sorts of arrangements that we may not have thought of—such as those who are engaged and so on. As my noble friend pointed out, in his view, this does not adequately capture that; we will have to reflect on that and, where necessary, change it. A point was made about the difficulty of this; one has to try to do it, but we are ultimately dependent on the sensitivity of the commissioner, which is what I would hope we would do. The noble Baroness will have to reflect on the kinship point.

I totally agree with the points that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, made about attestation. The commissioner has a responsibility for the particular individual from that time. I will refer to that again in my remarks, but I totally agree with what the noble Lord said.

I thought the intervention of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was extremely pertinent. Many of us here are concerned about the abuses that we have seen. He made a particular point with reference to recruit training and the balance there must be between rigorous training to make sure somebody is fit for service with the abilities and aptitudes that one would expect and ensuring that that training is not inappropriate, bullying or in any way abusive. Certainly there is an expectation that, were that a concern or something that is brought to the commissioner’s attention, they would look into it.

It is good to see the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, here with the experience that she can bring from her role. She is somebody who has shown that the “So what?” question can be answered, and she has made a very real difference with respect to victims. The “So what?” question is really important to the whole of the Committee.

Many of us who have served are sick and tired of reading report after report, but there are changes happening and improvements taking place. At the same time, in the evidence given yesterday to the Defence Select Committee by the Chief of the General Staff, the First Sea Lord, the Minister for Veterans and others, they were openly talking about their complete disgust at some of the things that still happen and their desire to continue to work for changes. In fact, noble Lords may have seen some of the changes that they suggested, one of which was the establishment of a specialist tri-service team to deal with the most serious complaints. This tries to take them out of the single service that they would normally go to, by having a tri-service complaint system. That was something that the Chief of the General Staff and others talked about yesterday.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

One of the issues that we discussed at Second Reading was the challenge of people actually accessing the commissioner. This seems to be a particular concern for those in recruit training. Old lags in the system will generally know how it works and will have friends around who can tell them; they will understand what they need to do to get the commissioner involved. However, recruits will be a bit hazy on all that and extraordinarily reluctant, in the environment in which they find themselves, to complain. This comes back to the point I made earlier: is there not a need for a particular set of arrangements for those undergoing recruit training beyond those applied to the broader swathe of service personnel?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord makes a good point. Let us reflect on that and see where we get to. But I could not agree more with him about the nervousness that you would expect from a recruit who has just joined and done the attestation and is part of the Armed Forces, but who feels that it is what is happening with respect to him or her is inappropriate.

17:00

On a broader point, because the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, has raised this with me with respect to the reserves, there is a need to publicise the work of the commissioner and to make people confident in being able to contact the commissioner, going to the commissioner with whatever their concerns are, and for the commissioner to hear that, even if the commissioner says, “That’s an individual complaint; you need to go to the service complaints system”. But if enough of those come, then they can see that there is a general welfare issue that is occurring. We are going to reflect on how we ensure that we publicise the work of the commissioner. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made the suggestion that that may mean that, in a particular circumstance with respect to recruit training, we may need to consider how we do that. But it may be that there are other circumstances for other groups or categories—however you want to define them.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

We are in danger of not overpublicising but causing confusion. The majority of the service complaints system which is lifted and dropped into the Bill still remains the responsibility of the single service. One of my concerns at Second Reading was, for a number of reasons in a number of different areas, that we will begin to raise expectations. I am not sure that the Service Complaints Commissioner would welcome it if, all of a sudden, they are having a whole series of complaints directed at them which rightly should go through the service complaints system. So we need to be very careful how we advertise this; otherwise, we will cause a right mess if we are not careful.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with that. Let us be clear that the service complaints system remains in place; it is the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s responsibilities that are being transferred into the Armed Forces commissioner role. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for allowing me to reiterate that point. He is absolutely right that, in most circumstances, the commissioner will refer individual service complaints back to the individual service for it to look into. I agree with him on his point about ensuring that that system continues and works in the way that we would all want it to, and the Armed Forces commissioner’s responsibility is with respect to the general welfare issues that arise.

In answer to the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, when we look at how we publicise that—the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, has highlighted the reserves—we will make sure that we take on board the point that the noble Lord just made so that there is no confusion, but that at the same time we create a culture where people feel able to bring something forward to the appropriate body, whatever that may be.

I just want to address another point that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made. It was a very important point, which should be reiterated, about how some of the poor behaviours we see reflect on the image in total of the Armed Forces. That is why it is so important to answer the “So what?” question.

I just say to my noble friend Lord Stansgate—or maybe it is to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—that, subject to the will of Parliament, we hope that the Bill will get Royal Assent in late spring this year, and the Armed Forces Bill will come into effect early in 2026. So that is the timeline that that we are operating to.

Just for information to the Committee, the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s contract runs out at the end of 2025, but within the Bill there are transitional arrangements that are able to be made should there be a period between the end of her contract and the start of the Armed Forces commissioner role. I just want to be clear about that.

I turn to the formal remarks that I wish to make. Amendment 2 relates to the addition of those undergoing the recruitment to the Armed Forces so that they come under the commissioner’s scope. I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s concerns about potential recruits. From the first day in uniform to the last, the Government are committed to all members of the Armed Forces and to supporting their families. On their first day of basic training, candidates complete attestation—as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned—transforming them into recruits who are members of the Armed Forces. This means that they and their families are within the commissioner’s scope.

The experience of a potential recruit—a candidate—is very important and, as such, we have set a new ambition for the Armed Forces to make a conditional offer of employment to candidates within 10 days, and to provide a provisional start date within 30 days. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed out—the figure I have is more than 100,000—up to 150,000 candidates are applying to join the military at any one time. Bringing them into scope may vastly increase the workload of the commissioner, watering down their ability to focus on other key areas impacting service personnel and their families.

To reassure noble Lords, the Government’s work on improving retention and recruitment is part of a package of measures aiming to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. We are modernising and refining our policies and processes to attract and retain the best possible talent, highlighting that defence is a modern forward-thinking and forward-facing employer that offers a valuable and rewarding career. Our aim is to attract and recruit more, as well as to maximise the number of applicants who successfully enter and remain in the Armed Forces’ employment.

Turning to Amendment 10, I will start to answer some of the points that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, raised concerning the definition of “families”. I again thank the noble Earl and thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. I acknowledge her concerns about providing certainty to all Members on the application of the Bill. I promised that during Second Reading, and I have apologised for the late arrival of the regulations. But the debate that we have had from my noble friend Lord Beamish and others about what should be in those regulations will be something that we can return to as the Bill progresses but also when the draft regulations are debated by this place and the other place.

I welcome the Delegated Powers Committee’s report and thank it for considering the Bill so carefully. It provides a vital role in ensuring the appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny of delegated powers, and we will carefully consider its recommendations before Report.

The families definition outlined in the regulations seeks to include all groups that have a close familial relationship with the serviceperson. In broad categories, the draft definition covers partners or former partners of a serviceperson, including those who are married or in a civil partnership, or someone in a relationship akin to a marriage or civil partnership—namely, a long-term relationship. I can hear others already saying, “What do you mean by ‘long-term’?” I just say that we are attempting to create a definition—I am just trying to head off my noble friend Lord Beamish before he challenges me on what “long-term” means. The serious point is that we are trying to have a wide definition, and we understand the difficulty that that raises. But we will take on board the points that people make.

The draft definition also includes children of the serviceperson—either the serviceperson’s own children or their stepchildren—as well as their partner’s children or a child for whom the serviceperson is caring or has financial responsibilities. It includes parental figures of the serviceperson, which will include parents and stepparents and anyone who acted in a parental role when the serviceperson was under 18, such as a long-term foster carer or kinship carer. The definition also includes a sibling of the serviceperson, be that a full or half sibling or a stepsibling, or someone who legitimately considers themselves a sibling of a serviceperson through their upbringing. Again, noble Lords can understand some of the difficulty that may arise with that, but they can understand our attempt to capture as wide a number of people as we can.

The draft definition also includes other specified relatives of the serviceperson or their partner where they are part of the serviceperson’s household, are financially dependent on them or are cared for by the serviceperson or their partner. It includes bereaved family members if they fall under any of the above categories immediately before the serviceperson’s death. Although the definition explicitly includes bereaved families, it does not specifically use the term “kinship carers”. The definition has been drafted to ensure that service personnel who are kinship carers, or kinship carers of the serviceperson when they were growing up, are in scope, thus giving biological parents and those who acted as a kinship carer the same access to the commissioner.

Going back to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that is why there is a difference between the definition here and some of the other definitions with respect to the use of “families”. Our intention is to try to draw that as widely as possible and, therefore, that is why there are some of the differences that the noble Earl mentioned. I hope that provides some of the reassurances that the noble Baroness, on both her amendments, is trying to achieve.

I thank noble Lords for an interesting debate on this aspect of the Bill. We will again take into account the points that have been made and reflect on them, not least about the need for us to consider the draft regulations, as well as the points that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made about recruit training and a need for us to consider where particular arrangements may be made. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this fascinating debate on the two amendments in this group. Several of us have learned a lot, and some are now probably a little puzzled about the status of an engagement versus a civil partnership versus a marriage because, to most people, an engaged person is not the same. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, that we might want to come back to that issue.

However, I am particularly grateful to the Minister for clarifying His Majesty’s Government’s attempt to define family relationships broadly, because some years ago, when I was first on the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, I was on a visit and was told of some frustrations of people not being able to get accommodation because of certain familial relationships that were not deemed to be actual relationships. The fact that the draft regulation is going to be broad in scope is welcome. The formal answer that the Minister gave when he was talking about foster relationships and so on probably covers the kinship aspects that we are looking for in that part of Amendment 10. We look forward to a further iteration of the draft regulations and definitions.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me correct something before we move on. I said that the Armed Forces Bill will come into force in early 2026. That is not correct; I misspoke, of course. The Armed Forces commissioner will be set up in early 2026. I apologise profusely for that error and hope that everyone who listens to our proceedings, legal or otherwise, now fully understands that I meant the Armed Forces commissioner, which, I suspect, is what everybody in the Committee thought I meant. Just for the sake of clarity, I mean the Armed Forces commissioner will be set up in early 2026. The Armed Forces Bill must receive Royal Assent by the end of 2026.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that point. I suspect most Members of the Grand Committee were not necessarily listening so closely.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Clearly, it was only I who was not listening sufficiently closely, but I understood it as being the Armed Forces commissioner rather than the next Armed Forces Bill. However, I will probably have to not move Amendment 10 at a later point in proceedings.

However, the amendment has elicited a fascinating debate that allowed us to explore certain aspects of the recruitment process and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed out, the group that sounds similar to, but has a different role from, that of the recruit trainees. I should very much like the opportunity outside Committee to talk further with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the Minister, because my sense from the debate was there may well be some value in thinking about making it clear that that part of the role of the Armed Forces commissioner would indeed be to pay particular attention to the situation of recruit trainees, for example. I realise the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said, “Ah but we must make sure that we do not overwhelm the Armed Forces commissioner”, and I completely understand that. The role as stated in the Bill is not just to be the ombudsperson with a different name; it is also clearly to be about promoting the welfare of persons subject to service law.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made a strong case for looking closely at how recruit trainees are being looked after. So I may wish to bring back an amended amendment, or a different amendment, on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed.

17:15

Schedule 1: Armed Forces Commissioner

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Lord Beamish]

3: Schedule 1, page 8, line 16, at end insert—
“3A The Secretary of State must not make a recommendation to His Majesty under paragraph 3 until the recommendation has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean the Secretary of State could not recommend a candidate to be appointed Armed Forces Commissioner to His Majesty until both Houses of Parliament have approved that candidate.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 3— I will refer to Amendment 5 later—is like Amendment 4 in the sense that it covers parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner. It does so in different ways, but Amendment 3, standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, puts forward one way of achieving this.

In the Second Reading debate on the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill in the House of Commons, much play was made of the fact that the Armed Forces commissioner will be akin to the German armed forces commissioner. My right honourable friend John Healey, the Secretary of State, said:

“The role is inspired by the long-established German parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, which enjoys cross-party support in the Bundestag and support across the military”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/24; col. 75.]


He then went on to quote the present commissioner for Germany’s armed forces, who welcomes and looks forward to the new Armed Forces commissioner being installed in the UK.

Here, my noble friend the Minister also referred to the inspiration from Germany for the Armed Forces commissioner when he said this at Second Reading:

“The Bill was inspired by the long-established and successful German parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, who has been championing and providing a voice to Germany’s armed forces for almost 70 years … Our proposed Armed Forces commissioner, like the German commissioner, will have the power to consider the full breadth of general welfare issues that may impact service life”.—[Official Report, 5/3/25; col. 302.]


So, really, the spark that has done this is the German system.

I have to say, that is where it departs a little. The German system looks at the thematic issues that will be the remit of the new commissioner and she can also look at general service complaints, but the way in which the German commissioner is appointed is very interesting and very different from what is being proposed in this Bill. At the moment, this is what is proposed in paragraph 3 of the new schedule to be inserted by Schedule 1:

“The Commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State”.


So the Secretary of State will be the person who appoints this person and decides who they should be, but the German system is very different. The German armed forces parliamentary commissioner is established under the German Basic Law, which was framed in 1949 and, I think, clarified in 1956. The Bundestag parliamentary commissioner has some of the same remit as the proposed commissioner in the UK but there is the force of federal law behind him or her.

Then, we come on to how the German commissioner is appointed. They are elected by the Bundestag, whose website says:

“The Bundestag shall elect the Commissioner by secret ballot with a majority of its Members”.


It goes on to say that candidates may be put forward

“by the Defence Committee, the parliamentary groups”

or groups of members of the Bundestag for this purpose. It says that there should be no debate and that there is a simple vote. It also states:

“Every German who is entitled to be elected to the Bundestag and has attained the age of 35 shall be eligible for the office of Commissioner”.


Although my noble friend and the Secretary of State have argued that this would be akin to the German system, I am not sure that it is, given the powers, process and parliamentary scrutiny that it has. Am I surprised that, in drafting this, they have ignored the bit about Parliament? No, I am not, because the Executive are never keen on giving up power or ceding it to Parliament. I have no doubt that, following this debate, the Minister’s civil servants will come up with umpteen reasons why this cannot be done and, if it was, that somehow the earth would stop spinning and the sun would stop rising.

I have known my noble friend for many years and, as I always like to be helpful, I point out that there is a precedent already in the UK in the appointment of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I was not aware how he or she was appointed until I looked it up, but it is very much Parliament’s responsibility to appoint that individual. It is an open competition, and there is then an interview panel and final selection, which is done by the chair of the PACAC—the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee —an experienced ombudsman, and an independent panel. In that case, Parliament, via the role of those two individuals, has a direct say in selecting that person, so I am sure that we could come up with some system whereby Parliament could have a more direct say in who this person will be. It is a new role, and if the Government are arguing that they want to mimic or mirror the German system, Parliament needs to have a role in it. As the Bill stands, it has no role at all.

I know that, in Amendment 4, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, puts forward an alternative method of involving Parliament. We need to look at ways in which this could be achieved because, without it, the question of who the individual is—I will come on to this later regarding finance—could be at the behest of the Government of the day. If we are trying to give the impression that this person will be independent and accountable to not only the Armed Forces but the general public, and have an oversight role, having Parliament in that process is important. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, and I suggest that, before the nomination is sent to the King, it should go through both Houses of Parliament. That would give at least some oversight of the mechanism.

Amendment 5, which is also in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, is about the tenure of office, where again the Bill tries to mimic the German system but does not quite do it. Under the Bill as currently outlined, the tenure is a five-year term that can be extended but only for another two years. I wonder where they got the extra two years from. I think that was a suggestion in an annual report from one of the existing ombudsmen, but why two years? Amendment 5 proposes that the tenure should be up to two five-year terms. That would be in line with the German system, which is a five-year term that can then be repeated for another five years.

I accept that, with public appointments, it is important to get a turnover of people, but with this role, first, it is a new role. Secondly, the individual is not going to be a member of the Armed Forces or a civil servant, so he or she might have to take a long time to get themselves up to speed with the way in which our Armed Forces are structured and operate. That is before, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, they get their head around the complex nature of the Armed Forces family.

The option of having an extra five years would be better. You only have to look at the workload in the present ombudsman’s report, which has seen something like a 25% increase in complaints. If this person is going to be hit with that from day one, they are going to be very busy. Added to that role—remember that this is a new and extended role—they will do thematic reviews. An obvious one would be on initial recruitment, for example. However, we have looked at this in the past in terms of the Nicholas Blake report into the sad deaths around Deepcut. The House of Commons Select Committee also did quite a major report on that back in 2006. It is sad that some of those things have not changed.

It would be in order to extend that person’s tenure. It would also allow the individual to get a quicker under- standing and be able to follow through on reports. I think some of these thematic reports will take a long time to go through. If they are going to make a change and have weight, they are going to have to be done thoroughly without a time limit that means it will be passed to a new commissioner or, somehow, they will run out of time.

All I will say to my noble friend is that I have looked at the German system; this is not the German system. It can be nearer to the German system if we make some amendments to it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 4 and 21, which are in my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, pointed out, in some ways Amendments 3 and 4 are trying to bring a parliamentary dimension to the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner. I fully agree with everything the noble Lord said on Amendment 3.

There is no objection from these Benches to Amendment 3; it seems a very reasonable amendment. Indeed, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, is wrong, and the Box—although there is not officially a Box in Grand Committee—officials are not going to be able to give the Minister a bit of paper to tell him that there is no way on earth there can be a parliamentary vote. Some sort of statutory instrument and a negative or positive approval in both Houses seems to be de minimis. I would hope that His Majesty’s Government will think seriously about allowing some parliamentary involvement in the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner.

One of the problems I envisage with the straightforward negative or even a positive assent is that normally in Grand Committee, when we have a statutory instrument, it feels a little bit like the Scottish play:

“When shall we three meet again?”


Very often, it is the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for the Labour Benches—now the Government Benches —and either the noble Earl, Lord Minto, or the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and me. Very often, there is nobody else other than officials who are required to be here looking at statutory instruments. If we are talking about a serious role for Parliament looking at the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner, I would like to advocate for a stronger role, which may include a committee as outlined by Amendment 4.

Amendments 3 and 4 are almost different models of how to make an amendment. The one from the Liberal Democrat Benches almost looks as if my colleagues, in drafting it, came up with something from the European Parliament, which is extremely detailed about what is happening. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has done something that is nice, skeleton legislation in the true Westminster style. However, I suggest that including a committee’s involvement—most logically the House of Commons Defence Committee, and maybe also the opportunity to speak to the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee—could be an important way of ensuring that the commissioner is a robust appointment.

17:30

At the moment, the idea that the Secretary of State can nominate somebody and the King simply appoints, without any parliamentary processes, seems somewhat negligent. I wonder what thought His Majesty’s Government have given to finding a way to allow Parliament to play a role. The noble Lord may say, “No, it’s not a statutory instrument and, no, it’s not going before a committee to be tested and questioned”, but maybe it could be or should be. If not, could the Minister tell us whether there is another way for parliamentary engagement? If the Armed Forces commissioner of the UK is intended to look similar to the German model, a parliamentary role would be relevant. It seems unlikely that we would want to go through a vote of the whole Chamber, particularly because we do not have provisions for secret ballots—but that is another alternative. This is really a plea for parliamentary engagement and for not allowing executive capture.

While I am speaking—I will not come back a second time—I want to raise a slight issue that I have with Amendment 5. The idea of two five-year terms seems wholly appropriate, but I was slightly concerned about the justification given by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, which was that the person appointed might need time to get up to speed. If we have the right recruitment process and appoint the right individual, I hope they will be ready to do the job on day one and not spend the first five years working out what they need to do.

I have one slight question that came up in the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and at Second Reading. The Armed Forces commissioner should not be a member of the Armed Forces or the Civil Service. Does that mean that they can never have been in the Armed Forces or Civil Service? That makes the field quite narrow. Assuming that that is not the case, what sort of job spec are we looking at and what sort of individual will the Secretary of State be looking for?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

An individual can become commissioner if they have been a member of the Armed Forces, but not if they are a serving member.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the clarification. That is what I had assumed on reading the Bill, but I wanted to make sure that that was absolutely right.

The Minister has pre-empted Amendment 21 in some ways. It is simply a request for some clarification on the timeframe. We say in the amendment that the Secretary of State should publish an agreed timetable within one month. I suspect the Minister might find a reason why that should not be the case, but can we have a little more clarification on the timeframe? Will it depend on the individual appointed, or are His Majesty’s Government committed to the commissioner being in post on, say, 1 January 2026?

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to the two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, to which I have added my name. We spent quite a lot of time during Second Reading and—I just checked—the first part of the Minister’s response from the Front Bench on the question of what difference this will make. I think all noble Lords who took part at Second Reading agreed that that is the essence. To that extent, Amendment 3 is quite important, because it goes to the heart of the question of what difference it will make.

The reason why the German system works the way it does is that the German armed forces commissioner is very clearly the servant of the Bundestag; he or she sits in the Bundestag alongside the clerks and, indeed, if the Bundestag wishes it to happen, it can request that the armed forces commissioner can participate actively in debates around the armed forces in the Chamber. So it is a very different model, and it really does make a difference, because it is markedly different from what we are suggesting.

This is the third attempt by us to try to get a form of ombudsman or Armed Forces commissioner to be more effective. We had the first one in 2008, the second iteration in 2016, and this is the third bite of the cherry to try to get it right. Clearly, if this is the third time we are doing it, it ain’t that simple. For all sorts of excellent reasons, the Armed Forces are a very particular culture and ecosystem, which they need to be to do what they do, but the flip side of having a really effective and disciplined military is that, for all sorts of reasons that it may not completely understand itself, it may be quite resistant to attempts that it sees as coming from outside—from people who do not really understand the culture and history and the things that are so important. The things that are not said are often more important than the things that are said.

The problem is that, at the moment, some of us feel that, while this is very well intended, it is very cautious indeed. For the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence to retain as much ownership and control of this as will inevitably be the case is unlikely to make the sort of step change that I think a lot of us were hoping and aspiring to believe this new role could actually make. I think that this needs to be looked at—it is a probing amendment—and I ask the Minister and his colleagues to look very carefully.

As part of my research for this proposal, I asked an individual who is actively involved in teaching in Shrivenham to take a poll after talking to a few people about this Bill. The first thing that this person found was that almost everybody spoken to in Shrivenham—this was last week—was not actually aware of this Bill. I do not know how well publicised this Bill is within the Armed Forces, but you would expect and hope that the flagship or leadership organisations of the Armed Forces would be aware of it and indeed might even perhaps been talking about it a bit. However, apparently this was not the case—but this was not a professional Sir John Curtice-type opinion poll but just somebody going around and talking to other people at Shrivenham.

The other experience that this individual had, after a brief explanation of what this role was going to be, was an almost immediate response from everybody; people felt that what they described as the “rigidity”, with a small “R”, of the armed services culture would find it pretty easy to resist the type of role that is being envisaged.

The bottom line is whether this is going to make a difference. It is important to be able to step back from this Bill and perhaps to take some more soundings from within the Armed Forces just to try to understand how likely they feel this will make a real difference. One senses that the onus of this Bill is coming primarily from the Ministry of Defence itself, and there is slightly less pull, if you like, from those parts within the Armed Forces and the extended family members that we were talking about. I am not sure how clearly their voices and experiences are being heard, because what we have at the moment clearly is not working.

I shall move quickly to Amendment 5 and term of office. The German term of office is five years. It can be renewed; it usually has not been renewed. Almost every time a new commissioner is appointed in Germany, it is an ex-Member of Parliament—usually an ex-member of the defence committee that is the equivalent of our Defence Select Committee. So they come with some live experience and with a network within Parliament that they are easily able to access; they can be quite influential behind the scenes. That system works well but, again, I come back to what we asked earlier: will this measure make a difference?

The aspiration is that this new role will make a discernible difference. In order for it to do that, clearly, it needs to do a lot of things differently to the way in which things have been done to date; and to find an effective way of doing things differently that works better. One will not get it right first time every time. It will be an iterative process: there will be successes, failures, brick walls and elephant traps. All sorts of things will be happening. Building up the types of resource and knowledge that will be required to gain momentum to carry this new role forward into the term of whoever follows the first commissioner will require giving the first commissioner the leeway and resources to make a difference.

I just feel that things are a bit timid at the moment. If we focus on the complexity of the task that we are asking this new function to do—in particular, if we try to think, “What should this look like 10 years from now? What do we hope would be happening? How would this be working?”—and know both where we want to get to and where we are now, we can then gauge the complexity of the task of getting from A to B. That might result in looking at some of these aspects in a slightly different, perhaps more beneficial, way.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 3, not because I agree with it but because I agree very strongly with it. When my noble friend the Minister introduced the Bill, I remember him saying—quite rightly—that one of the important aspects of this Bill is that it puts this commissioner on a statutory footing. He was referring to the fact that he wanted this new post to have the weight of statute behind her or him. I simply support Amendment 3—if I refer to it again, I shall say “very, very strongly”—because it would give this post the authority of Parliament, in addition to being in statute, which would be a very good thing.

I am interested in everything said by people who know far more than I do about the German system but, clearly, that is not particularly appropriate to a British political setting. Amendment 3, however, is absolutely perfectly suited to our political system. I know that, sadly, Governments do not tend to like amendments such as Amendment 3. If I were on the other side of the Room, I dare say my noble friend might have been arguing for Amendment 3. I understand that, in his current ministerial position, he may be guided by the officials behind him and say, “Well, it is too complicated”, but it is not complicated at all. It is a question of whether Parliament should be involved, which it should be. This is a major new post that we are creating. The process of confirming the appointment of whoever is put forward is something that Parliament should do. Incidentally, it is not just because Amendment 3 applies to this particular Bill; I would support Amendment 3 in every piece of legislation where this type of question arises.

That is all I have to say on this matter. I do hope that, when he replies, my noble friend the Minister will at least acknowledge the, I would say, widespread feeling that Parliament must be involved in the appointment of this person; and convey it internally to his colleagues in the Government who would be resistant to an amendment of this kind. When it comes to the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament, I try always to be on the side of Parliament.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in broad support of Amendments 3 and 4. Anything that strengthens the relationship between the Armed Forces and Parliament must be a good thing. I was taken by the commentary in the House of Commons around the similarities with the German system, although I was struck that, in reality, there do not seem to be many hooks in the Bill that reflect that, which is why I think we should look carefully at how we can reflect that.

17:45

I do not have a particularly strong feeling about whether I prefer Amendment 3 or 4. Indeed, there may be a third way, to use a previous Government’s favourite expression, although I confess that, once the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, said that Amendment 4 could have been written in the European Parliament, I looked at it through fresh eyes.

It is interesting that Parliament already has a strong role. It is easy to forget that every year, through statutory instrument, it is Parliament, not the Executive, that sets the maximum numbers for our Armed Forces. It is a debate that is often hijacked to talk about many other things but, none the less, it happens here in Parliament. That is why it seems logical to me that there should be some relationship between them, whether through the Select Committee or votes in both Houses. As I said, I do not mind exactly how that mechanism works, but I would like to see a linkage.

A minor point on Amendment 5 is that we have been through many iterations of this role, from the Service Complaints Commissioner to the Service Complaints Ombudsman and now the Armed Forces commissioner with this Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and I have been involved throughout that 20-year period, in one way or another. I could be wrong, but my understanding, from distant memory of the original Bill, is that no serving member of the Armed Forces could be commissioner, but they also had to have left the Armed Forces for a certain period before being allowed to take up the position. I could be wrong, but that sticks in my mind; I think the period may even have been five years. Is that right? The Minister may not be able to answer that now, but it is relevant, because if a former member of the Armed Forces does this role, there probably should be a time gap.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As that was a direct question, I put it on the record that I do not know the answer. We will find it out, and if I do not write before the end of Committee, I will make sure that I say something on Report in answer to that.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

It just came to my mind now, and my memory may be wrong, but I thought that was the case. If it was, it would be interesting to know why that provision has been taken out as the Bill has evolved, because it is probably quite a good thing. On the one hand, I can see the advantages of having a former member of the Armed Forces but, on the other, I would not want them to be in the Armed Forces on Friday and doing this role on Monday, which is why that time gap would be useful.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

I will say very briefly that I support Amendment 3, but I have some reservations about Amendment 4, mainly because of its length and its attempt to dot a lot of “i”s and cross a lot of “t”s. At the back of my mind all the time when we are discussing this Bill is that the Armed Forces Act is more than 500 pages long, and this will add to that. It becomes a nonsense to have an Act of Parliament of such complexity and such an attempt to deal with every conceivable possibility affecting the Armed Forces. It arises, of course, because the three single-service Acts were pulled together in 2006. It has produced a monstrosity, so where we can avoid adding detail to the Armed Forces Act by this Bill, we should jolly well try to do so.

[Lord Wrottesley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments of and comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and others. In doing so, I declare an interest in having previously served as a member of His Majesty’s Armed Forces.

Much has been made by His Majesty’s Government and other noble Lords of the attributes of the German model. A key feature of this model is its direct connection with and therefore accountability to Parliament. However, the Minister has previously stated that he feels that there is increased independence with the commissioner sitting outside Parliament—accountable to but independent of Parliament. There is a tension within these phrases that may be irreconcilable. We would all be keen to hear the Minister’s views on how to reconcile these tensions, which may even be contradictions.

I also support the comments made on term limits. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, about a limit of five years plus two for a total of seven years. In the corporate world, term limits often extend to two terms of four years, for a total of eight years, or three terms of three years, for a total of nine years. One of their key attributes is to allow for continuity and the retention of corporate memory, which still allows for a refresh and therefore introduces new experience into the mix within what is deemed an appropriate timeframe. I would like to hear from the Minister on why he feels seven years is an appropriate timeframe, as opposed to eight, nine or, as in this case, 10 years.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the very interesting amendments under consideration in this group all seek to push the Government on the terms of appointment of the commissioner. This is always one of the seminal issues when we debate the establishment of a new position in law. Amendment 3 appears—the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, can elaborate on this in his closing remarks—to interfere with the principle of exclusive cognisance. His amendment insinuates that Parliament must hold a confirmatory vote on the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for commissioner. As other noble Lords have mentioned, it would be very interesting to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

Amendment 4, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, creates a mechanism for appointment similar, as has been mentioned, to the committee system in the United States. Their congressional committees are required to hold confirmatory hearings and votes, and they have the power to decline a president their appointments. I am not certain how such a system could be translated into our particular constitutional model, but I am again quite intrigued to find out.

Finally, on Amendment 5, I too think there is merit in this proposal, so I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. If the particular commissioner is successful and executes their duties effectively, why should they not be able to hold that appointment for two full terms of five years? You would get a proper continuation as a result of a slightly extended period. I do not quite understand the two-year extension; it seems neither one thing nor the other. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I again thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for bringing his experience and knowledge of many years. As he says, we have known each other for a long time, and I appreciate the contributions that he has made in the past and will make in the future—on not only Armed Forces and defence matters but many other things.

All the points made by my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lord Stansgate, the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord Lancaster and Lord Wrottesley, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, were really interesting. Before I come to my formal remarks, as I said at the outset, I can say that we will meet between Committee and Report to consider the involvement of Parliament. At the moment, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee is how we see the involvement of Parliament, and I can tell my noble friend—this answers other noble Lords’ questions—that we will discuss the length of time and whether the Government still consider that the most appropriate period.

I say that without any promise that we will therefore change or alter it. I have heard what noble Lords have said and the points and contributions they have made. It is certainly my intention to meet to discuss their points to see whether we may move or if the Government are not persuaded. We will meet to discuss all of that.

I will just reply to some different points before I come to the formal remarks. My noble friend Lord Beamish will be happy that his amendments have at least caused the Government to say that we will have to reflect on the points he has made. He knows me well enough to know that I do not say that as a way of assuaging his views but as a genuine engagement that we can have to see whether we can take forward his points. I say that to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, with respect to the support they have given to those amendments and the various comments noble Lords have made.

I take the point that the German system is not exactly the same. As my noble friend pointed out, in the Secretary of State’s speech he spoke about our system being inspired by what happened in Germany. That is the point. It is not an exact replica but it has been inspired by it. In discussions with the German commissioner we have taken that forward.

As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, helpfully pointed out, the German commissioner sits in the Bundestag. The German model allows for their commissioner to be there and join in and that is not the role we will have for the commissioner, so again, it is different in that sense. There are differences, but the fundamental question goes back to the point the noble Lord, Lord Russell, made and that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made earlier; we are setting up the commissioner to answer the “So what?” question.

In answer to the question on how the military feel about it, they are very supportive of this commissioner being set up, so that is really important. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right to challenge us; this is a difficult balance between independence and accountability. We are attempting to say that the commissioner has to be independent to command the respect of all of us and to do the job we need them to do: to act without fear or favour to deal with some of the very real issues we face. But we want them to be accountable as well.

My noble friend Lord Beamish has said that accountability should be done through confirmatory votes of both Houses of Parliament. The Government’s view, as it stands, is that that accountability should be done through the Defence Select Committee, with the pre-appointment scrutiny process there and its ability, once the appointment is made, to consider that further and report to the Secretary of State on its view of the suitability of that particular candidate. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has added another possible dimension to it. All of us are wrestling with independence versus accountability. That is a very real dilemma for all of us, but it is a balance we seek to achieve.

I will say a little about the Armed Forces commissioner and the process as we see it. I want to answer my noble friend’s question as it shows a difficulty. My noble friend asked why the appointment is on the recommendation of the Secretary of State and not a parliamentary appointment. He noted the fact that it was pointed out at Second Reading that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman was a precedent for the sort of process he wants. However, there are several examples of similar roles where appointments are made on the recommendation of Ministers and not subject to the same process as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

There are, but there is also a very good example in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, where Parliament has a clear role in appointing that person. The problem with the pre-hearings by the Select Committees that my noble friend suggests is that they can make a recommendation but it does not have to be followed.

18:00

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is absolutely correct that the Defence Committee can make a recommendation but the Secretary of State does not have to follow it. I suggest to the Committee that, if the Defence Committee of the House of Commons said that the person who had been recommended or offered the post of commissioner was totally unacceptable and inappropriate—not somebody who should be given that position—the Secretary of State would find it difficult in those circumstances not to accept that advice, although of course they could.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I accept my noble friend’s point, but is it actually in the Bill, or would it be under guidance afterwards? If he is setting great store by its role, it should be in the Bill.

[Lord Coaker]

I think my noble friend knows the answer to his own question, which is: no, it is not in the Bill—that is what he wants me to say. From his own experience, he knows that the Secretary of State said in the other place, and read into the record, the importance of the role of the Defence Committee and the importance of its recommendations. Of course, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for that. In my view, if the Defence Committee was so exercised about a particular appointment and had concerns about it, the Secretary of State could of course still go ahead but it is difficult to believe that they would not consider that very deeply before confirming that appointment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, disagreed with Amendment 4 on the grounds of its length. Might His Majesty’s Government be open to a very small amendment, which could be “the Secretary of State appointing, on the advice of the Defence Select Committee”, or something of that ilk? That would meet the noble and gallant Lord’s concern about adding too many words to statute, but it would put in the Bill the sort of parliamentary engagement that we might be looking for.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Without saying whether that is a good or a bad idea, what I have said is that—although this is not actually in the Bill, as my noble friend said—clearly, our view is that going through the Defence Committee is the appropriate parliamentary involvement. We have said that we can consider the points that have been made in Committee, and I have said that we can meet to discuss them. Alongside that, we can discuss the length of term.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

The Minister will recall that, in the last few years, there has been a degree of disquiet, particularly on his Benches, about the view that certain appointments that should have gone through a fairly balanced process have veered slightly off course due to political interference. It just so happens that, about three hours ago, I was talking with a distinguished Cross-Bench colleague who is currently involved in two very senior independent appointments, helping the Government. This colleague had a discernible frustration that, in both of these cases—which are completely current and took place last week—a ministerial colleague of the Minister, not in the same department, overruled the recommendations of the advisory panel on who should be appointed or who the best candidates were. A completely different individual has been inserted from outside.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

All I can say in response to the concerns raised by the noble Lord is that we believe that the appropriate way for Parliament to be involved is through the Defence Select Committee. I have heard the points that noble Lords have made with respect to that. The appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner will be subject to the full public appointments process, overseen by the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, so we would expect it to be a rigorous and open recruitment process. We expect the Defence Committee to be involved in the recruitment process and to consider the appointment once it has been made. Of course, the Secretary of State is ultimately the final decision-maker, but, as the noble Lord said, he will carefully consider what the chair of the House of Commons Select Committee says.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I point out to the Minister that the two processes that I was talking about were run under precisely the rules that he has just laid out.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

All I can say is that our belief, understanding and intention is for it to be an open and transparent process, subject to the scrutiny of the House of Commons Select Committee, which we would see as having a role. Of course, in the end, the Secretary of State ultimately has responsibility for the decision whether to appoint or not. We in this Committee all know the power, influence and significance of the Select Committees of both Houses. They are powerful and significant committees that carry a huge amount of influence and weight and, as I say, the Secretary of State will fully take them into account before making a final decision.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

On the appointment process, which we touched on earlier, I am grateful that the Minister will come back to me about the air gap, but could I entice him to offer a view as to whether he thinks it would be appropriate to have an air gap to prevent a member of the Armed Forces doing this job, in the same way, perhaps, as Ministers have a two-year ACOBA process after leaving their posts? Even if there was not going to be an air gap, perhaps a serving member of the Armed Forces could not apply for the job because there would then be an overlap that could potentially influence behaviour. It is important that there is a gap, and I would be fascinated to know what the Minister’s view is.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is very tempting to say what I think about this, but I am not going to. I think the Committee will share my view that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, has raised a very important point and that we need to properly understand what the law is at the moment and look at his reference to what happened or did not happen in the past. I cannot, therefore, stand here and give a view, because I do not know—that is the honest, open and frank answer. But either in Committee next week or, certainly, on Report, I will be able to tell noble Lords what the situation is. At that point, I will tell the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, what my personal view is, but for the moment I thank him for a very important question about whether there should be a gap when someone leaves the Armed Forces before they can become the Armed Forces commissioner. It is an important point of principle, on which we will get the proper legal answer.

I will now read into the record the formal pages of my brief, which is necessary. I thank my noble friend Lord Beamish, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their views on the Bill. I acknowledge their concern about the scrutiny of the commissioner’s appointment and their views on the length of the term. I reassure noble Lords that we are confident in the existing pre-appointment scrutiny processes giving rigorous and independent scrutiny by Parliament, with the House of Commons Defence Committee testing that the preferred candidate has the right skills and experience and giving its views before a recommendation is made to His Majesty, and a timely appointment process.

As I have said, noble Lords have made good and fair points—I have not mentioned my noble friend Lord Stansgate, but he also did—and we are happy to consider further how we can take all this forward. I hope that, with that reassurance, my noble friend will not press his amendment. I am also happy to consider further not just the scrutiny but the right length of tenure to balance the commissioner being able to effect meaningful change with bringing a fresh perspective to the role.

On Amendment 21, we wanted to say a little bit more on the implementation timeframe, just to clarify. I share the noble Baroness’s eagerness to see the commissioner’s role established and their office operational as soon as practicably possible. We have not included that level of detail in the Bill, as she points out, as that would be an unusual legislative step. However, I am happy to provide further details on the intended timeframe for employing the commissioner and establishing their office as soon as possible. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, also mentioned the timeframe.

As the Committee will be aware, several factors affect the commissioner’s appointment. Notwithstanding the role of the Defence Committee pre-appointment scrutiny, the commissioner will be appointed following completion of the Bill, and the role will be subject to a full public appointment process, regulated and overseen by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. In addition, the intended timeframe will need to factor in the passing of the necessary secondary legislation, drafts of which have been provided to noble Lords. We expect that the process will continue in 2025 and, in parallel, we will undertake the necessary implementation work to ensure a smooth set-up and a transition from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman position. Therefore, I can now confirm that we anticipate that the commissioner’s office will be stood up in 2026.

I hope that provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness. With the comments that I have made on considering the points of my noble friend Lord Beamish and others, I hope that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for what has been a very good debate around these two amendments. I hear what the Minister said about this person being on a statutory footing—I think this was stressed in the Second Reading debate. When we get to my Amendment 6, I will explain to noble Lords that that does not necessarily give the protection that this individual requires.

My noble friend says that the Government wish the pre-hearing process to be done by the Defence Committee. I have no problem with that; I have tremendous respect for members of that committee and, having served on it for many years, I know the good work that it does. But what is to stop a future Secretary of State just ignoring that? That is why it needs to be in the Bill. I am not suggesting for one minute that either my noble friend or the current Secretary of State would do that, but we have to future-proof the legislation. We only have to look at the period of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, when a lot of conventions that had been agreed were just thrown up in the air, including what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to: appointments that had gone through and been agreed through the process, which were then ignored at the end.

This is something that we need to come back to. I hear what the Minister said—that the Bill is not a duplicate of the German system—but that has been the unique selling point that both he and Ministers have made about why this is needed. I welcome further discussions on the time limits and term limits of the individual, and I hope that we can consider this again. With that, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Amendments 4 and 5 not moved.

18:15

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Lord Beamish]

6: Schedule 1, page 10, line 32, leave out “may” and insert “must”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to the Commissioner.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

Again, this goes to the heart of the issue of independence. I accept that the Government wish to ensure that this individual and the office are independent and cannot be influenced, or have their work affected, by the Ministry of Defence. But at the moment the Bill says:

“The Secretary of State may make payments and provide other financial assistance to the Commissioner”.


I am sure my noble friend will turn around and say, “Well, it would be unheard of for a Secretary of State to withhold money”—in a minute I shall come on to an example of where this actually happened. But I learned a long time ago in local government that, if you control the purse strings, you control a lot of influence in terms of how you can affect the actions of any public body or any activity.

Again, referring to the German system, I accept, as my noble friend said—that this is not a direct copy of the German system. But there are safeguards in the German system because it says in the federal law there that the necessary staff equipment is made available to the commissioner for the performance of his or her functions, and it is a separate piece in the Bundestag’s budget. This is the budget that is drawn up by the Bundestag. It is a draft budget that is done by the Council of Elders and is then agreed to by the Bundestag. So, again, Parliament has a direct say. It has not been down to a Minister to decide that the Armed Forces commissioner will or will not get the finance, which is very different to what we are proposing here.

My noble friend said in the Second Reading debate and again today that the difference is that this will be put on a statutory footing and, therefore, that will make all the difference. It will not. The Intelligence and Security Committee is on a statutory footing under the Justice and Security Act 2013. I presently chair the committee, and it has not had its budget raised for the last 10 years. It has now got to a point where crisis talks are taking place over whether we can carry out our functions as a committee. That is because the previous Government took a clear decision not to increase the budget, even though we asked for moneys to be brought forward. So, again, just because things are on a statutory footing that does not mean that somehow they will be insulated from a future Secretary of State or Government —I am not suggesting that my noble friend or the Secretary of State would do this—who may not like what the commission is doing and may say, “We’re not going to give you another increase in your budget”. That is the death by a thousand cuts that has happened to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Likewise, I presume that the budget is within the remit of the MoD. I have not been a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, but I know the battles royal that there are over different priorities in the defence budget. That makes you wonder who would be arguing for this within the defence budget if it is coming across other things. Trying to be helpful, I am looking for other examples for the Minister of where we could perhaps have a different system. A different system would be, again, my old friend the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, whose money comes from the Treasury and is part of the Consolidated Fund, so it is not in a departmental budget. That at least gives some protection for that money. But this is a serious point, and how this can be remedied needs to be looked at.

This is a simple amendment, changing “may” to “must”, but, without it, the individual in the role would, as I say, be very vulnerable. Who in the MoD is actually arguing for the Armed Forces commissioner in terms of budget? Are they arguing for this rather than for some piece of shiny new kit in a procurement round, for example?

If we cannot have this amendment, some thought needs to be given before Report on, first, how the budget will be provided and guaranteed; and, secondly, how this will somehow be ring-fenced. Without that, it will be easy to kill this off, either by not giving it any finance at all or by cutting its budget over a number of years. Those are my points and that is the reason for this amendment. With that, I beg to move Amendment 6.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments seems quite similar in form to the previous one. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has presented a modest amendment that would change “may” to “must”. The amendment I am speaking to is a little fuller; it would take more lines in statute. Although the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, is no longer in his place, I stand with some caution because I realise that my amendment runs to three lines.

Its purpose is very similar to that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. In many ways, his amendment does the job, and does so very neatly. Nevertheless, I will clarify a bit more why we feel that it is necessary to put in the Bill that funding and resources will be made available to the Armed Forces commissioner. It is precisely because, if there is no clarity and certainty on that, all the ambitions in the Bill are in danger. The idea is that the Armed Forces commissioner will be more than a glorified ombudsperson and that they will promote the welfare of the Armed Forces’ serving personnel and relevant family members, as well as promoting the Armed Forces more generally. How will the commissioner do that if they are not adequately resourced?

The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, is absolutely right: this is a time of financial pressures. There is a real danger that the sort of role that can be cut is the role of the Armed Forces commissioner. Although I know that we have guarantees that defence expenditure will be increased and that we keep talking about the size of the defence budget, it is still very small, relatively speaking. If this post is being funded out of MoD funding, there is a danger that it will not be a priority. Maybe it is the role of the Minister for the Armed Forces to argue for this post and, at each budget round, to make sure that there are no cuts—death by a thousand cuts—but I would not be so sanguine.

I would like the Grand Committee at least to think about the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and I are raising in our similar but different amendments; and to consider ways of ensuring that, if the Armed Forces commissioner is to be brought into place, they are able to do the job that His Majesty’s Government and this Committee want them to do and which the Armed Forces need them to do.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

When I saw Amendment 6 from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, I put my name down in addition to his because of what I am holding in my hand: a fact sheet that was given to us at the very helpful briefing given by the Minister at the Ministry of Defence. I will read from the fact sheet; I ask your Lordships to look for the word “may”, because I cannot find it. It says:

“Although funding for the Commissioner will be provided for from the MoD budget, the Bill contains several safeguards to ensure the Commissioner can operate independently of government”.


It says “will” instead of “may”; that is on the fact sheet. I say this to whoever prepared it; it may have been one of the gentlemen or ladies behind the Minister. A slip of the verb may have produced it, but it does say “will”.

We were talking in the previous group about allowing Parliament to have more ownership of, and more skin in the game with, this new role. Can I just suggest as an idea that, on an annual basis, the Defence Select Committee of another place has a session devoted to talking to the Armed Forces commissioner about the work that he or she is undertaking? In addition, I suggest that, on an annual basis, there should be a session held with the commissioner in camera specifically to discuss funding, resourcing and some of the issues that one may not necessarily wish to be aired in the public domain but which could be shared on a confidential basis with members of the Select Committee.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief. The Government set great store by the independence of the commissioner. We all agree that that is vital, yet this amendment is necessary because the possibility is left open that it will not be properly funded. I find that remarkable. As my noble friend said in moving his amendment, this would detract from the independence of the commissioner.

I do not see why the Government should be allowed to say that they are fully committed to this new post and to giving it the resources that it needs—this was on the fact sheet, which I also picked up; I should have brought it with me—while, at the same time, they will not guarantee this funding in the Bill, which will become an Act. That is all I have to say. I am afraid that I cannot quite imagine what my noble friend the Minister will say in response because this is so clearly something that will set in stone the importance of the work and independence of the commissioner.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I will be equally brief. I come at this from a slightly different angle. I confess that I equally support the principle that, whatever happens, this post must be funded; indeed, I asked some Parliamentary Questions about this before commencement. An Answer to a Question on 14 February with the reference number HL4758 said that, in 2023, the post of the ombudsman cost £1.8 million. It is anticipated that, after the changes, the annual cost will increase to between £4.5 million and £5.5 million—a tripling of the cost. Those costs are modest and, I think, reasonable, although I am concerned about inflation—as in, inflation of the number of complaints and costs. There will be a tripling in the cost of this post as a direct result of the Bill.

As I have mentioned before, the role of the ombudsman is just the tip of the iceberg. The unseen cost of service complaints at the bottom of the iceberg within the single services—we have already had an amendment suggesting that we would potentially increase eligibility, through the recruitment process, by at least 100,000—is enormous. There are no official figures on costs—well, there are such figures, but they are not in the public domain and I am certainly not going to put them there; the Minister may or may not wish to put them in the public domain in due course—but they are enormous. I am quite confident in saying that, over a 10-year period, they will exceed £100 million. That is a lot of money.

There is competition in defence for money. All I am saying at this point is that we need to find a balance here. It is absolutely right that this system is in place, that our service personnel have the ability to go through this process, and that it is fair and properly funded, but I put a plea in: at a time when there is enormous pressure on defence, we must find that balance when it comes to scarce resource.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

If this role works and changes the culture in the Armed Forces, should that not drive down the number of complaints coming forward? That is a benchmark for what it is going to do. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that the way in which different services deal with complaints is, frankly, ridiculous. If it were a business, it would have gone out of business a long time ago with the length of time it takes. It is not good for the victim or the service either.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord. All I am trying to do is to put in a dose of reality as to just how expensive this process could be if we are not careful. There is enormous value in it, but can we please be mindful of balance of investment and of finding the right, efficient process that delivers value for money for our service personnel?

18:30

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, this is an interesting section for me, as the Victims’ Commissioner, because it feels very much like déjà vu. Governments like to do the window dressing but they do not put in the greater detail that will put the pillars into this role.

I want this to be a successful role. Yesterday, I was in—is it Havant? I should have learned my geography when I was at high school. I met all the military—their services, law and everything. There is a will to change the culture and to change for victims but, as I said at Second Reading, I worry that we have to resource this. I know that there is not a lot of money around and that defence has quite a high profile on its own ability but, in terms of this role being a success, I worry about the word “may”; the Bill says that the Secretary of State “may” give this for other staff.

I say that because of my present situation looking at budgets. There are figures being made without consulting the Victims’ Commissioner, so I am conscious that there could be figures made without consulting the Armed Forces commissioner. Previous amendments looked at this commissioner coming in and being raring to go; actually, in reality and practicality, things will take the first three years after their establishment. As with any business outside this Westminster bubble, it takes many years to set up staff because the process of getting staff is so slow.

It is also about enabling your network. It does not matter what that looks like: we have to ensure that we can make those resources available. Yes, I would like the costing to go down because there will be fewer victims, but, in reality, that could do a disservice to the gold-standard service that the commissioner gives. You are then going to whittle it down. I am really concerned about where we will get the resources. I do not want individuals to feel as though we are going to have all the grandeur and that we have committed to this as legislators but, in reality, when they go through the nooks and crannies of this, we have set things up to fail at the first hurdle. I say this in terms of not just the commissioner we put in place but the victims, the families and everybody else, because I know that there is a huge family in the military; I learned a lot about it yesterday.

It is more important that we start as we mean to go on. I do support this Bill. I am not looking at the Minister because he is not in charge of the purse strings, but I know—I have the scars to prove it and am still doing it—that, if you do not set up this role as it should be, it will absolutely do a disservice to the people who are desperate to have that voice of an independent.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I too will be very brief with these amendments.

I suggest that it is difficult to see how one should quantify what constitutes adequate assistance for the commissioner. Of course, the commissioner must have the necessary resources to execute their duties efficiently. The Explanatory Notes estimate that, as my noble friend Lord Lancaster pointed out, the cost of this new office will be between £4.5 million and £5.5 million; that is considerably larger than the current cost of the ombudsman, which is £1.8 million. The funding, therefore, has been expanded. Is it sufficient?

Furthermore, as is the usual course, the Secretary of State will have to ensure that the commissioner receives the correct level of support. I am minded to conclude that these amendments may not be entirely necessary.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his remarks and the points that he made. I also thank other noble Lords.

Again, let me say something about the general point around the reason for the Armed Forces commissioner; this was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and referred to by my noble friend Lord Beamish. I have made my point. The noble Baroness and my noble friend were at Second Reading, so they know that I made the point about the statutory footing for the post then.

This is my personal view, as well as a ministerial view: it is of huge significance when the British Parliament, because of its concerns about some issues happening in the Armed Forces, establishes a statutory person or body—I forget the legal term—to undertake investigations into issues of general welfare concerns that can be raised by a wide cohort of regulars, reserves and their families. It has been given a statutory footing, rather than being a single response to a particular horrific event, although of course it is important to have an inquiry if something happens. To have a standing statutory office responsible for dealing with some of the issues that we have talked about and are all appalled about, with a statutory legislative basis, is significant.

I can take off the ministerial hat and become a citizen—and it means something for the vast majority of the people in this country to say that the legislative will of Parliament is that a statutory body has been set up to do something. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, raised the issue of culture. The statutory body or office of the Armed Forces commissioner will make a significant difference to individual investigations. As well intentioned and important as they are, although they can shine a light, they cannot get to an overall pattern of dealing with issues that arise and are brought to their concern. My noble friend raised the issue of it being statutory. I realise and agree that, on its own, that does not matter and will not make a difference, but it is of huge significance as a starting point for setting up the office.

I will deal with the particular points as I go through, and I want to take up a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, made. Part of what we have in the Bill is the ability to have transition arrangements, moving from the end of the term of the Service Complaints Ombudsman at the end of 2025 to the new arrangements —the transition to the office that we want to set up in early 2026 to try to overcome any particular problems that occur. I take her point about trying to ensure that we get that office up and running as quickly as possible, notwithstanding the fact that, when you set something up new, there are inevitably things that come up. But I thank her for raising that point. I shall come to the point on resources when I have made some general points, and come back to other points that noble Lords have made.

Amendments 6 and 7 relate to the financial resources available to the commissioner. Both amendments aim to ensure that the commissioner has sufficient funding. The noble Baroness’s amendment would also ensure that they have practical assistance now and in the future to undertake their functions.

I reassure my noble friend Lord Beamish and the noble Baroness that I fully support and share their intentions. It is crucial that the commissioner has the tools that they need, and the Bill has been designed to ensure that that is the case. Therefore, the intent behind this amendment is critical and acutely observed.

I want to point something out to noble Lords and try to answer the points that they are raising. The Secretary of State has an obligation in Clause 4, under new Section 340IA(7), to

“co-operate with the Commissioner so far as is reasonable”.

It says that the Secretary of State

“must, in connection with an investigation … give the Commissioner such reasonable assistance as the Commissioner requests”.

That ensures that they have the necessary assistance from the Secretary of State to conduct their work effectively. In that instance, in dealing with investigations, the word “must” is included.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

If it is already in part of the Bill, I cannot see any reason why the Minister should not include the amendment. He may wish to do what the department has already done in the briefing note that it gave us at the Ministry of Defence, in which it used “will”. I would settle for “will”.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are trying to say that we certainly wish to see the investigative work of the commissioner funded. Therefore, “must” is appropriate in that particular instance, so we have included it there.

Should the commissioner feel that their funding was insufficient to carry out their functions effectively, they will have the opportunity to raise this in their annual reports, which are presented to Parliament. As I have said, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, and this mechanism would give the ability to scrutinise and challenge any funding decisions. I suggest that a Secretary of State would find it quite difficult to defend themselves against the charge that an Armed Forces commissioner reported to Parliament in their annual report that they had been insufficiently funded to undertake the requirements expected of them.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and other noble Lords highlighted, the Explanatory Notes estimate that the running costs of the commissioner may be in the region of £4.5 million to £5.5 million. This represents a significant increase in the funding for the ombudsman, which was £1.8 million in 2023—a point that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, noted. While wholly independent of the MoD in their role, the commissioner will still be required to abide by the financial rules, regulations and procedures laid down by both His Majesty’s Treasury and the MoD in the commitment of their financial resources.

I hope that this provides some reassurance to my noble friend, the noble Baroness and other noble Lords on the Committee. As I say, we intend to ensure that the commissioner has adequate funding and practical support, both now and in future. With that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend, but the quick answer is: no, it does not. There is a point that I think he is missing. I say this with no disrespect to him or the current Secretary of State but, as Robin Day famously said, he, like all of us, is a here today, gone tomorrow politician. We have to ensure in legislation that this continues on into the future.

The Minister gives an optimistic view that, somehow, having a statutory basis for this gives it some type of protection. Well, I am sorry, but I gave the example of the ISC—it does not, and I assure him of that. He said that the commissioner could raise this in an annual report, but I suggest that he reads at least the last eight years of the annual reports and statements—one is coming out next week—of the Intelligence and Security Committee, where this point has been made constantly and ignored by the last Government. That is a body that is on a statutory footing. Not wanting to get in the hierarchy of scrutiny, I note that you could argue that that is a little different to what we suggest here—but, obviously, for the victims, it is not. So, without that, the Minister may be fine, but I am looking to the future.

We perhaps have to have discussions about this. If the Minister has already given us a briefing note saying “will”—the noble Lord, Lord Russell, argued that—I would be happy with “will”, because that at least defines it compared to “may”. Discussion needs to be had about where it is within the MoD budget because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, you suspect that the Min AF or Veterans Minister will argue for this department, but they are the only voice in there doing that.

18:45

The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, clearly holds a very important role. She would no doubt argue that, if we do not give the Victims’ Commissioner the money, you can publicly shame Ministers—but, clearly, Ministers are quite happy to be publicly shamed and to ignore that. Without that in this piece of legislation, if it is “must” later on, I cannot understand why it cannot be the same here. With respect to my noble friend, there is also a big difference between the use of “must” there and here, because that is talking about investigations in terms of that context, and the actual context of providing finance.

I shall withdraw Amendment 6, but we need to come back to look at this. As I say, if my noble friend wants a halfway house, I am quite happy to use the Ministry of Defence’s own word from its briefing, “will”, if that gets over the line.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

Amendment 7 not moved.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed.

Clause 4: Commissioner’s functions in relation to general service welfare

Amendment 8

Moved by

[The Earl of Minto]

8: Clause 4, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(2A) A “general service welfare matter” may include issues relating to the wellbeing of, and provision of support to, the children, families and other dependants of serving and former members of the armed forces, including but not limited to—(a) the provision and operation of the Continuity of Education Allowance,(b) the provision of special educational needs tuition, and(c) the maintenance of service families’ accommodation.”

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 8 and 9 are in my name and the name of my noble friend Lady Goldie. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for adding his name to these amendments. I know that he is particularly concerned with these issues of welfare and their impacts on the families of our Armed Forces personnel.

These amendments seek to ensure that the commissioner will consider both the educational needs of service families and Armed Forces pensions. They therefore seek to expand on the somewhat limited definition of general service welfare matters in the Bill. I will preface my remarks by acknowledging that we have not presented an exhaustive list—nor do we intend to. But we believe that these issues are of sufficient importance to warrant debate during our deliberations today.

Many Armed Forces families depend on private schools. By the very nature of their service, personnel frequently find themselves moving locations, be that through overseas deployment or reassignment from one garrison or airbase to another. This poses a number of welfare concerns. It requires service personnel to either uproot their families or put them into an independent school, which allows their children to remain in a familiar educational setting. Imposing VAT on fees for independent schools will regrettably result in higher fees being passed on to the service men and women, who are simply trying to ensure the continuity of their children’s education.

I impress on the Minister that charging VAT on private school fees for military families will make becoming or remaining a service member less attractive, not more.

In response to this and in the interest of fairness, the Government have decided to uprate the continuity of education allowance. However, as my noble friend Lady Goldie has been keen to highlight through her Oral Question on 5 February and her letter to the Minister, there is real concern that this uprating will not be sufficient to cover the new higher fees. Unfortunately, this has the potential to negatively impact both recruitment and retention.

The issue that I have outlined is even greater when one considers the provision of special educational needs for the children of service personnel. There are already significant barriers to service families receiving adequate support for their children with special educational needs. It can take up to two years to receive an education, health and care plan from the local authority but, given that service personnel often find themselves relocating, this process is made all the harder.

There can be no doubt that the education of their children constitutes a serious welfare matter for those serving in our Armed Forces. All parents want the best for their families, and ensuring that they will not have to withdraw their children from school, or that they will be able to support their child with special educational needs, impacts on their morale. This is evidenced by responses to the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey, where in 2024, 62% of respondents reported that the impact of service life on their families was the main reason for leaving the services. We know that more must be done to improve this, and I am concerned that some of the Government’s measures regarding education may have the reverse effect.

The intention of Amendment 9 is to confirm with absolute certainty that the commissioner will consider pensions and the role they play in recruitment and retention. Let us be in no doubt that they remain one of the major benefits offered to service personnel. In their Autumn Budget, the Government proposed charging inheritance tax on the death-in-service payment while a service member is not on active duty abroad. We know that the benefit will continue to be exempted when a service member dies when deployed on active duty, but the exemption will not apply when the death occurs at home. This is nothing less than an injustice. If Sergeant Jones, for example, has an unfortunate accident while driving his car and passes away, not on active service, he will be penalised. He may have just come back from an active war zone the day before, where, had he been killed, his benefit would have been protected.

The principle here is surely that it does not matter where a service member dies; their families will continue to grieve regardless. They will still require support, both financial and emotional, and the new commissioner should be able to provide that. This Bill is aimed at protecting the retention and recruitment of Armed Forces personnel. It seems fitting that the commissioner must therefore consider the education of service families and death-in-service payments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to what I hope is the last of my amendments today, Amendment 11, on the further matters that the commissioner may investigate. Before I speak to my amendment, I have a question that arises from the two amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others, and so ably spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, which is about the scope of the commissioner’s role. I think I heard the Minister say earlier in response to Amendment 2 that the purview of the Armed Forces commissioner applies as long as somebody is in uniform, from the day of attestation, and I understood it to be for the time that the person is in uniform, and that it did not also apply to veterans. I would be interested to know whether I have misunderstood or whether the amendments—

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I apologise if I did not make this clear. The fundamental principle of the Bill is that the people who are in scope are those who are subject to service law, and their families. That is a really important point. The other point is that veterans are not in scope for the commissioner.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I thank the Minister—I am most grateful to him for clarifying that. In which case, do I understand it correctly that Amendments 8 and 9 potentially go beyond the scope of the Bill because they talk about former members of the Armed Forces and their dependants? The Minister can come back to that, but I was slightly puzzled when I read those amendments.

Amendment 11 covers something that I hope is in scope, asking that the Armed Forces commissioner look in particular at certain more minority members of the Armed Forces. As seen in relatively recent reports—the Atherton report and the Etherton report—women and LGBT minority groups in the services have in the past been subject to particular disadvantages. There may also be other groups, so in many ways, this is a probing amendment. Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which I agree with, follows a similar pattern.

I am minded also to suggest that the Armed Forces commissioner could look at this, with special reference to recruit training. This means that, while I will not bring back Amendment 2, we might nevertheless bring back the idea of recruits in training being a particular focus of the Armed Forces commissioner—particularly in terms of that person being able to reach out to those in training and make them understand that role.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Now I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. She is talking about recruits in training, so once they have done the attestation.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Yes. For the purposes of this I am making a verbal amendment to what is on the page; I am not proposing to bring back an amendment like Amendment 2 that would bring in hundreds of thousands of other people. I do not think that was ever the intention; the drafting was not as clear as it might have been. The amendment laid in the Commons and re-laid here was broader than it should have been.

Having listened to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, my sense is that we should not only be looking at women, LGBT groups, BAME people, non-UK citizens and disabled people in the Armed Forces. We should also be thinking that this might be the time to think about the Armed Forces commissioner not just being available for those going through training, but it might be sensible to make sure that the communications are made to them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I apologise to the noble Baroness and the Committee more broadly for not being here when my name was attached to earlier amendments. I am not going to complain much about my latest train delays, but I will warn anyone heading on the east coast main line tonight that there are overhead wire problems.

I will speak specifically to Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to which I have attached my name. I will also speak to my Amendment 12. I apologise for jumping on the back of the noble Baroness’s excellently drafted amendment but I thought there was one element missing, which is what I have added here. This proposed new clause is headed:

“Commissioner support for minority groups within service personnel”.


The Committee will be familiar with my long-term concerns about service personnel who were recruited under the age of 18 and those in the services under the age of 18, which my amendment addresses. I think the way the noble Baroness constructed Amendment 11 set out very well the reasons why and how this should be done. Proposed new subsection 3 in my amendment says that the commissioner must

“maintain up-to-date evidence on the experiences of these groups of service personnel and develop robust community engagement mechanisms”.

To address the first point about evidence, I think we are all very aware of this. I know about the situation of recruits under 18 because of the work of the Child Rights International Network and a series of reports it produced. We are aware of cases of women in the military. We can think back to the situation where we saw a big national campaign about Gurkha veterans a few years ago. We often find out about these issues as they are drawn to our attention through the efforts of NGOs, campaign groups and the work of the affected personnel themselves—and then it is splashed all over the media.

That is not the way in which the Government and Parliament should be made aware of what is happening. We need a regular, steady, reporting record that enables political direction to come from both Parliament and Ministers towards the military, saying, “There’s a problem here; something needs to be done about it”. Keeping up-to-date evidence and not relying on the efforts of volunteers and the personnel themselves is very much addressed by this.

I have put this on the record before, but I have to note the way in which the situation of recruits under 18 has drawn the attention of the United Nations. We referred at Second Reading to one tragic suicide case but of course there are many. CRIN tells us that recruits under 18 are tragically three times more likely to die by suicide than their peers of the same age and two times more likely to die from suicide as adult joiners of the military. We have heard complaints about the Harrogate college and 13 reports of sexual assault cases in a year. I think I can probably guess what the Minister will say—that we have to leave this to the Armed Forces commissioner to decide for themselves.

19:00

Two groups back, we discussed the importance of a relationship between Parliament and the military or Armed Forces in general. Here Parliament would be setting down—the noble Baroness said that this may or may not be a probing amendment—and saying to the incoming commissioner that these are areas of concern. I tend to be of the view that that should be in the Bill, but it is important that we have this discussion.

I want to raise a specific point on which I could not find an answer when I was looking into this amendment, although this may be my own failing. I noticed that one of the groups identified is disabled Armed Forces members. I looked it up and the Armed Forces exemption from the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has to be reviewed every five years. The last review that I was able to find was in 2019, so I ask the Minister to write to me on that. Maybe I just have not found it, but it is important that we know what is happening with that process, as it is part of our signing-up to that convention, which is relevant to this amendment.

While I am on my feet, I will raise one other matter. I am sorry I do not know whether this was discussed earlier, but I thank the Minister for sharing the draft regulations on who are relevant family members for the purposes of this. I have not had time to look at it in great detail, but one word in it struck me, which I would like to put on the record. Regulation 2(1)(f) refers to

“anyone who was a relevant family member … immediately before A’s death”,

where “A” is the service member. That word “immediately” just struck me, as it may not be entirely necessary. There may be more complicated family situations that that unreasonably excludes.

I guess I am thinking of some personal relationships that I have known of, which are not necessarily military. Sometimes marriages or civil partnerships break down, but that person still retains a close relationship with the person whom they have divorced or from whom they have split. We can imagine situations that are still very reasonable; they are all still part of a family, in a direct way. I wanted to put that on the record. I do not necessarily expect the Minister to respond now, but I wanted to raise my concern about that word “immediately” in those draft regulations and whether it is something that we need to think about.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 8 and 9 in this group, in the name of my noble friends Lord Minto and Lady Goldie and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I am really grateful, as I am sure a lot of members of the Committee are, to the Royal British Legion for its briefing on this. I speak as someone who was privileged to lead the legion’s public affairs team when we persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—David Cameron as he then was, the Prime Minister—to enshrine the covenant’s principles in law. I am particularly proud to have played a small part in that. I also very much welcome the consensus that now exists, both in this Committee and, I believe, across the House, on the commitment to ensuring that the principles of the covenant are honoured.

I wonder whether we can simply consider these amendments to be, as I think they are, self-explanatory and logical. The issues they relate to are the provision and operation of the continuity of education allowance and tuition for children with SEND, which, as my noble friend Lord Minto mentioned, is so important and is related to an issue on which your Lordships’ House voted so overwhelmingly to ask the Government to think again—specifically in relation to non-domestic rating and private schools—only yesterday. These are important and crucial welfare issues, and they should be explicitly included within the provisions of the Bill, as should provisions for pensions and death-in-service benefits to serving and former members of the Armed Forces and their dependants.

I hope very much that the Minister will listen to the Committee—and also to the legion, as the voice of the Armed Forces family—and accept Amendments 8 and 9 in this group.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the reflections that he has offered the Committee. I rise to support Amendments 8 and 9. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for outlining their thinking around this issue because it goes to the heart of how we as a nation care for and see the well-being of our Armed Forces and their families, as part of the whole package that we offer to them.

As I think noble Lords know, I speak as the father of a member of the Armed Forces. It is often said that a parent is only as happy as their least happy child. On one level, I can imagine that it is also true that a member of His Majesty’s Armed Forces is only as happy as their least happy family member. So there is a pastoral duty here—one that is supported by many in the Armed Forces, including welfare organisations and our military chaplains—but both these amendments would help us really state the pastoral support that we as a nation feel is important for not only our Armed Forces personnel but their children, their families and their dependants.

As has already been said by other noble Lords, continuity of education is vital for a family that may often move around a lot during the career of service personnel, when one or both of the parents may be on deployment. We must not forget the small number of wonderful state boarding schools that offer important support for service families.

Moving on to tied accommodation, as somebody who has lived in tied accommodation all my professional life—most of it much more modest than what I live in at the moment—I know that the maintenance of tied accommodation and responsiveness to its condition and repairs has an impact on the state of morale of a family, and I am pleased to see that that is also mentioned, as are special education needs. Such needs are an issue not only when forces families move between different places and between different local authorities; this is also about CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services. Often, the waiting list is two to three years. Moving out of an area has a profound impact on families in terms of getting crucial support for young people who are often in a very difficult state and who need support as soon as possible.

On Amendment 9, the reality is that many Armed Forces families live with, right at the back of their minds, an ongoing sense of, “Will I get a knock in the middle of the night?” The noble Earl, Lord Minto, has already spoken about the injustice of what is being built in here. We significantly need the Minister to look at this—I urge him to do so—so that that injustice is removed. If you go to the National Memorial Arboretum, there is an incredible memorial right in the centre where the names of those who have lost their lives are carved into the Portland stone, and then there is a part of the wall that is totally flat and bare; it is very moving to move your hand along it and on to that flat stone awaiting, God forbid, future names.

We owe to the Armed Forces and their families a sense of care if there is a need for a death in duty payment. So I am really grateful for the way in which the Minister has engaged around the Bill and engaged us in a really thoughtful discussion and debate about it. I look forward to hearing his comments.

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

I will speak to Amendments 11 and 12. It would be impossible to argue that the commissioner should not support the interests of women and minority groups, but I am not sure that this level of prescription, particularly in Amendment 11, serves the Bill well. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, about the volume of work that the commissioner will already inherit from the ombudsman, and there will be a lot of work on top of that.

I am a founder member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, so I obviously would want every public office to bear in mind and have due regard to the interests of those who have protected characteristics, as defined by the Equality Act 2010. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that the Armed Forces commissioner will be subject to the public sector equality duty, so that takes care of that aspect of their work. I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, may come back to me and say that that does not necessarily guarantee that the level of focus that she would rightly like to see paid to the problems that some minority groups experience in their armed service life will be fully taken care of in the way that she would want from this amendment.

But my general point in arguing that the amendment may not sit well in the Bill is that one of the perennial themes of debate on the Bill, both here and in the other place, has been the much-welcomed independence of the Armed Forces commissioner. Independence implies a degree of freedom, discretion and flexibility. Therefore, it does not fit well with that level of independence to prescribe how that particular function would be carried out in such detail, in the way that this amendment does.

I have seen a lot of equality and diversity programmes that specify a lot of detail. The end result has been that, when it comes to the end of the year and the prescribed annual report is published, it is little more than a tick-box exercise, and we would not want that to be the consequence of an amendment like this. For that reason, I reluctantly find myself unable to support these two amendments.

[Lord Wrottesley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 8 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. The express intention of the Bill is to support those serving in His Majesty’s Armed Forces. There is no doubt that VAT on school fees will have an adverse impact on services families, who will more than likely find themselves serving overseas at some point in their careers, sometimes on multiple occasions, maybe as they start a family. A 20% increase in the cost of educating their children is absolutely a welfare issue, but it is equally a recruitment and retention issue.

As we have heard from the noble Lords tabling these amendments, families serving abroad rely on the stability that boarding schools provide—largely independent and private schools, but also schools from the state sector. The decision of a family, or in this case an individual, to start or continue to serve in His Majesty’s Armed Forces—after all, they are likely to be not particularly well paid, compared to their equivalents in other areas of public service, let alone in the private sector—will often rely on the add-ons and the benefits offered as a result of their serving as a member of His Majesty’s Armed Forces. As with SEND children, given that there are concerns that any proposed top-ups may not fully compensate the additional costs of VAT on school fees, why are we not going to exempt members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces from this additional financial burden? It may—I suggest that it will—dissuade people from starting or even going on to build a career in the Armed Forces.

19:15

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Since this is the last group of amendments and probably the last time that I will speak today, I thank everyone for their contributions over the last three hours or so. We will reflect on all the various comments that have been made.

I turn to the amendment that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, moved at the beginning of this group, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—obviously, she sent her apologies—as well as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley. Other Members also gave their support. In his opening remarks, the noble Earl was right to remind us of the sacrifice of our Armed Forces and the esteem in which we all hold them. Although I do not agree with every aspect of his points, the intent of the amendment has a unity of support across this Committee. All noble Lords who supported him in moving the amendment feel that, and I thank him very much for that, because he has highlighted some important issues that I will come back to when I make the formal response.

I shall deal with the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lady Carberry, about the public equality duty, and I will try to deal with some of the concerns that she raised about various groups. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that they are draft regulations, so clearly the remarks that she made about the use of the word “immediate” have been heard. Between now and whenever the draft regulations go forward to become regulations, that may change or may not, depending on the reflections made with respect to that. But we have heard the point that she made on that. On the other point that she raised, we will write to her.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, raised special needs, which I will refer to in responding to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, as I will with respect to the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley.

I commend noble Lords for highlighting some of the important concerns facing our serving personnel and their families. I reassure noble Lords that the commissioner’s remit is broad and covers all general service welfare matters. Indeed, under this remit, they will be able to investigate all the areas that noble Lords have singled out for consideration in these amendments—the continuity of the education allowance, special educational needs, service accommodation, pensions, death in service benefits and the welfare of minority groups—should they consider these to be general service welfare matters within the parameters outlined in the Bill. That is a very significant statement to make at the beginning, and I hope it gives reassurance to the noble Earl that it is within the scope of the Bill, should the commissioner choose to investigate any of these matters as a general welfare concern.

A number of these amendments make reference to the families of serving personnel. Let me reassure noble Lords again that the concerns of service families were at the forefront when drafting the Bill. We recognise that the ability to retain the most talented service personnel is largely influenced by the well-being of their families: as I have said before, this is the very reason why we need an Armed Forces commissioner. Relevant family members are already included in the commissioner’s scope and, as I have said many times this afternoon and early evening, will be defined in secondary legislation. The draft families definition regulations covering the definition of “family members” for the purposes of the Bill have now been distributed to all for consideration—and we have seen the report of the Delegated Powers Committee, with its recommendation on the scrutiny of this power, and we will come back to that on Report.

I will read the current situation on inheritance tax, which is that:

“Engagement with the Treasury has confirmed that existing provisions in the Inheritance Act 1984 will continue to ensure that deaths in active service of a warlike nature are exempt from Inheritance Tax. The Inheritance Tax technical consultation has concluded and detailed policy and legislative instructions on the new proposals are now awaited with a further technical consultation to follow. The Ministry of Defence awaits these details and will follow legislation as per Government proposals and guidance will be developed for members in due course”.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I am intrigued by this—and the more I think about it, the more confusing it gets. We are clear that, within the Bill, qualification is subject to service law. Of course, members of the Regular Forces are subject to service law 24/7, 365 days a year. It is about the definition of “active service”. Of course, Lee Rigby was murdered outside Woolwich Barracks. Would he, under the new provisions, now not be subject to this payment, or be taxed on it, even though he was probably walking back to work? Would an Army reservist who is claiming a day’s pay travelling to work, or on the way back from work, now not qualify if they were to have an accident? It is an absolute minefield. What would be useful, if I may say so, is a degree of consistency in how we seek to apply the law when we are using service law as a qualification, and subject to service law, as opposed this almost sub-definition as to on duty and off duty. Most service personnel would consider themselves to be on duty 24/7.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The contribution the noble Lord has just made shows the advantage of his experience and knowledge. We will certainly consider that, and I will write to him and circulate the letter to members of the Committee, because some of it is quite technical and legal, and subject to all sorts of various laws under different pieces of legislation. I shall ask my officials to reflect on the point. I could hazard an answer, but I will get a proper, official answer, send it to the noble Lord, copy it to all members of the Committee and place a copy in the Library. I hope that that is satisfactory to the noble Lord, because the points that he makes are important, and I do not want inadvertently to mislead or misinform the Committee.

I turn briefly to some of the other points related to the points the noble Lord has made. I note that the significant Amendment 8, raising the Continuity of Education Allowance, special educational needs and service accommodation, refers to former service personnel. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the commissioner’s scope is deliberately tightly drawn to focus on serving personnel and their families, rather than former service personnel. As civilians, veterans already have full access to a range of mechanisms for support and redress and to enable their voices to be heard. Having said that, I have been in the noble Lord’s position, and I know that people sometimes say, “That amendment is not tight enough, it included something that is not within scope”, but that does not alter the fact that the intention of the amendment and of noble Lords, is to draw attention to issues of real concern with respect to serving personnel. As such, of course there are issues around special needs, which the Armed Forces covenant seeks to ensure are addressed properly. When service personnel go abroad, they take with them a form by which they can try to ensure that they are given support.

Special needs is a very real problem. I have to say as an aside that I think that special needs is an issue for all of us across society, from what I understand from friends, family and colleagues. Notwithstanding that, there are obviously particular circumstances with respect to serving personnel, and that needs to be reflected. Certainly, the Armed Forces covenant seeks to address that by saying that nobody should be disadvantaged through their service, and special needs is an example of that.

On the continuity of education allowance, I will not read out all the various statements in my brief. We have had a debate about it in Parliament, and I have answered questions. The noble Earl will have seen the rise in the continuity of education allowance to 90% of that cost, which—I tell him gently—was the policy of the previous Government, too. We cover that 90%. The impact on the behaviour of service personnel in their choice of education has been very limited in terms of the number of people who have changed their decisions on the basis of that change in the law. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, very few people have changed their actions. Notwithstanding that, the noble Earl was right to raise it. We reflected on it as part of the challenge that the Government have and decided that an increase in the continuity of education allowance was important, whatever the rights and wrongs of the overall general government policy, which, obviously, I support.

Turning to Amendment 9, I acknowledge the concerns of the noble Baroness about pensions and death-in-service benefits, which impact both current and ex-service personnel, as well as their dependants. The amendment seeks to specify pensions, and wider associated benefits for dependants, as a particular area for the commissioner to focus on. As I said, it also seeks to allow former members to raise issues about pensions to the commissioner. Pensions and death-in-service benefits for dependants are of course extremely important and are not precluded from the scope of the commissioner. In the case of pensions, there is already a set procedure that allows current service personnel and veterans to raise complaints: the internal disputes resolution procedure. These cases are assessed by discretionary decision-makers within the Defence Business Services authority. If unhappy, they—like the vast majority of us—are able to appeal these decisions to the Pensions Ombudsman.

I reassure the noble Baroness that I am sympathetic to what Amendments 11 and 12 seek to achieve. The Armed Forces and their families represent a wide-ranging and diverse community, and it is important to acknowledge the experiences of minority groups and service personnel aged under 18 within the Armed Forces. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quite rightly, continually raises this issue. Her opinion on the policies for recruiting under-18s to the Armed Forces differs from mine, but let me make it clear, as she and every member of the Committee has, and as we discussed earlier, that any abuse of anybody is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with quickly and forcefully. It is important to address and tackle any matters when they arise that are unique to one or more of these groups. It is vital that any member of the Armed Forces can access the commissioner and trust that he or she will consider their issues, regardless of who they are, where they serve and what they do.

I draw the Committee’s attention, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, helpfully did, to paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, which adds the commissioner to the list of public bodies captured by the public sector equality duty. The commissioner will already have a duty under the Equality Act 2010, which will cover all the characteristics listed in the amendment.

Finally, I assure the Committee that the commissioner’s reporting functions will enable the commissioner to report on any matters that have been raised and to make recommendations in relation to any issues related to minority groups—or, indeed, any of the other issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and others. Let me restate that the commissioner will be able to investigate any matters that may materially impact the welfare of those who are subject to service law and their families. It is not necessary to specify this level of detail on any of these matters in legislation.

In fact, creating a list of individual matters for the commissioner’s remit could suggest that these topics are more relevant or important than others and may indirectly narrow the scope of what they consider, which would not necessarily be a desirable outcome. It could also be seen as contrary to upholding the commissioner’s independence. In other words, as soon as one starts to generate lists, one always ends up with an (f) or (g) that says, “and anything else that may be of significance”.

I hope that I have provided the noble Earl, Lord Minto, with the necessary reassurance. I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their contributions to this debate; I look forward to continuing our debate and discussion on further amendments on Monday.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for another interesting debate.

I will comment briefly on Amendments 11 and 12 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Bennett. For the reasons that we have discussed, we do not believe that it is necessary to provide a list of groups that should receive special treatment from the commissioner. As we covered earlier, the Bill applies to all those who are subject to service law and their families. This includes all members of the regular forces and the Reserve Forces, not just a particular group of service members. This list is not exhaustive, obviously, but that causes an issue in itself.

I thank the Minister for his comments. I have no doubt that he understands the issues raised. I am sure that he has received representations from those affected, and I know he takes a genuine interest in the welfare of all service personnel. Having said that, these are issues that the commissioner really should investigate; I hope that this will be the case once the office is established. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Amendments 9 to 11 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Newlove) (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot call Amendment 12 as Amendment 11 was not moved.

Committee adjourned at 7.32 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 19 March 2025

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of London.

Child Trust Fund Accounts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Lord Blunkett]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the providers of child trust fund accounts about increased access to those accounts for young people who have not yet claimed their deposit.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name and offer a very warm welcome to my noble friend, who is making his first appearance at the Dispatch Box.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. The Government have extensive engagements with providers, industry and other stakeholders. HMRC is an active participant in the industry-led Child Trust Fund Maturity Working Group, which meets quarterly and discusses how individuals can be encouraged to claim their matured funds, and any issues the industry is facing. Treasury officials have also recently met with industry stakeholders to discuss issues relating to child trust fund access.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend and realise that it is really difficult answering for the Treasury these days. We have had a very successful, but in one way fruitless, effort across this House. We have been supporting many charities, including Support SEND Kids, and Andrew Turner’s campaign—he is in the Chamber today. I thank everybody for that. Some 780,000 accounts have not yet been accessed, and in up to 80,000 of those cases, the young people are said to have incapacity. Somehow, we have to unlock these accounts, and we have to stop the Court of Protection blocking this. We have to ensure that financial institutions that are not playing the game do so. In the end, we need the support of the Department of Justice, the Department of Work and Pensions and the Treasury. My noble friend is new, and he can come at this fresh: give them a good kick for us, will you?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The Government are committed to reuniting all young adults with their child trust funds. HMRC has worked closely with child trust fund providers to encourage young people to track down their accounts. It has also issued a range of communications, including social media posts, and engaged influencers, who have greater visibility amongst young adults, and it continues to explore additional ways of communication. A free HMRC online tracking facility is also available. At the moment, the number of unclaimed matured accounts stands at 670,00.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Department for Work and Pensions has a streamlined process by which parents of a child with disability can access funds from the DWP—funds far higher than the average £3,000 in a trust fund account. Why cannot that process be used, instead of the cumbersome Court of Protection process?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We know that there are real difficulties with this, and cross-departmental activities are taking place to try to resolve the problem. I understand from the courts that the Government are committed to bearing down on the outstanding caseload left by the previous Government, and the challenges we face in doing so are significant. As a crucial first step, we are funding another 108,500 sitting days in the courts this financial year, which is the highest level we have had for a decade.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, in cases where a parent or guardian were unable to set up an account for their child, the Government opened a savings account on the child’s behalf. Can the Minister give me an assurance that all these children, for whom HMRC must have both contact details and legal authority, have been reached and are not part of the group who are unaware of the funds they have available?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

All young people who have trust funds are contacted at the age of 17, and those who do not respond will be continually contacted. Secondly, the funds available to them will be available for ever or until, potentially, things change; but at the moment, there is no reason why that should happen. Those funds will be there for as long as they need to be, before they are drawn down by the child. The one thing to remember is the funds not having been accessed does not mean that the person who can access them does not know they are there.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society, which traded as the Children’s Mutual. Are the Government getting full co-operation from the Association of Friendly Societies and some of the other providers? If they are not, I would be more than willing to try my very best to help to find an answer to this difficult problem.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We are working across departments and with all the providers to try to ensure that access is gained for people who have child trust funds. I am not quite sure what kind of relationship and communication we have with friendly societies, but I will make sure that someone writes to the noble Lord to let him know.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I too very much welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, to his place. There is a problem, as he said, so can he say whether he has formally consulted, or intends to, the financial institutions or the child trust fund providers on the feasibility of simplifying the process for young people accessing their funds? What steps might he take to ensure that they are more aware of the child trust fund accounts—perhaps using social media and so on—so that we communicate this opportunity for people to pick up these funds, which are not being claimed, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, explained?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

As of 5 April 2024, some 2.5 million child trust funds accounts and 670,000 mature child trust fund accounts had not been claimed. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that we marry up young people with those accounts. HMRC is working very closely with opinion-formers and stakeholders to try to ensure that this group is reached. This includes, for example, working closely with UCAS, joining with younger influencers who discuss personal finances online, and using traditional media and HMRC’s own social media channels to target young people to ensure that they know the trust funds exist.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much support my noble friend in his efforts, but as there do not seem to be any more questions on that subject, I will broaden it out to another of the Treasury’s responsibilities for children. I realise that my noble friend may not be able to answer this now, but is there any evidence of the impact of the high-income charge, introduced by the previous Government, on the take-up of child benefit? Child benefit is a crucial source of secure income for parents.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question, and she is absolutely right: it is not an area I know very much about. I will get the department to write to her with the answer she requires.

Commercial Vehicles: Safety

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:15

Asked by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that commercial vehicles sold in the UK are as safe as possible and have a ‘five star’ safety rating.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, new motor vehicles, including commercial vehicles, must be approved through a broad range of rigorous safety requirements. In addition, the Department for Transport is a founding member of the Euro New Car Assessment Programme, a membership organisation providing information on the relative safety of cars and commercial vehicles beyond the regulatory minimum, typically using a one- to five-star rating system. Although it is not mandatory, it provides a market incentive for manufacturers to develop increasingly safer vehicles.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, the UK was at the forefront of developing the European Union’s general and pedestrian safety regulations—GSR—which mandate a raft of proven safety features in vehicles. Will the Government adopt GSR in the UK to ensure that we improve the safety of commercial vehicles on our roads? I also take this opportunity to wish the Minister a very happy birthday.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, and she is absolutely right that the general safety regulations were mandated by the European Union in 2022. Prior to the United Kingdom leaving the EU, UK officials had worked on the range of 19 new vehicle technologies that she refers to. The Government have commissioned analysis to determine which of those technologies are right for Great Britain. This is under really active consideration at the moment. I will write to her about those 19. In the meantime, because the commercial vehicle manufacturing industry is international, many vehicles will already comply with GSR II.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I wish the Minister a happy birthday. There are 600,000 professional HGV drivers in the United Kingdom. We operate 400,000 HGVs. The Library tells us that only one person in Parliament has any practical experience of the operation of HGVs. Why do your Lordships want to get rid of me? To say that a Bill is going through Parliament is not a good answer.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

There is only one person here who holds a passenger-carrying vehicle licence, which is a broadly similar experience, although the payload complains more often than it does with a commercial vehicle. The noble Earl’s question has nothing to do with commercial vehicles at all. This matter is frequently debated in here, and I will leave it to the Leader of the House to answer that properly.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister enlighten me as to how many people were killed last year—or the latest date that he has—on the roads by HGVs? I have the numbers for 1929.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

The 2019 numbers! I have been here too long. There were 178 road users and 82 vulnerable road users. Surely he needs to bring in the protections that my noble friend described, ahead of waiting for some strategy, because people are dying on the roads daily.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I have those statistics somewhere and I have up-to-date ones. I will send them to her. Many of the 19 new vehicle technologies are already being applied, because the commercial vehicle industry is international. I also referred to this being under really active consideration, which means that shortly we will be able to say which of the 19 technologies this Government propose to introduce. When we do, that will be conclusive.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, we are keen on safety throughout the country. Indeed, our own drivers are very well trained, in general, but there are real concerns that foreign drivers, who seem to be involved in quite a lot of the accidents that occur with heavy goods vehicles, do not appear be trained to the same standards. Will the Minister kindly comment on that and say what we are doing in association with other countries, particularly in Europe, to make sure that their standards are maintained?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The standards of professional vocational drivers in Britain are very high. The tests that you have to pass and the continuous professional development, which is broadly similar to the continuous professional development applied in European countries, are also very strong. Enforcement activities are run by the Vehicle Inspectorate, which is part of the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency. It is much more sophisticated in targeting enforcement than perhaps it once was, including making sure that those who drive commercial vehicles from other countries on our roads are consistently to the same standard of safety as our own vehicles and drivers are. I will leave the detail of how it enforces what it does to it, but it appears to be very successful enforcement activity.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the safety rules apply to all cars and heavy goods vehicles? Do they also include vintage Army vehicles, to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The safety requirements that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, asked me about are those applicable to new vehicles. The standards of safety that apply to all vehicles on the UK’s roads are the latest standards that applied at the time at which they were manufactured, of course, improved by the regular testing system. There are reasons why historic vehicles cannot always comply with modern standards. There is a silver lining in that, which is that most very ancient vehicles cannot go very fast. My experience of the vehicle testing regime is that it is rigorous but respectful of the age of vehicles and their original manufacturing condition.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his birthday. It is a great pity that it is not being celebrated by a parade around Parliament Square featuring the noble Lord driving his bus accompanied by my noble friend Lord Attlee driving his Army truck. Perhaps that it is something to plan for next year. Broadening this out a little bit, UK motor manufacturing is in a state of crisis. Is it not time for the Government to take a lead from the Conservative Party and start to reassess their net-zero and, in particular, imposed electric vehicle targets while we still have a domestic motor manufacturing base to save?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

To the serious point that the noble Lord raises, the Government are continuing to modernise the requirements for vehicles on British roads and are continuing to insist on the trajectory to zero-emission vehicles, for obvious reasons. In fact, contrary to the implication of what he says, that was started by the previous Government. On a more jocular note, neither the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, nor I need to add to the traffic around Parliament Square, particularly in the past few days.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

The targets having been set up by the previous Government, the present Government should stick to them and give British motor manufacturers certainty about what is going to happen, rather than uncertainty of the kind that has recently been stirred up.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

We very much welcome the noble Lord’s support in this. It is inevitable that the motor manufacturing industry moves on. Contrary to a lot of the noise, there is great evidence that the translation to zero-emission vehicles and electric vehicles is proceeding. Beneath all that noise, it is quite clear that electric vehicles are catching on and that the manufacturing market needs to carry on in that direction. My own experience of introducing hybrid and electric vehicles is that the one thing that really makes a difference is the continuing purchase in larger and larger numbers, which encourages manufacturers to make the right thing at a lower cost and be successful.

Safe Housing and Hospital Discharge

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:25

Asked by

[Baroness Thornhill]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve collaboration between integrated care boards and housing providers to address barriers to safe housing and support timely hospital discharge.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government recognise that the availability of safe housing contributes to timely and effective hospital discharge. We published a new policy framework for the £9 billion better care fund in January. Integrated care boards and local authorities have to work together, with involvement from local housing authorities, to agree joint plans to deliver joined-up care. The £86 million uplift to the disabled facilities grant this year can provide around 7,800 additional home adaptations.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer and welcome what she has said. It is absolutely clear now that the lack of supported housing is a major factor in delayed discharge from hospital and that integrated care boards are part of the solution. Can the Minister explain why, only last week, the Government made the shock announcement of a 50% cut to the core funding to these very boards? Surely they should be integral to creating solutions to this costly, damaging and seemingly intractable problem.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will be aware, this Government want to see provision and decision-making directed by local leaders. She and the House will be aware of the financial situation which we have inherited. I reiterate what I said about the £9 billion committed to the better care fund, which includes £5.6 billion to integrated care boards and around £3.3 billion to local authorities.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, 73% of delayed discharges from mental health hospitals are due to a lack of appropriate supported housing step-down services. With bed occupancy rates of 94%, the increasing pressure is driving up the inappropriate use of out-of-area placements. What plans do the Government have to ensure that there is enough supported housing to meet the demand for step-down services?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend made particular reference to mental health care. She will be aware of the discussions that took place at Second Reading and in Committee on the Mental Health Bill. I am sure we can all agree that an out-of-area placement is not ideal, although there are some circumstances in which it has to be the case. In the progress of that Bill, we will be attending to the point that she makes. I agree with her that the delays attributed to housing are significantly higher, at 17% for patients who are discharged from mental health settings. This remains a challenge that we are focused on.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, has the Minister considered the proposal from the Centre for Ageing Better for good home hubs, where older people whose homes are inaccessible, cold and unsafe can get all the advice and support they need on adaptations that can make such a difference—the stairlift, the walk-in shower, better insulation—thereby enabling them to live longer independently and to take the pressure off the NHS and care services?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord puts the case strongly for the process of home adaptations. As I have already mentioned, we have provided an immediate in-year uplift to the disabled facilities grants of some £86 million, which will enable people to adapt their homes exactly in the way that the Centre for Ageing Better describes, and I welcome its work. I should say that it is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that they are supporting applicants through the process of home adaptations as much as possible. We are always looking at ways to improve the process and share good practice, so I welcome the contribution of the Centre for Ageing Better.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

Will my noble friend confirm that very few integrated care boards are either integrated or about care? Much of the work that should be going on is going on with health and well-being boards, which are a combination at place level of the relevant local authority and the health service at the point where delivery takes place.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend has given me an invitation to agree with him. As he knows, it would be quite inappropriate to suggest that integrated care boards are not integrated or about care—that is their focus—but I appreciate his view on the matter. I do agree with him that much good work is done on the health and well-being boards. This all says to me that local decision-making, and local provision for local populations with their particular dimensions and demands, is the best way forward. My final point on this question is that local systems have to agree plans to achieve more timely and effective discharge from hospital, and to work with local authorities to develop those plans.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, NHS data from last month revealed that there are about 13,800 people who are medically fit for discharge, which is up from 12,000 patients awaiting discharge on 1 December. As other noble Lords have said, we know that that causes a bottleneck in hospitals that is not good for patients while they wait to go home. As has been said, one way to reduce that bottleneck is the greater use of virtual wards, allowing people to stay in their home for longer, to be monitored in their home and to receive care. The Minister has answered this question to a certain extent, but can she tell us more about the Government’s overall plan for virtual wards, not just in this case but for physical and mental health care, in order to ensure that we can get more patients out of hospital beds and into their homes, where they can receive the care they deserve and be constantly monitored?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Lord shares my enthusiasm for virtual wards. I shall expand on what they are: they allow people to be not in hospital but in their own home, whether it is their personal home or whether their home happens to be in a care home or some other setting, by the use of technology that allows them to be monitored. I recently saw an excellent example of that, and the liberation that it provides for individuals who would much rather not be in hospital is key. The noble Lord will know that, in the 10-year plan, the move from hospital to community is a key pillar, and we will soon be reporting on that. I certainly share his enthusiasm.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, the VCSE sector plays a critical role in discharge planning. The Minister may know of a project in Warrington, where a social prescribing link worker and the VCSE team are integrated into the discharge team, and are therefore able to support people on discharge. The pilot has been positive, not least in that it has reduced readmission into hospital. Could the Minister say what support the Government are giving to integrated care boards so that they can enable this type of innovative provision? Can she reassure us that the aspiration to cut the ICBs by 50% will not impact on that potential?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I very much commend the innovation and the commitment of people locally in the way that the right reverend Prelate describes. ICBs would be wise to work closely with the third sector in order to provide support and to tackle the very real challenges. With regard to decisions on how they use their funding, it is for ICBs to take into account the needs of the population and provide accordingly. As I say, it would be a wise ICB that took advantage of the innovation and the commitment in its local area.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister think that there is a case for further guidance or even legislative change to ensure that ICBs—those left standing anyway—are actively improving integration between the NHS and other stakeholders, such as housing and local government? We all understand that social care is vital to successful discharge plans. Is the Minister able to say how many ICBs have senior representation from social care or local government on their boards?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness is aware, ICBs bring together local government and local health services. While I cannot be as specific as the noble Baroness asks, I will be very happy to look into that. There is not just an expectation but a requirement, as I said, to agree plans locally, which means more timely and more effective discharge. Certainly, the better care fund is crucial, so I feel that we are going in the right direction. This is a matter that we constantly have under review, and we are always looking for ways to improve delivery.

NHS Dentistry

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:36

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve access to NHS dentistry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are tackling the challenges for patients trying to access NHS dental care by providing 700,000 more urgent dental appointments per year, with integrated care boards delivering those extra appointments from 1 April 2025, which is not long away. We will recruit new dentists to the areas that need them most and to rebuild dentistry in the long term we will reform the dental contract with the sector and shift to focus on prevention and the retention of NHS dentists.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I very much welcome the 700,000 extra appointments, which will begin to make an impact on the 2.2 million people who now need urgent care, but did the noble Baroness read the leader in the Times on Monday which said

“the scandal of NHS dentistry has dogged successive governments without resolution”?

It mentioned the 30,000 children each year who go to hospital to have rotten teeth extracted under anaesthetic and the 18 million adults and children who cannot access an NHS dentist. Does she agree that at the root of this problem is the 2006 dental contract, which has driven dentists out of the profession? When might a new contract be introduced? Given that the most effective public health measure is to add fluoride to the water supply where it does not exist naturally, when will she roll out the programme that has begun in the north-east?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As the noble Lord suggests, tooth decay is the main reason that five to nine year-olds are admitted to hospital. That is a scandal, and one that we are seeking to tackle. My ministerial colleague, Stephen Kinnock, has made reform of the dental contract an early priority and continues to collaborate with the British Dental Association and other representatives on what is, of course, a shared ambition to improve access to treatments for NHS dental patients. I wish I could give an exact date to the noble Lord; I am not in a position right now to do so. On water fluoridation, as the noble Lord said, an extra 1.6 million people across the north-east will benefit from a water fluoridation scheme following quite a lengthy process and that will start in 2027-28.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, dental problems put extra pressures on A&Es, particularly at the weekend when it is difficult to get access to a dentist. Does she recall that a group of dentists has suggested that we should create 40 mini-A&E centres around the country, under the NHS, open seven days a week? I believe that suggestion worked its way through to the Minister. If she is not able to give an immediate answer, would she write and put the reply in the Library for others to see?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As I said, it will be ICBs delivering the extra 700,000 urgent dental appointments each year. They will be best placed locally to decide how to do it. It may well be through the means that my noble friend said, but the duty on them will be to ensure that those are available. The appointments will be most heavily weighted towards the areas where they are needed most, although appointments will be available across the country. I welcome my noble friend’s suggestion but how the extras are provided will be a matter for local decision-making.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister comment on whether serious consideration will be given to debt relief for newly qualified dentists? They could then work as salaried employers for the NHS and deliver more than the 700,000 appointments we are aiming at, because we have such a long backlog. That would really support children’s dental care immediately.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I welcome the suggestion from the noble Baroness, and I will raise that with the Minister, Stephen Kinnock. What I can say is that strengthening the dental workforce is absolutely central, as we have to rebuild NHS dentistry in this country. Integrated care boards have started already to recruit for dental posts through a golden hello scheme. That means that up to 240 dentists will receive payments of £20,000 across three years to work in those areas that need them most. Already, as of 10 February this year, 35 dentists have commenced in post, a further 33 dentists have been recruited, and hundreds of job posts are currently advertised. There is a long way to go, but we have made a very strong start.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Glenarthur (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, next and then the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the promised extra 700,000 appointments will mean just two extra appointments a month for each NHS dentist in England. The Health and Social Care Select Committee concluded in 2023 that the current dental contract is not fit for purpose, so will a new dental contract stop penalising dentists who take on more units of dental activity or patients with more complex dental needs?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very strong case for reform of the dental contract. The Minister concerned is very alive to the points he makes but, again, I will draw his attention to them. I do not quite recognise the figure that the noble Lord referred to on the number of extra appointments. If I can give just one example: out of 700,000 extra appointments, in the Midlands that will mean 143,424 extra appointments. I also emphasise that it is 700,000 extra appointments every year. If the noble Lord would let me have the figures to which he referred, I would be very happy to look into them.

[Lord Glenarthur (Con)]

My Lords, there used to be a number of eminent dentists in your Lordships’ House. I am thinking of Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lord Colwyn. I believe there are none now, so do the Government have any plans to fill this gap and ensure that the dental service is represented in your Lordships’ House?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

There is a cavity that needs filling. I defer to the usual channels, the senior leadership, the leaders of all parties, the Convenor of the Cross Benches, and all the other bodies that decide who should be in this House.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness that when it comes to comedy, she is doing an excellent job as a Minister.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I am sorry—I hope she takes that in the way it was intended. She is a wonderful comedian and a wonderful Minister. How about that? Hopefully, I have redeemed myself in the eyes of the Minister.

One of the frustrations of the past on this issue has been the battle between the Treasury and the department over the unit of dental activity—the UDA—as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said. That is how much dentists are paid for each patient they see. Can the Minister tell your Lordships about the conversations that her department is having with the Treasury? For example, how willing is it to raise the UDA in dental deserts to encourage local dentists who exist in those areas but do not see NHS patients? What conversations is the department having also with dental charities in the shorter term to help fill some of these gaps?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Lord that I took his comments in good heart, which is exactly how they were intended. He touches on an important point, which is that this is not just about the number of dentists but about how many units of NHS dentistry they are doing. Again, we are very aware of that—which goes to the noble Lord’s question earlier as well—and we are seeking to resolve it through the reform of the contract. We have found that the previous Government’s dental recovery plan did not go far enough, because it has left many people still struggling to get an NHS appointment. The noble Lord asked about conversations with the Treasury, but perhaps some of that speaks for itself in that we have a rescue plan providing more urgent dental appointments. We are reforming the dental contract and not waiting to make improvements, because we are already increasing access and incentivising the workforce to deliver more NHS care.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Monday 17 March.

“The Sentencing Council is independent of Parliament and government. The council decides on its own priorities and workplan for producing guidelines.

The Sentencing Council consulted the previous Government on a revised version of the imposition guideline, which included new guidance on pre-sentence reports. That consultation ran from November 2023 to February 2024. The previous Government responded to the consultation on the guideline on 19 February 2024. The former sentencing Minister, the honourable Member for Orpington, Gareth Bacon, who is now the shadow Transport Secretary, wrote to the chair of the Sentencing Council thanking him for the revisions to the guideline. In particular, he thanked the council for fuller guidance on the circumstances in which courts should request a pre-sentence report.

The Lord Chancellor was clear about her discontent with the guideline when it was published. It is our view that there should not be differential treatment before the law. The House will be pleased to hear that the Lord Chancellor met the chair of the Sentencing Council last week, and the discussion was constructive. It was agreed that the Lord Chancellor will set out her position more fully in writing, which the Sentencing Council will consider before the guideline is due to come into effect”.

15:47

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State for Justice appears to have implied, perhaps somewhat implausibly, that she and her department were not aware that the new Sentencing Council guidelines would introduce a two-tier justice system until their final publication two weeks ago. She in fact has representatives on the Sentencing Council. To be fair, the Secretary of State moved rapidly to address the grave problem that this presented, but simply encountered a more fundamental problem stemming from the way in which the previous Labour Government established the Sentencing Council. It is not directly answerable to any Minister. We are now told that the Secretary of State and the council are “talking”. However, discussing the height of the drop as you approach the precipice is no substitute for a plan of action. What is the plan and, if these disastrous guidelines come into force on 1 April as intended, who will resign? Will it be the Secretary of State for Justice or the chair of the Sentencing Council?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

The Sentencing Council is independent of Parliament and government. The council decides on its own priorities and workplan for producing guidelines. The Lord Chancellor was clear about her discontent with the guidance when it was published on 5 March, which was the first time that she and other Ministers had heard about it. It is her view, and mine, that there should not be differential treatment before the law. The Lord Chancellor met with the chair of the Sentencing Council last Thursday and had a constructive discussion. The Lord Chancellor will be setting out her position in writing to the Sentencing Council and it has agreed to reply before 1 April. We will not get ahead of ourselves beyond that.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the Lord Chancellor was reportedly incandescent that the new guideline appeared to suggest that lighter sentences should be imposed on members of ethnic minorities. I take a different view from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, but I find the Lord Chancellor’s position baffling. As the chair of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice William Davis, explained in his letter to her, the imposition guideline is absolutely not suggesting that lighter sentences should be imposed on ethnic minority offenders. Rather, it is concerned with setting out when pre-sentence reports are particularly important.

As the Minister is well aware, there is strong evidence—often discussed in this House—that offenders from ethnic minorities are more likely than their white counterparts to receive immediate custodial sentences, and particular care is needed to change that. We all agree on equality before the law and the guideline is intended not to encourage unfair sentencing but to prevent it. So, on reflection, do the Government now agree that, in view of their vulnerability to unfair sentencing, the guideline is right to highlight the need for pre-sentence reports for ethnic minority offenders?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The issue of tackling disproportionate outcomes in the criminal justice system is a matter of policy and should be addressed by Government Ministers and not the Sentencing Council. It is my view and that of the Lord Chancellor that everybody should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. It is worth noting that the party opposite was not only consulted but welcomed these guidelines when it was in office. The former Minister for Sentencing wrote a letter to the Council setting this out on 19 February 2024 in which he stated:

“In particular, we welcome the clarification provided by the council regarding … fuller guidance around the circumstances in which courts should request a pre-sentence report”.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are taking questions on this Urgent Question. We need short, sharp, succinct and to-the-point questions.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in general, a community sentence should be imposed rather than a custodial one? In that context, would he agree that, in general, and not confined to the cohorts referred to in the guidelines, there should be a pre-sentence report to assist the court in determining whether a defendant is likely to be compliant with a community sentence and also to benefit from one?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Our independent judiciary is best placed to decide whether a community or a custodial sentence is required. From my experience, pre-sentence reports can be very useful in supporting the judiciary in their decision-making. They are even more helpful when the pre-sentence report is written by someone who knows the offender well and has a lot of training and background information on that person.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, contrary to the confected outrage from across the House, sentencing is not a matter for politicians and should be independent of government? Does he also agree that it would be a jolly good thing if all offenders, whoever they are, had the benefit of a pre-sentence report?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. It is up to the independent judiciary to decide whether to request a pre-sentence report. What we do know is that in a number of cases they are very appropriate. We also know that our judiciary—in which many noble, and noble and learned, Lords in this House have taken an important role—is respected around the world. We need to ensure that that is maintained.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why judges requesting a pre-sentence report because they might not fully understand the background of those from different ethnic or social groups and might want to fill any gaps in their knowledge amounts to two-tier justice?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The independence of the judiciary and the fact that everybody should be treated equally in the eyes of the law means that pre-sentence reports are determined by the judiciary, and it should stay that way.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, are the Minister and the Lord Chancellor having discussions on a more sensible subject, on which I know he has some views: reducing the amazingly high level of incarceration in this country, which is the major cause of the state of our prisons? The average sentence for many offences has pretty well doubled since I was Home Secretary and has increased very substantially since I was Justice Secretary more recently. There is no evidence that incarceration levels have any effect on the level of offending. As the Sentencing Council in the end has the last word on the guidance to our independent judiciary, will this subject be taken up so that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister can share their views with the Sentencing Council and see whether it will help in the efforts to get down to more sensible levels of incarceration for the most serious offences?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and for his generosity and kindness to me many years ago in helping me get going when I first started recruiting people from prison. When we had those conversations many years ago, the prison population was much lower than it is today. That is why we have established the review on sentencing being carried out by David Gauke. We await his report, which will be published in the spring.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, in my relative youth I used to chair the Sentencing Guidelines Council, the predecessor of the Sentencing Council. From the Library this morning I obtained a publication that I believe emanates from the Sentencing Council, which includes the guidelines. There then follows the comment:

“Courts should refer to the Equal Treatment Bench Book for more guidance on how to ensure fair treatment and avoid disparity of outcomes for different groups”.


Does the Minister consider that valuable guidance?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Equal Treatment Bench Book was written by judges, for judges. I am very clear that everybody should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, confident as I am that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, has read the guidelines, I am sure he will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, as I do, that nowhere do they require judges to hand down lighter sentences to ethnic minorities or any category of offender. They simply recommend that pre-sentence reports be sought for more categories of offender, so that sentences can better take into account any and all relevant factors. Does my noble friend agree that having pre-sentence reports in greater numbers and in more cases would be a welcome step in helping sentencers arrive at fair, appropriate, transparent and effective sentences for all offenders?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. It is clear that pre-sentence reports can be very useful. Our focus needs to be on having good pre-sentence reports and, when people leave prison and custody, making sure that they have a one-way ticket, not a return, because we do not want them to reoffend.

NHS England Update

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Thursday 13 March.

“With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the future of NHS England.

Since coming into office, this Government have made big strides in fixing our broken NHS. Under the Conservatives, the NHS suffered years of industrial action, costing taxpayers billions and costing patients more than 1 million cancelled operations and appointments. We negotiated an end to the resident doctors’ strike within three weeks. We have delivered the 2 million extra appointments we promised in our first year, and we did it seven months early. After 14 years of rising waiting lists under the Conservatives, we are finally turning the tide, cutting waiting lists for five months in a row, cutting waiting lists through the winter pressures and cutting waiting lists by 193,000 so far and counting. We have agreed the GP contract with GPs for the first time since the pandemic—our first step to bringing back the family doctor—and we have delivered the biggest uplift in hospice funding for a generation.

However, there should be no doubt about the scale of the challenge ahead. We inherited an NHS going through the worst crisis in its history, so there is no time to waste. We inherited public finances with a £22 billion black hole, so there is no money to waste. The urgency of the crisis means we have to go further and faster to deliver better value for taxpayers and better services for patients—something the Conservative Party cannot even begin to speak to a record on.

The independent investigation into the National Health Service by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, traced the current crisis back to the 2012 top-down reorganisation of the NHS by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. The Darzi investigation said the reorganisation was ‘disastrous’ and a ‘calamity without international precedent’ that ‘scorched the earth’ for health reform,

‘the effects of which are still felt to this day’.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 established more than 300 new NHS organisations, created a complex and fragmented web of bureaucracy and, to quote the Darzi investigation,

‘imprisoned more than a million NHS staff in a broken system’.

Today, we are putting the final nail in the coffin of the Conservatives’ disastrous top-down reorganisation of the NHS.

There are more than twice as many staff working in NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care today than there were in 2010—twice as many staff as when the NHS delivered the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history. Today, the NHS delivers worse care for patients, but is more expensive than ever before. The budget for NHS England staff and admin alone has soared to £2 billion. Taxpayers are paying more, but getting less. We have been left with two large organisations doing the same roles, with an enormous amount of duplication.

It is especially in times like these, when money is tight, that such bloated and inefficient bureaucracy cannot be justified. However, even if the Conservatives had not left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, the Prime Minister would still be announcing the changes he is today, because every £1 that is wasted on inefficient bureaucracy—in good times or bad—is £1 that cannot be spent on treating patients faster, nor can it be spent on fixing our crumbling schools, lifting children out of poverty or putting money back into people’s pockets. There is always a duty on Ministers to get as much value for taxpayers’ money as is possible, and I cannot honestly say that it is achievable with the way that my department and NHS England are set up today, nor can I say that the current set-up is getting the best out of the NHS.

I am sure Members will have heard their local NHS leaders complain about the top-down way in which the NHS is run. It is something I have heard for years. Now that I find myself at the peak of this enormous mountain of accountability, I do not just recognise the complaint; I agree with it. Front-line NHS staff are drowning in the micromanagement they are subjected to by the various and vast layers of bureaucracy.

In the Hewitt review, the former Health Secretary, my right honourable friend Dame Patricia Hewitt, reported that one local service was required to send 250 reports and forms to NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care in a single month. That is time and energy that is not being spent delivering care for patients. The review also concluded that having two organisations doing the same jobs has led to

‘tensions, wasted time and needless frictional costs’.

Since coming into office I have sought to correct that, by building a one-team approach between my department and NHS England, working towards our shared mission of building an NHS fit for the future. Today, the Prime Minister has announced that we are turning one team into one organisation.

I acknowledge that there are talented, committed public servants working at every level of the NHS and my department, including at NHS England, who I have had the privilege of working with over the past eight months. The reforms we are announcing today are not a reflection on them. They have been set up to fail by a fragmented system that holds them back. The actions we are taking today will change that.

Work has already begun to strip out the duplication between the two organisations, and bring many of NHS England’s functions into the department. NHS England will have a much clearer focus over this transformation period. It will be in charge of holding local providers to account for the outcomes that really matter: cutting waiting times, and managing their finances responsibly. And it is tasked with realising the untapped potential of our National Health Service as a single-payer public service: getting a better deal for taxpayers through central procurement; being a better customer to medical technology innovators, to get the latest cutting-edge tech into the hands of staff and patients much faster; and being a better partner to the life sciences sector, to develop the medicines of the future.

Over the next two years, NHS England will be brought into the department entirely. These reforms will deliver a much leaner top of the NHS, making significant savings of hundreds of millions of pounds a year. That money will flow down to the front line, to cut waiting times faster and deliver our plan for change. By slashing through the layers of red tape and ending the infantilisation of front-line NHS leaders, we will set local NHS providers free to innovate, develop new and productive ways of working, and focus on what matters most: delivering better care for patients.

I cannot count the number of Conservatives who have told me in private that they regret the 2012 reorganisation and wish they had reversed it when in office. But none of them acted. They put it in the ‘too difficult’ box while patients and taxpayers paid the price, because only Labour can reform the NHS. And this Government are proving that only Labour can be trusted to reform the state. The Prime Minister has committed to cutting the number of quangos. Today, we are abolishing the biggest quango in the world.

I am delighted that Sir James Mackey will be leading the transformation team, as the chief executive of NHS England. Jim has an outstanding track record of turning around organisations, balancing the books, driving up productivity, and driving down waiting times. He is putting in place a new transformation team to drive change, and alongside Dr Penny Dash as the incoming chair, I am delighted to have such a capable leadership team of radical reformers to lead NHS England with me through this transformation.

I also take this opportunity to place on record my heartfelt thanks to Amanda Pritchard, who has shown an outstanding commitment to our National Health Service over her decades of service—which I know remains undiminished. She has also been a rock of enormous support, not only in the past eight months, but also in the past few weeks as we have worked together with Jim preparing for this change. I also place on record my thanks to her deputy Julian Kelly, who is one of the most outstanding public servants of his generation, along with the rest of the leadership team departing at the end of the month. They deserve our thanks and best wishes for the future.

Change is hard. There will always be cautious voices warning you to slow down. However broken the status quo is, there will be those who resist any change away from it. But we should be in no doubt: we inherited a National Health Service going through the worst crisis in its history. Patients are waiting unacceptable lengths of time for an operation, a GP appointment or an ambulance. This Labour Government will never duck the hard yards of reform. We will take on vested interests and change the status quo, so the NHS can once again be there for us when we need it.

The Prime Minister has set an enormously ambitious target for the NHS: to cut waiting times for operations from up to 18 months to a maximum of 18 weeks by the end of this Parliament. That will require us to go further and faster than even the last Labour Government achieved, but patients in our country deserve nothing less. The reform the Prime Minister is setting out today will mean fewer checkers and more doers. It will cut through the complex web of bureaucracy, and devolve more resources and responsibility to the front line, to deliver better value for taxpayers’ money and a better service for patients. It will set the NHS up to deliver on the three big shifts needed to make the service fit for the future: from hospital to community, analogue to digital, and sickness to prevention.

The NHS is broken, but it is not beaten. Together, we will turn it around. I commend this Statement to the House”.

15:58

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, no one can really disagree with the intention to reduce unnecessary duplication between the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care, so these Benches welcome these proposals where they ensure value for money for taxpayers and free up money from bureaucracy to spend on front-line services. One of the many things that many medical staff have complained about is the amount of paperwork. We hope that these reforms and better investment in technology will reduce the time spent on administration. Although administration can be tedious, it provides much-needed data to monitor the level of services and, we hope, to improve patient care. But these changes need to be judged on more than just money; they must make sure that the patient remains at the centre of the conversation when we talk about our system of health and care.

We have had many reforms over the years, and whether these reforms are the right ones can be judged only on what comes next. My noble friend Lord Lansley, who has been much maligned recently, has written that the lesson he learned from the 2012 reforms is that his Government, and subsequent Governments, delivered only one part of the intended reforms—creating NHS England—but did not always intervene when NHS England sought to block other reforms, such as clinically led local commissioning, competition and choice, choice of large-scale commissioning support organisations, tariff reform, “any qualified provider”, and an annual mandate from the Government and Parliament to the NHS, with accountability through the NHS outcomes framework. This, he believes, is what led to the centralised, bureaucratic system that the Government are trying to reform.

Whether noble Lords agree with my noble friend or not, surely the lesson is to have an overall plan for reform and to intervene when a bureaucracy is a barrier to further reform. For this reason, noble Lords look forward to the publication of the 10-year plan. I wonder, at this stage, whether I can tempt the Minister to say whether she is any closer to giving us a date for that 10-year plan. I suspect that these reforms have to be seen in conjunction with the 10-year plan, and cannot be seen in isolation.

Given these lessons, where clinical leaders are calling for greater autonomy from centralised control in order to offer better care for patients at a local level, how do the Government intend to balance centralisation to the DHSC with empowering clinicians and giving them autonomy at a local level? They are better equipped to know what services are needed locally.

I know from my experience of organisational change that it is often not enough to change structures if the organisational culture does not also change. I will give your Lordships an example. I had an operation in Brussels a few years ago, and when I came back to the UK I wanted to have my annual check-up. I contacted a GP and eventually got a double appointment: an ECG at a local health centre, and a consultant phone call a week later. I thought that this was really good and modern. The ECG went smoothly and, a week later, I got a phone call from a junior doctor in the consultant’s office. It was clear that he had not seen the ECG, so I asked him, “Have you seen the ECG?” He said, “No”. I asked, “Can I tell you exactly what time, what day, and where it was, then you can call me back and we can discuss it?” He refused, and said, “I’ll just make a new appointment, including a new ECG”. I wonder what it is in the system that incentivises this sort of behaviour, rather than making that phone call and saving taxpayers an awful lot of money.

Although these changes will save money, which is welcome, can the Minister provide clarity to the House on how these reforms will drive efficiency and cultural change within the health service, and ensure that we improve care, with patients at the centre?

One of the key challenges your Lordships will be aware of when dealing with the NHS is the lack of willingness to own mistakes and accept responsibility. The NHS needs to be better at taking responsibility when targets are missed and things go wrong. Can the Minister assure your Lordships that the new structure the Government propose will have clear lines of responsibility, redress and transparency? Will it allow noble Lords, other politicians and people throughout the country to understand how the NHS is governed, who is responsible for what and how it operates? I look forward to hearing from the Minister, and I hope that we can work constructively, on a cross-party basis, to improve patient outcomes and our system of health and care.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the Government, with their sovereign right, propose the abolition of NHS England. Although the method of delivery is a matter for the Secretary of State to propose, governance changes in themselves will not achieve better outcomes. These Benches will continue to point out that chronic operational issues in the NHS cannot and will not be dealt with effectively until the Government show the same speed and determination to deal with the social care crisis. The Minister must know that you cannot have 13,000 hospital beds full of people medically fit for discharge and pretend that a change of who sits in what chairs in the governance of the NHS will solve that issue. When will the Government commit to a timetable to restart the cross-party talks to deal with this important issue?

The paramount—indeed, the sole—objective of any organisational change to the NHS must be demonstrable improvement of patient experience and outcomes. The Government assert that this change will improve efficiency and streamline services. However, assertions alone are insufficient. We require rigorous evidence, not mere conjecture.

Therefore, I am going to ask the Minister five questions. First, and most importantly, what detailed analysis has been conducted on the projected impact of this abolition on patient outcomes? We require more than abstract pronouncements. For instance, how will it improve cancer treatment? What will these changes do to improve access to GP services? How will they improve local integration, particularly when 50% of funding for ICBs will be reduced across the board?

Secondly, what specific legislative changes are required to abolish NHS England and redistribute its functions? I note that the Secretary of State pointed out that the Government could predominantly go ahead with these changes but that legislation is required, so will the Minister explain to the House exactly what legislation will be required to bring about this change? Will she give a commitment that no redundancies will take place until legislation has been passed and these changes have been given the go-ahead by this House and the other House?

Talking of redundancies, my third question is: what are the estimated costs of redundancies associated with the abolition of NHS England, including not only financial implications but the potential loss of expertise and institutional knowledge? Furthermore, will the Minister indicate whether any departing executive has been offered a severance package exceeding statutory redundancy limits and, if so, how many? What justifications are there if such arrangements have been made?

Fourthly, how will the Government ensure continuity of service during the transition period? Any disruption to patient care is unacceptable, so when will there be a robust plan that outlines how essential services will be maintained, how staff will be supported and how the public will be kept informed?

Finally, in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure ongoing accountability and transparency in the newly restructured healthcare system? How will the Government measure success—not just of the times in which people are seen but that these changes have contributed to improvements in patient care? The Government are the custodians of this vital public service and have a duty to ensure that any changes to NHS structures are driven by evidence, guided by principle and focused relentlessly on improving the lives of the people it serves. They must proceed not blindly but with clarity, so I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to both Front Benches for their reflections and their support for the direction of travel, in certain areas. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, in his place and I wish him a full recovery. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, welcomed the moves on value for money, freeing up from bureaucracy and the need to put the patient at the centre. I am glad that he did that, because that is exactly what this is about: better services and cutting duplication.

It is probably worth my reflecting on the sentiments expressed in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care when he referred to the question of why we are doing this. The independent investigation by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, was called for by this Secretary of State not long after we came into government and discovered a situation beyond what I think anyone had anticipated. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi—this relates to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made about evidence—traced the current crisis back to the 2012 top-down reorganisation of the NHS and the establishment of NHSE. He stated that it had

“imprisoned more than a million NHS staff in a broken system”.

There are twice as many staff working in NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care today as there were in 2010. In 2010, the NHS was delivering the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history. When we came into government last year, it was the exact opposite: the longest waiting times and the lowest patient satisfaction in history.

You can add that up: taxpayers pay more, and they get less. We have been left with two very large organisations. I see that there are some former Ministers from the department in the Chamber today, which I am glad about. I will not speak for them, but they might also reflect that they will have noticed duplication and layers of bureaucracy that have stifled the progress and the patient treatment, patient focus and patient experience that we all seek to improve. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, talked about the need for us all to coalesce around the interests of the patient, with which I certainly agree. Over the next two years, the intention is to bring NHS England into the department entirely. That will make significant savings of millions of pounds a year. To noble Lords who have raised some questions about whether the money will flow down to the front line, I say that it will cut waiting times faster and deliver our plan for change.

The matter of staff came up, and I will come back to that. I acknowledge that there are talented, committed public servants who work at every single level of the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care, including NHS England, with whom I have had the privilege of working over the past eight months under this Government. I was previously a Minister in the department in the last Labour Government. This is about the system, not the people. I say that to reassure those who are employed both at the department and in NHS England.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked some important questions about staff reductions and when redundancies would potentially take place. There are currently 19,000 staff across NHS England and DHSC; across both, we are looking to reduce the overall headcount by 50%. Conversations have already begun with the trade unions on this change, and we will of course continue to engage with them throughout the process. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, rightly observes, abolishing NHSE—a non-departmental public body—will require primary legislation, so we are working with the usual channels to ensure that we have an appropriate legislative timetable to allow us to do things in a timely way, while safeguarding what is an ambitious legislative programme that has already been set out. We are already getting on with the job immediately, which also answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about bringing NHSE back into the department.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised a very good point about the need for better understanding, clear lines and transparency. One of my learnings since we announced the abolition of NHSE was that, unfortunately, some members of the public thought that meant we were abolishing the NHS. I would like to reassure anybody in this Chamber or outside it that we are not doing that at all: we are committed to the National Health Service, as we have always been throughout our history as a party, and we will continue to strengthen it. However, what that said to me relates to the point the noble Lord made. People do not care about structures, and why should they? What they are interested in—and I completely endorse this—is what it does for them. Can they get that appointment? Can they get that treatment? Can their child get access to dentistry, or whatever it is? That is what people want.

Actually, this is a tremendous opportunity to be clearer and more straightforward about what those lines are, and I certainly look forward to doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is right about the need for a change in culture, and I think that applies to a whole range of issues.

This measure has been considered and, as I explained, was born through experience and evidence. It will fit as part of the 10-year plan, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, referred, and I thank him for that. On when that will be published, I will say only that I hope the noble Lord will not feel he is kept waiting for much longer. I am very grateful to everybody who gave input to the consultation—the biggest one ever in the history of the NHS.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, rightly asked for a number of details about impact; there will, of course, be a full impact assessment with the legislation. He asked particularly about improvements overall, which is what we seek. Currently we have two organisations, many layers and duplication. I cannot think of one organisation that can boast all that—I do not say boast in a positive way—and say it is at its most efficient in delivering for whoever the service users are.

All of it will translate to improvements on the front line, which is what we are talking about. As I mentioned, as I often do, earlier in Questions, we believe that decision-making locally—done in the interests of the local population, with their involvement and reflecting their nature—is crucial. Noble Lords will be aware that, on the advice of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, we reduced the numbers of targets in the planning guidance from 32 to 18, to free up local areas to better meet the local requirements. Again, we see the direction of travel.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about senior management and severance packages. Of course, I cannot comment on individuals, but I emphasise that, in the cases of those who announced their resignation, it was just that, so all the normal arrangements would apply.

I hope we can continue to work together to improve the structure, support the staff and, most importantly, keep patients at the centre, so that they see improvements from this change and the recognition that two organisations are duplication and this needs to change.

16:18

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise again for my wonky voice. My noble friend the Minister and I are veterans of running the NHS, when we were both Ministers in the last Labour Government. I am a veteran of leading the Opposition against the Lansley reforms when they came to the House; I spent two years of my life on them.

It is worth reminding the Liberal Democrats that they were party to putting that legislation on the statute book, so we hope they will help to remove it in a positive fashion. This was a huge piece of legislation—as somebody said, it was so big it could be seen from space —and over the years wasted billions that could have been spent on front-line services.

As a veteran of my local CCG and a non-executive director of my local NHS hospital, I value this announcement. I hope that the people who help to run the hospital of which I am non-executive director—the Whittington—who are brilliant managers in difficult circumstances, will be freed up to do their jobs better and more freely.

I ask my noble friend the Minister: what is the timescale—

[Noble Lords]

Question.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I am just asking the question. What is the likely timescale for when investment might be released? I am thinking particularly about technology and investment in infrastructure, as a non-executive director of a hospital, a large part of which is still a Victorian build.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her reflections on what has gone before and her welcome that the opposition parties can work with us to put this into a better place now. With respect to change and productivity, and a further extension to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about culture, I can say straightaway that the Government have a 2% productivity growth target in 2025-26. That is immediate. We are not waiting to make this change, because if we do not improve NHS productivity and efficiency, we will not be able to deliver the three shifts needed to future-proof the NHS and support the Government’s growth mission.

We have already invested more than £2 billion in NHS technology and digital in 2025-26, which will help with essential services and drive productivity in hospitals, such as the one that I know my noble friend serves very well. That will free up staff time, ensure that all trusts have electronic patient records, improve cybersecurity and enhance patient access through the NHS app. That is before we even make this change.

We have already achieved a lot in the past eight months, but that is why we have to continue with this reform. We have delivered the 2 million extra appointments that we promised, months ahead of schedule, we have cut waiting lists by 193,000, and, as I said earlier, we have committed to 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments, just to name some. We know about the importance of change, which the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked me about, and that my noble friend calls for. That is why we will always continue to take bold steps where we have to, and not shy away.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, the point is well made about duplication, bureaucracy and excessive cost. Can the Minister give us an assurance, though, that we will not move from excessive bureaucratic centralisation to political centralisation? There are few politicians who are clinicians, sophisticated managers or financiers. This is the largest employer in the world, with extraordinarily dedicated and talented individuals concerned. They will not be happy to think that they will be organised on the whim of whoever is the latest Minister.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London used to be the Chief Nursing Officer—there are many people who have worked at high levels in the NHS. We need to be confident that there will be an evidence-based, rational system at some distance from party-political considerations, because the viciousness of health debates about hospital closures, boundaries and other matters knows no bounds. We do not want by-elections to become involved in non-party-political matters.

The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and even the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and I, were very happy with an NHS executive which was part of the department. However, the role of the chief executive was not the same as the role of the Secretary of State. I hope the Minister can give us some assurance.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am very pleased to give the reassurance that the noble Baroness seeks. When we reflect, the disastrous 2012 top-down reorganisation certainly did not depoliticise the NHS—it made it less efficient and less able to treat patients on time.

This is not about politicisation; this is about responsible government. I add—without embarrassing anybody—that a number of former Conservative Health Ministers have said to me, and to my colleague Ministers and the Secretary of State, how much they welcome this and how they wish that they had taken this step. That, for me, as well as the tone of the contributions from the Front Benches today, provides the reassurance the noble Baroness seeks.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interest as chairman of King’s Health Partners. In the announcement made by the right honourable Secretary of State for Health in the other place, there was particular emphasis on identifying that in this period of transition, NHS England will focus on ensuring that local providers are better able to cut waiting times and to organise their finances appropriately. But NHS England has many other functions beyond those two important ones, and they will need to be delivered in what is a substantial transformation in reabsorbing NHS England into the Department of Health and Social Care. What reassurance can the Minister give your Lordships’ House that functions such as the recently integrated Health Education England function into NHS England, the NHS Digital function and many others, are going to be properly supervised and delivered during this period? They are as essential, in many ways, as delivering on waiting times and organising finances.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to talk about NHS England in all its functions. Bringing it together with the department will not diminish those functions but will allow them to be delivered rather more effectively than they are currently. At the head of the transformation team is Sir James Mackey, the new chief executive of NHS England, working with Dr Penny Dash as chair. Both individuals are well respected across the sector for their outstanding track records, not least on turning round NHS organisations, in Jim’s case, but also on balancing the books, driving up productivity and driving down waiting times—exactly what is needed. But I agree totally with the noble Lord, and we are going to ensure that the necessary functions are continued; it is the way they are delivered that we are changing.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I declare my interest as indicated by the noble Baroness, in that I am a former government Chief Nursing Officer. Following on from the noble Lord’s point, this is a very significant change not just to the NHS but to its workforce. We know from looking back that when there is a reorganisation of the NHS, attention and funds are distracted away from the front line and patient care. The announcement came on the same day as the publication of the NHS staff survey results, which highlighted that only 31% felt that there were enough staff to enable them to do their job, and that 45% felt unwell due to work-related stress. What action will the Government take to make sure that there is not a management distraction, through this reorganisation, away from the front line and patient care in particular? How will staff be supported during this transition, not least those who, I suspect, fear that their jobs are now under threat?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I recognise what the right reverend Prelate is saying. I myself have experienced change in large organisations, and change is never easy. We are talking about job losses; we cannot shy away from that. But it is appropriate that I re-emphasise the reassurance of our respect for and thanks to all those talented and hard-working staff in both the department and NHSE. We will, as I said, work with trade unions on this change in order to be fair and transparent and to deal with it properly. Of course it is uncomfortable, and people naturally find it difficult.

It is also important to look at the benefits. Currently, we have rather too much micromanagement, which frustrates progress and staff. Reducing that is one of the liberations that this will provide, so we can innovate and get on with caring for patients.

On maintaining people’s morale, this is a big challenge for us because morale has not been good at all, so we will pay particular attention to this as we publish the workforce plan later in the summer. This work continues. Senior managers and transformation team are very alive to the points the right reverend Prelate has made, and they will continue in that regard.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very conscious that a number of noble Lords want to get in. Can all keep their questions brief? I will take the Liberal Democrat contribution first and then Labour.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief. With such a strong emphasis in the Statement on reducing duplication and bureaucracy, can the Minister say what consideration is being given to fusing NHS England’s regional offices with the remaining ICBs that come within their geographical area? It strikes me that there is scope for savings there.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

All of this will be looked at by the transformation team, because it is a considerable change. I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution, and I will ensure that it is heard.

[Baroness Rafferty (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister kindly confirm that the role of the Chief Nursing Officer for England will migrate to DHSC?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend will know—as I am sure the right reverend Prelate knows—that the Chief Nursing Officer has always played a role in advising Ministers; that the case was long before the establishment of NHS England and will continue long afterwards. The chief executive, Sir James, has announced his new transformation team, and that includes NHS England’s Chief Nursing Officer.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

As a former Health Minister, I too welcome this move, but the devil is in the detail. The point made about the NHS regions is completely right: that is another layer which will stop hospitals being freed up in the way the Secretary of State said he wants to happen. There is the question of whether lots of merged entities will be demerged again. As we all know, it is the uncertainty which hits productivity in the meantime, when people are naturally worried about their jobs.

I would really like to press the Minister on when we will see the detail behind the plan. When will it be produced, and when can we give the staff the information they need, so they know their position? Until that happens, the uncertainty will, unfortunately, hinder productivity and stop the changes we all want to see happening.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand that point and the noble Lord’s wish for dates, which I am not able to give him, as I am sure he will appreciate. These reforms are not about front-line staff losing their jobs; we are talking about people employed directly by the department and the NHS. The noble Lord referred to the Secretary of State, and I would add that other arm’s-length bodies also need to be leaner than they are today.

I understand the problem, and we are going to work very closely with staff organisations, but it is not a neutral situation. Staff are suffering from box-ticking, duplication and red tape, which prevents them doing their job properly. Their morale is not good in this case—in any case. We do not want to add to that, but we do want to give them hope for the future.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

After the transformation team has completed its work, who will take over the duties that the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, referred to in his question?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

That will be declared in due course, once the work has been completed.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, I spent yesterday morning at the women’s health department in Mile End hospital—I know the Minister is a great champion, and I highly recommend a visit. What will the NHS England update mean for the women’s health strategy, and, specifically, for NHS England’s commitment to eliminating cervical cancer by 2040?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

It will not affect commitments to women’s health. As we have said, women’s health remains a priority. The noble Baroness will know that there are some 600,000 women already on the gynaecology waiting list; that is far too long for women to wait. Women’s health hubs are part of the solution, and I continue to champion those with the integrated care boards.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to support the direction of travel towards patients first. I wonder if there are savings to be made. We can concentrate on the gap in social care, where I suspect much of the NHS is so interdependent. Social care is so badly funded, and we need to do something there.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As we discussed earlier, the provision of social care and housing has a huge impact on quality of life and discharge from hospital. As my noble friend will be aware, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will be commencing her look into social care, to report to us all on the immediate and long-term changes that are needed and to build cross-party consensus.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, since NHS Digital was merged with NHS England, NHS England staff have been running absolutely critical data and digital infrastructure. During this period of uncertainty, we are bound to be in danger of losing some staff with expertise that is difficult to replace. What are the Government doing to make sure that these jobs are absolutely safeguarded and that this expertise is not lost?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Nobody should worry about data or their privacy. Our job is to improve our ability on data, and this change will not affect that. Indeed, part of the 10-year plan will include a move from analogue to digital, because we recognise the importance of data and digital change in improving healthcare. This change will give us a better opportunity to implement that.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on removing a powerful and unelected body—the world’s largest quango. What the Government have done is so important democratically, given that the Secretary of State says, “The buck stops here”. However, it is not a silver bullet. There is no NHS England in Wales—my neck of the woods—and the buck stops with the Senedd, but the Welsh health service is in a terrible state, with wastage of money, red tape, bureaucracy, and smoke and mirrors about where money is being spent. Does the Minister agree that that can happen even when the buck, apparently, stops with the politicians?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am not sure if that was a question about politicians or Wales. We work very closely with the devolved Governments, as the noble Baroness will be aware. On her point about politicians, we take our responsibilities very seriously. That is why we have recognised the problem and are acting.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

First Reading

16:38

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill

2nd reading
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

16:39

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill is a short but important piece of legislation that removes a legal barrier preventing Roman Catholics holding the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. This historic legal restriction applies specifically to Roman Catholics and not to people of different or no religious faith.

For noble Lords who may not yet be acquainted with the role of the Lord High Commissioner—although I suspect from looking around the Chamber that most noble Lords know more than I do, even though my mother is Scottish and Church of Scotland—I shall try to shed light on the position. I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who will speak later today, held that office between 2015 and 2016, being appointed by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I hope he will bear with me while I provide a brief explanation, and I look forward to his contribution.

The Lord High Commissioner is the sovereign’s personal representative to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The General Assembly is the governing body of the Church of Scotland. It meets each May in Edinburgh, to hear reports, make laws and set the agenda for the Church of Scotland. The Lord High Commissioner is appointed as an observer to attend proceedings and to inform His Majesty the King personally about the business of the assembly. The Lord High Commissioner also undertakes important ceremonial duties, including addressing the General Assembly at its opening and closing sessions and attending the daily business on the sovereign’s behalf. The Lord High Commissioner undertakes official visits in Scotland, as well as hosting engagements at the Palace of Holyroodhouse.

Historic legislation currently prevents the appointment of Roman Catholics to this role. The Claim of Right 1689 sets out restrictions against Roman Catholics being appointed to public offices in Scotland, which include the Lord High Commissioner. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 removed many legal restrictions on Roman Catholics. Crucially, however, it explicitly did not remove the restrictions against Roman Catholics holding the post of Lord High Commissioner. Therefore, there remains a legal barrier that prevents Roman Catholics undertaking this role. This Bill is concise and narrowly focused, and will deliver a straightforward but important change by enabling Roman Catholics to undertake the post of Lord High Commissioner.

The immediate impact of the passing of this Bill will be to facilitate the appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini, who is a Roman Catholic, as Lord High Commissioner for 2025. Lady Elish’s distinguished career encompasses law, justice and academia. In 2011, she was honoured as a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire for her outstanding contributions to the administration of justice. Since 2012, she has served as principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford, and she was appointed pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford in 2017. In 2022, Her late Majesty the Queen appointed her to the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, and she participated in the Coronation in 2023. Should this Bill pass, she will make history as the first Roman Catholic to be appointed Lord High Commissioner.

Lady Elish’s appointment would be a historic gesture of unity, good will and collaboration between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland, following the St Margaret declaration signed in 2022, as well as a continuing declaration of friendship between the two Churches. This combined effort between the two denominations is a welcome demonstration of how people from different religions and backgrounds in our society can unite to emphasise the values and issues that unite us all and can acknowledge our differences with respect and dignity. I note that the appointment of Lady Elish to the role of Lord High Commissioner has been warmly welcomed, including in the other place when this Bill was debated, taking note of her distinguished career and personal achievements.

The legislation is before the House today on an accelerated timetable, which is necessary to ensure that Lady Elish’s appointment can be made ahead of the General Assembly in May. Subject to Royal Assent, the formalities of the appointment will begin. This process will include a formal commission for the office, accompanied by a royal warrant.

I can reassure the House that the UK Government have worked closely with key stakeholders in the development of this legislation. While the Bill concerns a reserved matter, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke to the First Minister of Scotland and representatives of the Church of Scotland in advance of bringing forward this legislation. We thank them for their constructive and collaborative approach to this issue. The Government also engaged with the Catholic Church to ensure that it was kept informed ahead of the introduction of the legislation. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also discussed the matter with Lady Elish directly and we have absolutely no doubt that she will be an excellent Lord High Commissioner.

I will briefly summarise this two-clause Bill. Clause 1 makes provision to allow a person of the Roman Catholic faith to hold the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Clause 2 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and the commencement of the Bill, including that it will commence on Royal Assent.

To conclude, this Bill has a welcome aim and delivers a concise, albeit narrow, objective. I hope the Bill will receive support from all sides of the House. In that spirit, I commend it to the House. I beg to move.

16:45

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for introducing the Bill. As she says, it is a simple and straightforward Bill which will enable a most distinguished Scottish lawyer, Lady Elish Angiolini, to take up her appointment as His Majesty the King’s Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I can assure the House that it has the full support of His Majesty’s Opposition and we were very grateful to be able to consent to accelerated consideration through the usual channels.

As my honourable friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine said in another place, this Bill is an important step towards full equality for Roman Catholics under British law. There is in fact a long Conservative tradition of supporting Catholic emancipation, which the noble Baroness alluded to. In fact, the first Duke of Wellington risked the future of his own Government to secure the passage of the Catholic Relief Act in 1829, which granted Roman Catholics the right to take up positions of trust and responsibility in public life. There were some objections from some quarters in Scotland at the time, which might be why we are here today. The passage of that 1829 Act led Britain out of shameful centuries of penal laws against Roman Catholics. The Bill before us today shows how far we have come since 1829.

I remember it was Sir Keir Starmer who in 2002 wrote an important article calling for an end to another disqualification of Roman Catholics—of people who married Catholics from succession to the Crown. It was good that the coalition Government took that up and passed the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which ended that disqualification of Roman Catholics. We are always ready to support Sir Keir in good ideas and the attempt to reduce any element of discrimination in public life has universal support. I hope we can continue to foster greater acceptance and a stronger tradition of ecumenism for the future. This Bill achieves that. We are absolutely united across this House in opposition to discrimination. In government, we worked to foster stronger relationships between all communities, whatever differences of religion they may have had, and we will work with Ministers in this Government to continue that work, as we are doing today.

As the noble Baroness said, the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is one of the most significant roles in Scottish public life. Our sovereign has appointed Lord High Commissioners as representatives since 1690, for only rarely have sovereigns attended the General Assembly in person. The King is not the head of the Church of Scotland, so the Lord High Commissioner is a representative to the General Assembly, not a member of the Assembly itself, and it is therefore not a requirement for them to be a Presbyterian or a member of the Church of Scotland.

Lady Elish Angiolini has an impeccable record of public service, having served as Scotland’s first female Lord Advocate, and she has had a distinguished legal and academic career. We on this side also welcome her appointment. Indeed, the decision to appoint Lady Elish, the first Roman Catholic to receive the King’s commission to be his representative to the General Assembly, is a momentous one. As the noble Baroness rightly said, it builds on the St Margaret Declaration of November 2022, in which the Church of Scotland made:

“An historic declaration of friendship between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland”.


We welcome this continued commitment to friendship between those two great Churches.

Before I conclude, I note that the Government say they are looking also to make changes to other, similar areas of law. In her letter to all Peers of 5 March 2025, the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal wrote that the Government were considering how to address historic restrictions on Roman Catholics and Jews advising the Crown on appointments in the Anglican Church. Perhaps she will take this opportunity, either now or in a letter, to set out in further detail what is intended. It might be helpful to know when the Government intend to bring such proposals forward, which I am inclined to think that we on this side would want to support.

In conclusion, we wholeheartedly support the Bill. We wish to see it pass swiftly through your Lordships’ House ahead of the next meeting of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in May this year, as the noble Baroness told us. We have absolutely no doubt that Lady Elish Angiolini will fulfil her duties assiduously and we wish her well as she prepares to take up her important role as Lord High Commissioner.

16:51

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I am happy to follow the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord, Lord True, in welcoming the Bill. I shall start by declaring interests: I am a member and elder of the Church of Scotland and a former moderator of the General Assembly.

I have known Lady Elish. We served in government together in Scotland in the early 2000s and then, when she was Lord Advocate, I was the Advocate-General for Scotland, so we had a lot of dealings with each other. I certainly consider Elish and her husband Dominic to be good personal friends. I should probably also declare another interest: she has invited me to stay overnight at Holyrood Palace during the General Assembly—assuming, of course, that the legislation has passed.

I congratulate the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal on giving a very good analysis and description of the role of the Lord High Commissioner, which I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will be able to elaborate on. It shows, as I said last week in one of our debates, that you can have a national Church that enjoys a positive and assertive relationship with the sovereign without the need for its senior clergy to be in the legislature. Maybe there are lessons to learn from that in other ways.

Repealing the provision in the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 brings us into the 21st century. Like the noble Lord, Lord True, I am pleased that the noble Baroness has indicated that the Government will look at other religious discrimination that still exists, with a view to bringing forward some consultation. If she could elaborate on that, that would be very welcome.

I noted too that the noble Baroness made the following statement under the Human Rights Act:

“In my view the provisions of the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”—


which of course they are. Indeed, they help to implement convention rights. The noble Baroness’s equivalent in 1829 would not have been able to make such a declaration, which is a sign of the times. I am not quite sure what happened then—whether it was the fact that the Church of Scotland and others in Scotland made representations to the Duke of Wellington for the exclusion, or whether it was just that, knowing the slightly febrile situation in the religious atmosphere of Scotland in the early 19th century, the Government took the view that it was probably better to avoid such a controversy. But controversy there would have been and there was no way it would have been acceptable in 1829.

Nor, I am ashamed to say, would it have been acceptable in 1929. During a shameful period in the Church of Scotland’s history in the 1920s and early 1930s, General Assemblies often became obsessive about Irish immigration into Scotland. They perceived a threat to our cultural identity and that the people coming in would take Scottish jobs, and some Scots demanded immediate repatriation. Now, we may have echoes of some things that are going on today, but we should remind ourselves that these attitudes were there. I think it says something that the person we are discussing today, Lady Elish, is of Irish descent, and a female Roman Catholic of Irish descent becoming the Lord High Commissioner shows the progress that we have made. In 1935, thousands demonstrated violently in Edinburgh when the freedom of the city was granted to the Prime Minister of Australia, Joseph Lyons, because he was a Roman Catholic. That was less than 90 years ago and it shows just what we have to do.

Progress has been made. Ecumenical links have been strengthened over the years and, as has already been referred to, the St Margaret declaration of friendship between the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, in which as moderator I was pleased to play a part, was delivered and achieved on the back of much mutual respect and good will, not least on the part of the Scottish Catholic Bishops’ Conference by Archbishop Leo Cushley. It was signed in November 2022 and was seen as a landmark and, I hope, as a signal to the rest of Scotland.

However, to say that everything in the garden is rosy would be wrong. When my predecessor as Moderator of the General Assembly, the very reverend Dr Martin Fair, made his valedictory address to the General Assembly in 2021, among the things he said was the Kirk’s mission. He said:

“For as long as anti-Catholic, anti-Irish bile is spewed onto our streets by so-called football fans - there is work for us to do”.


I think we would certainly endorse that.

The St Margaret declaration says in its very first paragraph:

“We recognise each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, and we wish to express our friendship and respect for one another as fellow Christians, citizens and partners in announcing the kingdom of God in our land”.


I would say amen to that. This Bill is in the spirit of that declaration.

16:57

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this Bill and it is a great pleasure to follow the former moderator, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. This is indeed a necessary reform which, as the Lord Privy Seal has told us, clears the way for Lady Elish Angiolini to take up her appointment in just a few weeks’ time. It will also settle the issue for the future, which in itself is very much to be welcomed.

This amendment could not, of course, have been achieved without the full support of the Church of Scotland, to whose wisdom I wish to pay tribute. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has reminded us, we do not have to look all that far back into our history to a time when its response might have been very different.

My reason for contributing to this debate is that I had the immense privilege of serving as the Lord High Commissioner on two occasions, in 2015 and 2016. That experience enables me to assure your Lordships that the question as to which denomination of the Christian faith the person belongs is wholly immaterial to his or her ability to perform the duties of that office, so I should like to say just a few words about what the office involves.

The duties of the office will be defined in a commission under His Majesty’s sign manual that Lady Elish will receive when she presents herself at the opening of the General Assembly. It will commission and warrant her to represent His Majesty at the General Assembly as his High Commissioner specially appointed to that office, no more and no less than that. It will authorise her

“to do all and everything belonging to the power and place of a High Commissioner to a General Assembly as fully and freely in all respects as any other in that High Station hath done or might have done in any time heretofore and as We Ourselves might do if Personally present”.

She will, in short, be His Majesty’s personal representative to do what he would have done if he had been there himself.

It will not be her function to participate in the work of the assembly or to perform any religious duties. She will sit high above in the Royal Gallery as an observer, from where her only function will be to deliver two speeches, one at the opening and the other at the closing sederunt. Her opening speech will, as tradition requires, begin by stating that His Majesty the King has commanded her to assure those attending the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland of his great sense of their steady and firm zeal for his service and to assure them on his behalf of his resolution to maintain the Presbyterian Church covenant in Scotland. She will also offer to the incoming moderator warmest congratulations on her appointment and wish her a most happy and successful year in office. Her final speech will end by, in the King’s name, bidding everyone farewell and, in between, she will attend the General Assembly’s morning services throughout the week and a Sunday service in St Giles’ Cathedral, where she will sit in a place of honour as the King’s representative.

Those are the formal requirements. As for the rest, there is an immensely busy programme of ceremonial: of receptions, of lunches and dinners which she must host, and of visits to organisations and places of the kind that His Majesty would have wished to do had he been there. She will travel everywhere in a car with no number plate, with a police escort to speed her through the traffic. She will reside, throughout the week, in the Palace of Holyroodhouse, where a large and rather beautiful fountain will always play in the courtyard. A guard of honour will be on parade and the full national anthem will be played whenever she appears at the door of the palace to carry out her duties elsewhere on the King’s behalf.

All good things must come to an end of course. The police escort will have disappeared when she returns to her car at the end of the closing sederunt. When she returns to the palace, she will find, like Cinderella, that the guard of honour has disappeared and the fountain has been turned off. She will then have to use her own car when she drives herself home. But she will have an audience with His Majesty some weeks later, to report to him on her week as his High Commissioner, and there is the possibility that, all being well, she will be invited to do the same next year. For all this, she has my very best wishes.

17:01

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Hope. We on these Benches welcome this Bill and, as we have already heard, so does the Church of Scotland.

The Columba declaration was signed in 2016 between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, which means we work closely together in mutual respect and appreciation. We are both established churches of this United Kingdom, though how the establishment is manifested in our national life is, of course, different.

We have heard that the Bill will amend the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, which still prohibits Roman Catholics from holding the role of the Lord High Commissioner. Given the prohibition does not exist for those with other faith or belief, or for those of no faith, this is a welcome and long overdue change. Indeed, previous officeholders have been Episcopalians, Free Church and from other Christian denominations, so this Bill will remove a legal discrimination that is no longer relevant or required. That it is long overdue for repeal is obvious by the fact that I believe its continuing effect came as a surprise to those making the most recent appointment, so the speed at which this short and straightforward Bill needs to go through is both understandable and entirely justified.

As we have heard, Lady Elish has already contributed significantly to Scottish national life and is clearly well qualified. On these Benches, we support this important change to ensure that the role of the Lord High Commissioner can function as it needs to and to remove a long-standing prohibition whose time is long past.

17:03

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, I join others in welcoming this Bill and will briefly touch on three connected points: the positive, and fortunately prevailing, attitude towards religious tolerance; that also towards human rights; and, in regard to ecumenism, free thinking and free speech, the significant contributions to each of these made by all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

All of us are delighted that His Majesty the King has appointed Lady Elish Angiolini to be Lord High Commissioner this May at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, that appointment enabled once this Bill has amended the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829.

Nevertheless, while the present Bill deals with this purpose, when she comes to wind up, can the Leader of the House agree that to avoid confusion and give further clarity at least two more related aspects have to be addressed in due course? My noble friend Lord True referred to yet another.

For, to manage conformity with the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974, the reference to the Lord High Chancellor should be removed from the 1829 Act. Equally, to align with the Equality Act 2010 and Article 9.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and other legislation relating to Roman Catholics ought to be carefully re-examined, along with the Jews Relief Act 1858.

Your Lordships will know that the assembly week is of two separate parts. First, chaired by the new Moderator in the Church assembly itself, come relevant Church business discussions; yet they do so alongside transparent and topical debates on issues such as those taken recently on the assisted dying controversy and the current European crisis in Ukraine.

Secondly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has just indicated, at the same time, and away from the General Assembly having opened it, the Lord High Commissioner gives useful encouragement and support by visiting Church and social care projects in Scotland.

We are indeed fortunate to have heard participate in our debate today the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who is a recent Moderator of the Church of Scotland, as we also are to have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, as a previous Lord High Commissioner to its General Assembly.

As standard-bearer for Scotland, it is a great honour and privilege for me to carry the royal banner of Scotland at the opening of the General Assembly every May, and, among the large gathering of those attending, to be able to witness an unequivocal solidarity of good purpose and good will.

Not least does this attitude, and that of the Church of Scotland, also reflect a positive approach towards those of other faiths. For, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has said, the Church of Scotland already works with other churches in Scotland and across the world to form ecumenical partnership bodies, such as ACTS, or Action of Churches Together in Scotland; CEC, the Conference of European Churches; and WCC, the World Council of Churches.

To some extent, this achievement of the Church of Scotland is perhaps mirrored here by the Lords spiritual, mentioned in a moving Committee stage tribute last week by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, who himself has converted to Catholicism. For, in the context of ecumenism, he eloquently explained how and why two otherwise different objectives become consistent with one another instead.

The first is that within a reformed House, yet on their same Bench and under their existing statute, the Lords spiritual would continue to speak for all Christian faiths as they anyway naturally do, rather than just for the Anglican faith.

However, the second is that HOLAC should in any case separately appoint to this House some different faith representatives, to sit here on the same Bench as our existing independent non-political Cross-Bench Peers.

The parallel to that is the way in which Scottish Presbyterianism, while remaining the established form of church government in Scotland, already reaches out to welcome and respect other Christian faiths and their different forms of Christian worship, thereby also embracing free speech, free thinking and free worship: the cornerstones of the European Convention on Human Rights, which we debate tomorrow, in a debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. In commemorating its 75th anniversary, we give thanks for what this convention has done and will continue to do.

For that is not just to heal the wounds of Europe. It is also to provide soft power direction and stability throughout the world.

17:09

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome this Bill and look forward to Lady Elish opening the General Assembly in May. By any measure, this is an overdue Bill. We have just five minutes each to canter through a history that began five centuries ago. It began in the 16th century with the declaration of Scotland as a Protestant nation, and continued into the 17th century, with the passing of the Claim of Right Act, which restricted Catholics’ access to public office; the 18th century, and the Act of Union; the 19th century, and the relief Act that swept away most of the anti-Catholic restrictions, but not this one; and the 20th century, when ugly sectarianism scarred Scotland. Today, we are repealing only this specific anti-Catholic prescription. The narrow scope, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has made clear, is because of the imminence of the General Assembly in May.

Lady Elish will be an outstanding Lord High Commissioner. She is only the fifth woman to hold the role in almost 500 years. Let us hope those odds also improve. As we have heard, the Lord High Commissioner attends the assembly as the monarch’s representative, because the monarch is not head of the Church of Scotland but simply a member. This reflects the core tenet of Presbyterianism, and the broader reformed tradition, that everyone is equal in the sight of God.

I have just three minutes left to raise a trinity of issues: the Churches, Scottish society and the future. First, the Churches: as we have heard, the Lord High Commissioner is a Crown, not a Church, appointment, but as my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has noted, it is right and proper to acknowledge how sectarianism scarred the Kirk and Scottish society, most egregiously in the interwar years.

The journey to ecumenicalism has sometimes been a long one. I grew up in an ecumenical community dedicated to interfaith dialogue, and I recognise the continuing work and witnesses of the Church and faith groups of all kinds. Today’s mainstream churches want nothing to do with sectarianism. In our secular age, church people of whatever denomination invariably have more in common than anything that divides them. Sectarianism has been pushed to the fringes and is now a cultural phenomenon rather than a religious one.

So where does Scottish society stand? In the other place, it was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who piloted this Bill. He, like me, attended a west of Scotland secondary school 40 years ago, but on a different side of the divide. Later, as fellow students, we talked about sectarianism. Therefore, as a daughter of the manse, I learned about Irish music, the bookies and Guinness. These were stories that I did not share with my teetotal granny, who, like Keir Hardie, has signed the pledge at 17 and celebrated Hogmanay with ginger wine.

This enrichment from getting to know other communities and traditions has since accelerated. My children have just completed 12 years in Glasgow schools and witnessed little of the past tensions. As a Glasgow friend pithily summed it up to me last weekend, “Wendy, in our youth there were 50,000 people singing sectarian songs on the terraces; now it’s just 10,000”. The data bears this out. Today, religious hate crimes number 500 a year in Scotland, while race hate crimes hover around a shameful 4,000. Therefore, the best verdict on sectarianism is perhaps, “Down, but not yet out”.

My final word is about the future. This Bill—very belatedly—enshrines tolerance. We should all take pride that last year, Scotland had a Muslim First Minister and the UK had a Hindu Prime Minister. As we look around our world today, we must not only defend but celebrate difference.

There is something else to be proud of: this is a Scottish Bill—an exceptionally rare thing in Westminster these days. The passing of power to Holyrood a quarter of a century ago ended the era where Scottish legislation piled up at the end of a very long Westminster queue. Holyrood, of course, was the stage on which Lady Elish first shone. I wish her godspeed; we look forward to her Sermon on the Mount, and I hope the General Assembly impresses this most able of Lord High Commissioners with its wisdom, kindness and compassion.

17:14

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I rise with a certain nervousness to contribute to this debate. One might assume that, as an Englishman, albeit with Scottish ancestry on my late father’s side linked to an area near Selkirk in the Borders, I would have only a passing interest in this measure. I am neither a Catholic nor a practising Presbyterian, nor a member of the Church of Scotland, although in my teens I was a regular attender at the fellowship of youth at my local Presbyterian church in Newcastle upon Tyne—more linked, I think, to the facilities for table tennis than anything to do with my religious denomination. I happen to live in a village in Yorkshire which was a recusant community and the home for a long time of Guy Fawkes and his family.

None of that is enough to compel me to speak but, in strongly supporting this short but important measure, I would like briefly to draw on my experience as the Government’s Scottish Whip in the House of Commons between 1990 and 1994—an interesting experience, to say the least. Apart from duties entailing the encouragement of some real personalities of whom I had the care, who will today remain nameless, to join me in the same Lobby at least occasionally, I had the important but pleasant duty of entertaining the Moderator of the Church of Scotland soon after appointment each year on their visit to the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament. I was able to provide a suitable pot of English breakfast tea—I do not think there is a Scottish equivalent—in the House of Commons Dining Room and a meeting with the Speaker in his rooms, with perhaps a visit to the chapel to round things off. It was all very congenial.

After a year or two of this, I suddenly had an inspired thought: why not invite the visiting Moderator to offer the Prayers at the commencement of proceedings in the House of Commons on the day he was with us? After all, he was a Christian. I rushed to arrange this with the authorities. Little did I realise that what I was proposing was not only totally unacceptable but apparently an affront to our constitutional and spiritual conventions. If my idea was adopted, what next? Might I even come to suggest that a similar function be performed by a senior Catholic priest on a visit from Rome? I was strongly reprimanded and withdrew what I had thought a seemingly innocent and even helpful proposal. Such a precedent was clearly not welcome here. I refrained from suggesting it again during my remaining term as Scottish Whip. I say all this because it shows how there are still impediments to ecumenism, even in our Parliament. I hope that, when we carry out further reform of this House, we might consider extending the hand of unity in religion a little further than at present.

Back to Scotland: from what I have heard, it seems as though this anomalous situation arising never occurred to anyone before the decision to appoint the new Lord High Commissioner was well advanced. Hence the need for speed in these legislative changes, which need to be in place before the General Assembly meets in May. If true, that seems rather extraordinary. I hope there will now be a re-examination of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and all other legislation relating to religious discrimination which may remain on the statute book to ensure that we do not have to carry out such an exercise again. I am encouraged to know that the Government seem to have agreed to consider this.

In the meantime, I find the monarch’s appointment of the Lord High Commissioner very refreshing. With understanding and diplomacy, it must surely be a very positive and progressive initiative. Of course, there is one remaining area of discrimination. I hardly dare mention it, but what if the monarch or a successor were to adopt the Catholic faith? That would be a totally new and mighty challenge, even to the most reasonable minds in this House.

I wish the new Lord High Commissioner all the very best in her new role. I just hope that she will have enough time to attend matches at both Ibrox and Celtic Park.

17:18

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, in this relatively unusual outburst of ecumenism among Scots. It is also a pleasure to join the chorus of unanimity which has characterised this Bill’s progress here and in the other place. I have often had occasion to chafe against the time restrictions on Back-Bench contributions in your Lordships’ House, but, given my unqualified support for this Bill and the absence of any dissenting voices, I will keep my contribution short. I cannot guarantee, however, that it will not in part be repetitive of other noble Lords’.

This legislation is becomingly simple, and rights an obvious wrong. As we have heard, it amends the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 to allow the sovereign to nominate Lady Elish Angiolini as His Majesty’s High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, much as Section 1 of the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974 opened that office to members of the Roman Catholic faith. It is no surprise that it is His Majesty King Charles’s nomination of Lady Elish that has prompted this important legislation. His commitment to interfaith dialogue and mutual respect between different faiths was a constant animating principle during his time as Prince of Wales, and the Bill before your Lordships’ House today represents a further step towards formal equality.

The Promissory Oaths Act 1871 already removed a bar to people professing the Jewish faith holding the office of Lord High Commissioner. In that context, I refer to the briefing paper of the Law Society of Scotland, which I thank for identifying the remaining elements of the Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 which hold trace elements of religious discrimination that remain part of British law. I commend my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, and the Prime Minister, for their energy in seeking to tackle those remaining matters of discrimination as soon as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, referred to, the sooner that can be done, the better, because, as we all know, legislation holds both a practical and a symbolic value. In this particular context, a Bill which removes these historic anomalies would not just be overwhelmingly welcomed in Scotland by the Roman Catholic community and others but would be a worthy symbol of positive change for a Government who base their whole term of service on changing, and this is one of the many changes which need to be added to their list.

As we have already heard, the appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini exemplifies, and gives expression to, the historic St Margaret declaration of friendship between the Catholic Church and Church of Scotland, signed in 2022. I am pleased to have been reminded by my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that this was during his term of office, and I am not surprised that he was part of the process which caused that to happen. I thank him for his contribution.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

It was not signed during my term of office, but it was worked up during my term of office, and then approved at the General Assembly when I stood down, and signed by my successor.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for that clarification. None the less, I will not withdraw my thanks and congratulations to him.

It is perhaps difficult for anyone who has not lived in Scotland to appreciate just what an extraordinary step that represented, and, still further, what the sovereign’s appointment of an Irish-born Catholic woman as Lord High Commissioner represents. The spirit of ecumenism, amity and fraternity between different Christian denominations is at the heart of this legislation. In his 1995 encyclical on ecumenism, Pope John Paul II pleaded with Catholic leaders to adopt a fraternal attitude to the members of other denominations in the following words:

“We should therefore pray … for the grace to be genuinely self-denying, humble, gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly generosity towards them”.


Whatever one’s view of Catholicism, Christianity or faith in general, it is hard to quarrel with those sentiments. In that spirit, it is perhaps appropriate that the nomination of Lady Elish has taken place so close to the King’s state visit to the Vatican, as he continues to demonstrate his commitment to interfaith dialogue.

It has been said, but bears repeating, that Lady Elish has a record of distinguished public service, and a career that already encompasses several firsts. Noble Lords will recall the opening of Evelyn Waugh’s Decline and Fall, in which he describes

“the sound of English county families baying for broken glass”.

Lady Elish must be used to a similar—though rather more wholesome—sound, given the number of glass ceilings that she has shattered in the course of her distinguished career. As she does so yet again, I wish her well in her new appointment, and give my wholehearted support to the Bill before your Lordships’ House.

17:24

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, while it is not a registrable interest, I am a member of the Church of Scotland, an elder of the Church and, with recent effect, a worship leader. With that background, I value the presence of the Bishops in your Lordships’ House as Lords spiritual; I am not sure that we voice that appreciation often enough. It is good to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in her place: I see her and her spiritual colleagues less as advocates for the Church of England and much more as disciples of Christ and the manifestation of a Christian presence in Parliament, and I welcome that enhancement.

I am not precious about which Christian denomination discharges that role, and that is not intended to be disrespectful to the Church of England. What matters to me is that, across our different Christian denominations, we believe in the word of God as contained in the scriptures and we seek to live out that example. That is the tremendous strength that we have in common and what cements us together. So, as a child growing up in a sectarian Scotland, there was a lot which I found baffling. I heard the playground slights, the derogatory remarks about those from a different Christian background. What I found increasingly incomprehensible was that these two denominations, the Protestant Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church were apparently commanded to do the same thing, to

“love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and … love thy neighbour as thyself”.

Perversely, this was traduced by so-called adherents of both Churches to a crass representation of hatred, intolerance and bigotry.

Let me be clear that the transgressors were not the practitioners within the two denominations but the so-called hangers-on, whose grasp of theology was tenuous, whose bigotry was entrenched and who personified a complete absence of Christian love and forgiveness. People were judged, dismissed as of no value and written off because of their surname, how they spelled their surname or where they went to school. Fortunately, increasing enlightenment and tolerance over decades have brought about much-needed change. I pay tribute to all the Churches in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament, the politicians and the charities that have worked so hard to erase this ugly stain of sectarianism.

My own parish church in Bishopton has a great relationship with our friends in Our Lady of Lourdes, the local Roman Catholic church, and there are many similar examples to be found across Scotland. Playing her part in this transformation with characteristic skill and compassion was Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The historic and memorable visit by Pope Benedict to Scotland in 2010, when he was received by Her Majesty at Holyrood Palace, was a watershed moment. I was privileged to be there and the sense of history being made, of a new age of tolerance, was tangible.

This Bill is the essence of brevity but, in simple terms, removes an unjustifiable inequality. It abolishes an impediment which has existed for 196 years to a person of the Roman Catholic faith becoming, at the choice of the monarch, the Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland. A Christian might be moved to say “Amen: what more is there to add?” As a Member of your Lordships’ House, I say, “A wrong at last righted, and high time too”. I can think of no more appropriate and distinguished incumbent under these new arrangements than Lady Elish Angiolini. To her, I extend my very best wishes and I support the Bill.

17:28

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, it is really heartwarming to hear such unanimity in support of the Bill, and I, like others, welcome it with all my heart. I too am a Catholic Scot of Irish descent. I am also a close and admiring friend of Lady Angiolini and I am delighted that the King has been so insightful about this appointment, because it has initiated this legislative change but is also symbolic in what it is saying about his own values and about the importance of non-discrimination. That is what the Bill stands for: an end to discrimination.

I want to remind people, because it is within my own memory, that the wonderful Lord James Mackay, who was a really fine Lord Chancellor, was forced to resign from the Free Presbyterian Church, to which he and his family had belonged all their lives, because he attended the Catholic funeral of two judges. That he had set foot in a Catholic church was deemed to be an abomination and he decided that he could not remain within the congregation that was making that determination.

It is not that long ago since the very experience of sectarianism affected lives in the most horrible ways. If people married out—and that was on either side—they would basically be abandoned by their families. It was so frowned upon: people did not attend the weddings or marriage ceremonies of people who were daring to marry someone of a different religion.

As a child in a family of four daughters, I remember the fear that we had. I was not baffled like the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie: I was frightened when my mother insisted that we remain indoors on 12 July, when there were going to be “Orange walks”, as they were called. They started at the foot of our road and my mother was frightened that, somehow or other, the violence that often took place might somehow mete out some ghastly experience on one of us. We lived with that, and we lived with the knowledge that members of our family had applied for jobs and, because they had clearly gone to Catholic schools, they had been refused the opportunity.

In fact, when I made my decision that I wanted to be a lawyer—an advocate—I was warned that it would be very unlikely that a Catholic woman would be well received in the faculty of advocates at that time, back in the early 1970s. That was partly behind my choice to come south and study law in England, because I really did not want to face that sort of sectarianism. I am happy to say that it did not live within my own family. Only recently, a number of my nieces have married and chosen—because of the depth of commitment of their partner—to marry inside the Church of Scotland, but with a Catholic priest also giving a blessing. That is an example of people coming together in a very different way from the way that it was when I was a child.

The appointment of Lady Angiolini is a really inspired, symbolic moment. She is an extraordinary and exceptional woman who is incredibly clever. She became the Lord Advocate in Scotland, having been a solicitor. That was not the normal route. She, like me, had not thought it was going to be possible to be an advocate. Yes, one or two Catholic men had become advocates in Scotland, but it was really not a route that seemed open to us. Many routes seemed to be closed; many admissions did not seem to be there for us. So the symbolism of this is very real, and to end sectarianism in Scotland is vitally important.

I welcome, and listened to, my noble friend Lady Alexander with such pleasure. When she described the numbers of hate crimes involving sectarianism, it sounded celebratory, except that it is so accepted in some ways within Scotland that I do not know whether people go to the police to complain about sectarianism.

Finally, one of our Prime Ministers—Tony Blair—became a Catholic once he stepped down from his role. I remember saying to my mother that Tony would go to Mass with his wife and children and describe how he was so active in their local Catholic church. She was shocked and said, “They’ll block him from becoming Prime Minister if people find out”. That was because people believed that we could not be there in those places. So we should be celebrating this piece of legislation.

17:34

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate and to hear so many personal experiences, views and opinions from both sides of the divide and from outside of the divide. It is a historic moment, but is coming way too late.

I first met Elish Angiolini, as she was then, in 2000, when she was procurator fiscal for Grampian and the Highlands and Islands, and was living in my constituency. It was after that that she set up the victim liaison scheme. As a teenager, she had been a witness in a case, and was treated in such a cavalier and dismissive way by all the bigwigs in the establishment that she felt victims needed some kind of support, and so she set up that scheme, which, I understand, continues. She has obviously had a meteoric career—worked for and earned, all the way through—and she was respected by everyone, with very few words of criticism. If there have been any, it is because she has had the honesty to challenge something, as you would expect, because she is a professional.

My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace and others have talked about history, and we referred to the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. I wonder if I might indulge the House with a little more history. Going back to the 17th and 18th centuries, we should remember that, in effect, we had a long-running war of Protestant succession. We had the civil war. We then had James II—James VII of Scotland—trying to turn the country back to Catholicism and being expelled from the country. We then had the Glorious Revolution and the Act of 1689, and William and Mary. That, apparently, secured the Protestant succession—except that in 1715 there was an attempt to do something about it, and another attempt in 1745. Over many years, the attempt to reverse the Reformation—which was later and probably more fundamental in Scotland—generated very hostile attitudes between the Protestants and the Catholics, and laid the foundations for this discrimination.

I found an interesting aspect of history from the aftermath of Culloden, the last war on British soil. A lot of people think that that was a war between the Scots and the English, but it was not; it was a civil war, mostly between Protestants and Catholics, and there were more Scots on the side of the King than there were on the side of the prince. But that is not the way it is remembered and told.

Flora MacDonald helped Bonnie Prince Charlie to escape; she took him “over the sea to Skye”—by the way, it was from Benbecula to Skye, not the other way. It is assumed that she was a young Jacobite, but she was not: she was a Protestant, from South Uist. After Flora MacDonald was arrested, she said that she did it only because she was concerned for his safety and would have done it for anybody. She then married, emigrated to the colonies, to America, and established farms and plantations. Then the revolution happened; she and her husband sided with the King, which is not the obvious action of a young Jacobite, because she was not one. Unfortunately for them, they were on the losing side; the King lost and they were dispossessed of all their properties. Initially, they moved to Nova Scotia, but the compensation was not sufficient to sustain them, so they moved back to Skye, where she spent the rest of her days. The story is instructive to show that this is one of these moments of history which is not fully reported and understood, and definitely not always objectively digested. The point is that that created a legacy which has lasted so long.

I have no doubt that, in 1829, people were not ready for this. It is absolutely the case that we should have been ready for it long before now, but the fact remains that it is only because the King appointed Lady Elish Angiolini that we have this legislation now. I am delighted it is happening and I hope we get it through as quickly as possible. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, and others, that, if there are any other bits and pieces of discrimination against anybody for their religious beliefs that have not been dealt with, we need to deal with them. I hope the Government will find the space and time to do so.

We on these Benches support and welcome the Bill. I agree with everybody who has said that Lady Elish will be a magnificent Lord High Commissioner. She has all the experience, grace, charm and intelligence to make the most of it. It will be a great General Assembly. As it is so historic, it will probably be nearly as memorable as the one that my noble and learned friend was involved in. We are united in this. It should have happened long ago. Let it happen, and let it happen quickly.

17:39

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an absolute pleasure to be part of today’s debate and to listen to the contributions made. It may have been one of the easiest debates I have taken part in, such is the unanimity and warmth around the House. Lady Elish will know from the comments that have been made about her the support she has from across Parliament —it was the same in the other place—in the position that this legislation will enable her to take up.

What I have found so impressive about this debate has been not just how passionate many noble Lords have been about the issue but the way in which the humanity and humour has come through, as well as some history lessons. As a mere Englishwoman, there is a lot that I have to learn. I declare that I am half Scottish.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, said that he hesitated before standing up to contribute. I think that English voices are welcome, as this is something that affects us all. Some of the stories and accounts that we have heard today show just how important, symbolic and valued this legislation is. I am really pleased to hear such strong support for the measures in the Bill, and that we can make progress towards removing a historic, and in many ways shameful, legal barrier.

I will respond to some of the comments that were made in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord True, was the first to make clear his strong support for this measure. He made the point that we should celebrate our unity but respect our differences; the two are not exclusive in any way at all. We have brought this legislation forward because of the practical and immediate effect that it will have, but noble Lords are right that there are a few—not many, now—historic restrictions. We will look into those, and, when I can report back to your Lordships’ House, I will do so. It is right that we do not want to be in this position again.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for declaring his interest. It was very helpful to the House, as was his knowledge of Lady Elish. It was with some relief, as I listened to him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to learn that I had not got it badly wrong, given the experience they have both had. They both spoke of the progress that has been made.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, obviously enjoyed his time in this role. It was a delightful speech—the memory of the fountain will remain with me always. He has explained to Lady Elish what will come and what is to be lost. The trappings of office are short-lived in many ways, but his description of the duties of the office was very helpful to the whole House. The voice of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was welcome in this context, as well.

The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made a strong case for co-operation between religions and across the board, including in your Lordships’ House. He spoke from the Law Society brief about the Lord Chancellor’s role and asked why it was not included here. I reassure him on that point that the Lord Chancellor’s relief Act was made obsolete by the 1974 legislation. I understand the desire to tidy up legislation, but the 1974 legislation had the practical effect of ensuring that there is no bar on Catholics taking on the role of Lord Chancellor. I hope that reassures him on that particular point.

The speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Alexander of Cleveden, Lady Goldie and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, all showed, in powerful and passionate ways, the progress that has been made in society, but also how far we still have to go.

As a child growing up, I was not aware of the same kind of sectarianism as other noble Baronesses. I saw a taste of it as a Northern Ireland Minister and it was quite illuminating for me. My noble friend Lord Browne and I served for a number of years together in the Northern Ireland Office. I remember talking to a group of schoolchildren where the Catholic boys’ school and the Protestant girls’ school had come together. They were doing events together and meeting; it was great. But when I asked the boys whether they would they date a girl from the other school, a couple of the Catholic lads said to me, “Oh no, we couldn’t”. That was some years ago now, but it just showed me how ingrained some of these things are, how hard we have to work and how we should never, ever take progress for granted as we make it but should always to fight to make further progress. I thank all those who spoke on that particular point.

Religious hate crime is something that we can never tolerate, should never try to explain and should always do everything we can to deal with. On religious discrimination, for my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, to have grown up feeling puzzled or frightened is completely unacceptable. We would not want any child to be feeling that way ever again.

I thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws for reminding us about Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I remember hearing him speak about this. This was a man of enormous ability, compassion, humanity and values. I think it was a great sadness to him that in a church that he had been a member of for so long he was no longer able to worship because he, rightly, wanted to show his respect to friends who were Catholics by going to their funeral. It remained a sadness to him. Given his values and his humanity, just think what he would think of this Bill today. I think he would be enormously proud of it.

There is probably little more I can say, because the speeches we have heard today have spoken for themselves. It has been an absolute privilege to engage in this debate. I think the point my noble friend Lord Browne made was that here we have an Irish Catholic woman taking on this role by sheer strength of her abilities and aptitude, and that has been welcomed. My noble friend Lord Browne also made a comment about how the King has opened up to different faiths. It just took me back to the Coronation, where four Members of your Lordship’s House representing four faiths had quite a central role, and what that said about the country we have become and the country we want to be.

It has been a privilege to engage in this debate. We have other stages to go through, but it is an honour for me to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Finance Bill

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Second Reading (and remaining stages)

17:48

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill. I take this opportunity to warmly welcome my noble friend Lady Caine of Kentish Town to your Lordships’ House, and I very much look forward to her maiden speech.

The Bill before your Lordships’ House legislates for tax changes announced in the Budget last October, many of which come into effect this financial year. That was a once-in-a-generation Budget, on a scale commensurate with the challenging inheritance that this Government faced, an inheritance consisting of three distinct crises: a crisis in the public finances, a crisis in our public services and a crisis in the cost of living.

In the public finances, as noble Lords may have heard me say before, this Government inherited a £22 billion black hole—a series of commitments made by the previous Government that they did not fund and did not disclose. The OBR has established that the previous Government concealed £9.5 billion and

“did not provide the OBR with all information available”.

As we now know, during the five months they had left in office, the previous Government continued to amass unfunded commitments that they did not disclose. By the Spring Budget, Treasury records show that these had reached £16.3 billion; by July, they had reached £22 billion.

The Treasury has published a line-by-line breakdown of these unfunded commitments: 260 separate pressures that the previous Government did not fund and did not disclose. The previous Government also failed to budget for costs they knew would materialise, including £11.8 billion to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal and £1.8 billion to compensate victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal.

Of course, this Government inherited not just broken public finances but broken public services, with NHS waiting lists at record levels, children in portakabins as school roofs crumbled and rivers filled with polluted waste. Added to this was a cost of living crisis that had hit working people hard, with inflation peaking at over 11%. This was the reality we inherited. Faced with this reality, any responsible Government would need to act.

That is why this Government took action in the Budget to wipe the slate clean, repair the public services, protect working people and invest in Britain. That included a historic investment of an additional £25.7 billion for the NHS, which is helping to bring down waiting lists more quickly and put an end to over a decade of under- investment and neglect. We took this action in the fairest way possible, by keeping the promise we made to working people in our manifesto not to increase their income tax, national insurance or VAT.

The Government did, however, need to take some very difficult decisions elsewhere in relation to tax—difficult decisions, but the right decisions. We have always been clear that there are costs to responsibility and that the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions will have consequences for businesses and beyond, but the costs of irresponsibility would have been far greater. As a result of the decisions we have taken, we have created a foundation of stability on which we are now taking forward our agenda of growth and reform.

The Bill before your Lordships’ House is wide ranging, and I will speak to the measures within it in three distinct categories: first, the measures the Government have taken to deliver on the specific commitments made in our manifesto; secondly, measures to put the tax system on a fairer and more sustainable footing; and thirdly, measures to improve health outcomes and support the clean energy transition in line with our growth strategy.

On the first of these, our manifesto included a commitment, which is being delivered through this Bill, to remove the outdated concept of domicile status from the tax system and ensure that everyone who is a long-term resident in the UK pays their taxes here. In its place, the Bill introduces a new residence-based regime from April this year. This new regime will be internationally competitive and focused on attracting the best talent and investment into the UK. The new rules mean that anyone who has been tax resident in the UK for more than four years will pay UK tax on their foreign income and gains, as is the case for other UK residents. That is a much simpler and clearer test than exists under the current regime.

The independent Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that these reforms will raise a total of £33.8 billion over the five-year forecast period. This includes £21.1 billion from the previous Government’s reform and £12.7 billion from the further reforms announced at the Budget. This will help to fund vital public services and provide stability in the public finances. Reflecting our continued engagement with stakeholders to ensure the reforms operate as intended, the Chancellor recently announced that we are making elements of these reforms simpler to use and more attractive, while retaining the structures announced at the Budget.

Our manifesto also pledged to

“end the VAT exemption … for private schools to invest in our state schools”.

This Bill delivers on that commitment too. Some 94% of children in this country attend state schools. However, too many children do not get the opportunities they deserve because too often these schools are held back by a lack of investment. That is why we introduced VAT on private school fees from 1 January this year to secure the additional funding needed to improve educational outcomes across the UK. Together with our changes to business rates, this measure will raise around £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30 and just under £500 million in this year alone.

The Government published a tax impact and information note setting out the impacts of this policy at the time of the Budget. The Government’s costings, set out in a detailed costings note, have been certified by the OBR. The evidence to date supports these assessments, and we remain very confident in them. Private schools have continued to open in England. Pupil movements remain in line with expectations. Many private schools are partially or fully absorbing costs, instead of passing on higher fees. More pupils are receiving their first choice of school than they did last year.

A final key manifesto commitment relates to the energy profits levy on oil and gas companies. The Bill before your Lordships’ House fulfils our promise to increase the rate of the levy by three percentage points to 38%. It also extends the levy by one year and removes an investment allowance for the oil and gas industry that was not available to any other sector. While oil and gas will continue to play an important role in the energy mix during the transition, we must drive public and private investment towards cleaner energy.

The money raised from these changes will help finance our clean energy transition, enhance energy security and create new jobs. To support these objectives, the Bill maintains 100% first-year allowances in the energy profits levy regime, along with a targeted decarbonisation allowance to help the sector reduce its emissions.

The Bill also contains a range of measures to make the tax system fairer and more sustainable and to restore stability to the public finances. The Bill takes a balanced approach towards capital gains tax, which is paid by fewer than 1% of adults each year. The higher main rate will increase from 18% to 24%, ensuring that the system remains internationally competitive, with the UK retaining the lowest rate of any European G7 economy. The new headline top rate will also remain lower than it was from 2010 to 2016. We are maintaining business asset disposal relief, with its £1 million lifetime limit, and increasing the rates of capital gains tax applied to this relief and investors’ relief in a phased way to give businesses time to adjust.

On inheritance tax, the Bill will ensure that wealthy estates contribute their fair share by extending the freeze in inheritance tax thresholds by a further two years to 5 April 2030. To support home ownership, the Bill also increases the higher rates of stamp duty land tax, so that those looking to move home or purchase their first property have a greater advantage over second home buyers, landlords and companies purchasing residential property.

Putting the tax system on a fairer and more sustainable footing also requires addressing the tax gap—the difference between the amount of tax that is owed and the amount that is collected. The measures set out by the Chancellor in the Budget last October represent the most ambitious package ever to close the tax gap and ensure that everyone who should be paying their taxes is doing so.

Overall, our package is expected to raise £6.5 billion per year by 2029-30. We will achieve that by investing £1.9 billion in HMRC staff and modernised IT systems, including recruiting an additional 5,000 compliance staff, and we will remove loopholes used to reduce tax liabilities. For example, the Bill introduces capital gains on liquidation of a limited liability partnership, changing the way capital gains are taxed and closing a route used for avoidance.

The third and final set of measures in the Bill seek to reduce health-related harms, support the clean energy transition and fund our vital public services. As our growth strategy makes clear, improving health outcomes is essential for delivering resilient, long-term growth. The Bill renews the tobacco duty escalator at RPI plus 2% and increases duty by a further 10% on hand-rolling tobacco this year. The soft drinks industry levy is being reviewed and uprated to maintain incentives for manufacturers to reduce their sugar contents. Alcohol duty is uprated in line with RPI, except for draught products in pubs, recognising the unique role that pubs have in communities.

To support our net-zero commitments, we are introducing new powers to allow for the introduction of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which will place a carbon price on emissions-intensive goods imported into the UK. We are supporting the take-up of electric vehicles by increasing incentives for zero-emission vehicles in the vehicle excise duty first-year rates.

This Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitments, puts the tax system on a fairer and more sustainable footing, supports the transition to clean energy and improves health outcomes. It is also a Bill to fix the foundations of our economy by repairing the £22 billion black hole in the public finances that we inherited.

The measures contained within the Bill reflect responsible choices. The Government have always been clear that there are costs to this responsibility, but the costs of irresponsibility would have been far greater. As a result of these choices, we have now created a foundation of stability in the public finances on which we will drive forward our agenda of growth and reform. We have set out a clear strategy for achieving our growth mission, but we are not satisfied. That is why we are going further and faster to put Britain on a better path and to deliver for the British people. I beg to move.

18:00

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I start with a note of regret that participants in this vital debate are given an advisory time of only five minutes. As the Official Opposition’s spokesman, I can speak for a little longer, but the time set aside seems inadequate to deal with all stages of such an important Bill—especially on top of consigning the national insurance contributions Bill to the Moses Room. We have distinguished economic and financial experts in this House, and we should make it easier to hear from them in prime time. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town, and to welcoming her to their number.

It seems a long time since the Chancellor delivered her Budget and James Murray, the Exchequer Secretary, introduced the Bill in the other place. At that time, the Chancellor was destroying morale and animal spirits by talking the economy down, and then bashing business with the highest tax burden in the history of our country. Now, growth is flatlining—as we predicted—and the legacy of fragility lives on, with 10-year bond rates currently at 4.6%.

I have some sympathy for the Minister, as it was necessary to deal with the challenges facing the country—not least improving productivity, which is the long-term way to sustainable growth. That also means tackling the public sector, which the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, has shown the determination to do, not least with the abolition of NHS England and the multiple tiers of staffing that he hopes to tackle.

The worst and biggest mistake in the Budget was the hike in national insurance—the jobs tax—especially the lowering of the threshold, not least because it will not deliver the hoped-for savings. The OBR has said that by 2029-30, the annual yield from these NIC increases will be slashed by nearly £10 billion through the job cuts and lower nominal wages these measures will inflict. Moreover, a further £5 billion a year will be needed to compensate public service employers. We will come back to these issues at ping-pong next week.

The second mistake, which will hit entrepreneurs, family businesses and the farming community, is the class-driven raid on IHT—the family farms tax. We look forward to hearing the results of the consultation and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, the new chair of the Economic Affairs Committee, will follow convention and arrange a sub-committee to look at the changes before the details are finalised.

The third mistake is the ideologically driven tax grab on private schools—the education tax. The Bill introduces the first-ever tax on education, and I will major on this because it is provided for in the Bill before us. The Minister has also done so, albeit from a different perspective. Since 1 January 2025, all education, boarding and vocational training provided by private schools in the UK has been subject to VAT at the standard rate of 20%. Alongside this, the Government are removing charitable business rates relief for independent schools in England, meaning they will, for the first time, face the additional burden of local business taxes from April 2025.

To be clear, this is a new, punitive tax on education. Its imposition part-way through the academic year will cause—and has already caused—significant disruption to the education of thousands of children. It harms parents on modest incomes who have worked hard to send their children to the school they believe is best suited to them, and will make independent schools unaffordable for military families, who make the greatest sacrifice by serving in our Armed Forces.

Most of all, the Government’s education taxes will have a disastrous impact on pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, especially on those in independent and state schools who lack education, health and care plans. Over 100,000 children with special needs—many of whom are in independent schools—will be hit. The Government have acknowledged that the policy will have a “disruptive impact” on pupils with SEND, potentially forcing them out of their schools as fees become unaffordable, which will overwhelm the state-funded system and burden local authorities with a surge in EHCP applications.

Ultimately, this tax on education could, according to the Adam Smith Institute, cost the taxpayer £1.6 billion a year if it forces a quarter of pupils into the state sector. This policy is a direct attack on aspiration. It punishes those who have worked hard to succeed and we will only begin to see the real damage at the start of the next academic year. Parents will deprive themselves of much to avoid taking a child out of school during the year, but, in the autumn, hard-pressed parents will in many cases have no choice but to remove their children from private education.

The Government have also broken their manifesto promises with the Budget and the Finance Bill. Their pledge was:

“We will ensure taxes on working people are kept as low as possible”.


Yet, they have increased the tax burden to a historic high of 38.2% by 2029-30.

Rather than creating an environment that promotes investment and growth, the Bill makes our tax system less competitive. It abolishes the remittance basis of taxation for non-domiciled individuals and raises the main rates of capital gains tax—from 10% to 20%, and from 18% to 24%, respectively. It reduces investor relief and increases stamp duty.

These measures do not lay the foundations for the growth we need; they erode the incentives for businesses to invest and create jobs in the UK. We are seeing the consequences. More than 10,000 millionaires left Britain last year, up from 4,200 in 2023. With his growth hat on, can the Minister confirm how the Government will ensure that the UK remains an attractive place to work and invest in? What has happened to the enterprise economy?

The Government made another promise. They said:

“The dream of homeownership is now out of reach for too many young people”,


and vowed to

“support first-time buyers who struggle to save for a large deposit”.

However, once again, the promises have been broken. Millions of young people have now learned that those were empty words.

The Government have confirmed that stamp duty relief for first-time buyers will be slashed this month. This means that first-time buyers purchasing homes worth over £300,000 will pay thousands more in tax under this Budget. Rents will also be pushed higher as a result of this stamp duty hike, as stated by Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. This will further squeeze young people, who are already struggling to make ends meet. It is plainly clear: the Government are not prioritising the future of young people as they should.

The Bill also perpetuates the Government’s flawed energy policy, which fails to prioritise our energy security. It increases the energy profits levy to 38%, bringing the headline rate on oil and gas activities to 78%, and extends that rate for another year, removing investment allowances.

The real-world consequences of this ideological policy are dire. Offshore Energies UK has warned that the change will stifle investment and put 35,000 jobs at risk. If investment falls—the OBR concludes that capital expenditure will be down 26% over the forecast period—the country will become more dependent on imported energy. This will not only compromise the UK’s energy security but expose consumers to price fluctuations, leaving them vulnerable to global supply disruptions.

The Government are relying on the levy to help fund GB Energy and support the transition to clean power. However, if investment in UK oil and gas declines, the revenue generated by the levy will diminish, eroding the very schemes that they claim will create a “green energy superpower”. We should be maximising our homegrown energy, not undermining domestic production.

There are three other points that I hope the Minister may be able to clear up. First, what are the Government’s plans for the digital services tax, particularly in the light of adverse comments from Washington about the future of the tax in any trade deal? I was in favour of the introduction of the tax as a means of reducing the discrimination against physical retail that has been so damaging to our high streets. Any reassurance would be most welcome.

Secondly, the Government acknowledged that the transitional provisions for remittance by non-doms were faulty and helpfully tabled an amendment in the other place, now paragraph 6 of Schedule 9. However, I have been advised by the Chartered Institute of Taxation that this is also defective, so that, for example, individuals who brought money into the UK to buy a house several years ago would now face a big retrospective tax charge. To stop yet further departures from the UK to avoid such perverse effects, could the Minister make a statement that the Government recognise the issue and commit to a further amendment in the next Finance Bill?

Thirdly, and this is important, will the Minister repeat the Chancellor’s commitment that the Government will not extend the freeze of income tax and national insurance contribution thresholds beyond April 2028?

I conclude by reminding the House that the Government inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7, with inflation under control, unemployment halved and the deficit reduced, yet the measures in the Bill do nothing to boost growth or to secure our stable future. The combination of the jobs tax, the family farms tax and the education tax has devastated business confidence, put the future of British farming in jeopardy and is disrupting the education of hundreds of thousands of children. This was a Budget that failed to rebuild the foundations of our nation, as promised. It does not deliver the economic growth that we need. It does quite the opposite. The Government pledged that their prime mission would be to boost economic growth. Instead, they have consistently talked down the British economy and growth has evaporated. Ministers must act in the Spring Statement next week to correct the mistakes they made and put the British economy back on track.

18:12

[Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is a life-memorable moment to be making my maiden speech in the customary way. I owe my sincere thanks to my noble friends Lady Morris and Lord Stevenson, who supported and introduced me to this place, and to my noble friend Lady Smith, the Leader of the House, who has shown me much kindness and, with the Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Kennedy, such warm and welcoming leadership. Warmth and kindness are a signature of the culture here, for which my thanks go also to all my new noble friends on these Benches, as well as noble Lords from the other parties and indeed on the Cross Benches, and to Black Rod, the excellent doorkeepers and all the parliamentary and party staff, who have all been so friendly and supportive as I wander around seeking directions and help. I thank them all so much.

To my background: my father was working-class and my mother middle-class. After the Second World War, they were both recruited into the Foreign Office. Their paths crossed in Bucharest at the start of the Cold War, where they fell in love. I was born in Tokyo. My first schools were in the Jordanian side of Jerusalem just before the Six Day War, then in South Africa at the height of apartheid, followed by other postings around the world. In our family home, the news was always on, newspapers were eagerly read and round the dining table from a very early age we discussed current and foreign affairs, but it was the Foreign Office way that at 10 I was sent to my other home, an English boarding school, and it provided a stark contrast.

I was 13 in 1973, and it was a defining year. It was the time of the three-day week and power cuts. The headmistress, who belonged to another era, had been invited to lunch at our boarding house to raise morale, and I was one of those chosen to sit at her table to learn the art of conversation. Hers covered the evils of the miners’ union and the importance of people knowing their place. Mine was that the miners seemed poorly paid and worked in hard conditions. It was a cue for a frozen silence. I was then told that young women should never pass opinion on politics at the dining table and that if I continued to do so, I would never find a good husband and enjoy a comfortable life. That day I chose which table I wanted to guide my life, and it was the one that taught me to think not just for self but for all, to understand that democracy and equality are hard fought for, precious and should never be taken for granted, and to recognise that politics profoundly matters and that not all politicians are the same.

My sister and I were the first young women in our family to go to university. I chose to study politics at Nottingham—well, half the time. The other half I devoted to creative activities and student politics. I joined the Labour Party in 1982 and have worked all my life in the creative industries supporting skills and education. One role for many years was as a member of the Creative Industries Council chairing the skills and education priority of its industrial strategy.

That brings me to the Finance Bill before us, which enhances audio-visual expenditure credits for UK visual effects works. The UK is home to world-renowned companies, and this will further support them in an increasingly competitive global market. It builds on the benefits of the current tax reliefs, which together have turbocharged these sectors of the creative industries. That trail was first laid by my noble friend Lord Smith of Finsbury when he was Secretary of State for DCMS. A tax relief for film was the key outcome of his 1997 film policy group, which I served on, working with industry and DCMS to establish a voluntary skills levy. Producers recognised that the growth that the tax relief would incentivise required them to take on greater responsibilities for developing the UK’s largely freelance workforce. It is to their credit and that of previous Governments that there are now voluntary skills levies in place across all the enhanced credit areas with high levels of freelancing.

Greater impact could have been achieved through alignment between the statutory apprenticeship levy, those investments and other public investments, but that has yet to be fully realised. The DfE and the Treasury have historically tended to one-size-fits-all policies, modelled on larger companies in traditional sectors, rather than enabling necessary flexibilities better to support the service sectors and small companies that make up the majority of our economy.

The Government’s industrial strategy has prioritised the creative industries as one of eight growth-driving sectors. Education and skills is a key area for government and the industries to work on together. It is encouraging to see that with the establishment of Skills England and announcements around apprenticeships and the levy in the Finance Bill, flexibilities will be enabled to help drive success sectorally and regionally. The development of the sector plan for the creative industries provides opportunities for new actions and investments to help close current shortages and gaps that are hampering their further growth and productivity. They are a powerhouse of our economy, with the potential to contribute even more.

Finally, I am proud that mine is one of 382 female life peerages that have been created since 1958, the year before I was born, when women were allowed into this House on equal terms with men for the first time. It is the greatest honour of my life to serve in this place. I give my lovingest thanks to my very good husband of many years. Yes, indeed, dear listeners, I did manage to find one. I have much to learn here and will strive to honour my party and the memory of my parents by seeking to contribute to the same high levels that I see and hear others achieve. It is a pleasure and privilege to be alongside them all.

18:19

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an honour and a pleasure to follow the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Caine. It must have been a special delight for her to highlight the importance of the creative industries on the day that the Government announced the creation of a national centre for music and dance as part of their plan for change. The changes will ensure that young people across the country will have greater access to high-quality arts education, and wider creative and sporting activities, as well as access to skills in technology and artificial intelligence. My noble friend has been one of the foremost advocates of the importance of creative education, not just for its own sake but for its impact on success in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. It is due in no small degree to her persistence that, today, Britain is enjoying such success in global markets from film and television to computer games and artificial intelligence. My noble friend brings a valuable new ingredient to the proceedings of this House and we look forward to hearing more from her.

The Finance Bill is an important Bill by means of which the Chancellor tackles two essential tasks. The first is clearing up the financial mess left by the irresponsible fiscal policies of the Conservative Government, and the second is laying the foundations for economic growth. The most powerful impact of the Bill on growth is not to be found in individual tax measures, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, erroneously argued. Instead, the most important impact on growth derives from the overall fiscal balance. That is because the level of business investment for domestic markets is predominantly affected by the level of total effective demand. It does not matter nearly so much if interest rates or taxation are high or low; if the product cannot be sold due to a lack of prospective demand, there will be no investment, no matter how low taxes might be.

Moreover, it is the Government’s commitment to maintain effective demand that fuels the upbeat sentiment that stimulates those all-important animal spirits—the positive sentiments that drive commitment to the future. Hence, although it is important that current spending is kept within the Chancellor’s fiscal rules, any cuts in current spending should at least be balanced by increases in investment spending on infrastructure, support for housebuilding, industrial investment policies and defence.

There has been a persistent view in policy circles that investment is somehow an inefficient means of stimulating demand, since investment takes time whereas stimulating consumption has immediate impact. This typically short-termist view could not be further from the truth. The Government’s commitment to public investment is at one and the same time a commitment to long-term demand and commercial profitability, and businesses know that—hence the Chancellor should be congratulated on the fact that, in the face of the dreadful economic inheritance from the Conservative Government, in the Budget she provides a stimulus to effective demand that the OBR estimated at £26 billion. That is the fuel to power the engine of growth.

There is one important area of investment in which tax rates really do matter: namely, where the international allocation of investment is concerned. A fine example of that is the television and film industry. As my noble friend Lady Caine noted in her excellent maiden speech, the Finance Bill enhances the audiovisual expenditure credit for the UK. This seemingly small measure builds on the work begun by Chris Smith—now my noble friend Lord Smith—and Gordon Brown, using fiscal incentives to stimulate investment in film and TV production. Today, as a result of those measures, the UK film and TV production industry is thriving as never before. It is worth around £7 billion a year and it produces a range of highly skilled, well-paid jobs.

The success of that industry is an example of what can be achieved by a carefully targeted industrial policy linked with the necessary investments in education and training. But this successful example of the use of fiscal incentives in the context of a global industry must be used with care and with an awareness of the dangers of increasing the complexity of the tax system. Complexity generates tax avoidance and undermines any sense of fairness in taxation. It diminishes the economic efficiency of the tax system. In the immortal words of 1066 and All That, tax complexity is “A Bad Thing”. Yet attempts to reduce complexity have repeatedly failed. Consider the history of the Office of Tax Simplification—remember that?—established by George Osborne in 2010 and eliminated in the disastrous mini-Budget of 2022. It is gone without trace.

So what are we to do, given the undoubted damage that tax complexity is doing to the growth objective? I propose that we establish a royal commission on taxation, charged with examining the efficiency of our tax system, applying Adam Smith’s principles of taxation and proposing reform. Establishing the commission now will produce the non-partisan proposals that will provide the framework for the radical tax reform that Britain desperately needs and avoid the dangerous trap of piecemeal changes. The major loser would be the thriving tax-avoidance industry.

This Finance Bill is but one step on the long road to rebuilding the British economy while facing severe international headwinds. It clears the fiscal decks for the fundamental reforms to come. It should be welcomed.

18:26

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town, on her eloquent maiden speech. Both she and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, referred to the audiovisual industry, or the film and TV industry, and the noble Baroness was right to explain what a successful part of the United Kingdom this is. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, has been praised, understandably, but I extend some praise to George Osborne. He appeared in the credits of a “Star Wars” film, recognising that he took the opportunity to create tax credits that attracted the franchise back into Pinewood. Indeed, further changes have meant that Warner Bros set up a studio. I am sure that, when we are looking at a good film, we can recognise the contributions of all the parties that have been in Government in making sure that we have this thriving industry.

On thriving industry, it is important to think about how Finance Bills generally are there to attract investment and raise money, as well as to drive change in innovation and behaviour. I welcome that the 100% expensing has been maintained in this Finance Bill, which is a sensible approach.

Clause 56 builds on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. On a recent trip to the London Stock Exchange, organised by the Industry and Parliament Trust, I learned about PISCES. Stamp duty exemption is going to be important to attract investment in young companies, so that we make sure that we grow more businesses in this country, rather than just seeing them acquired abroad.

I welcome Clause 61, about agricultural property relief. Although I am not going to go into the farmers’ tax, because that is for another Bill, I welcome the environmental management agreements exemption that replaces the exemption for habitats in the Finance Act 1997. As Secretary of State for the Environment, I lobbied to try to make sure that landowners did not stop investing in nature because of this, and I am pleased that the Government have brought through the detailed regulations to make that happen.

However, in a number of other clauses, I am trying to understand the psyche of the Government and what they are trying to do to change behaviour. Clause 78 relates to the plastic packaging tax, which is just going up by inflation. The resources and waste strategy, which I principally authored, was intended to make sure that packaging materials had at least 30% recycled plastic and to drive activity towards that.

It would be worth while now to do a review of whether that has had the desired impact. In some of my discussions with food companies during the time of Covid regarding the challenge of the cost of living and what measures could be done there, several of the companies said, “Well, it would make more financial sense for our financial director to just pay the tax rather than make the changes”. To their credit, they kept to it, trying to reduce the use of virgin plastic, but I am concerned, with some of the winds that are happening in the world’s economy, about whether we might see any companies going back. So it would be worth while doing a review in that regard.

On Clause 76, landfill tax reform is a great example, which is cited around the world in environmental conferences, of a change in behaviour that has basically driven a lot of landfill more to recycling. There may be more to do on incineration, but it has been hugely successful. I noted the significant increase—I think it is about 24%—but I believe that is connected to the fact that we have had high inflation for a couple of years.

However, I was concerned about comments made by the Economic Secretary in the other place relating to Clause 79, and this is to do with the soft drinks levy. There is going to be a 27% uplift. Now, this tax initiative did make lots of firms reformulate, which is good for public health and for the prevention of issues later. However, the rationale given by the Minister was simply that, “Oh well, previous Governments hadn’t raised this since 2018”. Part of the issue is that in effect the tax had more or less done its job. I worry about this backdating approach simply because we have not caught up. I am not suggesting that the Government are going to do this, but, if we took the same approach to fuel duty, we would be looking at a 64% increase. So I hope the Minister will rule out any backdating measure.

I am conscious that we have an advisory time limit but I have one final point that has been strongly missing, and it comes back to farmers. Despite the fiscal plan on Labour’s website saying there will be investment in reducing tax avoidance, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, Steve Reed, have encouraged people to properly manage their tax affairs and advocated tax planning to minimise their tax liability. There is one gap, and that is connected to the tax treatment of double cab pick-ups. The original legal case relates to Coca-Cola. I am conscious that a lot of firms—I am particularly thinking of forestry and many rural farmers—are being hit by this. It really is not fair on them, relating to something that they have invested in to do their business. I ask the Government to think again in their next Finance Bill.

18:32

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town, to the House. I believe that her worldwide experience, her business expertise in the creative industry and her steely determination from such a young age will be a real asset to the House and I welcome her here today.

I come at this issue from a slightly different perspective. While there are many points in the Bill that I disagree with, I accept that it will pass. I want to concentrate on what I see as the chance for a few unintended consequences.

As noble Lords are aware, I am a business guy and invest in lots of businesses. I have come across a lot of high net worth non-doms during that time and, for better or worse, a lot of tax advisers. From that, I have learned three main things. First, high net worth non-doms are very mobile; secondly, tax advisers are very risk averse; and, thirdly, tax advisers generally have significant sway over their clients. This leads them to give UK non-doms two bits of advice that I know go against what the Government intend to do. The Minister himself has said they are hoping to attract the best talents from around the world, but I fear this will not be the case.

First, in terms of the changes to the transfer of assets from abroad, the Bill intends that non-doms will be taxed only on future overseas earnings. However, my understanding is that tax advisers are telling non-doms that they think this might be applied retrospectively. I know this is not the intention, but HMRC needs to urgently provide clarity on this, because non-doms are being advised that they should leave, and I know that is not what anyone wants.

Secondly, the temporary reparation facility is a measure designed to give people a reduced rate of 12% to 15% on any assets they transfer into the UK for a period of three years. Again, this clearly seeks to encourage non-doms to bring those assets into the UK, to the wealth and benefit of the country. Unfortunately, again, tax advisers are highlighting the risk that, in future, HMRC or the courts might reclassify this as a tax avoidance scheme. Again, I know that is not the intent here, but unfortunately that is what tax advisers are currently advising and there is a real danger from that that high net worth non-doms will be put off and, again, will decide to leave as a result.

I know that neither of those things is the intention of the Government, so I urge them to urgently put out guidance to spell out that this is not a risk, otherwise—although, as I say, I know this is not the intent—it is likely to happen. I offer these points, hopefully in the spirit of helpfulness, and I hope the Minister will provide the necessary assurances as quickly as possible to make sure that this does not happen.

18:36

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I too congratulate my new noble friend Lady Caine on her excellent speech, which suggests that her husband was lucky to catch her, not the other way round.

The Conservatives have been parroting the preposterous claim that last July they bequeathed our Labour Government a fast-growing, resilient economy, despite their 14 disastrous years in government, seeing abysmally low, slow economic growth; falling productivity; falling real living standards for the first time since the 1950s; UK investment as a share of GDP the lowest in the G7 between 2010 and 2022; key public services savaged by austerity; and a cavalier indifference to rising inequality and to communities collapsed by deindustrialisation.

The shockingly poor performance of the UK economy in the 14 years after the 2008 financial crisis, almost all under the Tories, stands in marked contrast to the success of the 14 years before the global financial crisis, almost all under Labour. Tory austerity was worse than in any of the advanced economies, and over 80% of cuts were to public service budgets, equivalent to £180 billion in today’s terms, which is more than we spend on health and social care in England. It is why NHS waiting lists are so long, why GP appointments are so difficult to get, why our prisons are full to overcrowding and so on.

The Tories’ addiction to public spending cuts was driven by a misplaced faith in neoliberalism, an obsession with cutting the size of the state, reducing the role of government in running the economy or in promoting the common good, relying instead on free market forces and rewarding winners, slashing top rates of income tax on the fortunate few while more than doubling the standard rate of VAT paid by the many.

However, the election of Donald Trump has transformed everything. As well as facing the biggest military threat to peace in Europe since the Cold War—and without, it seems, US backing—we are now in the opening stages of a trade war that could cause a global slide into slump. In the face of huge global security threats and geopolitical turmoil, Germany has dramatically changed its fiscal rules and committed to radically higher defence spending, paid for by increased borrowing along with a €500 billion 10-year fund to boost infrastructure investment. EU leaders have recently pledged €800 billion extra to radically increase military spending by allowing member states to take out loans and increase national debt without incurring the usual penalties under the bloc’s strict fiscal rules.

Our UK Government are rightly also increasing defence spending, albeit financed by a humongous cut in overseas aid. But nobody seriously thinks we can leave it at that, nor that we can cut front-line services such as health, education or policing. We must therefore make sure that extra defence spending delivers faster domestic growth too, so that a bigger GDP funds our other pressing priorities.

The financial markets will have to grasp why today’s new security threats warrant increased defence spending financed by extra borrowing, as all our European partners are doing. Our Labour Government’s duty, together with our partners, is to do whatever it takes to make Britain and Europe safe again. If that means modifying our fiscal rules for these exceptional and exceptionally dangerous times, that is what we have to do. If we had not done something like this in the Second World War, Hitler would have won. Britain rearmed in 1938 by raising defence spending to £400 million, of which £272 million was financed from taxation and £128 million by extra borrowing under the Defence Loans Act 1937.

Extra borrowing for defence purposes only could be made possible by issuing special purpose financial vehicles such as defence bonds up to set limits, as some of our European allies already have in mind. The key will be a steady expansion of defence procurement, not a sudden splurge which could benefit US defence contractors but leave British suppliers out in the cold. I very much hope that the Chancellor will break free from Treasury orthodoxy and do this.

18:41

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I am really pleased to have a chance to make a short contribution to this debate on the Finance Bill and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town, on her most eloquent and enjoyable maiden speech.

I have been the chairman of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee of the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House but we have not been invited to sit this year, which is a polite way of saying that we feel we have been discarded unceremoniously. I am really sorry that we have not been invited to prepare a report on the Finance Bill in the normal way. If we had, one of the areas I would have liked us to look at in depth is the OECD pillar 2 in the Finance Bill. As the Minister will recall, I have raised pillar 1 and pillar 2 a number of times in this House and in fact first raised them in 2013.

We are all pleased to see progress in this Finance Bill in Clause 19 and Schedule 4, building on the work of previous Conservative Administrations. It is disappointing to see that in respect of pillar 1, the digital services tax raised only £678 million in 2023-24. Does the Minister agree that this is too low? As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has mentioned, if the Government are keen to raise revenue, enhancing DST would be supported by many in both Houses, so it would be interesting to know what he might be thinking about that.

However, I accept that we are of course now worried by President Trump’s views on pillars 1 and 2. As the Treasury plans to raise some £2.8 billion from pillar 2, it would be interesting to know what plans the Government have to protect this figure given that Trump has said a list of protective measures will be drawn up by the United States.

I remind the House of my membership of the Chartered Institute of Taxation—one of the dreaded tax advisers that the noble Lord, Lord Markham, spoke about—and I am sure Ministers are aware of its observations on the transitional safe harbour routes. It called the top-up taxes of pillar 2 “complicated and burdensome”, so will there be further clarity on these rules? It would be good to hear that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Markham, mentioned, the changes to tax of people formerly called non-doms have, unfortunately, proven to be a bit of a disaster. The temporary repatriation facility will have no material effect and in 2024, on a net basis, more than 10,000 millionaires left the UK, more than double the 2023 figure. That equates to over 500,000 average taxpayers, as each of them would have paid at least £400,000 in income tax alone last year.

A survey by Oxford Economics estimates that two-thirds of those remaining are thinking of leaving simply due to the tax changes and even the OBR estimates that 15% to 25% of the remaining non-doms may well leave. I cannot believe that the Chancellor’s estimates of raising £13 billion over five years from such people is right; in fact, it has been calculated that it will cost £1 billion, not make £13 billion. Has the Minister had a chance to revise the £13 billion in view of the hard fact that people are leaving the UK in much greater numbers than anticipated? The Minister may now be aware of serious concerns about deficiencies in the legislation regarding so-called double remittances. This needs to be urgently addressed in future Finance Bills.

It seems appropriate to mention national insurance, particularly given PMQs earlier today, where I think the Prime Minister was embarrassed to have to admit that the amendment that we tabled in respect of hospices had not been accepted in this House and has gone to the other place.

I am grateful to the Minister for once again mentioning the £22 billion. He mentioned “line by line”. He mentioned the OBR’s £9 billion, although he did not mention the £13 billion that no one can find. I cannot find one economic commentator who agrees with the Government, and he makes no mention of the underprovisions that always exist every year, which have been ignored by this Government.

Much of the “black hole” has been created by the Government folding to their bosses in the unions and paying public sector wages with no productivity gains, which is a disaster if you want growth as the NHS is included in the growth statistics. Once again, we have to question those claims. Indeed, on statements of economic competence, the last Labour Administration left government with the financial crisis and, of course, left a note apologising that there was no money left in the kitty. Let us not forget that.

So, as a result, private businesses are going to suffer now as resources are sucked out of them unnecessarily. The first few months of the new Government have been a disaster fiscally, with the unfortunate announcement on the winter fuel payment, the virtual riots on the streets by our farmers—normally the backbone of our society—and charities, social care homes and even hospices openly hostile to the Government.

Let us try to create a better environment for fiscal changes. It is clear that the Treasury has persuaded Ministers to apply taxes which previous Chancellors have wisely resisted. I hope they learn from this and chose to consult more widely before the imposition of new taxes.

18:46

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lord, I too welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town, who clearly brings a wealth of experience to the House. It is always somewhat strange debating a Finance Bill at this end. We cannot amend it; we do not have much time to make our contributions, and it is five months after the measures were first announced in the Budget and a week ahead of the spring forecast, which will provide us with our next update on the state of the public finances. In October, the Chancellor assured people that the spring forecast would not be a fiscal event, and I think everyone would appreciate it if the Minister could repeat that commitment today.

Perhaps in that context it is little wonder that these debates can range more widely than the contents of the Bill, but I shall try to reward the Minister’s hard work in preparing for the debate by focusing on four measures that are related to the Bill—one for each of my remaining minutes.

The first is the changes to stamp duty, which were touched on by several noble Lords, where the additional relief for first-time buyers has been removed and an additional surcharge for second homes increased. Stamp duty is a terrible tax economically speaking but I understand the temptation to increase it. It was our Government who first introduced an additional rate for second home owners. However, the IFS has said that the measures in the Budget will result in even more unaffordable rents, which is the opposite of what our housing market needs. Does the Government’s assessment of the impact of the stamp duty changes agree with that of the IFS that it will lead to higher rents?

The second measure I want to touch on are the changes to the energy profits levy. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of these changes on investment and jobs in the industry and have they made any assessment of the impact on consumers from lower production? More broadly, what is the cost in forgone revenue of the decision to grant no further North Sea licences? Have the Government made an assessment of the emissions impact of importing more gas to meet our domestic needs as we transition towards low-carbon power?

The third measure is the welcome extension of agricultural property relief to land management schemes, thereby supporting the success of those schemes, as noted by my noble friend Lady Coffey. Of course, that is against the background of the wider concerns about the impact of restricting APR and BPR, announced in the Budget but legislated for elsewhere.

To really understand the impact of these measures, it is important that we understand how much revenue the change to each relief is expected to generate. I asked the Minister this in January, but I think he misheard the question, so I will ask again in the hope of getting a response. Can the Government provide separate estimates for the revenue generated by the changes to APR and the changes to BPR?

Fourthly and finally, the Finance Bill sets unchanged income tax rates and thresholds in England and Northern Ireland for the 2025-26 financial year. At the time of the Budget, the Chancellor said this:

“Having considered the issue closely, I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people ... I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze … beyond the decisions made by the previous Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/10/24; col. 821.]


Will the Minister repeat the Chancellor’s pledge today? At PMQs, the Prime Minister failed to do so, so perhaps the Minister can do the Prime Minister’s job for him in this debate.

18:51

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Finance Bill, particularly as it is the first such Bill from our new Government. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about the usefulness of the debate; I have found it an ideal opportunity to raise issues. We have the ear of the Minister, who is sitting here and listening to every word we say. In practice, we could raise any issue we like; the breadth of the Finance Bill is such that we are not restricted to narrow topics. The ability to take part in this debate, albeit with a short period, I think is valuable.

The good news is that there is very little in the Bill about pensions, although this is the calm before the storm. We have the pensions Bill coming up and, presumably, in next year’s Finance Bill, there will be inheritance tax on unused pensions—perhaps the Minister could confirm that.

Three clauses in the Bill deal with pensions. The only material change is in Clause 34, which tells us that administrators now have to be resident in the UK. I am a bit surprised that that was not already the case, but can the Minister give us clue as to the ideas that lay behind that decision, because there is very little in the Explanatory Notes?

The main issue I want to raise, in the little time left to me, is the impact on recipients of the state pension of the decision to continue the freeze on income tax personal allowances until 2029, as the previous speaker mentioned. Successive Governments have decided to freeze the personal allowance. It is clearly a good way of surreptitiously increasing the tax burden without touching the standard rate. My main point is that we are storing up a problem for the future with frozen personal allowances, albeit up to 2028-29—I really should not believe rumours, but there are some rumours that maybe that would not be stuck to following the Statement that we expect next week, because it is a way of meeting the fiscal requirements. I ask the Minister: are the Government sticking to the decision to increase personal allowances at the end of the current freeze period?

The problem that I wish to highlight and bring to the attention of the Minister is the impact of frozen personal allowances, albeit up to 2029, coupled with a state pension most of which, for people on low incomes, is covered by the triple lock, so you have the frozen personal allowance and the state pension increasing faster than inflation. Using figures from the OBR, I calculate that the impact will be that by 2027-28 the new state pension will be greater than the personal allowance. I think pensioners should pay tax like everyone else, but the problem is that the state pension is not included within the PAYE system. As soon as the income of people on low incomes who depend mainly on the state pension passes the personal allowance, there will be a big political consequence. There will be no way to collect that tax from many low-income pensioners without sending them a brown envelope saying, “You’ve got to pay some money because you haven’t paid enough”. The political downside of that I urge my noble friend to appreciate.

For example, let us take someone on £15,000 a year: that is hardly a high income, but it is roughly £2,000 more than the personal allowance. They will be liable for 20% tax on £2,000, which is £400. As they are not part of the PAYE system, they will get that demand for £400 in a brown envelope at the beginning of the next fiscal year. That sounds like a political calamity to me, and I hope my noble friend will be seized of the importance of doing something to avoid this problem.

18:56

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, not wholly surprisingly, I will speak to the impact that this Bill, and the Budget which preceded it, will have on investment in sport and physical activity. I regard this as part of the creative industries of which the noble Baroness, Lady Caine, spoke so eloquently in her maiden speech, not least because the creativity part of sport is the original creation of the sport itself.

From my experience as a former Minister for Sport and chair of the British Olympic Association for the London 2012 Games, I warmly welcome confirmation from the Government that an extra £9 million a year will support athletes ahead of the LA Olympic and Paralympic Games. It is an increase of 10% on the current settlement, which now means a total investment of £344 million over the cycle. This is welcome news, but not surprisingly, I do not believe it goes far enough, because some proposals in the Bill could wipe out the benefits I have just mentioned. The first is the decision set out in Clause 47 to apply VAT to the independent schools sector. The cost savings urged by government on independent schools to pay for the heavy tax increases, set out by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, are predicted to have a serious impact on the dual use of their excellent sports facilities by local communities. There is also the loss of sports scholarships and bursaries, which will impact opportunities for talented young people from a wide range of backgrounds.

To demonstrate the scale of this support, I drew the attention of the House yesterday to the 14 athletes on Team GB who came from Millfield School and participated in the Paris Olympics. Thirteen of those 14 came through its means-tested financial support mechanism. Those athletes brought home seven Olympic medals and one Paralympic medal—four gold, three silver and one bronze—yet now, sadly, support of this scale across the independent sector is under threat. At the Paris Olympics in 2024, 33% of Team GB’s medallists attended independent schools, yet just 7% of our pupils go to these schools. This demonstrates again how, through sports bursaries and scholarships, the independent sector has become a cornerstone of the sporting success of which we are so proud and yet is now at risk.

Sadly, the loss of sporting opportunity in the independent sector is not made up by investment in the maintained sector nor in the wider public sector, although Clause 79, referring to the soft drinks industry levy, may help, despite my noble friend Lady Coffey’s strictures. In that context, I ask the Minister to confirm that the increased revenues from the SDIL will, as now, be ring-fenced to fund the PE and sports premium for primary schools. That would be very important, and I would welcome it if the Minister could confirm that when he comes to wind up.

The harsh reality is that we are losing public sector sports and recreation facilities at an alarming rate. This is not a party-political point: 710 local football pitches have been sold since 2010 and ukactive estimates that 400 gyms, pools and leisure centres have already been lost, with a further 2,400 at risk without support. In 2021, Swim England estimated that 1,868 of the 4,336 public pools in England could be forced to close by 2030. State schools continue to sell off their playing fields. As a result, Britain’s prohibitively high levels of childhood obesity are rising and low physical activity levels cost our economy £7.4 billion a year. Surely we can all agree that it is vital we protect the places where local communities can be active.

The top of the sports pyramid continues to do well and is supported by the Budget. Our best continue to perform brilliantly across the world, but the heart and base of the pyramid are fracturing. We have old and out-of-date sports facilities; we have poor participation rates; we face growing levels of obesity. We are becoming a second-tier nation with poor and ageing sports facilities, while failing to support our sport and recreation policies.

I believe that the Government recognise the challenge and, for my part, there should be all-party support for Ministers if it is openly addressed. In the meantime, despite the Bill’s and the Budget’s focus on revitalising the NHS and other public services, there remains a notable absence of the role that sport, recreation and physical activity can play in tackling the nation’s key policy priorities—and that needs to be addressed.

19:01

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town, to the Benches and look forward to her many contributions in this House. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s aims in the Bill and would like to comment on the overall direction of travel, which we see before us, in terms of the Government’s aim of achieving economic growth.

This aim of growth is indeed laudable but the measures anticipated in this Finance Bill, along with measures proposed elsewhere, are not the way to promote it. Rather, the evidence is that raising tax, higher borrowing and increased public spending as a proportion of GDP hinder rather than help growth. Here, we have all three. Higher tax of almost £40 billion each year in this Parliament will take money out of the productive entrepreneurial economy. The increase in capital gains tax, both its higher and lower rates, in the energy profits levy for oil and gas firms—up to 38%—in stamp duty on second homes, and in changes to non-doms come on top of the payroll taxes in the employers’ NICs Bill: £25 billion per annum is levied on businesses by lowering the threshold at which employers start paying NICs and increasing the level to 15%.

The consequences have already been felt. Unemployment went up in the last quarter of 2024 by 213,000 people to reach 4.4%, up from 3.9% the previous year. Entrepreneurs and businesspeople are fleeing the UK with their assets; my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Leigh of Hurley have both referred to this. I echo his question about the taxes forgone and the costs. Have any revisions been made to what this is supposed to yield?

The impact of higher tax on business and individuals has its mirror in the charitable and educational sector, to which noble Lords on this side of the House have already referred. Under the Bill, VAT will be levied on independent schools, including those which educate children with special needs. Early reports have confirmed that they are cutting staff numbers. They are also reducing the number of bursaries and the range of subjects taught. Pay and pensions are being cut, as well as jobs, and I am afraid that school closures have already been announced—we have had nine announced so far this year.

Overall economic growth is now down on expectations. For 2025, we are looking at 0.9% and next year at 1.4%, instead of the rather dismal 1.5%. The state and the public sector are growing, in terms of cost and numbers. The increase in the size of the state has to be paid for by taxing the productive and innovative private sector, and higher borrowing is costing £32 billion a year. At the time of the Budget, the public sector had increased by 28,000 people between July and October. This is the only growth we see from the measures being taken by the Government.

There is another, more sinister side to what this Bill and its policies imply: that the Government have declared war on the private sector; that they want to impose penalties on those who succeed, while referring euphemistically to broad shoulders. The truth is that by penalising the private sector in this way, the Government are penalising the whole economy. Despite its apparent move to the right—I welcome the cuts to quangos such as NHS England—Labour still appears to see the world in terms of class division: employers versus employees and haves versus have-nots, but this is myopic.

The victims of this Bill are the whole of society: the jobless with no job on offer and none in the offing, the employee with pay frozen and the child whose school closes. To judge by this Bill, we are looking at a revolutionary Government. They threaten to devour not just Britain’s wealth but the freedoms of its people and the settled ways in which they have ordered their society, the fruit of their efforts over centuries, paid for by their work, shaped under the laws they have ordained, and for which people from all political sides have come together to enable a state which knew its place.

19:07

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lady Caine of Kentish Town to the House and look forward to hearing more from her.

The key point is that Governments cannot rejuvenate the economy or reduce the welfare bill without increasing the purchasing power of the bottom 50% of the population. Some 16 million people live below the poverty line and their lack of purchasing power has turned many town centres into economic deserts. The Chancellor must improve their purchasing power, but this Bill does not do that.

The Bill continues the Tory freeze of income tax personal allowances. Consequently, more people are trapped into real tax rises. In 2024-25—that is, this year—37.4 million individuals are paying income tax, compared with 30.6 million in 2010. This year, 8.5 million pensioners are paying income tax, compared with 5.69 million in 2010. The erosion of poor households’ disposable income is compounded by continuing the Tory two-child benefit cap and deepened by the removal of winter fuel payments from pensioners below the poverty line.

This Bill misses the chance to reduce taxes on the poorest. This year—that is, 2025—the richest fifth will pay 30% of gross household income in direct taxes, compared with 16% paid by the poorest fifth. The richest fifth will pay only 11% of their disposable income in indirect taxes compared with the poorest fifth, who will pay 27%. Altogether, the poorest will pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes, and that is damaging society. Whatever happened to this thing called progressive taxation?

The Chancellor could have abolished VAT on domestic fuel and cut the standard rate of VAT to help the poorest, but she did not do that. To appease private equity, the Government did not impose the promised 45% tax rate on private equity managers and made late amendments to the Bill. Who hears the cries of the less well off? They too are crying for concessions.

The Bill does little to address tax inequities, and I have time to give just a couple of examples. The Government are continuing with the anti-worker policies: capital gains and dividends are taxed at a lower rate than wages, and recipients of capital gains and dividends do not pay any national insurance, even though they use the social infrastructure. By aligning taxation of dividends and capital gains with wages, the Government could raise billions—some estimates suggest at least £15 billion a year. Can the Minister explain why labour is taxed at a higher rate than the return on investment of wealth?

Accountants, lawyers and private equity managers operate through limited liability partnerships. This enables them to dodge national insurance contributions. Partners of LLPs derive most of their income from one source but are treated as self-employed for national insurance purposes. They pay only class 4 national insurance rates but avoid employers’ national insurance contributions. This perk alone saves the partners around £138,000 for every £1 million of profit shared. Partners of just four big law firms benefit from this gift by around £4 billion a year. Add to this the profits shared by partners of other law, accountancy, architecture, surveying and other firms and one can see that the Government could collect billions simply by attacking this anomaly.

Can the Minister explain why such anomalies have not been eradicated? Is it really fair that our lower-paid workers pay national insurance but some of the richest do not? To remind the Minister, it is easier to eradicate tax anomalies than punish the disabled with benefit cuts. The Government must improve the economic well-being of the bottom 50% of the population or there is a risk that they will be only a one-term Government.

19:12

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I want to reflect for a moment on the impossibility of achieving the economic growth our country needs when the family-owned businesses, which are some of our most innovative, entrepreneurial and successful enterprises, will be hobbled. The changes to business property relief announced in the Budget place a material uncertainty over the future of family-owned enterprises; as a result, the growth ambitions of the Government and our nation will be damaged.

I should declare an interest. I have managed to make a career in a number of family businesses, and, in some way, it is my role to speak for them in this place. I know there is no such thing as unearned income when someone puts the whole of their family’s wealth on the line to provide good jobs and secure careers for those who work alongside them. Family businesses have an eye to the long-term thinking that builds generational wealth in our islands. They spend money locally, and they enjoy the services of local employees for decades. Those sorts of businesses comprise nearly 90% of all firms in our nation. They employ 14 million people—51% of all private sector employment—and represent the spirit of enterprise and aspiration that we see in the trading estates that surround every market town. These are the people who pay their taxes on honest profits.

McKinsey tells us that family businesses

“focus on purpose beyond profits”,

with

“a long-term view and emphasis on reinvesting in the business”,

combined with

“a conservative and cautious stance on finances”.

That resonates with me. My grandfather, an Olympic sprinter, told me that nothing less than running 110 yards to everybody else’s 100 would do in our family business. I have combined his hunger for business with my strong work ethic to stand beside loyal friends who have worked alongside our shareholder families for over 40 years. Nothing has pleased me recently more than the son of one of our long-term employees, Curtis, joining us in business.

Tim Rix, of the Rix Group in Hull and Montrose, tells us in the Times how the chilling effect of the changes in business property relief has already caused him to stop doing deals, trim back on investment and shelve staff growth. I know Tim’s business well; his family has built it up over six generations. It is a shining example of what patient capital can achieve. But he warns that enterprises crafted over generations can be easily dispersed and lost. Labour’s Budget plans carelessly and recklessly place businesses like his in danger.

For a Government apparently fixated on growth since the Chancellor’s damascene conversion at a car factory in Oxford in January, it is odd that they imperil growth in this way. The effect of the BPR plans is to starve businesses of working capital—the lifeblood of next year’s profits and corporation tax receipts—while at the same time put an arbitrary £80,000-a year aspiration cap on profit, because that is the level at which the EBITDA multiplier gets you to a £1 million valuation. It will see diverting cash to less productive uses—unless you are in the life insurance business—and damage incentives to grow and innovate. It amounts to an asset-stripping of that part of the economy with the greatest growth potential.

Most businesses are not rich in cash terms. In my own, we reinvest all our money into growing that business. These plans will result in a pivot away from profit. They will drive new core activities to offset future tax liabilities and the preparation of different succession plans. In many cases, these will involve selling assets, diverting investment, cutting hiring or, terribly, doing something completely different entirely.

It all exposes how Labour fundamentally misunderstands how business works, whether through the effect on VAT in schools hollowing out rural market towns, stifling innovation by restricting APR relief to schemes run by the Government and not by others, and killing off the country pub. At its heart, we see that Labour does not understand the relationship between profit and loss and the balance sheet, and between revenue and capital, and that today’s working capital drives tomorrow’s profits. To Labour it is just money and, “We’ll have that”.

History will show that the plans laid out in the Budget will slowly start to strangle private businesses and instead show a preference for large, debt-fuelled corporations that reshore profit and taxes elsewhere. It is generational investment, long-term thinking and, yes, business property relief, that have helped private business make Britain the world’s sixth-largest economy in GDP terms. BPR is not a loophole, it is a feature. Britain is already poorer as a result of this Budget, but damaging the bedrock of family businesses will impoverish us even further by killing the geese that lay the golden eggs.

19:17

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town. We thoroughly enjoyed her very warm speech. She brings an expertise not only in a key industry but in skills development, and boy, do we need that.

The Finance Bill, in so many ways, feels like old news, but it is relevant and many of its features will go into effect in the next few weeks. We on these Benches approached our response to this Bill with an understanding of the difficult fiscal position Labour inherited from the Tories. Consequently, we have not objected to replacement of the non-dom regime—though we think it could have used much better and proper consultation—and we have accepted the increase in capital gains tax and the rise in the energy profits levy. We would have also closed existing loopholes in the capital gains tax regime and backdated the increase in the energy levy, as outlined in our general election manifesto.

However, we absolutely cannot support a tax on education through the introduction of VAT on independent school fees. Our concerns lie particularly with the thousands and thousands of families with SEN children who do not have an education, health and care plan and who have turned to independent schools because they cannot find available state provision. In some cases, this is because the EHCP assessment process is so long, onerous and costly, but it is also because the hurdle for an EHCP is so high that many children fail to get the early help they need to prevent them falling behind unless they switch to the private sector, and now the VAT costs will further penalise those families.

We are also worried about the impact of the increase in alcohol duty, particularly on the whisky and wine industries and the knock-on to the hospitality sector, which already faces so many stresses and new costs—not least the increase in employers’ NICs. I do not understand the Government’s resistance to at least doing an impact evaluation on this sector and all the many ways in which it has been hit post Budget. The hospitality sector and the high street could be so much helped by a proper reform of business rates; we are dismayed by the delay in that process and call for something much more drastic that would make a fundamental difference—a commercial landowner levy.

I pivot to an issue raised primarily by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, on which I would go farther than he did. Clause 19 and Schedule 4 bring into UK law the undertaxed profits rule, pillar 2 of the OECD’s project to counter the use of artificial arrangements by large multinationals to shift profits away from the country where they should rightly be taxed to a jurisdiction where tax is low or non-existent. This is known as base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, and the biggest culprits, as we all know, are the mega US tech companies. This is a crucial piece of international law which, when implemented, would mean that the UK can charge a top-up tax where BEPS is demonstrated. This would replace the UK’s current 2% digital tax, which, as the noble Lord said, raises the pathetic amount of something like £600 million a year, according to the Treasury.

It shocked me—I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, noticed this, because it slipped by most of us—that on 17 January the PRA and the Treasury announced that they would delay beginning the implementation of this undertaxed profits rule until 2027; it had already been postponed once to 2026. This is even though the anticipated tax revenue is more than £2 billion a year; the noble Lord cited the updated figure of £2.8 billion a year. The reason the Government gave was that:

“This allows … time for greater clarity to emerge about plans for its implementation in the United States”.


Even more significantly, the PRA has paused until further notice its firm data collection exercise, which is a vital step in bringing us to a point where we could support the implementation of this rule. In effect, the PRA and the Treasury might just as well have written that they will close their eyes to tax avoidance by the US mega tech companies because they are afraid to annoy President Trump and Elon Musk. Will the Minister explain to me why—at a time when we are looking at cuts in benefits to disabled people, there is pressure on the public sector in every direction and we have to increase defence—we will make a £2.8 billion annual gift to tax avoiders when these other measures are necessary?

The UK’s economic numbers are not in a happy place, as many have noticed. GDP declined in January and the drop in construction is particularly worrying. The Government seem to be tackling the problem with answers that in some ways are too simplistic, and I do not hear them being challenged much on it. Diverting pension money into illiquid, high-risk investments may sound like an excellent strategy, but it is utterly unconvincing until we get safeguarding for small pots. Not a word has been said on that issue.

Updated public/private partnerships can work to bring in private money, particularly for infra- structure investment, but only under limited and highly controlled circumstances. I had to sit and watch from the board of TfL the last Labour Government enter into a completely insane public/private partnership for the London Underground. It was the flagship PPI arrangement, but predictably collapsed at a cost to the taxpayer and the London fare payer of many billions of pounds. At TfL I was told the loss was £11 billion; the latest reports now estimate it at closer to £20 billion. There are limited circumstances in which this engagement can be used; it has to be done with a very open-eyed and carefully crafted set of rules. I beg the Government not to be naive in the way they were a decade ago.

I accept that the international backdrop of live wars and trade wars would be a challenge to any Government, but in these circumstances we need to know who our real friends are and stand with them. On this theme, I urge the Government not to be naive in dealing with the United States. The UK steel industry is the first UK casualty to the Americans, but it will not be the last. Any trade deal on offer by Trump will be one-sided. If it is not, the Americans will simply renege when it suits them, as they have with Canada and Mexico. That should be a salutary lesson. Getting closer to Europe and into the customs union should be plan A, not plan B or C. That strategy alone would seriously strengthen our hand with the Trump Administration.

19:26

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for listening so carefully to this debate and welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Caine. I was so pleased that she talked about politics at the table; it is a privilege for us that she has joined this House, and we look forward to hearing from her in future.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, pointed out, we are looking at a Bill from a little while back. It went in the oven more than four months ago and comes to us like a slow-roast goose. Just before it went in, the OBR was allowed to have a look and, if noble Lords remember, was rather unkind. Very soon afterwards, public market investors took a look, sold off UK gilts—the 10-year gilt has not come back to the previous level—and said they did not want to see another goose any time soon. We already know what the public markets thought about this Finance Bill at the time. It is a reminder to us, with the perspective of time, of how important fiscal policy is and how impactful a Budget can be for jobs, investment and prices. This Budget will be remembered primarily for allowing, and partly driving, a degree of unemployment through policy. It will be remembered for its impact on jobs, for slowing private sector investment and for allowing a degree of tax migration, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh.

On jobs, the Government like to talk about growth—we all want to—but unemployment among young people is moving up sharply. There are 640,000 unemployed people under 24; that is the age group in which many are in education, but that number is approaching the cohort size of the age group. Their cohort sizes are smaller than ours were when we were young. There are at least 750,000 unemployed people under 28 and the unemployment rate for under-28s is in the mid-teens at the moment. It is going up sharply and has been doing so months ahead of this national insurance change.

The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, always helpfully updates us in these Treasury debates with a little macroeconomic insight and reminds us that there might be public or fiscal demand and a stimulus in the economy. That might be true, but it is not particularly helpful for an unemployed 24 year-old and is not coming through any time soon. It is the Keynesian thing about imagining aggregate demand, the long-term future and what might happen on a macro level. It will not help unemployed young people today. It will not help an unemployed economics graduate, who might be rather disappointed with their status.

Thinking about employment, the only source of new growth is going to be from the private sector. The problem here is that the private sector is going to need the economy to be taxed a little less than it is currently. We have the tax to GDP ratio going through 38% to now 39%. This level of taxation on the economy may be the level where the tax yield can go no higher. We may already be at the limit of yield—not of tax rates or levels, but of the actual yield, the amount of money that the Government can take out of the economy, at this current time. The reason why that is so sensitive is that the tax system is very concentrated. We have 2 million to 3 million people in the country paying the large majority of all taxation—not just of income tax but of all tax—and the concentration is close to being around 2 million people. So migrations out of the country of higher rate taxpayers in the tens of thousands could be very dilutive to our tax base, which is why the comments of my noble friend Lord Leigh about non-doms really matter.

We asked the Minister a few weeks back if the Treasury had numbers on departures of wealthy people, and the reply was that it did not, because HMRC does not collect the data. That is a real shame, because we have had a problem with population forecasting in the UK. One of the reasons why the Government have had to recognise a higher population—another million people who need public services—is that there was an underestimate of the number of people in the UK. Now, we might be misestimating the population because of population movement out. It is very important that the Government have a good grip on this, and I wonder whether the Minister could comment on that.

On non-doms, the focus of the Government’s discussion has been on foreigners and their position in the UK, and my noble friend Lord Leigh asked some good questions about that, in particular whether the yield from non-doms of £13 billion over the next five years will be achieved. It seems most unlikely, but it would be helpful to have an update on that. Much more sensitive, and not commonly talked about, is the movement of doms, of UK taxpayers moving out of the UK. They are not non-doms, they are Brits, and they may also be moving in the tens of thousands. They are not in this same topic, so we need to get a grip of what is happening here.

For example, in the Budget, they moved the inheritance tax rules to a residency basis. The issue with being UK domiciled—which we all are in this Chamber—is that inheritance tax goes with domicile, so that, even if you leave the UK, you would still be subject to inheritance tax. Everything has been moved onto a residency basis, meaning that everybody in this Chamber, and everybody in the UK, who might choose to no longer be resident, would no longer be subject to inheritance tax. It creates a tremendous incentive for certain types of wealthy people to leave the UK. Would the Minister comment on this adjustment, and to what extent the Treasury has looked at what might happen to inheritance tax? As an aside, it is relevant to an issue that came up in the elections Bill a couple of years ago. We extended the franchise out for years and years, but part of the reason for that was that people were still subject to UK taxes. Now, we have brought the tax horizon right in. It is only at about six years, at the non-res limits, when people can leave the country.

Looking at investment and the private sector, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe talked about the importance of investment in the energy sector. The Budget took another look at North Sea oil in the energy profits levy, and the Government’s position seems to be somewhat fluctuating. It would be helpful to get a comment from the Minister on where he thinks this is going. It is a fraught area of public policy and everybody can see that energy policy and dependence, or non-dependence, on oil is a difficult area. Whether or not the levy is useful in increasing taxation from North Sea oil, the shutdown process is now far advanced. That is important, because this Budget may have been the last time when the Government could moderate the shutdown of North Sea oil, in case policy was to change. A future Government, even this Government, might pause before shutting down North Sea oil, which still produces a million barrels a day of crude.

The shutdown is extremely bad news for the public exchequer, so when we accelerate the shutdown, we bring the decommissioning costs much closer. These are in the tens of billions, so it is not just that North Sea oil still employs tens of thousands of people in the country today, it is that decommissioning costs are very real. Perhaps the Minister could comment on expectations of the timetable for the shutdown, and whether decommissioning is coming sooner, or can be mitigated in any way? This is the issue of the full removal of all the oil rigs and the restoration of the seabed.

More broadly, the Finance Bill may have been a missed opportunity to improve the investment incentives into the UK economy. As mentioned by my noble friend Lady Coffey, there is also the importance of whether we could moderate stamp duty and taxes for the trading of small company shares, improve the allocation of DC pension funds into the UK—that is the issue of whether they are obliged to hold only public stocks—and accelerate the Solvency II changeover for insurance companies invested in the UK. I am sure that all of these will be dealt with by the Government in due course, but, to the extent that the Minister can make any comments on allocating or incentivising domestic investment, that would be helpful. It is important at the moment, because investment in the UK is going through a moribund period and some level of government support and encouragement is important.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, made an interesting comment about war bonds. There is another entity that needs investment, which is His Majesty’s Government. We might think, in a benign financing period, that His Majesty’s Government would always be able to raise debt. Other countries incentivise their citizens to hold government stock: Italy and Japan do. We might think creatively—it would be interesting if the Minister could comment on this—about whether we could incentivise British citizens to hold gilts. At the moment, our citizens are holding more than £1 trillion in cash. It is mostly in bank deposits, but also in other forms of savings. It is a meaningful amount of money that could be moved, somewhat, into government stock, and stabilise our own funding needs, which may be very challenged in the future because there is so much issuance coming from the United States and elsewhere. So we should at least think about how we might attract our own savers towards our own Government’s needs. Would the Minister comment on that?

Finally, I will say that the Budget is created within the constraints that the Government set themselves and are well publicised. But, in reality, the Budget comes within a financing envelope that is very constrained for the Government. Their room for manoeuvre is constrained. At the perspective of four months since the Finance Bill came out, now that we have had a little time to see this Budget, we can see that the Government went towards the edge of that envelope, and the economic consequences of going to the edge are, in a sense, all around us.

19:38

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to close this Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and questions. I join others in warmly congratulating my noble friend Lady Caine of Kentish Town on her fascinating maiden speech. My noble friend brings a wealth of experience to your Lordships’ House, particularly in the creative industries that she spoke about with great expertise today. I am very pleased that she chose the table that she did and I very much look forward to working with her, and to her further contributions in debates such as this.

Upon taking office, this Government inherited three distinct crises: a crisis in the public finances; a crisis in our public services; and a crisis in the cost of living. As my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, that included a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, public services at breaking point, with NHS waiting lists at record levels, and working people suffering the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, inflation having reached over 11%. Faced with this reality, any responsible Government would have needed to act. That is why we took action in the Budget to wipe the slate clean, to repair the public services, to protect working people and to invest in Britain. We did so in the fairest way possible by, contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, keeping our promises to working people not to increase their income tax, national insurance or VAT.

However, we needed to take some very difficult decisions elsewhere on tax, including some of those contained in the Bill. They were difficult decisions but they were the right ones, because not acting was simply not an option. As a result of those decisions, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell also said, we have created a foundation of stability on which we are now taking forward our agenda of growth and reform. It is notable that during the many debates on this subject since the Autumn Budget, including today, we have not heard any alternative put forward by the party opposite: no alternative for dealing with the challenges we face or for restoring economic stability, and therefore no plan for driving economic growth. They have shown no humility for the economic damage they inflicted on this country over 14 years, they have come up with no alternative plan and they have provided no apology. It falls to this Government to clean up the mess that we inherited.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Altringham, spoke about economic growth. As my noble friend Lord Hain said, there was, of course, no bigger failure by the previous Government than their failure on growth. The combined effect of their austerity, their disastrous Brexit deal and their Liz Truss mini-Budget was devastating. Had the economy grown by the average of other OECD countries over the past 14 years, it would be more than £150 billion larger today. The OECD’s interim economic outlook, published on Monday, shows that in a changing world, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, observed, increased global headwinds are affecting all G7 economies. Although the UK is forecast to be Europe’s fastest-growing G7 economy over the coming years, second only to the US, the structural problems in our economy run deep. That is why the Government are going further and faster to protect our country, reform our public services and boost growth.

Our strategy consists of three key elements: stability, investment and reform. It recognises that, first and foremost, it is businesses, investors and entrepreneurs that drive growth, as many have said today, alongside a Government who systematically remove the barriers that they face. It includes launching the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War; fundamentally reshaping the British state to deliver for working people and their families; and taking on the blockers to get Britain building again.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, spoke about the changes to employer national insurance contributions, which are being legislated for separately in the national insurance contributions Bill. We have always been clear that there are costs to responsibility, and the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions will have consequences for businesses and beyond. But the consequences of irresponsibility, for the economy and for working people, would have been far greater. We saw that with the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which crashed the economy and saw typical mortgage payments increase by some £300 a month.

The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, asked about the Spring Statement. I am happy to confirm that there will continue to be only one fiscal event a year: the Budget every autumn. She will have to wait, I am afraid, as will my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, until next Wednesday to hear what the Chancellor has to say.

The Bill before your Lordships’ House spans three distinct categories: first, the measures the Government have taken to deliver on the specific commitments made in our manifesto; secondly, measures to put the tax system on a fairer and more sustainable footing; and thirdly, measures to improve health outcomes and support the clean energy transition, in line with our growth strategy.

The Government made a series of commitments in our manifesto that are being delivered through the Bill. They include our commitment to remove the outdated concept of domicile status from the tax system and ensure that everyone who is a long-term resident in the UK pays their taxes here. This was focused on by the noble Lords, Lord Markham, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Altringham. In its place, the Bill introduces a new residence-based regime from April. This new regime will be internationally competitive and focused on attracting the best talent and investment to the UK.

During the passage of the Bill, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the Government tabled a number of minor technical changes and administrative easements to ensure that the new regime works as intended. As part of this, we have made changes to ensure that no tax will be due in any past or future tax year for taxpayers in circumstances where they were previously UK-resident and taxed on the remittance basis; they remitted foreign income or gains during a period of long-term non-residence before 6 April 2025; and they have enjoyed or continue to enjoy the benefits of the remitted foreign income and gains after resuming their UK residence. These changes provide certainty for taxpayers and ensure that no tax will be due in these circumstances. The existing remittance rules will continue to apply in circumstances not covered by this amendment so that, where a non-taxable remittance has been made prior to 6 April 2025, a second remittance of the same income or gains remains taxable.

The noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Leigh of Hurley, asked about the impact of these changes. We are confident that our new regime will remain internationally competitive and focused on attracting the best talent and investment to the UK. Evidence from the previous Government’s reforms to the non-dom regime in 2017 show that the vast majority of former non-doms who became liable for tax on their worldwide income and gains remained UK-resident and continued to contribute to the UK economy. The new regime will also be more competitive for new arrivals over their first four years of UK residence than the current rules. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, asked about the amount raised, which we remain confident of. The OBR has certified that the non-dom reforms the Government are legislating will raise £33.8 billion over the forecast period.

The noble Lord, Lord Markham, raised concerns about changes being made to the transfer of assets abroad rules in relation to the reforms to non-domicile status. The transfer of assets abroad legislation is a wide-ranging anti-avoidance provision aimed at preventing individuals who are UK resident avoiding a tax liability by transferring assets to a person abroad. I reassure the noble Lord that the changes to these rules will not displace the effect of the old remittance basis rules for the years in which they had effect, such that a tax charge will continue to arise only at the point of remittance. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, also raised a concern that the introduction of the temporary repatriation facility—the TRF—could lead to retrospective taxation if the Government choose to change the rates of tax charged in the future. The rates of the TRF charge are set out in the Bill and will be set at 12% for the tax years 2025-26 and 2026-27, and at 15% for 2027-28.

Our manifesto also pledged to

“end the VAT exemption … for private schools to invest in our state schools”.

The Bill delivers on that commitment, as focused on by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Some 94% of children in this country attend state schools; however, too many children do not get the opportunities they deserve because these schools are too often held back by a lack of investment. That is why we introduced VAT on private school fees from 1 January this year, to secure the additional funding needed to improve educational outcomes across the UK. Despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seemed to suggest, the evidence to date supports the assessments we have made and we remain confident in them.

Another key manifesto commitment relates to the energy profits levy on oil and gas companies, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. The Bill fulfils our promise to increase the rate of the levy by three percentage points to 38%. It also extends the levy by one year and removes the 29% investment allowance. Although oil and gas will continue to have a role in the energy mix during the transition, we must drive public and private investment towards cleaner energy. The Government recognise that oil and gas will continue to have an important role. The sector continues to benefit from £84 of tax relief for every £100 of private investment. It will also continue to benefit from a decarbonisation allowance at a similar value of relief as it received prior to the increase in the rate of the energy profits levy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, asked about the impact on jobs and investment as a result of this change. The Government are committed to managing the energy transition in a way that supports jobs in existing and future industries. That is why, beyond the abolition of the investment allowance in the energy profits levy regime, we have not made any additional reductions to the level of tax relief that the sector can claim. We are also taking steps to give the sector and its investors long-term certainty by publishing a consultation looking at how the fiscal regime will respond to oil and gas price spikes after the energy profits levy ends. An impact assessment was also published at the time of the Budget.

The Bill also contains a range of measures to make the tax system fairer and more sustainable and to restore stability to the public finances. The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, spoke about the reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief, which will be legislated for separately. Under the current system, 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to the latest data from HMRC, 40% of agricultural property relief is claimed by just 7% of estates making claims. That amounts to just 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief. It is neither fair nor sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of claimants, given the wider pressure on the public finances. The new system, which will apply from April next year, maintains significant tax reliefs for estates while supporting the public finances in a fair way.

The reliefs sit on top of existing spousal exemptions and nil-rate bands. Therefore, a couple with agricultural or business assets will typically be able to pass on up to £3 million-worth of assets without paying any inheritance tax. I am pleased to say that I did hear the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, clearly on this occasion with her question. The reforms to APR and BPR from April 2026 are expected to raise £520 million in 2029-30. This is a combined policy across the reliefs, rather than separate policies for each relief, so a breakdown of the revenue between them is not available.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about double-cab pick-ups. The change announced at the Autumn Budget 2024 will be implemented in April 2025, and HMRC has put in place extensive transitional arrangements for businesses which purchase, lease or order a double-cab pick-up prior to this. As a result, the charge will not impact the capital allowance’s treatment of anyone who already owns a double-cab pick-up or who purchases one before April 2025. For employers and employees with a benefit-in-kind currently or who purchase, lease or order a DCPU before 6 April 2025, the existing treatment will continue to apply until the earlier of the disposal lease expiry or 5 April 2029. There are alternative vehicles with the same off-road and haulage capabilities that are still treated as goods vehicles, such as single-cab pick-ups.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the digital services tax. The UK’s objective has always been to ensure that all businesses pay their fair amount of UK tax on the value they derive from the UK market. The UK remains committed to removing a digital services tax once the pillar 1 global solution on international tax is in place. The Government are looking forward to working with the new US Administration to understand their concerns regarding the DST and to consider how these can be addressed in a way that preserves the DST’s policy objectives.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about the position of the US Government on pillar 2. The UK and the US continue to enjoy a strong relationship, as the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Washington demonstrated. We recognise that the US Administration have concerns about pillar 2, and the Government are looking forward to engaging with the US to work through these concerns, alongside other members of the inclusive framework.

My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton asked about the rationale for requiring administrators of UK-registered pension schemes to be UK residents. Under existing rules for such schemes, the scheme administrator can be resident in the EEA, which can make enforcement of tax debts from the scheme difficult and costly for HMRC. This requirement will support HMRC’s enforcement activities, as there will be a UK resident for it to engage with.

The third and final set of measures in the Bill seek to reduce health-related harm, support the clean energy transition and fund our vital public services. As our growth strategy makes clear, improving health outcomes is essential for delivering resilient long-term growth. Transitioning to net zero is central to this mission, and that is why the Government are capitalising on new opportunities and investment in clean energy industries right across the UK.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke about the impact of alcohol duty changes on pubs. Alcohol duty rates on non-draft products increased in line with RPI from February this year. However, nearly two-thirds of alcoholic drinks sold in pubs are served on draft. Therefore, instead of uprating these products in line with inflation, the Government are cutting draft duty by 1.7%, which means a penny off a pint in the pub. Overall, this change will reduce the total duty bill for eligible businesses by up to £100 million a year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, spoke about the soft-drinks levy. Based on evidence of the soft-drinks levy’s impact to date, the Government anticipate further product reformulation as a result of this measure, and this is reflected in the OBR-certified costing. This announcement will protect the real-terms value of the SDIL and maintain the incentives for manufacturers to reduce sugar content. This is not a retrospective tax: the new rates will apply only from 1 April. Historic tax rates and treatment will not change.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, spoke powerfully about the importance of school sports and about childhood obesity. As I understand it, revenues from the soft-drinks levy are not formally allocated to any individual spending programmes. However, since the introduction of the SDIL, the Government have helped schools support healthier and more active lifestyles through expanded investment in the PE and sport premium, and this will continue.

This Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto, puts the tax system on a fairer and more sustainable footing, supports the transition to clean energy and improves health outcomes. It is a Bill to fix the foundations of our economy by repairing the £22 billion black hole in the public finances that we inherited. That has involved making difficult but responsible choices to wipe the slate clean, repair public services, protect working people and invest in Britain. These decisions have been taken in the fairest way possible, by keeping our promises to working people not to increase their national insurance, VAT or income tax. As a result of these decisions, we have created a foundation of stability on which we are now taking forward our agenda of growth and reform. Low growth is not our destiny, but growth will not come without a fight. That is exactly why the Government are going further and faster to unlock the full potential of the economy.

Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

19:56

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 February be approved.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, as today is my first time engaging publicly in your Lordships’ House on this hugely important issue, I hope noble Lords will allow me a moment to thank those whose tireless work brought us to this point, especially the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, whose dedication ensured that the legislative framework for delivering compensation was established. I pay tribute to noble Lords across this Chamber who have ensured that the voices of people infected and affected remain at the centre of our debates, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Featherstone, who have been resolute in seeking justice for everyone so tragically impacted by this harrowing scandal.

At the heart of this are countless people whose personal experiences and needs must always drive our actions. We must pay testament to those across the infected blood community, whose tenacious fight for justice has driven this work for so long. I hope that these regulations mark the next substantial step forward in finally getting compensation to those who have fought for so long.

This Government recognise that those impacted by this heartbreaking tragedy understandably have limited trust in the state. The onus is on us to rebuild those relationships and support those impacted as they progress through the next chapter of their journey. This is an area of deep importance for me, and I am personally and deeply driven to make sure that the Government are moving this work forward in the right way.

The infected blood scandal was a profound failure of the state. It is hard to conceive the scale of damage done and the incredible suffering of everyone impacted. The people impacted must remain at the forefront of our minds and we must do everything in our power to rectify this injustice, restore trust in the state and demonstrate that we will not allow for failures such as this to happen again. That is why we are going further than any other Government have gone before. In the Autumn Budget, we set aside £11.8 billion to compensate people who are infected and affected by the infected blood scandal, making it rightly one of the largest compensation schemes in our country’s history.

20:00

The regulations we are debating set out in full the infected blood compensation scheme. The compensation scheme was first established in August last year by regulations approved by this House. The scheme is tariff-based and provides compensation under both a core and a supplementary route. The 2024 regulations provided the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—IBCA—with the power to begin making payments to those who are infected and claiming compensation under the core route. Progress has already been made under these regulations. As of 14 March, 255 people have been invited to start their compensation claim and 40 have accepted their offers, totalling over £44 million. We recognise that there is much more to do, and the Cabinet Office continues to work closely with IBCA to ensure that it works as quickly as possible to deliver compensation to those for whom it is long overdue.

I turn to the regulations we are debating. Since August, we have further developed the details of the scheme. These regulations consolidate the 2024 regulations and extend the scheme to include people who are affected by the scandal. Those affected include the loved ones of people who are infected, defined in these regulations as partners, parents, children, siblings and, in some instances, carers. This is important progress towards making payments to the families of people impacted by the scandal, and I am sure that IBCA will begin making payments to people who are affected by the end of this year.

The regulations also establish the supplementary route for exceptional cases, where compensation under the core route was not considered sufficient. Under the supplementary route, there will be three supplementary awards for people who are infected and one additional supplementary award for people who are affected, should they be eligible. The supplementary awards for infected people include: an additional autonomy award, for cases in which someone was subject to unethical research; a severe health condition award for financial loss and care, for cases in which someone suffered from a specific rare health condition which is likely to result in greater care needs or impact an infected person’s ability to work; and an exceptional loss award for financial loss and care, for cases in which someone can evidence additional financial loss, most likely as a result of being a higher earner or having higher care costs due to their infection.

There is also a supplementary financial loss award for affected people. This will provide compensation where an affected person was financially dependent on an infected person at the time of their death and this dependency has not already been recognised through the core route. The supplementary route has a higher evidential requirement, as people who are claiming will need to demonstrate their circumstances to necessitate a higher compensation payment. The regulations also allow for people to return to the scheme should their condition worsen as a result of their infection, and to claim multiple awards in the devastating circumstances that they are both infected and affected, or affected multiple times over.

Before I move on, I want to acknowledge that these regulations amend a small mathematical error that was present in the 2024 regulations. This was a genuine technical error, but I want to be clear that we know that those already engaging with IBCA may be disheartened by this mistake. I want to take this opportunity to apologise to them directly. Anyone affected by this issue will receive all the compensation that they are due, and resolving this should not cause any delays to the rollout of compensation. The error itself is a result of the mathematical formula used to calculate someone’s financial loss and care award in the 2024 regulations. This means that some people who have been made an offer so far will have been offered slightly less than was intended. This will impact only a relatively small number of people who have received their offer of compensation from IBCA.

The draft 2025 regulations use a different process for calculating the compensation, for the sake of simplicity, and this change in formula had the practical consequence of correcting the mistake from the 2024 regulations prior to it being identified. We have identified a solution that ensures that nobody is negatively impacted. IBCA has reached out to claimants today, to both inform and, crucially, reassure them that no one will be worse off as a result of the change in calculation.

In addition to IBCA ensuring that everyone receives the correct amount of compensation, people who have been impacted will also receive a small additional ex gratia payment. I reassure your Lordships that steps have been taken quickly and the draft 2025 regulations have been reviewed thoroughly to ensure that this error has been properly addressed. Again, I wish to be clear that the Government apologise to those who have been impacted by this error. It is deeply regrettable and has been amended as quickly as possible. Furthermore, I inform Members of the House that a correction has been made to the draft 2025 statutory instrument since it was laid, to amend a minor typographical mistake in the listing.

Nothing can ever undo the decades of injustice, pain and suffering, yet with these regulations we are another step towards providing full and fair compensation to the people impacted by the infected blood scandal, who have already waited far too long for justice. We, as a Government and as a House, will not rest until we see this delivered, and we will work closely with IBCA to ensure that it prioritises providing payments quickly, efficiently and in a way that puts the people it is delivering for at the heart of its work. We want to ensure that compensation is delivered as swiftly and compassionately as possible to everyone who so greatly deserves it.

I am grateful to everybody who is participating tonight so that we can collectively deliver for the people who have been so cruelly impacted by this scandal. I look forward to hearing from all noble Lords about what we can do together to move this forward. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

At end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025 diverge from the proposals set out in the Infected Blood Inquiry Report and the Government’s response; introduce exclusions leading to inconsistent treatment of victims; downgrade some previously agreed awards; disregard expert advisory recommendations by imposing new evidence requirements for certain support scheme payments; and discriminate against carers and those receiving care through the proposed care awards framework.”

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the infected blood individuals and groups, including the Hepatitis C Trust, the Haemophilia Society and Tainted Blood, and many others, both infected and affected, who have been in touch with me about their concerns around the direction of the compensation scheme.

The fact is that four people are dying every week, and over 3,000 have died so far. Only a handful of victims have had full payment, which means that there is still much to do, and, as we will hear, much that is worrying about the direction of the compensation scheme.

Above all, I believe we all stand with the infected and affected victims, and join them in wanting to see Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations delivered. Until all claimants have received what is due, they are being revictimised by this appalling dereliction of duty by the state, for over 50 years and counting.

I thank the Minister and her officials for last week’s meeting with a number of noble Lords about the regulation and for answering queries on the actual implementation of the infected blood compensation scheme. I thank her for her call today to let me know about the error.

There is one person who is not with us tonight, and that is the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who has real personal experience of infected blood. In your Lordships’ House, we miss her voice of experience, as well as her expertise. Given that she cannot come out in the evenings because of her oxygen, I hope that, in future, the officials will consider when we timetable debates such as this, so that she can join us. We echo her frustration with the failure of IBCA to quickly and appropriately compensate eligible people.

I want to make it clear right from the start that I will not call a vote on my regret amendment. There are two reasons for that. First, I do not want to delay the regulation. Too many eligible people are horrified to hear that only one person had received their compensation by the end of 2024 and that only a very few affected people—perhaps also single numbers—will receive their compensation by December 2025. Secondly, many of the issues I want to raise are about the way that the scheme is being operated, both by IBCA and through the Cabinet Office’s involvement.

When I laid the amendment, I talked to some of those affected. I am particularly grateful to them, because they showed me that there were problems with elements of the regulation. Since it was laid, more has come to light about what is happening in the complex and invisible web of arrangements for the infected blood compensation scheme—so much so that I am hearing that any good will and trust that had started to develop last year, as the first regulations were laid, appears to have been trashed again. Indeed, last week, Sir Brian Langstaff took the extremely rare action, as the chair of a public inquiry, of telling the Government that he is so concerned with what he is hearing that he will be issuing an extra report on the speed and details of the implementation of the scheme.

My first question to the Minister is this: what action will the Government be taking to address the concerns of Sir Brian? I recognise that he has not published his comments yet, but we know they are coming and soon. Will she undertake that Parliament should have a proper debate on the problems and issues raised by the infected and affected victims and groups, as well as on the updates that were promised during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act which set up IBCA last year?

Last year, we were told that the second set of regulations would cover principally arrangements just for affected victims, because the regulation laid and commenced last August, while Parliament was in recess, covered only infected victims. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 18th report notes that the Explanatory Memorandum on this second set is much easier to understand than the first—so, thank you officials, that is helpful. However, it takes as read the restate and expand of the first regulations into the ones we are seeing today. In our meeting with the Minister last week, I said that I was not clear about what has changed from that first regulation, and I am very grateful for the paper that was sent through today. However, had we not raised it, I fear that realistic scrutiny of the regulation on such a long SI would have been difficult.

I am very grateful to the Minister for her introduction this evening, especially as she has explained the error in the formula in the first regulation, which has to date resulted in less compensation being paid to around 50 claimants. However, there follows from that the question of whether there are any other hidden elements of restate and expand that have resulted in the wrong amount of compensation being allocated.

In the regret amendment, I set out a handful of different concerns that I have heard directly from infected and affected victims and groups. These are not minor and often diverge from Sir Brian’s interim and final inquiry report, Sir Robert Francis’s report and even some expert group reports. I am particularly grateful to the umbrella group of victims and organisations which passed me a copy of its November 2024 paper sent to IBCA and to the Cabinet Office setting out in full detail—21 pages’ worth— where things are not going right. I understand that this has been sent also to Sir Brian Langstaff and will be part of the evidence on his website.

The group’s concern falls into four areas, and I will broadly follow them with what I am saying, with examples that I am aware of to demonstrate the problem. It says that there are 57 issues still to resolve—and, clearly, I am not going to cover anywhere near a small amount of them. The context and approach of Getting It Right sets out how the IB community feels that both the Cabinet Office and IBCA are assuming that the community is in step with the way things are progressing.

However, when concerns are expressed about divergence from original principles, for example, that makes things not fit for purpose and/or unworkable, or that delays some from accessing compensation, then that is fundamentally not acceptable. For example, during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill last year, Ministers—such as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, sitting very close to me in the House—said that everything would happen at pace for all victims. Only after the Bill became law did it become clear that there are now two classes of victims: infected, because they had the consequence of the first regulation last August, and affected, who definitely feel that they are now not as much of a priority. That has caused consternation.

The unfinished business section of the Getting It Right report has elements, again, that highlight divergence with Sir Brian’s inquiry report and recommendations. The problem is that IBCA is not truly independent. To be frank, it is not even the arm’s-length body as set out in the Act which the previous Government were so keen to set up. Why? It has staff, including senior staff, seconded from the Cabinet Office—surely still a conflict of interest there—as well as staff from HMRC, who are trained specifically never to invite a claim. So, I ask the Minister: why is the community not involved in the drafting of training courses for new staff seconded from elsewhere with other practice? It is vital that IBCA is independent of the Cabinet Office, otherwise it cannot be arm’s-length. Also, as was much discussed during the Victims and Prisoners Bill, it needs to be accountable to Parliament. So, what will the Government do to ensure that IBCA is truly independent of government?

The son of a victim has written to me to say that the draft regulations do not take account of what the expert advisory group says and, worse still, are trying to attach conditions that are specifically not recommended to be attached to those victims already in the special category mechanism, or SCM. Rather, the recommendations explicitly state that new applicants should have to show one of the six so-called rare conditions. Victims already accepted as SCM recipients, as recommended by the expert advisory group, will have their past care and losses calculated automatically on the basis of the enhanced supplementary route, irrespective now of the much narrower so-called six severe health conditions. The problem is that this is not true for everybody.

My Front-Bench portfolio covers all the current inquiries and compensation schemes. Rebecca Hilsenrath, the parliamentary ombudsman, published a blunt report about Windrush that says:

“Our report found people who had applied for compensation were being wrongly denied the money they were owed. We found recurrent reasons for this, suggesting these were not one-off issues but systemic problems”.


She also thought it would be useful to provide lessons for public bodies starting to offer compensation to people affected by the Post Office Horizon and infected blood scandals.

20:15

There are already similar problems with the Post Office Horizon scheme, which your Lordships’ House has debated, including lesser amounts than the tariff offered and much frustration. Now, six months into this scheme, it appears that the same problems are appearing again. Have the Minister and her fellow Cabinet Office Ministers read the ombudsman report on Windrush? If they have, have they used it as a yardstick to measure the progress of the infected blood compensation scheme?

I turn now to some specific examples relating to the text of the regret amendment. There are two issues where claimants have suddenly discovered that they are not being treated despite 30 years of IB scheme development and six years of Sir Brian’s inquiry and report. The first is the tariff discrimination between those infected with HIV and hepatitis. It is correct that the awful consequences of infection with HIV are fully recognised. However, those affected by hepatitis are being treated completely differently. Worse, the Government have adopted retrogressive hepatitis impact assessment measures that concentrate only on the state of the liver. The expert group has therefore ignored considerable detriments caused by extra hepatic harms, including harsh antiviral treatment regimes. The affected individuals excluded from the first regulations have now discovered that they are being treated as what can be described only as second-class claimants, with years before most of them are paid.

The tariff amounts that carers receive should be reconsidered and revised upwards. To deny 25% of compensation to non-family carers because they were not professionals is outrageous. Talk to the parents and non-family carers of these infected children; they were trained way beyond what normal people would do. One of them has written to me to say that there was a carers’ panel at IBCA on 28 January this year. Of the six carers who attended, only one received support payments from the schemes, and it was clear that the majority of carers from the support schemes are having 25% deducted from their proposed care award. It is argued that they cared non-gratuitously and therefore need tax and national insurance deducted. However, despite many carers being short on NI stamps because they cared, the money is not being credited to their national insurance accounts, so family carers are not allowed to claim for loss of income, career damage or personal injury, and are being given 25% less than the minimum wage for being put through hell on earth caring for an infected blood victim. One person says:

“My sister is a professional nurse, and she says she’s never seen anything like the degree of suffering”

that she witnessed their father endure,

“and she also developed PTSD”.

I will end by talking about the confusion about how people will be selected to be invited to claim. In November last year, the communications advisory panel had “how to select people to be invited to claim” as one of its three agenda items. After that, claimants heard nothing further until it gave the order of which groups would be called. There is still nothing about how people will be selected within those groups. This not only is adding to everyone’s stress but raises some really troubling questions because, as one of the victims tells me, the affected claims die with them.

The framework document published by IBCA last week revealed that the “bulk”—its word—of infected people will be paid by 2027. The bulk of affected will have to wait until 2029. This is not “at pace”, which all Ministers said repeatedly last year in the previous Government and in this one. It is totally unacceptable.

To conclude, last summer, the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, said compensation should be paid “whatever it costs”. Despite those encouraging words and his apology on behalf of the country, his outgoing Government did not set aside money, so it is encouraging that the Treasury has now set aside £12 billion. But “whatever it costs” is also about the way assessments are carried out and how claimants are treated, and moving “at pace” must mean a real speeding-up of the process. I started by saying that four people are dying a week. For them, there is no end to this tragedy.

Will the Minister agree to meet those who are interested on this issue and speaking tonight to discuss the detail of the Getting It Right paper, and how this Government will continue to inform victims, as well as Parliament? I beg to move.

[Lord Patten (Con)]

My Lords, I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, and I should begin by saying I agree with all the words of regret in her amendment. It seems clear to me that, in recent responses to public inquiries, delay, obfuscation, the rewriting and scrambling of old regulations and the belated—“Oh, good heavens, we didn’t notice that!”—introduction of new regulations are leading to the most painful experiences. Earlier this month, it was not on infected blood but on people in the Post Office who have suffered terribly by delays. There was a postmistress—forgive me, I do not remember her name—who was lamenting the fact that she had been promised compensation, apologies and then suddenly her husband, who was also a postmaster, died. Earlier in March, she was lamenting that justice had not been done because justice had been delayed.

I know it is not meant to be like that and I do not intend to say that people are malicious, but, when I attended the infected blood inquiry for a bit and, in particular, listened to Sir Brian Langstaff, the chairman, who did such a tip-top job in bringing forward his recommendations, he had a very clear charge sheet for how it was all to be done—but it has not happened. He must regret that very much, and I think that those who are due compensation and an apology must be lamenting. Of course, many of them are quite advanced in years and, as the years pass, people die and, just like with the postmaster husband of the unfortunate postmistress widow to whom I have just referred, with great respect, I fear that we are going to see more people at risk of not getting their compensation or their apology and dying because of these new regulations that have been brought in, I believe unnecessarily. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on what she has done.

I have two requests only. They are pointed requests, but I make no apology for that. The first is to ask the Minister by when—specifically, in which month, in which year—she expects all compensation for the persons infected by blood whom we are talking about to have been completed. If we do not have that, we have no measure of whether these regulations are effective. Equally, could she give me her best estimate, in a letter, perhaps, in her normal courteous way, if she cannot manage it tonight, for understandable reasons, of how long it will take to complete, to the nearest month and the nearest year, for all those carers who also seem to be horribly caught up in this endemic delay, following Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations which are now growing old, as people themselves are growing old?

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, I am so grateful to my noble friend Lady Brinton for bringing this regret amendment. I know that the Government are trying very hard to get the regulations right, but there are so many concerns about a variety of issues, many of which were raised by my noble friend.

I speak to the Government on behalf of my own family. I am sure that, by now, most of your Lordships will know that my nephew, one of my sister’s twin boys and a haemophiliac, having been infected with hepatitis C, died aged 35, leaving his 10 month-old baby daughter. Yesterday, it was 13 years since his death. I speak also, obviously, on behalf of all infected and affected people. We are incredibly worried. I repeat this every time I speak, not because I want to keep on going on about it but to emphasise that this is not just about financial management; this was people’s lives. I saw my sister and her husband devastated. I saw Jake, Nick’s twin, devastated. His daughter will never know him. Everyone who was affected by the infected blood contamination scandal has such terrible stories to tell.

It seemed, after Sir Brian Langstaff had done such an amazing job, that the nation, the previous Government and this Government got it, finally. However, following all the hope that was raised, what is playing out is an exacerbation of the fears around what is happening. As always, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady May, for instigating the inquiry in the first place. It took 35 or 40 years before that happened, and I think that what she did was wonderful.

All those infected and affected will be listening to or reading this debate—because they hang on every word that we say in Parliament—in hope and desperation that some answer to their prayers is coming, after all their suffering. There are, as I said, many concerns, including around the complexity and lack of clarity. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted that the regulations are “overly technical” and lack essential information, including details on application procedures, processing times, payment schedules, assessment criteria and the estimated number of eligible individuals. Those omissions hinder both public understanding and parliamentary scrutiny. That is the regulations themselves. I know the Government are producing a number of things to illustrate how the regulations will work, to make things easier and more accessible, but the regulations themselves are not accessible.

There is massive upset and anxiety about delayed compensation payments. Despite the establishment of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to expedite and manage the process, progress has been beyond slow. As of December 2024—at least on the figures I have, which are slightly different from those of my noble friend Lady Brinton—only 10 out of approximately 4,000 victims had received any compensation. This has led to frustration and anxiety among victims and campaigners, especially considering the urgency due to, as the noble Lord said, the advancing age and health conditions of many of the affected individuals.

There is also concern, as was raised, about the disparities in compensation between hepatitis C victims and HIV victims. Legal experts have raised concerns that the proposed scheme continues to perpetuate these disparities. Specifically, the financial loss component appears to favour HIV patients over HCV patients, despite both groups enduring severe health consequences. This ongoing inequity has been a long-standing issue.

I come now to the burden of proof challenges. The regulations place the onus on applicants to provide evidence of their infection resulting from NHS treatments between 1970 and 1991. Given the passage of time, obviously many medical records have been lost or destroyed, making it difficult for victims or their families to substantiate their claims. This requirement could unjustly exclude eligible individuals from receiving appropriate compensation. I would have thought that, given everyone has a GP, it is not that hard to get confirmation of these things, perhaps without the documents that are officially being required—everyone who has been affected or infected has a medical history.

Administrative delays and additional documentation requirements have led to some victims and their families experiencing unexpected delays due to new documentation demands. For instance, interim compensation payments of £100,000 were expected before Christmas 2024, and they were put on hold for certain bereaved families, pending submission of additional legal documents. These unforeseen requirements have caused further distress among those affected.

20:30

There has been woefully insufficient engagement with victims and campaigners, who feel that the Government have not adequately involved them in the development and implementation of the scheme, which has led to a feeling of marginalisation and distrust towards the authorities overseeing the process. It sends them right back to the years when they came as supplicants to successive Governments, begging them, and were fobbed off with the most obscene excuses.

That leads me on to the composition of IBCA, as was raised. I understand from campaigners that IBCA has a number of Treasury-originating officials in it, which is not what I would consider arm’s length. Addressing these concerns is crucial to ensure that the scheme operates fairly, transparently and efficiently, providing justice and relief to all victims of the infected blood scandal.

I highly recommend that the Minister, all the officials, and all the members of IBCA, if they have not already, read the Getting It Right document produced by various charities, groups and individuals concerned with infected blood compensation, which was published in November 2024. It was compiled by people who really know most about what happened, what is needed and what is currently wrong with the regulations. They should also read the briefing from the Hepatitis C Trust and the Haemophilia Society, titled Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025.

Concerns have been so widespread about the way this is happening that Sir Brian Langstaff, the brilliant chair of the inquiry, has announced that he will reactivate the Infected Blood Inquiry to produce a report examining the timeliness and adequacy of the Government’s report on compensation.

I know that officials and Ministers want to get this right and are trying truly hard, but it is not there yet. Rather than just bludgeon their way through with things that are not adequate, they must listen and take note and make changes according to those who really know. Please listen to the infected and the affected; they are the most knowledgeable. They can guide us to omissions, lack of timeliness or concerns, so that we can correct any errors, eliminate omissions, speed up things and remove roadblocks.

There has been enough suffering and loss, and enough fighting for justice. Do not ignore the messages that my noble friend Lady Brinton and I, and others, have brought to this regret amendment tonight. Do not ignore the charities and campaigners and victims who bring forward the details of what still needs more work. Please make changes.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, sadly, this regret amendment was needed, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on tabling it and on having this debate.

It is regrettable that we have to have the debate at this time of night, because the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, who has been intimately involved in every way with this, has been unable to participate. I met her earlier today to go through things that we might cover in the debate tonight. I knew her first husband and I saw, although second hand, how much he went through, and how much she went through when he died, and how much she has gone through in bereavement.

The new regulations are indeed very difficult and complex. I am most grateful to the Minister for meeting us earlier in the week and sending through the document which tries to explain the regulations in a tabulated form. Having tried to read the regulations, I find them incredibly difficult to work through.

I echo the concern that has already been stated about the difference between the way that those with hepatitis and those with HIV are being treated, because hepatitis C is absolutely devastating. The delays, unfortunately, mean that the confidence that was beginning to be built up after the inquiry is being rapidly eroded.

There was an expectation that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority would be completely independent and judge-led, and would report to government, and yet there is a sense that it is somehow being controlled by the Cabinet Office. That means that those who are both infected victims and affected victims are feeling increasingly let down again.

I am grateful to the Minister for having telephoned us immediately that the error that was made became evident. Errors happen, and it is terribly important that people own up immediately and do what they can to correct them, but it does not mean the delays are acceptable at all.

There was an expectation that there would be two independent panels, one legal and one medical. The expert groups seems to have been appointed rapidly before the iterative process involving those victims had happened at all. There is a real need for transparency over the tariffs, how they have been weighted and how they have been designed.

I would like confirmation on the record from the Minister tonight that everyone subject to unethical research will not be required to produce any further evidence—the places are listed in the report. I seek assurance that no benefits—not PIP nor any other benefit—will be affected adversely by any compensation. There is a real need to rebuild trust as rapidly as possible. Any further delays will carry on eroding that trust.

I am particularly concerned about those who have been severely mentally traumatised by caring for a relative. The regulations refer, under the heading “Severe psychiatric conditions”, to a person who has received

“consultant-led secondary mental health treatment for a period of at least 6 months, or … assessment or treatment as an inpatient”.

I really worry that that might be very difficult for some people if they had been cared for by an extremely good general practitioner in the community who has had enhanced training. I worry that, somehow, because they have been managed in the community and have not pushed for admission—or their family has not—they will inadvertently be excluded from compensation, without going back to those records to see the level of competence of the doctor who was looking after them at the time. I am sure that there will be other aspects in these regulations that one could find, but that was one that leapt out at me.

There is a whole section on the offsetting of awards, which I really could not understand—I tried to read it three times.

We must be grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has looked at the report and drawn it to the attention of the House. Although the committee has commented that a wide range of evidence will be acceptable, there is a real difficulty when unremunerated care has been provided by a family member or friend to an infected person. How can they prove what they were doing and how much care they were providing? The other difficulty is that there will be some people who die during the process of compensation being awarded. Clarity over how that will be handled will be very important.

My last question for the Minister is: how will IBCA decide which individuals to invite to claim first from their particular group? How will that be rolled out and, again, how will those processes be transparent? Those who have not been called are left hanging in limbo.

I am grateful to the Minister for the effort she has put in to communicate with us over this. This is such a terrible situation that has been ongoing. The only way to manage it now is to try to speed up processes, with transparency and involving those who have been affected so they can really understand what is happening. We should not do it behind closed doors.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, there are moments in history when the machinery of the state fails its people so gravely that it leaves scars on the national conscience. The infected blood scandal is one such moment: a tragedy measured not only in lives lost but in decades of suffering, neglect and injustice.

In 2017, my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead recognised this failure and announced a full statutory inquiry. I pay particular tribute to the tireless work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, Lady Featherstone, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay.

It was a watershed moment and an acknowledgement, at last, that the victims of this scandal had been failed by the very institutions meant to protect them, and from that moment there was consensus across all parties that justice must be done and that compensation must be fair, comprehensive and delivered without delay.

That is why, when the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, came to office, she made clear that the Government would get on with it. As she wrote, while shadow Chancellor, in her letter to Jeremy Hunt in December 2023:

“For the victims, time matters. It is estimated that every four days someone affected by infected blood dies”.


She also noted:

“This is not a party political issue. All of us have a responsibility to act now to address this historic wrong. That includes working together on a cross-party basis”.


That spirit of cross-party consensus was evident in the final months of the last Government. John Glen worked closely with Nick Thomas-Symonds, as did my noble friend Lord Howe with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to ensure agreement on the key elements of the compensation framework. It was a moment of unity, a recognition that justice must be shaped not by political considerations but by the needs of those who have suffered.

I greatly appreciate the engagement of the Minister, to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay, have referred. We all share that commitment: the commitment that those affected must finally receive the justice, recognition and compensation they deserve.

The final report of the Infected Blood Inquiry, so ably chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, was eventually published on 20 May 2024, and the Government committed to compensate victims in line with the report’s recommendations. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority, IBCA, led by Sir Robert Francis, was set up as an arm’s-length body to administer the compensation scheme. Clear understandings were reached at that time between both Government and Opposition Benches, both in this House and in the other place, that Sir Brian’s recommendations would be implemented in full.

There is much to welcome in the Government’s commitment to £11.8 billion in funding, and in its acceptance that compensation must be delivered without further delay. However, it is with considerable regret that the Government have placed these draft regulations before the House. Victims’ groups and campaigners, including the Haemophilia Society, the Hepatitis C Trust and many others, have raised concerns that key elements of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations have not been fully implemented. As the regret amendment from by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, sets out, the object and effect of these regulations appear to be to alter substantially the scope of victims’ eligibility for compensation, the evidential burdens they are expected to satisfy to avail themselves of compensation, and the quantum of compensation to be awarded to some of those victims who are within scope.

We must therefore ask whether these regulations are delivering the fair and comprehensive scheme that the inquiry envisioned. Do they uphold the proposals set out in the infected blood inquiry report and the Government’s response or do they instead introduce exclusions that lead to inconsistent treatment of victims, downgrade previously agreed awards, disregard expert advisory recommendations by imposing new evidence requirements for certain support scheme payments and discriminate against carers and those receiving care through the proposed care awards framework?

20:45

This is not a policy area I have worked on previously, but I have met campaigners who have raised their concerns with me. They have raised concerns that the IBCA lacks sufficient independence from government and the discretion to consider atypical personal or health impacts, such as infertility. They are uncertain about how claims will be assessed, particularly for those whose suffering does not fit neatly into predefined categories. Some have also questioned the transparency of the process by which medical conditions were recognised under the supplementary route. Others argue that the burden of proof for psychological impact claims is too high and that the long-term effects of interferon treatment are not adequately reflected in compensation sums.

Meanwhile, there are worries that changes to the severe health criteria could lead to individuals previously accepted under the special category mechanism being denied support and that partners of those registered on support schemes will lose 75% of their partner’s payments if bereaved after 31 March 2025. These concerns deserve answers. If the Government believe that these fears are unfounded, can the Minister offer reassurance? If not, will the Government commit to working with campaigners and experts to ensure that these regulations are fit for purpose?

There is also the issue of transparency. The Government have committed £11.8 billion to the scheme. Can the Minister tell the House whether this is still the Government’s best estimate of the costs associated with the compensation scheme? Have the Government published a “should cost” model? Will they update the House on what that model said and, given the uncertainties about the number of future claimants, will the Government share their calculations with the OBR?

Finally, while we welcome the fact that the IBCA has begun making payments to infected individuals, the Government’s update of 12 February 2025 acknowledges that payments to affected individuals will not begin until later this year. Can the Minister confirm the precise date when these payments will commence and, as my noble friend Lord Patten highlighted, when they will be complete?

I am aware that last week the infected blood inquiry set out its intention to publish an additional report. This is a moment for unity in the face of one of the gravest failures of the British state. The infected blood scandal demands not just words of sympathy but a compensation scheme that truly delivers justice. We owe the victims and their families nothing less.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As with previous debates on infected blood, this has been a thoughtful, important and, I hope, constructive debate, with noble Lords ensuring that the voice of people infected and affected remains at the centre of all we do.

I am committed to carrying forward this work swiftly and compassionately. I will work with Members across the House to ensure that I can achieve that, to help build back trust with the infected blood community, who have felt overlooked and disregarded for many years. On a personal level, that is my starting point and I will do everything I can. The onus is on us to do that, not on them. Noble Lords have raised many points that demonstrate the importance of getting this right, and I am grateful to those who attended our recent meeting to provide some clarity on some of these difficult and detailed issues. I will revert to some of the points raised momentarily.

Compensation must be not only fair and comprehensive but simple enough to deliver quickly without diminishing the individual harm that each person has faced. This is not a straightforward task. The recommendations of the infected blood inquiry, Sir Robert Francis, and the advice of the infected blood inquiry response expert group have been critical to reaching this point. There is no amount of financial compensation that can make up for the pain and suffering that victims of this scandal have faced, and the Government recognise that. We must now focus on supporting the IBCA to provide compensation as swiftly and as compassionately as possible, and I hope these regulations will help to do that.

I turn to the points raised by noble Lords. I start by apologising that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, is not with us today. She is much missed. Her voice is powerful on all issues related to infected blood and many other issues related to disability. I will ensure that the appropriate authorities reflect on the issue that stopped her attending today. As noble Lords who have raised it will be aware, I spoke to her today and I have committed to meet her personally to move forward.

I must ask noble Lords to bear with me because lots of questions were raised. If I do not answer them all, I will reflect on Hansard and write accordingly. I want to get as much on the record as possible, because I am aware that members of the infected blood community do not live and breathe what happens in our Library but will be watching here tonight, so I will endeavour to answer as many questions as possible.

I will start with the Getting It Right document that has been highlighted this evening. I am aware that a number of key representatives wrote to the Minister for the Cabinet Office last year; I have read the paperwork. I want to reassure noble Lords that this paperwork was received by the Cabinet Office on 19 November and on 20 December the Minister for the Cabinet Office responded fully. I made sure that the Paymaster-General was happy for us to share his detailed response, and I will write to noble Lords in due course with what has been outlined for each of the issues that they have raised. With regards to the request from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to meet all Members present to discuss that in detail, I am more than happy to facilitate that meeting in the coming days.

Many noble Lords raised the announcement made last week that the infected blood inquiry would remain open. For everybody who attended and watched the incredibly painful testimony that was given, the fact that the infected blood inquiry and the work of Sir Brian Langstaff continue is something that I personally welcome. As difficult as this is, it is incredibly important. As was seen in the response he received on 20 May, he is a figure genuinely trusted by those who participate, and his ongoing involvement can be only a force for good. We acknowledge that the infected blood inquiry intends to produce a further report. We are committed to co-operating fully with the inquiry and acting on its recommendations. We remain determined to deliver justice for the victims of the infected blood scandal.

With regard to IBCA independence, which was raised by several noble Lords, not least by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Featherstone and Lady Finlay, I want to reassure noble Lords that IBCA is an operationally independent arm’s-length body established by noble Lords during the passage of the Victim and Prisoners Bill. On 10 March, the framework document for IBCA was published. The document provides clarity between the role of the Cabinet Office as sponsor department and of IBCA as an independent arm’s-length body. IBCA has operational independence from the Government, with its role being to deliver the compensation scheme to the victims of this scandal. The Cabinet Office’s involvement in the development of IBCA is necessary as the Government had stewardship over the money allocated for the scheme.

As for government officials being seconded, IBCA has begun operations staffed by civil servants so that we could create it as quickly as possible, but with a clear intent that staff will be employed directly by IBCA as soon as possible. Noble Lords will appreciate that there are HR policies and systems which must be in place before IBCA is able directly to employ people. We were determined this should not slow down the delivery of compensation. IBCA is clear about its independence, which is why I can give an update on its figures, but I cannot speak for IBCA—I find myself in a very strange position this evening, given some of the questions raised. I will come back to the question from the noble Baroness about training; I will give an answer later in my response.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay, raised the issue of hepatitis C and HIV severity bands. On the tariff rates for hepatitis C, the impact of hepatitis infection can range from very mild to very severe, including liver failure and death. The expert group provided the Government with clinical advice on the distinctions between these impacts. This meant that we could set severity bands for hepatitis infections based on clear clinical markers. This means that where someone’s experience of hepatitis has been more severe, whether it is historic or in the present day, they receive more compensation.

The expert group recommended using a single severity band for those infected with HIV. Very sadly, most people infected with HIV due to infected blood have already passed away, and in most cases those deaths were as a result of their infection. Those who have survived will continue to be severely impacted by their infection. It was the view of the expert group that it would be disproportionately complex to break down the HIV category into different bands.

I turn to the estate claims for care awards, which several noble Lords raised, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am so sorry; the fact that I have a cold this evening, given that we are talking about something so serious, is far from ideal. I am genuinely sorry. There is nothing I can do about it. Where a person who would have been eligible to apply for the scheme as an infected person has died, the personal representative of the deceased person’s estate may apply for compensation on their behalf. Any decision on the provision of compensation would be for the beneficiary of the estate.

The care award is one of the five awards that an infected person is eligible for. It provides compensation to recognise the cost of care that a person may have required as a result of their infection. The award is provided only to people making a claim as an infected person or to their estate. The infected person can take a decision on whether the award should be passed on to an affected person. An executor of a deceased infected person’s estate will be responsible for administering the estate as per the wishes of the infected person. That is in line with the advice from the expert group.

Where a parent provided care for a child in their early years, and the child passed in adulthood and left their estate to a spouse or their own children when they sadly died, it would be for the beneficiary of the estate to make a decision on how the care award was allocated. This reflects the principle that it would not be right for the Government or IBCA to intervene or overrule the will of the person who has passed. However, in this example, under these regulations, a parent would also be able to claim compensation in their own right as an affected person.

With regard to the order of IBCA invitations, as was highlighted by the SLSC report, every single person entitled to compensation is unique, with their own set of experiences. I know that people have waited too long already, and IBCA wants to ensure that its service will work for everyone as it designs and builds it. Given the scale and complexity of this national tragedy, it does not currently have a mechanism to prioritise individual claims based on personal circumstances, but that is something it is seeking to develop.

On the question about the bulk of payments to infected people by the end of 2027 and by the end of 2029, I have an answer for both the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Patten. The statutory instrument outlines an option for those people who are newly diagnosed. They will have six years to claim, so I cannot give your Lordships a date when that will close; it will have to remain open as we are seeing secondary infections and intergenerational infections, while, heartbreakingly, some people have contracted hepatitis C in the last 30 or 40 years but they are only being diagnosed now because their symptoms are coming to an end. So I cannot give a date for the closure of the scheme.

I will come on to the question of communications. The language is very difficult when we are talking about such an emotive and personal issue, and about people’s lives. We expect the overwhelming majority— I agree; I do not like the word “bulk”—of these cases to be met within the timeframes outlined, but the scheme will remain open for the foreseeable. The framework document set out the timelines agreed between IBCA and the Cabinet Office: the “bulk” of infected people are to be paid by the end of 2027, and I am going to say the “overwhelming majority” of affected people are to be paid by the end of 2029. In its recent newsletter to members of the infected blood community, IBCA set out its aim to have made the majority of payments far ahead of those dates.

Several noble Lords touched on some of the challenges that other compensation schemes have had with rollout. To ensure that it has not been overwhelmed with applications and to make sure we get this right, IBCA is adopting a “test and learn” approach. That is why the numbers have been smaller, but we expect them to grow quickly in the coming months.

The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, highlighted the fact that the numbers are for ever moving and mentioned the updated numbers and the disparity. The most recent numbers I have of people who have engaged with IBCA are that as of Friday 14 March, last week, 255 people have been invited to start their compensation claim, 214 have started the claim process, 63 offers of compensation have been made, totalling over £73 million, and 40 people have accepted their offers, with over £44 million paid in compensation. This means that IBCA has met its aim of inviting 250 people to begin a claim by March—that was the agreed number—and making sure that the process is working.

21:00

I want to touch on communication about the scheme, which was an underlying theme of several contributions. The Government recognise that there is a significant amount of information on the scheme, which can be challenging for people to understand, and I have had many conversations about this in recent days. In addition to the technical wording we have had to put in the SI, there are the Explanatory Memorandum and everything associated with this scheme. It is clear that this is very challenging for everybody to work their way through.

For this reason, in addition to the materials published on GOV.UK this month, the Government will publish a simplified explainer document that we hope will help people understand the details of this policy and what it means for them. On Monday, IBCA also published a compensation calculator for the infected core award. This will be extended to include the supplementary award and compensation for affected people soon after this is published. I hope this will be a useful tool for people to better understand the compensation available to them under the scheme. It is clear that the comms need to be so much more accessible, and I am reassured that IBCA recognises this and is seeking to remedy it. I take on board noble Lords’ feedback about the challenge of analysing these regulations as well.

As requested by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I want to assure noble Lords for the record that eligibility for personal independence payments will not be affected where an applicant is eligible for compensation from IBCA. Personal independence payments are not means tested and therefore not impacted by an individual’s income or savings. Compensation payments made through the scheme will not adversely impact any benefits received by applicants, infected or affected.

There were lots of questions with regard to the unethical research award and the scope, and I hope noble Lords will indulge my time slightly. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was absolutely right to raise this issue. The unethical research award was developed following a recommendation from Sir Robert Francis’s engagement exercise with the infected blood community in June last year. The Government accepted the recommendation in August and have developed the exact scope of this award since that point.

In December last year, the Government engaged with key representatives and organisations in the community on the eligibility criteria for the award, and we are grateful to each stakeholder who provided submissions and feedback. The Government carefully considered all the evidence provided and, as a result, extended the list of eligible centres now named in the regulations. The eligibility criteria for unethical research awards requires someone to show only that they were treated at one of the listed haemophilia centres—so they were a participant in one of Dr Craske’s studies or attended Lord Mayor Treloar College within a specific date range. We hope this means that everyone who should be able to claim this award can do so without needing to track down detailed evidence that in some cases, this number of years on, will be very difficult to find.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked about payments to affected people. Payments will begin this year, enabled by these regulations. As I said, when they end is a matter for ongoing engagement.

As I hope noble Lords recognise, there is a genuine desire to engage with the infected blood community. We are not going to get everything right, but we will endeavour to do that as much as we can. The Government are absolutely committed to engaging with the infected blood community. In recent months, both the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Cabinet Office officials have met with key representatives of the community to discuss the upcoming regulations.

These regulations have been informed by the community’s feedback through Sir Robert Francis’s engagement exercise and a target engagement exercise held in December on the scope of the unethical research award. We know there is a need to rebuild trust, and the Government will take on board feedback on what steps we need to take to do this. I look forward to working with all noble Lords across the House as we seek to do this.

I hope I have answered the question about the action the Government will take to address the infected blood inquiry’s concerns, but if not I will come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. She also asked specifically about the community not being involved in the training of IBCA staff. It is very difficult: it is obviously an arm’s-length organisation and we cannot have it both ways, but it is incredibly important that users are at the heart of compensation claim service. That is why IBCA has appointed three user consultants, who are members of the infected blood community. They will advise on how the authority’s processes and plans can be focused on those the needs of those applying for compensation. The issue of training is genuinely relevant and I hope that IBCA has listened to this debate—I am sure it has—and will pick that up.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked whether there are any other areas behind restate and expand. I hope not. As I said in my opening speech, I recognise that the infected blood community will be disheartened to hear about that regrettable error. We genuinely believe that there are no further errors in this SI, but accountability and transparency are crucial for the Government—in the context of this scandal, they are imperative. This is why I want to reassure the House that these regulations have been fully scrutinised. I hope that acting so transparently about what we found will lead to some level of reassurance that we will take this seriously.

The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, raised the delays to interim payments due to the lack of official documents. We regret the issues some applicants found when making an application for an interim payment. When the issue was brought to our attention, we acted quickly with representatives of the infected blood community to put a solution in place for those impacted. We hope this will not happen again.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, raised the downgrading of compensation claims. I will address the concerns about compensation awards being downgraded or inconsistent. Noble Lords will recognise the importance of complete clarity and transparency on this issue, as we attempt to rebuild trust with people who have been so devastatingly impacted by the scandal. The compensation scheme’s tariffs have been developed based on expert advice. They were set out on GOV.UK prior to being established in regulations, and I assure the House that these amounts have not been reduced since they were published. I recognise that financial compensation will not be sufficient for many people to make up for the trauma they have faced as a result of this scandal, but it is my hope that, through this scheme, we can begin to provide closure for so many people who have needlessly suffered as a result of the continued failures of the state.

On the cost of the scheme, I want to reassure noble Lords, especially as this was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that when we announced £11.8 billion in compensation for the infected and affected, that was neither a target nor a limit; it is to ensure that sufficient funds are available. If more money is required, this Government will seek to find the additional funds.

Before I finish, I want to put on record my thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone and Lady Finlay, for reminding us about the human cost of what we were talking about. In the detail and the language used when we talk about something so difficult, which has affected so many people, we need to be reminded of the human face. I thank both of them for highlighting their experiences—in the family of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. It is incredibly important that we remember who we are talking about and why we are here.

While we are doing this, I also want to thank the officials who have supported this work and got us to this place. I thank noble Lords for their continued interest in this vital topic and welcome their continued collaboration. This is not a one-off SI; it is the latest chapter of such an appalling scandal. I know that we will spend many hours together in future weeks, months and years—inside the Chamber and outside—as we seek to bring justice to those who have been so devastatingly failed by the state.

Finally, we must bring our thoughts to the victims of this devastating scandal. The impact is felt deeply by families and individuals, and it has spanned decades. We must do everything we can to support those who are suffering and those who have lost loved ones. I hope these regulations provide comfort that the Government are taking steps to provide long-overdue justice to those who we have failed.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am very grateful for the Minister’s comments and look forward to meeting her, along with other colleagues, and indeed to future sessions. As I said earlier, I will not detain the House any more at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Motion agreed.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with reasons.

House adjourned at 9.10 pm.