Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I have a special announcement to make: today is Jim Shannon’s 70th birthday.
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
On behalf of His Majesty’s Government, I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on reaching his 70th birthday—I think you said 70th, Mr Speaker, but I am sure you meant 60th.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), we promised in opposition to transform the NHS into a neighbourhood health service, and we have hit the ground running. As a first step, we have announced the biggest boost to GP funding in years—an extra £889 million—which will recruit 1,000 more GPs. We are delivering 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments, and we have given adult and children’s hospices a once-in-a-generation £100 million funding boost. At the same time, we are delivering our plan for change and have cut waiting lists for five months in a row. Change has begun, but the best is still to come.
Lloyd Hatton
I, too, pass on my best wishes to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
In South Dorset we urgently need to restore clinics and shift services back into our community hospitals in Weymouth, Portland, Swanage and Wareham. Sadly, the previous Conservative Government hollowed out those community hospitals, meaning that services left our towns to go further and further up the road. Combined with poor transport links, this means that many local people in my patch find it difficult to access the care they need. With that in mind, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to restore clinics and services in our community hospitals, and will he support my campaign to restore the chemotherapy clinic at Wareham community hospital?
Wes Streeting
The big thrust of our 10-year plan will be to deliver on the three shifts: from hospital to community, from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention. We believe that by moving services closer to people’s homes—and, indeed, into their homes—we will be able to provide faster diagnosis and faster access to treatment, which will be better for patients and for taxpayers. Through the reforms we are making to the structure of NHS England and the governance of the NHS, we are also presiding over the biggest devolution in the history of the NHS, with more powers and decisions taken closer to the communities they serve. In that spirit, I urge my hon. Friend to make representations locally to his integrated care board, as I know he is doing. Ministers will also be open to receiving his representations.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Following the Government’s regrettable decision not to fund Watford general hospital’s refurbishment in this Parliament, providing community care facilities in a town such as Borehamwood in my constituency—a significant town without its own dedicated facilities—is more important than ever. Will the Secretary of State undertake to use his offices to urge the ICB and others to get their act together so that we can finally have those facilities in Borehamwood?
Wes Streeting
I am very sympathetic to the argument that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the importance of neighbourhood health services in Borehamwood, and indeed in towns and communities across the country. What I am not sympathetic to is a former Deputy Prime Minister complaining about the state of the NHS, which he played a key part in creating when he sat around the Cabinet table.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
One in three hospital admissions occurs in a person’s last year of life, and 43% of people will die in an NHS hospital. Clearly, that is not acceptable when people are at their frailest. What is my right hon. Friend doing to invest in virtual wards so that we can keep those people at home, and in the district nurse workforce to ensure that district nurses have a proper career structure and that theirs can be a profession of choice once again?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the innovation and the impact of virtual wards. I have seen at first hand the impact they can have—not just in providing better value for taxpayers and freeing up hospital beds for those who genuinely need to be in hospital, but in providing what everyone wants, which is to receive high-quality care in the comfort of their own home wherever possible. That will be a big part of our 10-year plan, and of course, it will be underpinned by really good community nursing and community healthcare teams.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Stepping Hill hospital in Hazel Grove has a huge repairs backlog. Patients are having to park miles away to get to the hospital, corridors have been flooded and there have been frequent power cuts. Alongside Stockport council, the local hospital trust and the community, I am calling for an additional site in Stockport town centre, whether that is a diagnostic centre or otherwise. What assurance can the Health Secretary give my constituents that they will be able to get the health services they need closer to them, and what support can he provide?
Wes Streeting
I am well aware of the challenges at Stepping Hill hospital and the need for support and investment in services in Stockport, not least thanks to the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). We are looking carefully at this situation and are committed to working with leaders locally to try to improve the quality of and access to services to give local people what they deserve.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
A new state-of-the-art surgical centre is set to open at the Victoria infirmary in Northwich in the next few weeks. The new facility will be a centre of excellence and a regional hub for outstanding cataract care, and it is an excellent example of how we can reduce pressure on our major hospitals, while making the best use of facilities in the heart of our communities. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the Mid Cheshire hospitals trust on completing this project? Can I invite him to join me on a visit to the centre in the coming months?
Wes Streeting
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the local trust on the work it is doing and the impact it is having, and I would be delighted to pay a visit as soon as my diary allows.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The new St George’s NHS hub in Hornchurch has freed up space in Queen’s hospital in Romford to remodel the accident and emergency there. Will the Secretary of State now fund that remodelling, so that our constituents can get better emergency care?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the need for investment in the accident and emergency at Queen’s hospital in Romford. As she alluded to, that department serves my constituents, too, so this will be a rare occasion at the Dispatch Box where I urge and encourage her to lobby the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), because in such decisions I must recuse myself. However, she will know where my sympathies lie.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Rebuilding our broken dentistry system is a priority for this Government. We are already rolling out 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments a year, as promised in our manifesto; we have launched a supervised toothbrushing scheme for three to five-year-olds; and we are committed to reforming the dental contract and making NHS dentistry fit for the future in the long term.
Rosie Wrighting
In Kettering, we know the scale of the challenge facing NHS dentistry after 14 years of Tory failure. My constituents regularly tell me how impossible it is to get an appointment. Some are driving tens of miles to see a dentist, and it is simply a scandal how many children are admitted to hospital with tooth decay. While it cannot be rebuilt overnight, in Kettering we welcome the extra 17,000 urgent appointments, which are a vital first step. Can the Minister confirm that it is this Government who will make NHS dentistry fit for the future?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. After 14 years of Tory neglect and incompetence, far too many people are still struggling to find an NHS appointment. This Government are tackling the challenges for patients trying to access NHS dental care by delivering 700,000 more urgent dental appointments a year and by recruiting new dentists to areas that need them. My hon. Friend’s local integrated care board has been asked to deliver nearly 17,000 of the additional urgent appointments. I am in no doubt that she will continue to campaign tirelessly on behalf of her constituents.
Anneliese Midgley
My constituent, Kevin Buckley, had his NHS dentist shut with no notice. NHS dentists in Knowsley are not taking on any new patients and he is stuck. This is not just a local issue, but a national crisis. What action will the Minister take to address the shortage of NHS dentists?
Stephen Kinnock
I am sorry to hear of the difficulties faced by Mr Buckley. Sadly, that is a challenge we face nationally after 14 years of abject failure from those now on the Opposition Benches. There are no quick fixes or easy answers, but we are committed to reforming the contract and helping those who need it most. My hon. Friend’s local ICB has been asked to deliver more than 46,000 additional urgent care appointments from April onwards, getting care to those constituents who need it most. The north-west has also been allocated 21 posts in the golden hello scheme to recruit dentists into underserved areas.
David Williams
More than one in three five-year-olds in Stoke-on-Trent has tooth decay. That is the worst rate in the west midlands and is 10% above the national average. Children in deprived areas, like much of my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, are twice as likely to suffer, and that is not acceptable. Can the Minister please outline what steps the Government will take to reduce regional inequalities in NHS dental access for children?
Stephen Kinnock
It is shameful that tooth decay is the biggest reason for hospital admissions of children aged between five and nine, and the inequalities surrounding that are stark. On 7 March, we confirmed a £11.4 million investment in supervised toothbrushing for three to-five-year-olds. The scheme is targeted at children in the most deprived areas—those in index of multiple deprivation groups 1 and 2—and will reach up to 600,000 children. Our innovative partnership with Colgate-Palmolive will result in the donation of more than 23 million toothbrushes and toothpastes, providing outstanding value for taxpayers’ money.
Alex Baker
Aldershot and Farnborough are dental deserts. My constituent Nick had an infected wisdom tooth and was in agony. He had been registered with a practice in Farnborough, but it kicked him off its patient list. He obtained an emergency appointment through 111, but two weeks later the infection was back. He was left with little choice but to go private, which cost him £700—10 times what the treatment would have cost on the NHS. Can the Minister explain how Labour’s plan for change will help to prevent such cases from being repeated as we end the 14 years of dentistry failure that we saw under the Conservatives?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend has demonstrated again that she is a tireless campaigner for the people of Aldershot, and I am sorry to hear of the challenges faced by her constituents. This Government will deliver 700,000 more urgent dental appointments a year, and will recruit new dentists to the areas that need them most. My hon. Friend’s local ICB has been asked to deliver nearly 7,000 of those additional urgent care appointments in the year from April. In the long term, we will reform the dental contract with the sector, with a shift to focusing on prevention and improving the retention of NHS dentists.
Melanie Onn
The Secretary of State and Ministers’ commitment to 700,000 more emergency dental appointments is already taking effect in my NHS area, with an extra 27,000 slots, and the feedback is excellent. However, constituents have told me that some dentists seem to be removing non-emergency patients from their lists. Can the Minister please reassure them that their NHS dentists will be there when they need them?
Stephen Kinnock
As my hon. Friend says, we are delivering 700,000 additional urgent appointments. Patients are not limited to a registered practice in England, and practices are required to keep their status up to date on the NHS website. Anyone struggling to find a dentist should go to nhs.uk or call 111. It is also clear that while NHS England is not mandating an approach to the purchasing of these additional appointments, ICBs could consider either buying more appointments through new or recommissioned contracts or modifying existing contracts, and/or using flexible commissioning.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The Minister is aware of my concern about the inability of some 200 fully qualified Ukrainian dentists to practise because of the restrictions placed on them by the General Dental Council. I know that the Minister has written to the GDC about this, but has he received a reply?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive meeting and discussion that we had on this matter. As he will know, we are exploring the use of provisional registration for overseas dentists, and we are urging the GDC to arrange more examinations for dentists. I have a meeting set up in short order with the head of the GDC, and I will keep the right hon. Gentleman posted on that conversation.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
My constituents are being forced to travel out of county to Coventry or Evesham to obtain basic NHS dental care. Does the Minister agree that it is a disgrace that access to an NHS dentist has become a postcode lottery? What urgent steps are the Government taking to end this dental desert and restore NHS services to rural communities such as mine?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely agree. The state of NHS dentistry in our country is shameful. The golden hello scheme enables 240 dentists to receive a £20,000 joining bonus payment to work in dental deserts, and we are negotiating with the British Dental Association the long-term reform of the contract. The issue is not the number of dentists in the country, but the paucity of dentists who are doing NHS work.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The north-west has some of the worst levels of children’s oral health in England, with Cheshire and Merseyside falling below the national average. In rural villages in my constituency like Bunbury, where bus services have been cut, and Kelsall, where a dentist is keen to open an NHS practice but faces barriers due to city centre prioritisation, residents are struggling to access NHS dental care. Given the challenges of rural access, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that NHS dental provision is available in those rural communities?
Stephen Kinnock
I find it quite striking when Conservative Members stand up and describe the abysmal state of NHS dentistry. It makes me think, “Well, who created this mess in the first place?” But that is as an aside. The fact is that we have the golden hello scheme for dentists to come and work in so-called dental deserts. We recognise that the fundamental problem is around incentives for dentists to do NHS work. That is why we are doing a long-term contract negotiation to ensure we have an NHS dentistry contract that is fit for purpose and where every penny allocated to NHS dentistry is spent on NHS dentistry.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
There is an urgent need for dental training in Norfolk, so can the Minister confirm that the Government will enable the Office for Students to allocate new dental training places in the east of England to start in 2026?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I have met hon. Members from the area and made it clear that in principle we support any creation of new teaching capacity for dentistry. What I have also set out is that, before we can give an instruction to the Office for Students to go ahead with that work, we have to have the settlement of the comprehensive spending review, so we know what our financial envelope is. We will not have that until June, but certainly we will be looking at that as and when we know whether the funding will be available.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There’s only one Jim Shannon, by the way, you know? [Laughter.] Mr Speaker, thank you very much for your birthday wishes. I am terribly embarrassed. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their kind wishes. As I often say, I don’t count the years, I make the years count. That is the important thing.
Can I ask the Minister a very important question? What discussions has he had with the Education Secretary on providing more financial support to young students who want to study dentistry, to ease the burden of high costs associated with studying dentistry which many young people may find off-putting?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and I congratulate him again on his 60th birthday. [Laughter.] He raises an important point on teaching and training in dentistry. There is not enough capacity in the system. We absolutely want to ensure that we are building that capacity. As I said, a lot of that will depend on the comprehensive spending review settlement in June. I would be more than happy to discuss the issue with him in greater detail once we have a better sense of where we are on the funding.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
The Government are committed to improving women’s health outcomes. We have already taken urgent action to tackle the gynaecology list through the elective reform plan, and we recently announced an £11 million trial using AI tools to detect breast cancer cases earlier. The 10-year health plan will set out how we will tackle the factors that lead to poor health outcomes and the improvements we expect to see.
Paulette Hamilton
What assessment has the Minister made of the adequacy of research into and the provision of fibroid treatment for women, taking into consideration that fibroids are three times more likely to appear in black women than in white women?
Karin Smyth
The Government welcome the work my hon. Friend has undertaken and the work of the Caribbean and African Health Network in highlighting health inequalities for black women. She highlights shocking and unacceptable statistics. The National Institute for Health and Care Research has funded a significant amount of research into women’s health issues, including a £1.5 million trial comparing treatment options for fibroids. I am happy to make sure she is updated on that work and on the details of that work.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer can make a huge difference to the women involved, and, of course, to the prognosis and the cost to the state of health provision. I welcome the reference in the cancer plan to early diagnosis, but what specifically will the Government do to encourage greater awareness of the full range of breast cancer symptoms, and to encourage women to get early diagnosis and treatment for better outcomes?
Karin Smyth
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question and for the work he has supported on behalf of his wife to raise awareness. Screening access and uptake are shockingly low across the country right now, and looking at that is a key part of what we need to do to ensure that women come forward for the screening test. The AI work will support the faster response time so that we can get women treated more quickly, and will absolutely form part of what we need to do in the coming years.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I want to put on the record my thanks to the Health Secretary for coming to Nottingham last week and meeting some of the families who have been harmed by extremely serious failings in maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS trust, and for his sincere commitment to them. It was clear just how moved he was by their stories. One of their asks is that the Government implement the 22 recommendations from the Shrewsbury and Telford Ockenden review, so I ask the Minister today to commit to doing that.
Karin Smyth
I know that my hon. Friend and other Members representing that area have supported the trust and particularly the families who have been affected. As she highlights, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary visited last week and was deeply moved by those stories, and has committed to visiting again. The Government are working through those recommendations and will update the House shortly.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), I held a debate in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago on maternity services and spoke to families across the country who have experienced failures in the system that ultimately left them without their babies to take home. It was a devastating experience for all involved. The immediate and essential actions in the Ockenden review were supported by the previous Government, and the Secretary of State for Health has been vocal in his support for their implementation. However, those families want to know how quickly they will see real change in maternity services up and down the country so that families can confidently go to deliver their babies.
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the impact of the failures in maternity services on women and their families across the country. As she highlights, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary takes this matter personally and is looking at it. We will continue to work closely with Donna Ockenden on those recommendations and will continue to update the House regularly. This is an important issue for Members across the House representing their constituents, whether in this Chamber or Westminster Hall, and we are very keen to ensure that we support staff, build that confidence for women and their families and give them a good experience of maternity services.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I am grateful to Professor Sullivan for her report. Sex and gender identity are not always the same, and it is important for patients that we record both accurately. I know the House will share my concern at some of the findings from Professor Sullivan’s report, such as trans patients not being invited for cancer screening because of how their gender is recorded. I can assure the House that I am already acting on reports. Last week, I instructed the health service to immediately suspend applications for NHS number changes for under-18s to safeguard children. Taking such action does not prevent the NHS from recording, recognising and respecting trans people’s gender identity.
Joani Reid
I thank the Secretary of State for his response, which will give much-needed reassurance to patients across the UK. Any public body that fails to accurately record sex and instead conflates it with gender puts people at serious risk of harm. Unfortunately, this type of organisational capture has been widespread across Scotland, with devastating consequences. Can the Secretary of State assure me that he will raise this issue with his counterparts in the Scottish Government to ensure that NHS Scotland does not put my constituents at risk?
Wes Streeting
I will absolutely undertake to share the approach we are taking with my counterparts across the United Kingdom. The approach I have always taken is one that understands the importance of biological sex, that recognises, understands and supports that someone’s gender identity may not always match their biological sex, and that seeks to navigate a way through what has been an extremely toxic and sometimes harmful debate in a way that protects the sex-based rights of women and protects trans people and their identity. I know that my colleagues across Government are taking an equally sensitive approach, and I think it would be in everyone’s interests if we saw a similar approach across the whole of the United Kingdom. It is important not just in the provision of services, but in accurate data and research, that we make that distinction, which does not in any way undermine respect for people’s gender identity.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The inquest into the tragic death of a young woman who lived in Eastleigh has highlighted the importance of continuity of specialist care for vulnerable people who move home. My constituent, Alex, is still waiting for an appointment for ongoing specialist care three years after moving to Eastleigh. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the provision of mental healthcare in my constituency?
Mr Speaker
This question is about sex and gender. Do not worry; I am sure that the Secretary of State has the message.
I now call the shadow Minister.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Given the findings of the Sullivan review on patient and health safety, which came about as a result of inaccurate and poor data collection, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm what meetings he has had with Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to discuss the reliability of the data on sex that is intended to be used by the digital verification platform in the Data (Use and Access) Bill?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her question. I speak to the Science Secretary on too frequent a basis—on a daily basis. He and I are both looking very carefully at the findings of the Sullivan review and working through its implications for both the health and care services, for which I am responsible, and for the Government digital and data services, for which he is responsible.
Dr Johnson
The UK Health Security Agency, for which the Secretary of State is responsible, publishes health statistics. This includes data on sexually transmitted infections, which is published by sexual orientation and sex. However, a footnote states that women are defined in the dataset as “women and trans women”, which does somewhat undermine the value of the data. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that data is not just collected properly, but published and presented in a way that is most clinically useful?
Wes Streeting
The shadow Minister raises a good example of how conflation of sex and gender identity is not helpful both in terms of data analysis and of recognising health inequalities. It is also not helpful in making sure that we understand variances between people based on their different backgrounds and characteristics and that we provide targeted, personalised and effective healthcare that deals with healthcare inequalities. That is why we are carefully studying the recommendations made by Professor Sullivan, with a view to making sure that we are meeting the needs of everyone, including the trans community, who I understand, not least because of the way that the debate has been conducted in recent years, are anxious about the implications of the report. However, I genuinely think that the report will lead to better, more inclusive and fairer outcomes for everyone, including the trans community.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I know the hon. Member is acutely aware of the impact that cancer can have on families. We are committed to catching cancer earlier and treating it faster. We have achieved our manifesto pledge of 2 million extra appointments seven months early and we have invested in more surgical hubs, longer opening times, which have benefited 23 community diagnostic centres in the south-west, and new radiotherapy machines. The national cancer plan will also seek to improve every aspect of cancer care to improve patient outcomes and experiences across the country, including in the west of England.
Max Wilkinson
I thank the Minister for her answer. The Big Space Cancer Appeal being run by the Cheltenham and Gloucester Hospitals Charity is going on in my constituency. It is having to raise £17.5 million for a new cancer centre at Cheltenham general hospital, which is a regional cancer centre, because the previous Government did not fund it. I am proud of the fund-raising work that is being done by the hospitals charity, including by my caseworker, Mateusz, who is running two half marathons for the cause. Will the Minister meet me and Dr Sam Guglani and Dr Charles Candish to discuss how the Government might provide more support for this crucial piece of infrastructure?
Ashley Dalton
I commend the hon. Member’s campaign activity for improved cancer facilities. I commend, too, Mateusz’s two half-marathons. I wonder when the hon. Member will be doing his half-marathon, but I can guarantee that I will not be joining him. The fact that this sort of activity is taking place is fantastic. Local provision for healthcare is managed by the local health system. I would be delighted to meet him and local representatives as soon as diaries allow.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Cancer care is important for people right across the UK, particularly early diagnosis. How do the Government plan to raise cancer awareness among young people during Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Awareness Month and ensure that they are fully aware of the signs and symptoms?
Ashley Dalton
This is a really important issue. We have reinstated the children and young people cancer taskforce, which I visited a couple of weeks ago. We have tasked it with ensuring that children and young people are a part of its work. The Department will be marking Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Awareness Month appropriately. We encourage all children and young people to get the checks that they need and be aware of cancer symptoms.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I know that this subject is very close to my hon. Friend’s heart, after many years of NHS service. Ensuring great careers for NHS staff, including nurses, has been a key theme of our engagement with staff to shape the 10-year plan. I will shortly set out further measures to improve progression for nurses and their colleagues in other key NHS professions.
Kevin McKenna
I thank the Minister for her answer. Nurses across the profession are increasingly taking on complex roles and responsibilities, yet many do not have access to higher pay bands that reflect these changes, and there is too much variation around the country. As well as looking at this, will the Minister ask the Department of Health and Social Care to implement a consistent model for supported, structured progression from band 5 to band 6 for early career nurses based on the completion of key competencies and the acquisition of necessary experience?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is right that NHS staff, including nurses, should be paid appropriately for the work they are asked to do and will be asked to do in future. We are working with the NHS Staff Council to ensure that the national job evaluation scheme is implemented fairly and consistently across nursing and all professions.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
My constituent Ben has spent two decades working as a nurse. He tells me that his paramedic and midwife colleagues received automatic pay band increases post qualification while he and his nursing peers did not. Ben and his hard-working nursing colleagues have missed out on tens of thousands of pounds compared to colleagues in other disciplines. Does the Minister agree that something must be done urgently to make up for this inequity?
Karin Smyth
I am absolutely clear that we need to make sure that the job evaluation scheme looks at staff across the piece and that people are rewarded appropriately for the work they are asked to do. We will do that as part of our discussions with the NHS Staff Council, and we will be working consistently with staff as part of the 10-year plan to ensure that people are rewarded. We depend on these staff, and we want to encourage them to be part of the NHS workforce. That is the approach we intend to take.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
The 18-week standard for elective care has not been met for almost a decade. That is the legacy of the Conservative party. Our plan for change commits us to cutting waiting lists from 18 months to 18 weeks by the end of this Parliament through a combination of investment and reform. Since we took office, the waiting list has reduced by over 190,000. We achieved our manifesto pledge of 2 million extra appointments seven months early, and waiting lists have fallen five months in a row. A lot done, but a lot more to do. Change has begun, and the best is still to come.
Sojan Joseph
I welcome that NHS waiting lists for physical health have fallen for the last five months in a row and that NHS waiting lists are down by almost 200,000 since Labour was elected, but with people who have mental health conditions eight times as likely to have to wait 18 months for treatment, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that we see the same progress in waiting times for both mental and physical health treatments? Can they deliver a parity of esteem that the Opposition failed to achieve in their 14 years in power?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for his long-standing commitment to improving mental health services. Lord Darzi highlighted that those waiting over a year for mental healthcare outnumbered the entire population of Leicester. We are committed to tackling this. We will fix the broken system by recruiting an extra 8,500 mental health workers, introducing access to a specialist in every school and rolling out community Young Futures hubs in England. We will shortly be publishing before Parliament our mental health investment standard report, which will show that when it comes to mental health this Government are putting their money where their mouth is.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Waiting times for patients living in the village of Burton outside Christchurch could be drastically cut if the local integrated care board were to approve the creation of a new branch surgery. That application has been outstanding for more than four months. Will the Secretary of State put a bomb under Dorset ICB and get it to approve it straight away?
Wes Streeting
That sounds like an invitation to commit a criminal offence, and I think I will resist the temptation. I am sure that the ICB has heard the hon. Gentleman’s forceful representations, and we will make inquiries to get him an update.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust has some of the longest waiting lists in the country for cancer and A&E, among other areas. It has been receiving national mandated support from NHS England’s recovery support programme. NHS England also provides support to hospital trusts that are struggling with excessive waiting lists through its Getting It Right First Time programme. Given the announcement to abolish NHS England, will the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that there will be continued support for hospital trusts such as Shrewsbury and Telford with unacceptable waiting times, and a clear pathway to improvements for patients who deserve better?
Wes Streeting
Yes is the short answer. Removing the duplication, waste and efficiency that came with having two head offices for the NHS will lead to better, more effective and streamlined decision making, but that will not in any way detract from the support that the hon. Member describes. In fact, we should see more support and, crucially, more investment going to the frontline as a result of the savings, efficiencies and improvements that we are making.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
This Government recognise the vital role that community pharmacies play as an integral part of our health system and local community. We are working with Community Pharmacy England on the pharmacy contract, which will start to stabilise the sector and make it fit for the future, and we will announce the outcome very shortly. On hub and spoke dispensing, we intend to lay draft secondary legislation in the coming weeks to come into force later this year.
Sarah Hall
Community pharmacy funding is at a critical juncture, with many pharmacies in my constituency facing financial challenges. With running costs increasing and uncertainty around the date of the upcoming settlement, community pharmacies are concerned that there may be disruption to their business. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that input from community pharmacies is considered, and prior to any further legislative or regulatory changes relating to the hub and spoke model?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right that we inherited a community pharmacy system that had been neglected for far too long, such that over the past two years, on average six pharmacies have been closing every week. A wide range of community pharmacies and representative organisations fed into the public consultation on hub and spoke reform, and I am pleased to confirm that their responses were overwhelmingly positive in support of model 1 of hub and spoke, which we will be going with.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I recently visited Well pharmacy in Northallerton, which, like so many others, plays an important role in providing community health services. One valued service is the provision of free blood pressure checks to those over the age of 40. Will the Minister to join me in urging anyone with health worries or a family history of high blood pressure to take advantage of this fantastic free, pharmacy-led, preventive community health service?
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Gentleman is right that a big part of the Government’s shift from hospital to community is the pivotal role that community pharmacies will play in that process. We are committed to the Pharmacy First model of enabling community pharmacies to do more clinical work, such as the type that he just described. That is at the heart of our 10-year plan.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Now that the Secretary of State is abolishing NHS England, will he listen to the calls from the National Pharmacy Association and the Independent Pharmacies Association, and publish immediately the independent report commissioned by NHS England on pharmacies’ finances?
Stephen Kinnock
We will publish the economic analysis imminently. He mentioned the National Pharmacy Association, which gives me the opportunity to say that I think that the collective action that it is taking is premature, unnecessary and detrimental to community pharmacy patients. I urge the NPA to reconsider its position and wait for the outcome of our negotiations with the CPE, which will come very shortly. We will announce that very soon.
Dr Evans
The National Pharmacy Association, which has been waiting for months to get the answer, is advising all its 6,000 pharmacy members to reduce services and hours, for the first time in 104 years. That has never happened before under a Labour Government, or under the Lib Dems or the Conservatives, but it is happening under this Government. Its chair said:
“The sense of anger among pharmacy owners has been intensified exponentially by the Budget”,
citing unfunded national insurance contributions and national living wage increases. The Minister acknowledges that there is potential action. What contingency plans does the Department have to ensure that we keep patients safe if pharmacies close their doors in industrial action next week?
Stephen Kinnock
On the NPA, it has taken us a while to clean up the utter mess that we inherited in community pharmacy. That involved agreeing financial envelopes and getting into negotiations with CPE. Those negotiations have been constructive, and I am delighted to confirm again that we will soon announce the outcome of those negotiations. What we see here is the shadow Minister apparently taking the side of people taking collective action in a premature way that is detrimental to patients. They would be better off waiting for the outcome. The Government are taking industrial relations into the 21st century, as opposed to the performative nonsense that we saw for 14 years.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
When someone is detained, family involvement is extremely valuable, and families should be supported to maintain contact with their loved ones. Our Mental Health Bill will strengthen requirements to involve families in people’s care. We will require clinicians to involve patients and their families where possible when developing new statutory care and treatment plans.
Caroline Voaden
I have two ongoing constituency cases with adult men who have serious and long-term mental health issues. One of my constituents believes that her life is in danger because of her son’s threatening behaviour towards her—her own mental health has been seriously affected by the fear and stress. The other case involves a young man causing serious distress to his neighbours with his behaviour, which recently led to an incident where he reportedly threatened a police officer with a knife. Both men are living alone in unsupported accommodation, both are at risk of coercion and abuse because of their mental health problems, and both are causing serious distress to their families and neighbours. Will the Minister tell the House whether he is working with other Departments to ensure the availability of more provision to support people such as my constituents to live safely in the community and not cause harm or distress to those around them?
Stephen Kinnock
I know that the hon. Member has met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about at least one of those constituency cases. NHS England has asked mental health trusts to review the care of high-risk patients and has published national guidance on the standards of care that are expected. Ultimately, the Mental Health Act is there to protect people and provide the necessary powers to enable clinicians to manage and support such patients—and to do so, where possible, in the community.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday I met Essex partnership university NHS foundation trust and spoke to it about the need to support the families of those suffering with mental health issues in Harlow, and particularly those with caring responsibilities. Will the Minister consider how mental health services can better identify and support young carers?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend will be aware that we are bringing forward the Mental Health Bill, and an important part of that legislation will enable family members—when they are chosen as a nominated person—to have powers to request assessment under the Act, challenge decisions and request considerations of discharge in line with the nearest relative powers.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I commend my hon. Friend for her dedication to improving support for children in her role as the opportunity mission champion. Children with special educational needs and disabilities may access a range of NHS services, including health assessments and specialised support. All integrated care boards must have an executive lead for SEND to ensure that that work receives sufficient focus. We are working closely with the Department for Education on reforms to the SEND system.
Sarah Smith
As the Minister is aware, last year we faced the devastating closure of the Accrington Victoria hospital after 14 years of mismanagement by the Conservative party. I place on record my thanks to the frontline staff who have managed that transition and the operational challenges to relocate services, but sadly a fully purposed building for children with SEND had to be used to relocate clinical services. How does the Minister plan to ensure that those with SEND are at the heart of commissioning plans and service development?
Ashley Dalton
The system we inherited has been failing to meet the needs of children with SEND for far too long—that became clear in what happened at the Accy Vic. Through the 10-year health plan, we will consider all those policies, including those that impact on children and young people. We are working closely with the Department for Education to support the delivery of the opportunity mission. I also hosted a roundtable recently with children and young people, including those with SEND, so that they can feed directly into the 10-year plan. They will be at the heart of our thinking and planning on these issues.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Mr Speaker, your heart would have been gladdened last week to see colleagues from across the House coming together to support my debate calling for the Down Syndrome Act 2022 to be implemented three years on. The Minister for Secondary Care said in response that Down syndrome-specific guidance would be produced, which is welcome. Will the Minister ensure that the consultation group is restricted to organisations that represent Down syndrome people only, and will she promise that, after three long years, that statutory guidance will finally be issued before the end of this calendar year?
Ashley Dalton
Work to develop the Down Syndrome Act statutory guidance is being taken forward as a priority, with a view to publishing it for consultation by the summer. It does involve people with Down syndrome, as part of a wider group.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Since I reported to the House on the Government’s plans to abolish NHS England, hammering the final nail into the coffin of Lord Lansley’s disastrous 2012 reorganisation, the reforms have been welcomed almost universally across Parliament—with the exception of Lord Lansley. I am pleased to report that the new chief executive of NHS England, Sir Jim Mackey, has appointed the transformation team that will deliver better care for patients and better value for taxpayers’ money. We are working closely together as we finalise the 10-year plan for health, which will be published around the spending review in June.
Anneliese Midgley
My constituent June is 74 years old and has stage 4 cancer. She had to queue—not phone, but queue—at her GP surgery at 8 am, only not to be given an appointment. What is the Secretary of State doing to stop such dreadful situations?
Wes Streeting
I am very sorry to hear of June’s experience. It illustrates why our determination to end the 8 am scramble for appointments is so necessary, starting with a new requirement for practices to make online appointment requests available through core hours, as well as the big uplift we have invested into general practice. I hope that will start to see improvements so that people like June will not be left queuing outside in the cold.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for his kindness following the death of my father earlier this month? It was very much appreciated.
I welcome the moves to streamline decision making and improve efficiency in the context of the Secretary of State’s NHS England announcement, if he genuinely drives decentralisation to integrated care boards. However, in a written answer on 21 March, the Minister for Secondary Care said:
“We recognise there may be some short-term upfront costs as we undertake the integration of NHS England and the Department”.
For clarity, can the Secretary of State confirm what the quantum of those reorganisation costs will be and the date by which they will have been recouped?
Wes Streeting
I am sure that the whole House will want to send our condolences to the right hon. Gentleman following the loss of his father. It is good to see him back in action—if not always back in action.
Given the scale of the job reductions and savings that we are seeking to make, the total quantum will be determined once the final shape of the organisation is determined.
Edward Argar
Can I also welcome, as I did in January, the Secretary of State’s commitment to seek to work cross party on the future of social care? He was right and I welcomed that at the time, but like him and many others, we are all keen to see progress. Can he update the House on when he anticipates the cross-party talks that were postponed in February will be rescheduled to take place?
Wes Streeting
Baroness Casey will be making contact with all party groups in order to set dates with parties across this House very shortly, and of course she will be kicking off her commission in April, which is now only days away.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
As my hon. Friend says, we have brought NHS waiting lists down five months in a row, including during the peak winter pressures. We have delivered the 2 million more appointments we promised seven months early, and we published our elective reform plan at the beginning of the new year with the Prime Minister, which sets out the combination of measures, the investment and the reform that will ensure that we deliver the shorter waiting times and the faster access to treatment that my hon. Friend’s constituents and people right across the country deserve. I look forward to keeping him updated.
Mr Speaker
We are not going to get everyone in unless we pick up the pace. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson will set a good example.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
In last night’s “Panorama” programme, the Secretary of State was reported to have said that he did not need to wait for a review to put more money into social care, which we agree with. If that is the case, will he explain why the Casey commission will take three years, and will he instead commit to getting it done this year in order to fix the social care crisis straightaway?
Wes Streeting
Phase 1 of the Casey commission reports next year and the final Casey report is due by 2028, but the Chancellor has already announced an increase in funding for social care in the Budget, through means that the hon. Lady’s party regrettably seems to oppose.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I commend my hon. Friend’s constituent for her work with the Brain Tumour Charity, and I wish Lily well with her treatment. The Government have launched the brain tumour research consortium, which will support efforts to speed up the diagnosis of tumours and aid the recovery of patients, and the national cancer plan will ensure that we include brain tumour patients. We know that everyone’s cancer is as unique as they are, and this will be reflected in the plan.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Wes Streeting
The Chancellor took almost immediate action to deliver the uplift in pay for NHS staff that they deserve. We are working closely with the Royal College of Nursing, Unison and others ensure that we tackle the challenges of low pay in the nursing profession that the hon. Member describes.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I am very sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s constituents’ experience. Accessing vital medicines while travelling between nations should be seamless, and I will ask NHS England to work with NHS Scotland to better understand what needs to change to make things easier for patients across the UK.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Wes Streeting
Despite the significant uplift announced by the Chancellor at the Budget, system financial returns during the planning round suggested an overspend for the coming year of between £5 billion to £6 billion. When I said I would not tolerate overspending in the NHS, I meant it. When I said I would go after unnecessary administrative costs, duplication and bureaucracy, I meant it. That is what this Government are doing to protect frontline services.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
In Saxmundham in my constituency, Dr Havard has led a campaign for 20 years to transform the healthcare centre into a one-stop community healthcare hub. His practice has already expanded services, transforming health locally. Does the Minister agree that the Saxmundham healthcare hub is an excellent example and model for what this Government are trying to do to transform community healthcare?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that shifting care from hospitals to the community is at the heart of our 10-year plan. I would be happy to meet the doctors leading this pilot to find out more about the excellent work that she describes.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
For eight years, I have seen how a young constituent has been able to completely control his previously life-threatening seizures with medicinal cannabis, but at huge cost to his family—a cost that is prohibitive for other people. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can make access to such treatments more affordable, accessible and safe, so that we can help more people?
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
We recently had a helpful debate in Westminster Hall on this topic. We are doing more research on this issue to ensure that the evidence base is there. I am happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Member.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
In the ongoing discussion on assisted dying, one point on which we all agree in this House is the urgent need to improve palliative care. I therefore welcome the Government’s recent £100 million commitment to supporting hospices, including those that help my constituents. Can the Minister confirm whether long-term funding for hospices will be a priority in the upcoming 10-year health service plan?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right that the hospice sector has been provided with the largest capital spend in a generation—£100 million. We are also providing £26 million of revenue funding to children and young people’s hospices. I can confirm that hospices will play a key role in our shift from hospitals to the community, as he set out in his question.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Tragically, Ed was just 24 years old when he decided to take his own life, and that is why the family have joined us today in the Gallery. What urgent action are the Government taking to improve mental healthcare and suicide prevention for young people like Ed?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member raises an important issue. We are investing in 8,500 more mental health specialists, as well as specialists in every school, and in Young Futures hubs across the country, to ensure that we do whatever we can to prevent these tragedies.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
An early day motion from 2007 noted that women were typically waiting eight years to be diagnosed with endometriosis. Shockingly, nearly 20 years later, that wait has increased to nine years. The Government are right to tackle the appalling waiting lists for surgery, but the one in 10 women who suffer with endometriosis often struggle with years of pain before surgery is even suggested. What plans does the Department have to deal with these delays, and how we can ensure that those working in primary care recognise this debilitating condition earlier?
Karin Smyth
Those statistics are shocking. Campaigns here and elsewhere have helped to raise awareness of endometriosis. The update to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines will help, as will more appointments, and our commitment to the 18-week target. Training for GPs is now part of the core curriculum, and we expect that to yield good results. NHS England and the Office for National Statistics have look-across to the statistics on diagnostic metric standards. I am happy to update my hon. Friend outside the Chamber, and I know other Members are also interested in how we are delivering on these commitments.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
My constituents in South West Hertfordshire remain concerned about the significant delay to the redevelopment of Watford general. With the Chancellor already bringing a second emergency Budget before the House tomorrow, and with care homes, hospices and charities facing unsustainable pressure from this Government’s national insurance increases, what reassurances can the Minister give my constituents that the Labour party truly care about healthcare, rather than scoring political points?
Wes Streeting
The irony! There is one big difference between what this Government are doing and what the Conservative party did for 14 years, which is that this Government will actually deliver a new Watford general hospital where the Conservative party failed.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Do Ministers agree that a logical conclusion of the Darzi report is that the national care service that we are committed to creating must be free at the point of use? As Lord Darzi found, as long as the social care system remains means-tested and the NHS is a universally free service, unmet care needs will continue to put unsustainable pressure on our health services.
Stephen Kinnock
That is a vital issue. The Casey commission will look at how best to create a fair and affordable adult social care system, and at which structural reforms will be needed where health and social care meet, because reform must always be married with investment.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
General practitioners in my constituency have consistently restructured over 10 years of constant systemic and economic pressures. How will the Minister convince the Treasury to exempt GPs from the increase to national insurance contributions, and show my GPs that he has their back?
Wes Streeting
It was thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor in the Budget that we were able to award £889 million for general practice. That is why the Minister for Care was able to get the GP contract agreed for the first time since the pandemic. Opposition Members cannot continue to welcome the investment and oppose the means. They have to spell out where they would cut services or raise taxes instead.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Last year, my constituent Danielle was diagnosed with POTS—postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. She found herself unable to get out of bed and unable to speak for long periods. She could not receive care in Scotland. Specialist treatment does not seem to exist for POTS. What more can we do for people like Danielle, and what conversations has the Minister had with counterparts about establishing specialist treatment in Scotland?
Ashley Dalton
In England, it is the responsibility of local integrated care boards to work with clinicians, service users and patient groups to develop services and care pathways that are convenient and meet the needs of patients with POTS. NICE has published a clinical knowledge summary on the clinical management of blackouts and syncope, which provides advice for UK clinicians on best practice and the assessment and diagnosis of POTS.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I have twice invited Ministers to visit Bridlington district hospital with me to see its much-underutilised potential. In the light of the ongoing challenges faced by coastal and rural health services and the newly announced changes to integrated care boards, may I hope that it will be third time lucky, and extend that invitation once again?
Wes Streeting
We are delighted to receive the hon. Gentleman’s representations. We will look carefully at the case he makes and will consider visits as diaries allow.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Much to my alarm, the North Central London ICB has recommended the closure of the maternity unit at the Royal Free hospital in my constituency. The Secretary of State knows the Royal Free well. Will he meet me to see how I can save my local maternity unit, which looked after me so well when I had gestational diabetes?
Karin Smyth
These local services are so important for local women, as my hon. Friend has experienced. It is really important that reconfigurations are discussed with local Members of Parliament, representing their constituents. This is obviously a matter for the local ICB, but I am happy to discuss it further with her.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Following my long-running campaign, I am grateful to the Government for finally updating the outdated Treasury rules that were preventing local health boards from spending more money on keeping city centre GP locations. Will the Government now issue guidance to local health boards and NHS trusts to accelerate the pooling of resources, so that we can get more services out of hospitals and on to our high streets, especially as our high streets need extra footfall right now?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for all the work she has been doing on this issue. She is right: we need more integration of services, and we need to look at where we can share facilities to achieve better care for patients and better value for taxpayers.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The former chair of my local trust, Bradford teaching hospitals NHS foundation trust, Dr Max Mclean, has today secured whistleblowing protection for himself in a landmark victory. Last week marked a year since a non-exec director at the trust was suspended, and a third non-exec director has put in an ET1 form to the employment tribunal. There appears to be a clear culture of targeting and witch-hunting whistleblowers at Bradford teaching hospitals trust. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s team supporting me, but given these recent developments, will he meet me?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these serious issues. There are issues of concern here, and she clearly describes a concerning situation for the local community. We need to look carefully at what is happening, and the Minister of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), would be delighted to meet her.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Smile Dental Centre is in one of the least affluent parts of my community in Basildon. It is looking to expand and provide more NHS dental services, but it has come up against a few issues. Will the Minister, or one of his officials, meet me and Smile Dental Centre to see what we can unblock to deliver more dental health services for local people?
Stephen Kinnock
We are always looking for opportunities to unblock more capacity, and I would be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Coastal constituencies such as mine in Bournemouth East suffer significant health inequalities. What are the Government doing to address them, and will the Minister meet me and coastal Labour MPs to address the issue?
Ashley Dalton
My hon. Friend is right: coastal communities face unique challenges when it comes to health inequalities. I will shortly attend the all-party group for coastal communities, where I will meet him and colleagues to discuss these issues.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
As the Secretary of State will know, in 2018, this House allocated £40 million of funding in memory of Dame Tessa Jowell, who was killed by a brain tumour. Seven years on, less than half of that money has been spent. The money is doing no good sitting in a bank, so will the Secretary of State please commit to spending that money within a decade of Dame Tessa’s death?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, as it gives me the chance to pay tribute to the late great Baroness Jowell, as well as to the work taking place in her name through the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission. There have been frustrating delays in getting funding out the door for the purpose for which it is intended. Ministers are looking carefully at this issue, and we want to make more progress more quickly, to ensure that families do not receive the same death sentence that our late friend did.
Dr Evans
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since 14 January, I have tabled 15 named day written parliamentary questions to the Department of Health and Social Care. Fourteen have received a holding response, meaning that just one was answered on time. To give a simple example, I asked how many times the Minister had met Community Pharmacy England. Four days later, I received a standard holding answer, which stated that
“it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period.”
It then took five days for an answer to come, which stated:
“Ministers meet regularly with external stakeholders on a variety of topics, including, but not limited to, pharmacy.”
May I ask your advice, Mr Speaker? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that named day questions are answered on time? If they continue not to be answered on time, how can I escalate the matter further?
Mr Speaker
First, I am disappointed that questions are not being answered, but I am not responsible for ministerial answers. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench, including the Secretary of State, have taken on board the importance of replying. Named day questions are called that because they are meant to be answered on the day that is named. I am very disappointed. The Department may be overworked; if that is the case, perhaps we ought to bring in staff from other Departments to ensure that questions are answered on time. I know that the Secretary of State will have immediately made a note to ensure that those questions are answered.
Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on asylum hotels and illegal immigrants crossing the channel.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
As the right hon. Member is aware, the Home Office discharges its statutory duty to provide accommodation and to support destitute asylum seekers through seven asylum accommodation and support services contracts. Those contracts were entered into by the previous Government, commencing in 2019, and are split between three providers: Clearsprings Ready Homes Ltd, Serco Ltd, and Mears Ltd.
Significant elements of the behaviour and performance of one of the sub-contractors of Clearsprings Ready Homes fell short of what we would expect from a Government supplier. That is why the Home Office has informed Clearsprings Ready Homes that it must exit the arrangements with a subcontractor in its supply chain, Stay Belvedere Hotels. We will not hesitate to take further action in respect of Clearsprings and its wider supply chain if that proves necessary, and we are conducting a full audit of our supply chain.
We expect the highest standards from those contracted to provide essential services, and this Government will always hold them to account for delivery, performance and value for money. Where there are concerns about how contractors or their subcontractors are discharging their contractual obligations, we will not hesitate to take swift and decisive action.
The Home Office progresses matters relating to these contracts with its providers in commercial confidentiality. I will not give a running commentary, but I assure the House that whatever the position with any of its providers, the Home Office remains focused on maintaining continuity of service and ensuring that our statutory obligation is met at all times, and has contingency plans in this regard. None of that takes away from our commitment to reducing the huge cost of asylum hotels, which remains our priority.
In relation to channel crossings, this Government have put forward a serious, credible plan to restore order to our asylum system, including tougher enforcement powers, ramping up returns to their highest levels for more than half a decade, and a major crackdown on illegal working to end the false promise of jobs, used by gangs to sell spaces on boats. Increased law enforcement action and disruption is already showing some indication of pressure on the business model of the gangs, and we are introducing new powers for law enforcement to use against the vile trade in people smuggling and trafficking.
Chris Philp
Last summer, the Government were elected on a promise to end the use of asylum hotels. Well, it has now been nine months, so let us see how they are getting on. The use of asylum hotels has gone up by 8,000 since the general election—it has not gone down; it has gone up. Some 38,000 mainly illegal immigrants are now in those hotels, costing hard-working taxpayers around £2 billion a year. It is completely unacceptable that taxpayers are asked to foot a bill that size. The people living in those hotels broke our laws by coming here from France, which is a manifestly safe country that nobody needs to leave. I have a very simple question for the Minister: when will the Government end the use of asylum hotels?
During the election campaign last summer and subsequently, the Government also promised to “smash the gangs”, but that promise now lies in tatters. In the nine months since the election, 29,162 people—nearly 30,000 people—have illegally crossed the English channel, which is a 31% increase on the same period 12 months before. In fact, 2025 is even worse. Since 1 January, more people have crossed the English channel illegally than in any year in history—this is the worst year. It is 38% worse than the previous worst year, so things are getting worse not better. They have not smashed the gangs, but capitulated to them.
The hon. Lady mentioned returns. Most of those returns do not relate to people who arrived by small boat. In fact, those people being returned who came by small boat amount to only about 4% of small boat arrivals; I do not know how letting 96% of people who arrived by small boat stay here is a deterrent.
At the weekend, we saw briefings—to the press and not to Parliament, Mr Speaker—that the Government are now considering some kind of offshore removal scheme. That sounds vaguely familiar! At last they have realised that some kind of removals deterrent is needed. Will the Minister now apologise for cancelling the Rwanda deterrent before it even started and, as a consequence, losing control of our borders?
Dame Angela Eagle
I will not take any lessons from the shadow Minister. In his last three months as Immigration Minister, nearly 10,000 people crossed the channel in small boats, but he is complaining about half that level of crossings happening in the past three months. Neither will I take any lessons from someone who served in a Government who presided over a situation where, at its height, there were 56,000 people in more than 400 hotels. We are getting a grip on the problem by starting up asylum processing once more, but we inherited a huge backlog. There was a 70% fall in asylum processing in the run-up to the general election, with more than 100,000 people stuck without being processed in the asylum system. We are getting a grip of that, but by definition, the backlog and chaos that the Conservatives left us is taking time.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Does the Minister share my astonishment at the shadow Home Secretary’s argument given that the Conservatives wasted tens of millions of pounds on accommodation that could not be used and billions on hotels? The state of the asylum system that we inherited is unbelievable. Will the Minister commit to reforming that seriously dysfunctional system, including scrutinising asylum contracts with the providers when the break clause comes up next year?
Dame Angela Eagle
We inherited a system in chaos and a series of asylum contracts worth billions of pounds that were 10 years long, with a break clause in 2026, so we are looking seriously at what we can do to get better value for public money in those contracts. The action on Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd is one example of the work we are doing to drive better value in the contracts that we inherited. We will not tolerate the behaviour of subcontractors or contractors who do not provide good value for money, which is why we have insisted that Clearsprings Ready Homes removes Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd from its supply chain.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber to hear the shadow Home Secretary’s greatest hits of Conservative failures from the last Parliament, whether it be cuts to neighbourhood policing or the woeful handling of the asylum system under the previous Government, in which he was a Home Office Minister. Of course the Home Office should ensure that all asylum accommodation providers deliver value for money, safety and security, but tinkering with contracts will not change the fact that asylum hotels are a lose-lose. They eat up taxpayer money and leave local councils and communities to sort out the mess.
To pick dates at random, the share of asylum applications that received an initial decision within six months fell from 83% in the second quarter of 2015 to just 6% towards the end of the last Government’s time in office. When does the Minister think that the processing of applications will speed up so that the backlog will come down, communities such as mine will get the use of their hotels back and those granted refugee status can integrate and contribute to our economy?
Dame Angela Eagle
I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that the shadow Home Secretary sounds like a broken record; we are well used to him running that argument in this place. I also agree that the key to dealing with hotels is to get the system back up and running from the chaos that it was in. I can tell the hon. Lady that asylum processing at first decision has ramped up considerably and we are getting through the backlog we inherited, but there is also a huge backlog by definition in the appeals system, partly caused by the legacy appeal—the dash to end the legacy system ahead of the fantasy Rwanda scheme beginning—which has led to a big backlog in appeals. We are looking to see what we can do about that, because it is important that we get a fast and fair system from end to end, and that includes appeals.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Because the previous Government lost complete control of our borders, the Leyland hotel in my constituency of South Ribble was closed down three years ago—yes, three years ago—and used for asylum seekers. There is a chronic undersupply of hotels in South Ribble, Chorley, Preston and central Lancashire. Can Ministers provide any indication at all of when the hotel will cease to be used as an asylum hotel? I am asked that question every single week.
Dame Angela Eagle
I want to get out of hotels as quickly as is feasible. I will not name particular dates, because that is a pointless thing to do. We have to get through the appeals system and the first asylum processing system so that we can move people through the system much more quickly. We also need to continue our work on ramping up returns, which have seen a huge increase—the highest figures for the last five years—and we intend to continue with that process.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The media are reporting that the earliest the contract can be broken is September next year. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? What liability does the taxpayer have for a contract ending today that we cannot get out of until September next year?
Dame Angela Eagle
The right hon. Lady is talking about the prime contractor, which in this case is Clearsprings Ready Homes. As with the other two contractors, the break clauses are with it. We have approval or not of sub-prime contractors. Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd is a sub-prime contractor, and as the Home Office we have withdrawn our approval for it to be in the supply chain.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The shadow Home Secretary has a nerve to come to this House and make that argument when we in the communities saw the damage that the contract he managed did to the public purse. Shall we revisit some of those greatest hits? His contract put councils and Clearsprings against each other, pushing up prices and making it impossible for local communities to help those housed there. He caused absolute chaos.
I have in my hand one of the letters that the hon. Gentleman’s Government were presenting to people who were refugees, giving them less than five days’ notice of where they were being moved, meaning that school places had to be hastily reorganised and children had to be hastily re-clothed because of the decisions he made on public funds. Absolutely no savings were made in the way in which he managed the contracts.
Will my hon. Friend make a commitment and a pledge to all of us who have had to deal with Clearsprings and its chaotic management that when she has the opportunity to renegotiate the contract, or possibly even break it for good, she will put public value for money first and not repeat the chaos of the shadow Home Secretary?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are doing all that we can with the existing contracts to drive value for money, and we are also looking to pilot some other potential alternatives to supply.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Under the refugee convention, we can automatically deport illegal migrants who come here, but under the European convention on human rights we cannot. I had a probing new clause moved on my behalf in Committee on this subject, and, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I hope to move it again on Report. I know that the Minister cannot answer absolutely now, but will she look at that new clause in a constructive spirit? Surely we can all agree that we do not want criminals entering this country illegally.
Dame Angela Eagle
I certainly agree with the Father of the House on that subject. We had a small but perfectly formed debate, albeit in his absence, on his new clause, and I look forward to debating it with him on Report of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I think I still have the largest number of asylum seekers in hotels in the country, with more than 2,000, and I have experience of Clearsprings and Stay Belvedere. It would be really helpful if the new contractual arrangements involved full consultation with some of the organisations working at the frontline of supporting asylum seekers, so that some of the lessons can be learned about past performance to improve future performance.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am more than happy to meet with the right hon. Gentleman to talk about his experience on the ground with respect to both Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd and Clearsprings Ready Homes.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I hope I am not the only person here who is utterly depressed by the complete lack of compassion shown by the shadow Home Secretary and the lack of recognition that the people we are talking about have stories of their own and have experienced horrors that we can barely even imagine. Is it not right that we look at this in a more thoughtful way? To reduce cost to the taxpayer and help those who will be successful asylum seekers to integrate, would it not be wise to allow people who are asylum seekers to work after being here for three months?
Dame Angela Eagle
Those asylum seekers who have not had their claims processed within a year through no fault of their own are allowed access to work. I am unconvinced that allowing access to work earlier would do anything other than create more demand for people to come here.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
It is widely accepted across the whole country, including in my constituency, that the Conservatives left us with open borders, with 150,000 people crossing on their watch and the opening of 400 asylum hotels, costing our taxpayers £9 million per day. This Government have already established Border Security Command and have deported 19,000 people; that is record numbers, up 24% from what the Opposition could achieve. We are also bringing in counter-terror powers to take on the smuggling gangs. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition need to get behind our Bill, so that those counter-terror powers can empower the National Crime Agency to take out the smuggling gangs?
Dame Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend is correct that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which has been through Committee and is awaiting its Report stage, will create counter-terror-style powers that will help us prevent some of these crossings and disrupt the sophisticated criminal smuggling gangs that were allowed to take hold across the channel, unabated by the Conservative party. It will enable us to tackle this problem at source by working across borders with colleagues in other countries, tackling the people-smuggling routes as well as the gangs.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
When in opposition, the Labour party talked tough about what it would do when it entered government. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has said, though, small boat arrivals and hotel use are both up, and asylum seekers are being waved through the system just to make the Minister’s numbers look good. This all reeks of arrogance and complacency, and we are now seeing the real-world impacts; for example, Wethersfield in my constituency has seen the number of asylum seeker users go up. While Labour talked tough before the election, it took things off the statute books before it replaced them with anything else, so when will the Minister actually come to the House with serious proposals to reduce the number of small boat arrivals, which have gone up by over 30% on her Government’s watch?
Dame Angela Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman says that Wethersfield is now getting more people, but it is still not holding the numbers that his Government planned for it to hold when it was opened, so that is rather an odd argument for him to make. If he was serious about reducing the problems at our borders, I would have thought that he would want to support the counter-terrorism-style powers in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, but it seems that he is not.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Under this Government, illegal workplace raids and arrests are up by a third. While that is welcome, we all know from our high streets and constituencies that there is still a way to go, so can the Minister confirm that we will continue at pace on this trajectory to send a clear message that the UK will not tolerate people abusing the asylum system, or indeed illegal activity in any form?
Dame Angela Eagle
Yes. Of course, we have to crack down on abuse of our asylum system, but also on the exploitation of vulnerable and desperate people by vicious criminal gangs.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
During Committee proceedings on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, I said to the Minister that it would only be a matter of time before the Government concocted some sort of Rwanda-style deportation scheme. Even I did not think that it would come so quickly, if weekend press reports are to be believed. Can the Minister say that those reports are totally not true, and will she now rule out ever implementing a third country deportation scheme like the one introduced by the Conservatives?
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I welcome the decision to close Napier barracks in my constituency, where there have been long-standing concerns about conditions, among other issues. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents, as well as those being held there, that this site will be operated properly until it closes in September?
Dame Angela Eagle
If my hon. and learned Friend wants to talk to me about any of the details, I would be happy to listen, but of course we want to operate that site properly and appropriately until we hand it back to the Ministry of Defence in September.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Given that the Government do not believe in sending illegal immigrants to third countries such as Rwanda, can the Minister explain how they plan to deport people who have destroyed their documents so that we do not know their country of origin? Or is the solution to keep those people here forever—in hotels, or in one of the 1.5 million homes that Labour plans to build?
Dame Angela Eagle
Mr Deputy Speaker—sorry, Mr Speaker. I do not know why I am calling you Mr Deputy Speaker today; I have gone back a very long time to when you were, but that was so long ago that I can scarcely remember it. My apologies, Mr Speaker.
The right hon. Lady should remember that the Rwanda scheme was about deporting people for good, not dealing with their asylum claims. That is not in any way what this Government would ever consider doing, which is why that scheme was cancelled.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The shadow Home Secretary can complain all he wants, but while he was in the Home Office, 75,000 people crossed the channel, with thousands housed in hundreds of hotels across the country. A failed Rwanda scheme and a complete freeze on asylum decision making is the reason that the cost of hotels rose to £9 million a day; everything stopped just to send four volunteers to Rwanda, and the shadow Home Secretary is responsible for the chaos. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only party in this House that voted for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will be the party that sorts this chaos out?
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
We all want to stop the perilous channel crossings that are costing vulnerable people their lives, so what steps are the Government now taking to boost further co-operation with Europol so that we can smash the gangs that are profiting from misfortune?
Dame Angela Eagle
We have put more resource into Europol to co-operate with European partners across borders. Operationally, we are working across Europe; we have a new agreement with the German Government and an agreement on sanctions and illicit finance with the Italian Government, and the Calais Group has met in London. We are doing a lot of work with source areas and countries such as Vietnam, not only on returns but on countering some of the adverts that tell lies about the kind of lives that await those who get on perilous small boats. We are working with our international colleagues across the piece, both diplomatically and operationally, to try to put pressure on the international criminal gangs and begin to close down this evil trade.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Under the Conservative party, the asylum budget ballooned to over £4 billion, taking 28% of our overseas development assistance for in-country refugee costs—mainly hotels—against an OECD average of 13.8%, making us a big outlier internationally. I welcome the commitments to speed up processing and reduce hotel use, but with the aid budget being reduced to 0.3% from 2027, can the Minister reassure me that an ever-increasing chunk of a smaller aid budget will not be spent in-country, instead of on supporting vital poverty alleviation work internationally?
Dame Angela Eagle
It is clearly important that overseas development moneys are used to try to prevent the flows of people that have been the result of collapses in various countries. We in the Home Office will do all we can to minimise the spend that we currently take from the overseas development aid budget.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you will know that most of the illegal cross-channel migrants who come to this country come through my constituency, at the processing centre in Manston. As such, I have taken a particular interest in this subject. What I have to say is certainly not going to be popular, either among Conservative Members or among Labour Members, but neither is it going to be populist. The Home Secretary and I—not together—both visited the Calais area recently. We saw there hundreds if not thousands of very determined, very desperate people who are going to risk their lives to cross the channel. The Conservatives’ Rwanda scheme and this Government’s much-vaunted smashing of the gangs will not solve that problem. There is no quick fix, and the only solution will be long term and international. In that context, does the Minister believe that cutting overseas aid is going to do anything other than worsen the problem?
Dame Angela Eagle
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman raises that issue with the Chancellor.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It beggars belief that the Conservatives have the gall to question the actions we have taken as a Government in clearing up the mess they left behind, because they simply stopped doing anything other than wasting £9 billion of taxpayers’ money. We have returned 19,000 people with no right to be here, we have increased Border Force, and we have increased working with our European allies and our intelligence services, but there is more to do. It was a mess, and people in our country feel let down and a deep mistrust of politicians. That is causing division and rumour mills to develop and fester in our communities. Can the Minister tell me what we are doing as a Government to rebuild public trust and community cohesion? Does she agree that that should start right here in this House?
Dame Angela Eagle
I believe that people need to think about the language they use and the impressions of human beings they give when they talk about this very emotive issue. It raises huge concern, I know. As a Government, we have certainly got to do all we can to try to reassure people that we can get this system back under control, after finding a chaotic mess when we came into Government.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I recently wrote to the Minister to request the estimated savings the Government expect from the closure of 10 asylum seeker hotels. In response, I was informed that while the Home Office publishes data on the number of people housed in hotels, it does not report on the number of rooms occupied. A hotel accommodating people in shared rooms incurs significantly different costs from one where individuals occupy separate rooms, yet that critical distinction is overlooked. Given that effective policy decisions must be based on clear evidence, will the Minister commit to publishing room occupancy data to ensure accountability and informed decision making?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I can assure asylum seekers that they will be treated with kindness and compassion in my human rights city of York. However, tragically, a mother at full term lost her baby at a hotel. Will the Minister give a guarantee that pregnant women will not be moved from hotel to hotel, so that they can have continuity of services and a safe pregnancy?
Dame Angela Eagle
That certainly should not be happening. If my hon. Friend wants to talk to me about it, I will try to see what happened in that instance.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
A directive from the Treasury reported in The Times appears to suggest that house building by the Government will help with the backlog of asylum seekers staying in hotels. Does the Minister believe that individuals who have arrived in the UK illegally should be given access to social housing ahead of British citizens?
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Back in 2021, the Conservatives, when in government, told the town of Blackpool that they would use the Metropole hotel as an asylum hotel for three months. They lost control of the borders and drove the asylum system into chaos, and we are still paying the price now, in one of the most deprived communities in the country. Does the Minister agree that we need to close these hotels as soon as possible and give back that prime real estate—especially in coastal communities such as Blackpool—to help the tourism industry thrive?
Dame Angela Eagle
We do not believe that it is sustainable to keep hotel use indefinitely, and we are working to close hotels.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Small boat crossings are up 30% since the general election. The number of illegal asylum seekers in the asylum hotel in my constituency of Broxbourne is also up. Illegal asylum seekers are being prioritised for GP appointments and school places, which is outrageous to me and my hard-working constituents. Can the Minister tell the House when she will meet her manifesto commitment of closing the asylum hotel in my constituency of Broxbourne?
Dame Angela Eagle
Our aim is to close asylum hotels and get out of what we feel is an unsustainable situation as quickly as practicable.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that the Minister agrees that one of the root causes of this crisis was the last Government’s politically motivated actions, first slowing down and then freezing the processing of asylum applications. I have asylum seekers waiting 10 or more years for a decision. The British public want to see a contribution by asylum seekers to the system, reducing the public burden on taxpayers, so has the Minister considered lifting the ban on work so that people waiting more than six months for a decision can contribute to our tax system until a decision is made?
Dame Angela Eagle
Asylum seekers who wait longer than a year are allowed to work, so long as that wait has not been caused by them—that is, a wait through no fault of their own. We have that system now, and I am not considering shortening the length of time that must elapse before work is allowed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Questions are getting considerably longer. Can we keep them on point?
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Like the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), I have visited Calais on a number of occasions, and I have met people there who are desperate. They are victims of war, human rights abuses, environmental degradation and sheer poverty and desperation. They do not cross the channel without a reason to do it. What conversations is the Minister having with those in European countries, north Africa and the middle east about the root causes of the huge numbers of people globally who are seeking asylum at the present time? Inhumanity and deportation will not work.
Dame Angela Eagle
I do not apologise for deporting people who have no right to be here or who have been through the system and are discovered neither to be asylum seekers nor to have any right to stay in the country. I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the desperate situation that people are in. They could claim asylum in the country they are in, and we need to work with our counterparts in the European Union and along all the routes to see what we can do to divert those people who are seeking a better life in our country and see if we can look after them closer to home.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Under this Labour Government, illegal working raids and arrests are up by a third. Does the Minister agree that that sends a clear message that the UK will not and should not tolerate those who abuse our immigration system, and that we will crack down on illegal activity in all its forms?
Dame Angela Eagle
Yes. Illegal working arrests and visits have increased by 38%. More people have been arrested. More people have been fined. We are seeking to ban those who abuse illegal workers—often underpaying them and treating them like modern slaves—from running companies. The fines are now £60,000 per illegal worker. There is no reason why legitimate small businesses should be undermined by illegal working and illegal practices.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Are the Government considering sending failed asylum seekers to overseas return hubs?
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to see the shadow Home Secretary shoot himself in the foot, particularly when he brings a sawn-off shotgun to do the job. The Government are getting a grip on the issue of asylum hotels, and the Conservatives should be ashamed. We heard in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee how children were being targeted for organ harvesting and for sexual abuse and were going missing from the system. The Conservatives put Bills on the statute book that they never implemented, and I am pleased that this Government have committed to closing asylum hotels. They have given me the assurance that they will not be adding hotels in Bournemouth.
When the Conservatives on the Bill Committee defined a deterrent, they said it was about detaining and deporting. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives neither detained nor deported, so we should stop calling the Rwanda gimmick a deterrent?
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree with my hon. Friend. Between the announcement of the Rwanda scheme and its ending, 85,000 people came across in small boats.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Last month we learned that overseas development assistance would be cut from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income. Some of us assumed that this saving would be found in the closure of so-called asylum hotels, but now we learn that the Government will continue to hire hotels for many years to come despite the broken contract. The Minister says that she wants to minimise the effect on the ODA budget, but how much of it will remain?
Dame Angela Eagle
I understand that, ahead of the reductions that were announced, 20% is currently spent on housing asylum seekers in this country. Clearly, if we can get the system running faster from start to finish and we can get people through it faster, we can reduce those costs.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
This Government inherited a chaotic and broken system and disorder at the border. Under the last Conservative Government, the local community was deprived of a manor house in my constituency because it was used as an asylum hotel. Can the Minister confirm that it is the hard-yards mission of this Government to close those hotels and give them back to their communities?
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I appreciate that the Minister’s curt responses suggest that she is struggling somewhat with her brief, but does she actually know how many gangs have been smashed? If she does not know, and on the basis of her previous answers to me I suspect that she does not, why does she not know, and if she does know, will she inform the House—unless, of course, the answer is that no gangs have yet been smashed?
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his belief in my ability to get on top of my brief.
The National Crime Agency recently arrested three men in the UK who were wanted in Belgium after being convicted of being members of an Afghan organised crime group. It has arrested a Turkish national suspected of being one of the most significant suppliers of boats and engines to gangs, who was detained in Amsterdam following a joint operation involving the NCA and Belgian and Dutch police. There have been convictions of two men based in south Wales who ran a people-smuggling ring that involved moving thousands of migrants through Iran, Iraq and Syria and across Europe. As a result of a major international operation involving the NCA targeting a Syrian organised crime group considered to be one of Europe’s most significant people-smuggling gangs, at least 20 people were arrested in a series of raids across the continent, including one in the United Kingdom.
That is just what has been happening recently. A great deal more work is going on involving many, many investigations, the fruit of which will be borne—and we will talk about it—when it is delivered.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I commend the work that the Government have undertaken with European countries and others to smash the criminal smuggler gangs, such as the French deployment of specialist units on the beaches, German raids on small boat warehouses and, indeed, the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in Iraq and in respect of the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq. Can the Minister confirm that although we will not smash the gangs overnight, the Government remain committed to working with our international partners to secure our borders?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are doing that work day in, day out. If the Conservatives had not allowed smuggling gangs to take hold across the channel for six years, we would not be experiencing the difficulties that we are experiencing now in dealing with them. [Interruption.] This takes time, there is no simple, easy solution, and chuntering about it from the Opposition Front Bench—which, let us face it, is where the Conservatives belong—will not make any difference.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
In the first nine months of this Government we have witnessed the cruel impact of their decision making on farmers, pensioners and WASPI women—people who have worked all their lives—while taxpayers’ money continues to fund hotel accommodation for economic migrants arriving illegally via the channel. My constituents want to see the Government put British citizens first, rather than prioritising spending on those who are arriving illegally. What can the Minister say to them today?
Dame Angela Eagle
It is important, in order to deal with the chaos that we inherited, to create a system that is faster, fairer and much easier to get through than the one we inherited. Unless the hon. Lady wants people to be destitute on the streets, we have to look after them while we are processing their asylum claims. Speed is important, as well as ensuring that we do that processing fairly.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I thank the Minister and her colleagues in the Department for the work that they are doing to tackle illegal immigration, especially the enforcement against the gangs who put vulnerable lives at risk. My constituents want illegal immigration stopped, and the chaotic huffing and puffing from the Conservatives is one of the reasons they were booted out on this issue at the general election. It is important to restoring faith in politics that we deliver on it. Does the Minister believe that the existing legal framework on asylum and returns will allow us to do so?
Dame Angela Eagle
The Prime Minister has made it clear that the answer will not be to ignore international law, so we have to ensure that we create a system that is fast and fair and does the job much more effectively than the one we inherited. We are looking into how we can make changes to ensure that that happens.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Everyone agrees that we must have sensible immigration policies, but does the Minister agree that phrases such as “Stop the boats” and “Smash the gangs” are just populist sloganeering that dehumanises the most vulnerable in society and serves as a scapegoat for successive Government shortcomings including the £700 million spent on the useless Rwanda scheme, the billions wasted on personal protective equipment, and the lack of investment in the NHS? That is the reason why people cannot obtain appointments with their GPs, not people arriving on a boat. Does the Minister agree that we must take a holistic approach, including perhaps opening up safe routes and efficient processing, so that when people arrive in this country they can start working from day one?
Dame Angela Eagle
I do not think that safe routes would stop people trying to get into this country clandestinely. It is important that we can assert control at the border so that we decide who comes into our country, not the people-smuggling gangs.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
When I speak to my constituents, they accept that the last Government overspent by billions on the asylum system and it fell to this Government to make the difficult decisions to settle the bill. What they cannot accept is that it is fair for taxpayers to continue to be expected to spend £9 million a day on asylum hotels. That was a mark of shame for the last Government, and it may become one for us unless it is resolved. What steps will the Minister take to speed up processing, increase returns and end the use of hotels for good?
Dame Angela Eagle
We have restarted asylum processing, and we are looking into what we can do to speed up the appeals backlog that we inherited. We will create a system that is faster, firmer and fairer so that we can get people out of asylum hotels, which are not a sustainable model for the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers to the questions that others have posed. There is a clear difference between asylum seekers—those fleeing persecution, those who are threatened—and economic migrants. How can the Government gain control of accommodation for those who are economic migrants to reduce this horrific bill? In my constituency, as in others, people are sleeping on floors in the homes of family members because the Housing Executive that has responsibility back home cannot cope with demand. How will the Minister, and the Government, ensure that families and children are housed, whether they are asylum seekers or British citizens?
Dame Angela Eagle
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made some announcements recently about the capacity to increase house building in this country in order to deal with some of the pressure on demand. It is important from an asylum seeker point of view that we make the system work end to end much faster so that we can get people through it, deport those who have no right to be here, and integrate those who have been accepted as asylum seekers.
Point of Order
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The head of Dover Port Health Authority has told the House that if funding is not secured for the new financial year, food security checks at the border will be stopped. On 6 February I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to confirm that funding. He did not answer, and has not responded to my two written parliamentary questions on the subject. We are now more than two weeks past the deadline for a response and days away from the new financial year, with no answer to the question of whether those important checks at our border will continue. May I please have your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we can secure a prompt and accurate response from the Secretary of State before the checks for diseased meats, in particular, are stopped?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am not sure whether the Chair was alerted to that point of order. It is always good to give prior notice on the exact language.
The right hon. Member will know that that is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put her point on the record. No doubt those on the Treasury Bench will have heard it and will pass on her views.
Bill Presented
Arm’s-Length Bodies (Accountability to Parliament) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for arm’s length bodies to be directly accountable to Parliament.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed (Bill 208).
Regulators (Growth Objective)
Tuesday 25th March 2025
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRegulators (Growth Objective) Bill 2024-26 View all Regulators (Growth Objective) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the inclusion of economic growth as an objective for certain statutory regulators; and for connected purposes.
For too long, our regulatory system has been tangled, inefficient and disconnected from the mission of economic growth and prosperity. Instead of fostering investment, encouraging innovation and delivering good jobs, regulation has too often acted as a brake on progress: too slow, too risk-averse and too unpredictable. The previous Government hid behind regulators, deferring decisions, creating unnecessary bureaucracy and allowing inefficiencies to flourish. Too many businesses today face an overlapping, complex regulatory environment, with too many regulators, too many conflicting duties and too little co-ordination. It is a system that frustrates ambition and slows down investment.
This Government are determined to change that. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and the Business Secretary, the Government are committed to smarter regulation: regulation that is pro-growth, pro-innovation and—yes—pro-worker. We recognise that regulation, when designed and implemented well, is not an obstacle but a tool. It is a tool to unlock private investment, tackle systemic risks, protect the environment, and deliver better outcomes for people and communities.
Britain’s businesses, large and small, are ready to drive economic growth, but they can only do so if the regulatory system enables them. There are now more than 100 regulatory bodies, many with overlapping mandates and responsibilities. The 17 key regulators the Prime Minister wrote to in December collectively employ 36,000 staff and spend £5.4 billion a year. That is a significant national investment, but one that too often lacks strategic co-ordination. Instead of working together, many regulators operate in silos duplicating work, slowing decisions, and creating unnecessary costs and confusion for businesses. Their powers and duties have expanded over time, without any overarching framework to keep them aligned. The result is a fragmented, sometimes contradictory system that no longer serves our national economic interest.
A clear example is the Payment Systems Regulator. Firms operating payment systems like Mastercard or Faster Payments were forced to engage with three different regulators just to function in the UK. That meant three sets of rules, three sets of processes and three sets of conversations to deliver just one service. For major firms, it was frustrating. For small or scaling businesses, it was a serious obstacle. That is why the Prime Minister announced its abolition, with its core responsibilities to be folded into the Financial Conduct Authority. This is not about deregulation for deregulation’s sake. It is about smart simplification: removing duplication, reducing cost and creating clearer points of accountability. In short, it is about regulating for growth.
But let us be clear: one example is not enough. The problem is systemic. The entire regulatory landscape needs to be reviewed, streamlined and refocused around a shared mission of economic growth. That is what the Regulators (Growth Objective) Bill would deliver. The Bill would support the Government’s broader regulating for growth agenda. The Chancellor and the Business Secretary have now published a radical new action plan, backed by businesses, to create a more agile, investment-friendly regulatory environment. As part of that work, the Chancellor secured 60 pledges from regulators that will deliver real, tangible change within the next 12 months. The CBI rightly called it:
“a shift towards more proportionate, outcomes-based regulation.”
This is practical, pro-growth reform: delivering for businesses, supported by businesses. But we must be clear that regulation can be both pro-growth and pro our other priorities, too. Balanced, purposeful regulation can support growth, and support the environment, strengthen public trust and raise living standards.
Take the Government’s new deal for working people. Opposition Members claim that our proposals—to raise the minimum wage and end exploitative zero-hours contracts, introduce day-one rights against unfair dismissal, and expand access to sick pay and parental leave—are somehow misaligned with the Government’s wider approach to regulation. But they fail to recognise that for too long, the UK has operated with a labour market divided between secure, well-paid jobs and a growing share of insecure, low-paid work. The result is a low-wage, low-productivity doom loop. Our new deal for working people is regulation with a purpose, making work more secure, businesses more productive and the economy stronger. These policies are not just good for workers; they are good for business, too.
The Government are not tearing up the regulatory rulebook, but rewriting it for a new era. We can and must learn lessons from home and abroad. Take Japan’s Top Runner programme, a pioneering regulatory approach that sets energy efficiency standards based on the best-performing products on the market, pushing industries to innovate and improve. By combining ambitious targets with industrial flexibility, it has successfully driven technological advancement and economic growth, while also reducing energy consumption. Or take the push by UK financial regulators to require major banks to open up their customer data, with consent, to third parties. That has helped to create a globally leading fintech ecosystem, with investment in UK fintech soaring. The Bill would force us to ask: “How we can repeat those successes in other sectors?” For too long, regulators have been left without that kind of strategic guidance, forced to make politically sensitive decisions in a vacuum. That is not fair on them, and it is not good for the country.
The Bill gives regulators the direction they have been missing. It does not ask them to stop doing their work; it asks them to do it better, together, and with a shared focus on creating prosperity. Because when regulation drifts, so does the economy. Yet right now, there is no formal mechanism to align regulators with the Government’s growth strategy. The Bill would provide it. It enshrines one simple principle: regulators must not only regulate for risk, they must regulate for growth. That means: every regulator must consider the impact of their decisions on investment, innovation and prosperity; and regulators must work together, ending duplication and aligning around shared national priorities. Growth would become a statutory objective, not an afterthought.
This is not theory; it is delivery. Regulation is not confined to the corridors of Whitehall. Its effects are felt in constituencies across our nation. The Bill is a call to action for the Government to bring forward a full review of regulators’ duties and objectives, with the ambition of creating a simpler, smarter framework fit for the modern economy. Too many of our regulators are operating under a patchwork of outdated or overlapping mandates. The result is duplication, drift and decisions that lack co-ordination or clarity. It is confusing for businesses, inefficient for regulators, and a barrier to growth. That is why today I urge the Government to go further and begin the work of legislating for a core set of statutory duties, including growth, across the regulatory landscape: duties that promote long-term growth and investment, protect consumers and the environment, and embed a culture of speed, clarity and accountability in decision making; and a system where regulators remain independent, but the expectations placed on them are consistent, transparent and aligned with our national priorities.
We will continue to protect what matters: safety, fairness, the environment and public trust. However, we must also deliver on what moves us forward towards innovation, economic renewal and growth. Growth is not a luxury—it is how we raise living standards, improve public services and restore pride in every part of this country.
Let us give regulators a clear foundation. Let us bring forward a new legislative framework that reflects the ambitions of a dynamic, pro-growth Britain. Let us regulate for growth. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Luke Murphy, Mr Luke Charters, Uma Kumaran, Lola McEvoy, Chris Curtis, Sonia Kumar, Gregor Poynton, Kanishka Narayan, Mike Reader, Ms Polly Billington, Rachel Blake and Anneliese Midgley present the Bill.
Luke Murphy accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 207).
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Tuesday 25th March 2025
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberNational Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 View all National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 25 March 2025 - (25 Mar 2025)
14:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 190 - Question accordingly agreed to.
14:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 311 / Noes: 192 - Question accordingly agreed to.
14:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 313 / Noes: 194 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 314 / Noes: 196 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1B, 5B and 8B. If the House agrees to any of those amendments, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 1
Exemptions from the changes made by section 1: NHS and social care
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motions to disagree with Lords amendments 5B, 8B and 21B.
James Murray
I welcome the opportunity to consider the new Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill. I start by repeating my thanks to Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and consideration of the Bill. Four new amendments have been made during consideration of the Bill in the other place, which we will seek to address today.
As I reminded hon. Members last week, when we entered government, we inherited a fiscal situation that was completely unsustainable, and 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 of those decisions, but they, along with other measures in the Budget, have enabled us to restore fiscal responsibility and get public services back on their feet. The amendments from the other place before us today put at risk the funding that the Bill seeks to raise. Let me be clear again: to support the amendments is to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises.
It is with that in mind that I turn to the first group of amendments: Lords amendments 1B, 5B and 8B. These amendments seek to create powers as part of the Bill to exempt certain groups from the changes to employer national insurance rates and threshold in the future, including exemptions for care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists and pharmacists, charitable providers of health and care and those providing hospice care. It also includes powers to exempt businesses or organisations with fewer than 25 full-time employees from the changes to the employer national insurance threshold.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. I just want to understand very clearly why the Government think that the NHS, under the banner of NHS England, should—rightly, in my opinion—be exempt from national insurance contributions, but that other parts of the NHS, such as GP surgeries, dentists and hospice care, should not.
James Murray
As I set out during consideration of Lords amendments last week, and, indeed, at pretty much every other stage of consideration of the Bill, the response to the changes in employer national insurance contributions that we are undertaking as a Government is in line with what the hon. Gentleman’s Government did with the health and social care levy in the previous Parliament—namely providing direct support for public employers, meaning central Government, local government and public corporations. That is the standard way in which support for employer national insurance contribution changes is responded to.
As I have set out, the revenue raised from the measures in the Bill will play a critical role in repairing the public finances and rebuilding our public services. Clearly, any future changes that would exempt certain groups from paying national insurance would have cost implications, which, as I have made clear, would necessitate higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. It is for that reason that I ask the House to support the Government’s position by disagreeing to amendments 1B, 5B and 8B.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The Commons’ disagreement to Lords amendment 1, debated last week, states that the amendment
“interferes with the public revenue, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason.”
Does the Minister not think that those we represent would—just perhaps—prefer to see their taxed income generously donated via spending on children’s hospices, rather than spent on an idiotic deal to spend millions of pounds on the Chagos islands?
James Murray
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of hospices during last week’s debate on amendments from the other place. As I made clear at the time, although hospices do not receive support to meet the changes in employer national insurance contributions, we greatly value the work they do. I pointed to the wider support that the Government are giving the hospice sector—namely, the £100 million boost for adult and children’s hospices to ensure they have the best physical environment for care, and the £26 million revenue to support children and young people’s hospices.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to people giving to hospices, which are established as charities. Of course, the Government provide support for charities, including hospices, through the tax regime, which is among the most generous in the world, with tax reliefs for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024.
Lords amendment 21B would require the Government to conduct assessments on the economic and sectoral impacts of the Bill. As we have discussed previously, 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 sets out that, as a result of measures in 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 on employment, growth and inflation. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of this policy change. The information provided is in line with other tax changes, and the Government do not intend to publish further assessments. However, we will of course continue to monitor the impact of these policies in the usual way.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand why we are not supporting these amendments from the other place. The measures in the Bill will play a crucial role in fixing the public finances and getting public services back on their feet. The amendments require information that has already been provided, do not recognise other policies the Government have in place or, most seriously, seek to undermine the funding that the Bill will secure. I therefore respectfully propose that this House disagrees with these amendments, and urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support the Government on that disagreement.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I rise on behalf of the official Opposition to support Lords amendments 1B, 5B, 8B and 21B. It feels like only last week that we were all here, but it is clear that our colleagues in the other place feel as strongly as the Opposition do about these amendments, as they have returned them to us with a similar aim once again.
Lords amendments 1B, 5B and 8B seek to address two of the most serious consequences of the Bill that should concern and unite us all: that a rise in secondary class 1 national insurance could lead to a significant reduction in health and social care services, including our hospices, hitting the most vulnerable in our society; and could represent a complete hammer blow to the future aspirations and very survival of small businesses throughout the country.
We all know that the Chancellor has an addiction to creating fiscal black holes. First she used a fictional black hole, discredited by the Office for Budget Responsibility, as an excuse for her manifesto-breaking tax rises. This has led to more black holes, only this time they are very real because they are being felt out there in the real economy. The Bill before us today will create black holes in the finances of hospices, GP practices, farms, fruit shops, butchers, bakeries and businesses of all shapes and sizes, but especially the very smallest.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the shadow Minister find it puzzling that the NHS will be exempt from these changes, yet the many services on which people depend for their health—dental services, social care and so on—will be hit by this rise in national insurance contributions? [Interruption.] No services will remain unaffected, so people will not experience the healthcare that they require.
Gareth Davies
It is rare that questions come with a musical accompaniment, but the right hon. Gentleman’s mobile ringtone made for a great effect. None the less, his point is the right one, which is that, whether it was intended or not, the rationale for the Bill is to “protect”—in the Government’s words—public services. I could say “bolster” public services if I were being generous. The fact is that the Government are taxing public services on which we all rely and he is absolutely right to emphasise that.
Lords amendments 1B and 5B seek to provide the power to exempt from both prongs of attack of the Chancellor’s jobs tax: care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists, NHS-commissioned pharmacists, and charitable providers of health and social care, such as hospices. And it is hospices specifically that I want to speak more about today.
Hospices are there at what, for many, will be the hardest moments of their lives. They provide vital physical and emotional support to individuals who are coming towards the final chapter of their lives and for their loved ones. In short, hospices are there to look after us at our most difficult time. So, whether through funding, charitable donations or legislation, they deserve our utmost support to continue in this task.
However, as I set out in Committee, this disastrous jobs tax will cost hospices up to £30 million next year alone. Hospice UK has repeatedly warned this Government that the Bill risks a reduction in hospice services, which will lead only to even greater pressure on NHS palliative care services.
Of the more than 200 hospices across our country, around 40 provide care for children. These are children who are living with terminal illness, many of whom have an all-too-limited time left in this world. The organisation Together for Short Lives estimates that the Labour Government’s decision to raise national insurance will add almost £5 million to the annual cost of providing care for seriously ill children and their families. Let us be clear: this will mean that every children’s hospice in England alone will need to spend an average of £140,000 more just to maintain services for the children in their care, after paying the additional tax that this Bill will impose. The Government cannot seriously be demanding that staff and volunteers at charitable children’s hospices—the very people who already give their heart and soul to look after sick and dying children—fundraise their share of £5 million next year alone just to keep their lights on and their doors open.
At Treasury questions on 21 January, the Chancellor stated, in response to an excellent question from my Lincolnshire colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that the settlement for hospices announced by the Health and Social Care Secretary just before Christmas includes money to specifically “compensate” hospices for the national insurance increase. That is not correct, and I am pleased that at least this Minister has tried to acknowledge that point.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
When I visited staff at the much-loved St Barnabas hospice in Lincoln, which provides excellent palliative care, they told me that they are losing £300,000 a year. In the debates on assisted dying, we all agree that we want more palliative care. I just cannot understand the logic of what the Government are doing. I make one last appeal to them not to load this extra cost on to hospices.
Gareth Davies
My right hon. Friend has raised that matter at every single opportunity that he has been afforded, and he is right to stand up not just for St Barnabas, but for all hospices. However, I have to say that St Barnabas holds a particular place in the hearts of people in Lincolnshire. I know, as a Lincolnshire Member of Parliament, that it has been around for 40 years, employs 300 staff and treats more than 12,000 people across our county every single year. The fact that it is going to be hit with a cost worth hundreds of thousands of pounds for no good reason is unacceptable. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House for raising that point so consistently. I hope that the Government will listen to him.
The settlement announced does not compensate St Barnabas, or any hospice, for the damage that the Government are doing, not least because we know that much of this money cannot be spent on facing down the additional running costs that this tax hike will bring. There is £100 million of capital funding, which has been set aside for buildings and equipment. Although that funding is welcome, it will not fill the national insurance blackhole that the Chancellor has created for the hospice sector, and she should not suggest otherwise. Today the Government have a chance to exempt hospices and other key areas of our health and social care sector from this tax hike, by accepting Lords amendments 1B and 5B.
In addition, Lords amendment 8B seeks to provide the power 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. The Chancellor has spoken a lot about growth, but growth has been consistently downgraded since she took office. Something that we, as Conservatives, know, and that she, as a socialist, does not know, is that that is because economic growth cannot come from the Floor of the House of Commons; it comes from the factory floors and bustling high street shop floors in each of our constituencies. It comes not from state-created quangos such as GB Energy, but from individuals who had an idea, stuck it out, made it work and saw it through. It comes from people in this country who, by seeking a better life through enterprise, create the jobs and services that make our country strong.
Those small businesses are being hammered, but not just by the national insurance hike. In less than a year they have already seen: business rates relief cut from 75% to 40%; aspiration penalised with changes to business property relief; and crippling new red tape through the Employment Rights Bill, adding a staggering £5 billion in additional costs. This is a potent and damaging combination of costs that many fear will mark the end. Lords amendment 8B gives the Government another chance today to change their approach, to throw our smallest businesses a lifeline—a chance of survival.
Finally, while our smallest businesses require specific attention, I made it clear last week that, sadly, this Bill does not discriminate. It will hit business groups of all types, across all sectors, in all parts of our country—from charities to cafés, from pharmacies to children’s nurseries and special educational needs and disabilities transport. We must understand the impact the Bill will have. That is why Lords amendment 21B requires the Chancellor to carry out a review of the impact of the Bill on a range of sectors of our economy within six months of its passing into law. I urge Members to support the amendment.
Tomorrow the Chancellor will come to this House to launch her latest attempt to reverse as much as possible of the damage of her Hallowe’en Budget of horrors. Despite the hopes and dreams of business owners across the country, we can be sure that her emergency Budget will not include scrapping this awful Bill. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to work to protect and support the most vulnerable in our society, and to take decisions that drive growth, backing the people out there who make it happen. They are the people who will be hit hardest by the Bill. The Government must change course.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1B, 5B, 8B and 21B. Even before the Budget, there were rumours that the Government were thinking of introducing a hike to national insurance contributions. We Liberal Democrats issued a stark warning to the Government. We challenged them at Prime Minister’s questions and in questions to the Deputy Prime Minister, saying that if they went ahead and introduced these changes, social care providers up and down the land would be hit incredibly hard. The Government cannot say that they were not warned. We warned them, even before they made the announcement.
In the many long debates that we have had in the Chamber since the Budget, we have consistently made the case that health and care providers should be exempted from this change. The Government say that they want to make the national health service a neighbourhood health service; we heard this just an hour ago from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. They also say that they want to take services out of hospitals and on to the high street, but this tax hammers the very providers of the neighbourhood community services on which the NHS relies. It is GPs, dentists, pharmacists, hospices and care providers who hold up our community care, and prop up our NHS, so that it does not fall over.
Government Ministers have said on many occasions that they have increased funding to social care, but the additional funding announced in the Budget is dwarfed by the rise in national insurance contributions. As other Members have highlighted, the Government have said that they have given more funding to hospices, but that funding is for capital projects. There is no point having another hospice building or hospice bed if there are no staff to look after the people lying in them. We know that we have to fix the front door to the NHS—our GPs and dentists—but we have to fix the back door to our NHS too, which is social care.
On hospices, there is nowhere else for the people in them to go. People look for support from hospices so that they can die in dignity, with independence, in a setting of their choice, surrounded by their loved ones—not in the sterile environment of a hospital ward or, worse, a busy corridor or ambulance parked outside. We need our GPs, dentists, hospices, pharmacists and care providers to survive and thrive if we are to end the crisis in our NHS.
The Lords in their wisdom have not sent back an amendment that simply asks for an exemption. They have put in a very clever tweak that asks that the Government to adopt a Henry VIII power. That is not something the Liberal Democrats would normally support, but on this occasion it would give Ministers the power to choose if and when they want to exempt health and care providers from the rise. That way, when we get this enormous growth booming in our economy—when we see the success that we all hope to see—a Minister could choose to exempt health and care providers and give them the cash injection that they need. I urge the Government to support this measure.
Amendment 8B provides a power to exempt small businesses from the changes. Small businesses are the engine of our economy and of growth. They are the very organisations that prop up our high streets. They are the glue that hold our communities together. The Government have raised the employment allowance for microbusinesses, but they have not put other provisions in place to support small businesses. While our small businesses can be the engine of growth, they are screaming out about the number of obligations being put on them, with the NICs changes, business rates bills going up and the new obligations under the Employment Rights Bill. It is all happening at once, and they say that they are overwhelmed. I support amendment 8B, which would give the Government the power to exempt small businesses.
I am also in favour of Lords amendment 21B on an impact assessment. As Ministers remind us, there is a tax and spend announcement coming, but looking at the impact of the provisions, this is less about tax and spend and more about the overwhelming impact on small businesses, which are really struggling right now. Many of them still have covid loans, and many are struggling with access to finance. Many owners are remortgaging their homes to prop up a new business. This change has come out of the blue. Small businesses have not been able to plan ahead for it, and many of them are fearful about what will happen. I fear that if the measures go ahead, in a matter of days, we will start to see shop fronts boarded up on high streets up and down the land.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I was going to call Sir Roger Gale, but he is no longer bobbing—ah, I call him now.
Sir Roger Gale
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I naively assumed that, having already been called twice today, I had to take my place in the pecking order.
I want to come back briefly to hospices. This is a very serious issue, and I do not think that the Minister or the Government understand the deleterious effect of the change on care for some of the sickest people in the land, both in adult hospices and children’s hospices. I have listened very carefully—twice now—to the Minister’s response about giving this and giving that, but they are giving with one hand and taking away more with the other. The net result will be a reduction in staff. This is a straightforward tax on jobs.
Without dedicated, caring staff, who do jobs that frankly most of us would not begin to know how to do, the health service will not function. There are children living in and being serviced by Demelza House, Shooting Star and all the other children’s hospices. The Pilgrims Hospices in Thanet and Canterbury will not be able to afford to recruit and or pay the staff that they need.
Hospice care is an integral part of the health service. The point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and others that hospice care is part of the health service and should be treated as part of the NHS. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend asks from a sedentary position, “Where are all the Labour Members?” The answer is that they will be in the Lobby, voting against these measures, but they are not here listening to the debate. It saddens me to have to say it, but in this instance, their absence speaks volumes. Quite simply, they do not care.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Lords amendments seek to address a clear, present and insurmountable financial challenge for significant elements of health and social care delivery in all our communities. The Government say, in the most spurious and disingenuous way, as though they did not understand their role in the health service, that social care providers, GPs, dentists and pharmacies are contractors. How they are dealt with by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is irrelevant. It is the role that they fulfil in our society and in the delivery of health and social care services that is at stake. These are not contractors that can go and develop new markets somewhere else. Their market is exclusively within the NHS and health and social care up and down these islands. Many properly commercial businesses will not manage to pivot their way out of this attack from Labour—and GP practices, pharmacies, care providers, nurseries and hospices certainly will not.
I want to mention hospices. When Macmillan Cancer Support speaks, no matter what colour our rosette, we should listen. It has highlighted clearly what the measures mean for end-of-life care. There have been 15 years of chaos in the United Kingdom, most of it economic; there has been the lost decade of Brexit, and its catastrophic effect on the UK’s economy and the material welfare of people up and down these islands. I ask: who can we blame? Who is culpable? Who has their fingerprints all over it? Not terminally ill children in hospices, who will, as a result of the Bill, suffer as a result of the debilitating effect on the care with which they are provided. The Minister and his Government could do a simple thing: give hospices a derogation from the grasping hand of the Bill, and protect children in the worst imaginable circumstances.
From the outset, the Government’s fiscal misadventure has been met with opprobrium from all manner of sections of the economy and society, but they have held firm. I pay tribute to the Minister; he fronts up here every time with a smile, and does his best to defend what he has to. That is his job, and I do not judge him for that, but the bottom line is that the Government have yielded, not to children in hospitals, or to people trying to deliver social care and free up hospital beds by preventing delayed discharge, but to the bankers by restoring their bonuses, and to the non-doms who want all the benefits of living in this country but do not want to pay for it. That speaks volumes about what a Labour Government in this day and age are all about.
Sammy Wilson
I hope that I can have this intervention without a musical interlude. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for having my phone switched on. Will the hon. Member accept that not only are services likely to be affected, as he has outlined, but the Government’s aim of raising additional revenue will be affected as well? As he pointed out, they have given in to the bankers and non-doms because of the fear of losing revenue. Anecdotally, we know that many businesses, whether those supporting the national health service or other small businesses, will cut back on the number of staff that they employ because they cannot afford them, and that will lead to a loss of national insurance and tax contributions. It could be an own goal for the Government if they cause pain to businesses but do not get any revenue from it.
Dave Doogan
I agree entirely. This is a £24 billion fiscal drag that is intended to create growth. Work that one out if you can, because it is beyond my ken. The Government will not make derogations for key elements of health and social care, because the benefit of the £24 billion drag on the economy that the right hon. Gentleman pointed out is, after compensation, already down £10 billion. If they compensate the people who they definitely should, such as GPs, pharmacies, care providers and hospices, that would take it down to somewhere around £7 billion or £8 billion. What type of Chancellor and Treasury orthodoxy says, “We place a £24 billion burden on the economy in exchange for an £8 billion return for the Treasury”? It is absolutely catastrophic. It is misadventure writ large, and it has Labour as its logo.
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Member highlighted the comments by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which said that the £24 billion is, in fact, only £10 billion once behaviour change is accounted for. If the Government were to agree to the exemption that we seek, the figure could be only £8 billion. Does he agree that there are much fairer ways of raising that revenue, such as by putting a digital services tax on the big online media giants and gaming companies?
Dave Doogan
The hon. Member raises two excellent examples of what could be done to raise the funding that the Government need in a just way. Let us not forget that Labour knew fine what it was walking into when it won the election. We told it, as did the Liberal Democrats and the media—the Tories were a bit quiet on the issue, right enough—that there would be an £18 billion black hole if it stuck to Tory tax and spending policy. This is on Labour. The hon. Member mentioned two examples of excellent and just ways to raise funding.
Similarly, the Government could apply Scottish income tax thresholds to the whole of the UK, giving most people a pay rise and raising £16 billion into the bargain. They could raise £40 billion from a 1% wealth tax on assets over £10 million. There are a range of other measures that they could take, such as raising £30 billion by rejoining the single market—not very many people in here talk about that.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I am just flummoxed by the Government’s approach to the Bill. Clause 1 raises employer national insurance from 13.8% to 15%. Almost more damagingly, clause 2 reduces the threshold at which they start paying it from £9,100 to just £5,000. The Government know how damaging this measure is for healthcare. We can see that because they have taken action to exempt the NHS from it. That will cost billions of pounds, because healthcare providers cannot just diversify as other sections of the economy might be able to. They cannot raise prices. A general practitioner’s customer is the state, and prices are fixed by the Treasury. As a result, the Government know exactly what the impact of this proposal will be on hospices. We have already heard that without an exemption, they will face an additional £30 million of costs every year as a result of these changes.
When the Bill was first announced, I assumed that there had been an oversight by the Treasury and that it would be addressed as the Bill progressed. But both last week and this week, the Lords have moved to fix what was originally considered to be perhaps an oversight. Today’s decision to seek to reverse Lords amendments 1B and 5B in particular demonstrates beyond doubt that it is not an oversight but a deliberate decision taken by Labour to penalise hospices for the care of the dying, and to do what with that money? We may be in the obscene position in a few weeks’ time of funding for state-assisted dying being raised by taxing palliative care. This is absolute madness. If Members wanted any other reason why they should not support the Government, that is an overwhelming one.
I make one last reference to the emptiness of the Government Benches. There are now two Labour Members sitting there who are not required to be—[Interruption.] I take it back, there is only one. That indicates to me that Labour Members do not want to be associated with the Bill. They will scurry through the Lobby later, but they are not brave enough to stand up and defend the decision of their Government.
Gregory Stafford
You do not need any convincing of this, Madam Deputy Speaker, but were you to, the Lords amendments demonstrate why we need a House of Lords. They are the ones standing up and delivering the amendments that this Government are trying to wriggle out of this afternoon. Amendments 1B and 5B, which the Government are trying to derogate from, are essential for our care services. The financial strain that the Government’s national insurance contributions will put on the care sector is astronomical—some predictions are of around £2.4 billion on social care alone. Ultimately, that will lead to reductions in services and, unfortunately, closures, especially in the hospice sector.
The Minister has repeated what he and other Ministers have said on many occasions: they are giving a certain amount of money to the hospice sector, but as Opposition colleagues have stated, that is capital spending. What they desperately need is revenue spending to cover the cost of the rise in national insurance contributions.
Dave Doogan
Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the Government patently do not understand whole-system cost, which is a key element of fiscal policy? When care providers—whether hospices, in-home care providers or social providers—fall over as a result of these measures, as they will, those costs will get picked up by the rest of the system, and that will have a net cost to the Treasury.
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which has been made by Opposition Members on numerous occasions. It does not surprise me that Labour Members do not understand the economy. I did hope that they would understand the care sector, which has been telling them time and again that this national insurance increase will hit it disproportionately and cause it to reduce and, indeed, close services.
I think of Phyllis Tuckwell hospice in the centre of Farnham in my constituency, which is fortunately going through a multimillion pound rebuild as we speak, but when it reopens, it will be hit by these national insurance contributions and will have to make decisions about what services it can provide to my constituency and the surrounding areas of Surrey and northern Hampshire. Likewise, on Friday I will see Shooting Star children’s hospice, which is a fabulous children’s hospice that I have visited on a number of occasions. What is galling to me is that I see photographs of Labour Members turning up to Shooting Star and similar hospices, putting their arms around people and saying what a wonderful job they are doing, but later today they will walk through the Division Lobby to take money away from them. What hypocrisy.
We already know that there are workforce challenges in the care sector, and especially in the hospice sector, so why on earth are the Government targeting those sectors for raising national insurance contributions? As Opposition Members have mentioned, this is not an abstract cost that will hit some sort of nebulous business; this is a cost that will hit patients and, in the hospice sector, those who are dying, because care will be taken from them. It is a tax on community care. It is a tax on dying. The Labour Government should be ashamed that they are bringing this in.
Sir Roger Gale
We have rightly concentrated a great deal on children’s hospices, and I still hope that at the 11th hour the Government, as a socialist Government, may have some compassion and give some ground. But the other area, which we have not touched on enough, is the independent care providers who are providing services in people’s homes. They will not be able to employ the people that they need—they cannot do so now—even if they can get them. That inevitably means that those cared for will end up in hospital, at still greater cost to the health service.
Gregory Stafford
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, echoing one made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan). That is correct: there will inevitably be a net cost to the Exchequer because of this policy. He is right that home care has not been touched on but will be affected. Home care companies in my constituency will not be able to expand their staff, which is vital to meeting people’s needs.
Pharmacies, which we have not touched on a lot, are in the same position. A few weeks back, I visited Badgerswood pharmacy in Headley in my constituency, and I was told that the measure will hit it hard and cause a real problem in service delivery for my constituents.
This measure will not only have a massive effect on those businesses—GPs, pharmacies, the hospice sector and the home care sector—on the economy, because there will be a net cost, and on patients, who will not receive the services in the wider NHS family that they deserve, but it runs entirely contrary to the Government’s stated policy of wanting to bring healthcare close to home and close to the community. Although they are exempting acute hospital care, which takes place away from the community, they are taxing the bit that they say they want to expand. It is totally illogical, even on the Government’s own policy. I hope that the Government have an 11th hour change of heart, either today or at the emergency Budget tomorrow, because it is vital that we support these sectors.
We see with Lords amendment 21B that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as it were. If the Government were so convinced that their policy was the right, just, fair and proper one, they would allow a review to go ahead so that we could see its impact. The fact that Government Members will be walking through the Division Lobby to hide this policy from the British people tells us all that we need to know: they know that this policy does not stand up to scrutiny, and they are running from it.
James Murray
With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to some of the comments made by Opposition Members.
Although I feel that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), will not support us on the Bill, I none the less recognise that she seems to support the extra funding that we put into public services in terms of GPs, dentists, hospices commissioned by the NHS and so on. Although she will not agree with the difficult decision that we have taken to raise that funding, I got the impression that she supports our spending on those public services.
I turn to the official Opposition. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), claimed that very small businesses will feel the greatest impact from the changes in the Bill. I can only conclude, therefore, that he has not read the Bill, because he would have seen that we are doubling the employment allowance to £10,500, with the result that the very smallest businesses will not pay any national insurance contributions at all when they are employing up to four people earning the national living wage.
More widely, the shadow Minister and many of his Opposition colleagues refuse to take any responsibility whatever for the state of the public finances or the public services after 14 years of the Conservative party being in control. They also resisted the opportunity to acknowledge that the approach we are taking in government to compensate the public sector for changes in employer national insurance contributions is the same one that the previous Government took with the health and social care levy. That came up time and again, and even when the shadow Minister was intervened on, he missed the opportunity to acknowledge that our approach is the same one that he and his colleagues took in government.
The amendments from the other place would require information that has already been provided. Either they do not recognise other policies that the Government have in place, or—most seriously—they would undermine the funding that the Bill will secure. Let me be clear: to support the amendments that create exemptions is also to support higher borrowing, lower spending or other tax rises. I therefore ask the House to support the Government’s position by disagreeing to Lords amendments 1B, 5B, 8B and 21B.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill)
Tuesday 25th March 2025
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberNon-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 25 March 2025 - (25 Mar 2025)
16:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 183 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 322 / Noes: 117 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 180 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 320 / Noes: 180 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 320 / Noes: 179 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 166 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1 to 12, and 14 to 17. If any of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 3
Application of multipliers
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 19, and Government motions to disagree.
Jim McMahon
First, I am grateful to Members of both the Commons and the Lords who have so diligently scrutinised the Bill throughout its passage. Before I address the amendments tabled by the Lords, allow me to remind the House of why we introduced the Bill in the first place. This Government have committed to transforming the business rates system, and the Bill is a first step on that important journey. We want to achieve a sustainable system that is fit for the current economic landscape, and where business growth is supported and ratepayers pay their fair share. I thank the noble Lord Khan of Burnley for taking the Bill through the other place and for being so thorough in his approach. I also thank officers of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and my private office for all their work on the Bill.
The Government oppose all the amendments before us today and I will provide further explanation as to why. At the Budget, the Government explained that we wanted to introduce new lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from April 2026 to address the uncertainty of the temporary, stopgap support provided by the annual RHL relief. Business rates represent a stable source of revenue for local government, meaning that this permanent tax cut must be sustainably funded. That is why the Government also announced our intention to introduce a higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. This Bill makes provision to enable the introduction of those new multipliers, so this is the first step towards delivering on the Government’s manifesto commitment to transform the business rates system to one that is sustainable, protects the high street and is fit for the 21st century.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
On a point of detail, the Minister says the Bill is a “first step”, so will there be further reforms, following these reforms, to the rest of the business rates system to meet his manifesto commitment to replace the current business rates system completely?
Jim McMahon
I am not going to pre-empt any further decisions on this, other than to say that this represents an important and significant step forward. As a constituency MP, he, like me, will have heard from many small businesses—retailers, hospitality providers or leisure providers—who appreciated the support during covid, but were very clear that there was a cliff edge and that that support was coming to an end. The previous Government did not provide any certainty about what followed, so the Bill ends that uncertainty and hardwires in a permanent relief system to ensure those important businesses that are the foundation of our communities and our economy are supported through the tax system.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Minister has already said, as he has in previous speeches, that this is a “first step”, but now he says it is a “permanent” measure. I agree with him that business wants certainty, so it is important that businesses understand: is this now a permanent position that will not be changed, or a first step?
Jim McMahon
The answer is that it is both, as I will go on to explain in more detail. It is an important first step, and the relief that is provided, funded through the higher rate properties, will be hard-baked into the system, notwithstanding any future support that may well follow, which we are not pre-empting today.
Lords amendments 1, 6, 7 and 12 would remove qualifying healthcare hereditaments from the higher multiplier, and Lords amendments 2, 5, 8 and 11 would do the same in relating to anchor stores. Considering the challenging fiscal environment, it is vital that this permanent tax cut is funded sustainably. The Government have been clear that they will do that by applying the higher multiplier to all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. That accounts for less than 1% of all properties and is the fairest approach. The impact on healthcare properties is limited. As set out in the other place, of the 16,780 properties at or above the £500,000 threshold based on the current rating list and rounded to 10, only 350 are in the health sub-sector. Of those, 290 are NHS hospitals and only 30 are doctors’ surgeries or health centres.
At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor fixed the spending envelope for phase 2 of the spending review. The Government are considering the full range of departmental priorities and pressures as part of the spending review, and that includes any impact of the higher multiplier on public sector properties, such as schools and hospitals. I urge the House to disagree with those amendments.
We recognise the importance of anchor stores, and we are doing a great deal to support the high street in this Bill and elsewhere. While the largest anchor stores may be caught by the higher multiplier, they are often part of large retail chains that will have a number of properties with rateable values below £500,000. Those businesses will, therefore, benefit overall from the lower multipliers.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
I appreciate the points that the Minister is making. In Fareham and Waterlooville, we have some fantastic pubs, including the Golden Lion in Fareham, the Chairmakers in Denmead and the Heroes in Waterlooville. Many pubs are hubs of our community and make a valid contribution to the local economy, but they have been trading under challenging circumstances and have been asking for a cut in business rates. What will be the effects of the Minister’s position today?
Jim McMahon
The Bill provides a cash saving for exactly the types of business that the right hon. Member talks about. We all understand the importance of pubs to our towns, villages and estates, not just as businesses in the economy but as places for the community to convene, to meet and to build relationships and networks. That is exactly why the measures are being brought in, and in a permanent way, because pubs needs certainty. They know the rising costs of supplies, carbon dioxide and energy have put significant pressure on pub operations, and these measures provide long-term stability that bakes in the support the Government can offer into the system.
Many pubs will be free houses and they will be independent. However, a number of pubs will be part of a brewery chain with managers in place. The measures take away the cash cap of £110,000 per business, allowing, for the first time, multiple operators to benefit. That will benefit pub chains, as well as high street stores, such as Home Bargains, Boots and other retailers. Those businesses draw in footfall, which then supports independent retailers as well. The proposals are rounded and provide long-term stability that is properly funded in a responsible way. On that basis, the Government oppose the Lords amendments as laid out.
Lord’s amendments 3, 4, 9 and 10 are concerned with bringing manufacturing properties into scope of the lower multiplier. If we widen the scope of the lower multipliers in that way, it will dilute the support available to RHL properties or jeopardise the ability of the Government to sustainably fund the lower multipliers. We need to be clear that this is not a wide-ranging offer, but targeted deliberately at supporting our communities, high streets and town centres. That is why the Bill focuses on RHL support. The Government are supporting the manufacturing sector through other means. For those reasons, I urge the House to oppose the amendments.
Lord’s amendments 13 and 16 require the Government to undertake a review of how the provisions to introduce new multipliers may affect businesses whose rateable value is close to the £500,000 threshold for the higher multiplier. The review would need to be put before Parliament three months prior to 1 April 2026 in order for clauses 1 to 4 of this Bill to come into effect. These amendments probe around the way the multipliers in the business rates system currently operate. Those hereditaments on the standard multiplier, or in the future on the higher multipliers, pay rates on that multiplier calculated on all of their rateable value, and not just the rateable value above the threshold. That, of course, generates cliff edges in the rates bills for hereditaments as they move between thresholds, and we acknowledge the presence of those cliff edges—it is a matter of fact.
At the autumn Budget, the Treasury launched a discussion with business on the “Transforming Business Rates” paper. This specifically highlights these cliff edges in the system and considers whether they may act as a disincentive to expand, so I can assure the House that we are already looking at the precise issue identified in the amendment. Reforms are being taken forward through the transforming business rates work and will be phased in over the course of the Parliament. Therefore, we believe Lords amendments 13 and 16 are unnecessary.
Lords amendment 14 would require the Government to commence a review that examines the merits of creating, within three months of Royal Assent, a separate use class and associated multiplier within the non-domestic ratings for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses in England that do not have a material presence on high streets. The noble Lord Thurlow, who put forward the amendment, made it clear that this use class would apply only to business rates. As he explained in the other place, the key task is to identify those warehouses, as distinct from warehouses used by, say, high street retailers—warehouses that may otherwise look the same.
The Lords amendment would bring together the Government and professional bodies working on business rates to identify those warehouses. We are already exploring that objective through an existing project. The digitalising business rates project will allow us to match property-level data with business-level data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to improve the way in which we target business rates, and to identify property and businesses in the way that the Lords amendment envisages.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I did not intend to intervene, but I was looking through the amendments, and I see that a lot of them focus on exemptions from the business rates. Does the Minister agree that the way to look at supporting businesses in, for example, the manufacturing industry is through other means, not through changing the business rates?
Jim McMahon
We welcome scrutiny through amendments and the insight that the other place can provide, just as we welcomed scrutiny in the evidence sessions and Committee sittings; it adds value. We need to be honest: it is natural for Members to want to widen the scope of legislation during its passage, and to include more. In Government, we have to deal with the art of the possible, which means balancing a number of competing interests, not least the impact on taxpayers in the round. The Bill is targeted at those who need it the most—communities and local economies—and it is fully funded to ensure that it is sustainable. We cannot draw the legislation so wide that it does not stand the test of time and does not cover its own cost. That would not be responsible, and certainly would not be sustainable.
Lords amendment 14 would require the Government to implement the recommendations of the review. Given that we do not know what those recommendations would be, I trust the House will understand that we cannot accept an amendment to accept them blindly in advance.
Finally, Lords amendment 15 and consequential Lords amendments 17 to 19 would strike from the Bill the clause that removes charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities. We are unable to accept these Lords amendments. This Government made a manifesto commitment to raise school standards for every child, break down barriers to opportunity and ensure that every child has the best start in life, no matter where they come from or their financial background. Achieving our ambition involves meeting our commitment to removing the VAT and business rates charitable relief tax breaks for private schools; the approach and design of this policy has been carefully considered in the light of that. The measures are necessary in order to raise the revenue to deliver on the Government’s commitment to education and young people, and to improve the state sector, where—let us be clear—90% of children are educated. This Government are prepared to take the tough but necessary decisions to deliver on those bold commitments, so, as with all the other amendments brought here from the other place, I cannot accept these Lords amendments. I hope that the rest of the House follows suit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Lords amendments. We shall not agree, and I will explain why. I thank the Lords for their careful consideration of the Bill; in particular, I thank the noble Lord Jamieson and the noble Baroness Scott for their scrutiny and amendments.
The legislation comes at a critical time for businesses. The partial withdrawal of retail hospitality and leisure relief—a policy choice by this Government—is hitting businesses hard. The average pub is more than £5,000 worse off as a result of the Minister’s choices. That, together with the Government’s trash-talking of the economy, the £25 billion annual tax rise for businesses by means of the rise in employers’ national insurance, and the prospect of the job-destroying Employment Rights Bill, has led directly to a massive reduction in business confidence. According to the Institute of Directors, business confidence, which stood at a high of plus 5 in July last year, has collapsed to a covid-level low of minus 65.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. What is his advice to the many businesses in Fareham and Waterlooville who have told me—I have lost count of them—that they do not know whether they will survive the next few years, particularly because of the rise in national insurance contributions from employers, the Employment Rights Bill and the anti-business rhetoric? Hiring is down, prices are up and many businesses in Fareham and Waterlooville are beginning to wonder whether it is all worth it.
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. These are difficult times. As she knows, I was in business for 30 years, and we go through some difficult times. Many people think that business is easy, but it is not, particularly at times like this, when confidence, including consumer confidence, has gone so low. It means that people are not coming through the door. My advice to businesses is to batten down the hatches and get through this where they can, but inevitably the consequence of these choices will be less employment, lower salary increases and higher prices in shops, public houses and other places. That is the consequence of the choices that this Government have made. The real-world effect of this historic drop in confidence is a 20-year high in business closures. Over 220,000 businesses closed their doors in the last three months of 2024.
When considering the Lords amendments, it is important to remember that the Labour party promised to abolish business rates—another broken promise. The Minister, for whom I have a great deal of time, talks about the art of the possible; what he is saying is that a promise that he and his colleagues made to the electorate in the run-up to the election has been broken. In its manifesto, Labour promised to
“replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way. This new system will level the playing field between the high street and online giants”.
That is not what the Bill does, so that is also a broken promise. The reason I challenged the Minister a couple of times during his remarks is that I do not understand how the Bill can be both a first step and a permanent change. That makes no sense, and if I were one of the business people for whose rude health we are all responsible, I would like to know exactly what the Government have planned beyond these changes. That is not clear.
I turn first to Lords amendment 14, which would require the Secretary of State to review
“the merits of a separate Use Class and associated multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses that do not have a material presence on local high streets”—
in other words, online giants. It is worth noting that the rates regime proposed by this Bill will mean that only around 10% of businesses paying the higher rate will be the warehouses of online giants. In reality, shops, restaurants, cafés, pubs, cinemas, music venues, gyms and hotels will all see their business rates rise as a result of the higher multiplier. We would support a rates regime that would genuinely level the playing field between online retailers and the high street, but this Bill does not deliver that. We therefore support amendment 14’s requirement that the Secretary of State conduct a review on introducing a higher multiplier for fulfilment warehouses. Such a multiplier would mean that important anchor stores for high streets would not be punished.
That brings me to Lords amendments 1, 5, 8 and 11. We all know from our constituencies how important anchor stores, such as supermarkets and department stores, are for attracting footfall and supporting local economies. When people come into the town centre to use an anchor store, they might stop for lunch in a local café or pop into an independent business. Key anchor stores in the Secretary of State’s constituency will be hit by this Bill: Sainsbury’s in Ashton-under-Lyne has a rateable value of £1.24 million, while Marks and Spencer next door has a rateable value of £770,000. These decisions have real-world effects on companies that are not online giants.
We have seen the impact on our communities when anchor stores leave a town. For many anchor stores, being dragged into the higher multiplier by this Bill could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back; those shops have already been hit by the jobs tax, and will be tied up with even more red tape through the Employment Rights Bill. In fact, the British Retail Consortium has warned the Government that
“The sheer scale of new costs and the speed with which they occur create a cumulative burden that will make job losses inevitable, and higher prices a certainty.”
That contrasts with my party’s proud record of supporting businesses, including small businesses, on the high street by cutting business rates, as well as providing billions of pounds of support throughout the pandemic.
While we are talking about high street businesses, can I once again push the Minister on a very important point—the retention of small business rate relief? Many businesses’ livelihoods depend on that relief, so will he say at the Dispatch Box that it will be continued? I have not had clarity, and clearly I will not get clarity today. Is that relief also on the chopping block, maybe at the Chancellor’s emergency Budget tomorrow? Let us see what that brings; we may get clearer answers then. Tomorrow’s last-gasp attempt to go for growth comes after GDP falling by 0.1% in January. That was largely attributed to a 1.1% fall in manufacturing output.
That brings me briefly to Lords amendments 3, 4, 9 and 10. They would make manufacturing hereditaments eligible for the lower multipliers when it comes to local ratings lists. That comes at a particularly important time for our manufacturing sector, which is a crucial part of our economy, whether we are talking about automotive manufacturing, aerospace manufacturing or precision engineering. As we boost capital defence expenditure, it is important that we have a strong and resilient manufacturing base that can supply our brave armed forces. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the impact of the new rates system on manufacturing, and we will listen carefully to the Minister’s responses on this issue.
Turning to Lords amendments 1, 6, 7 and 12, given that the Government are raising taxes to invest in the NHS, it seems perverse for them to levy higher business rates on the hospitals and GP practices that provide the services that so many of our constituents rely on. It is just weeks since the Government shamefully voted to impose a jobs tax on hospices, pharmacies and GP practices—another double whammy. Labour is giving with one hand and taking with the other.
Before we get to the real sting in the tail of this Bill, I will speak briefly to Lords amendments 13 and 16. Like Members of the other House, we have concerns about the cliff edge that the Bill will create in the business rates system, which the Minister referred to. A business crossing the £500,000 threshold, even by £1, could see a near 20% increase in rates payable. For instance, a business with a hereditament of £495,000 invested in their property—just enough to push them over the threshold—would potentially see an increase in rates from around £175,000 to £325,000 as a result of this Bill. The legislation will stifle investment and growth even further.
Finally, Labour’s education tax—the spiteful and ideologically driven decision to remove the charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities—sits alongside the utterly wrong-headed policy of charging VAT on private school fees. Regardless of people’s views on private schools, it is the view of the Opposition that we should never tax education. We are already seeing the gates of independent schools being locked indefinitely. That pushes more children into state education, increases class sizes and puts more pressure on the public purse, and on councils trying to find placements for students with education, health and care plans. Lords amendment 17 would retain rates relief for private schools in England, sparing them part of a cumulative burden that would otherwise send many of them beyond the brink.
It is not just education that is affected. Since the introduction of this Bill, we have learned that the Government will also levy business rates on nursery schools and sports facilities used by the general public if they are on the site of a private school. That regressive decision will jack up the cost of swimming lessons, and the costs for Sunday league clubs and cadet units. During our time in government, England became one of the top-performing countries for education in the western world. That is a record that this Government seem determined to trash. Years down the line, Government Members will regret having voted for this Bill as they walk down the high street, passing boarded-up shops, school gates locked shut and a local that called last orders for the final time years ago. I urge the Government to consider and agree to the amendments from the Lords to safeguard businesses, schools and communities across the country from more business-damaging and job-destroying tax hikes.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Bill is necessary to support our high streets. It strikes a fairer balance between small businesses and large, and I am pleased to have contributed during most stages of its progress. I rise to address some of the amendments put forward by the other place, which would reduce the effectiveness of the Bill.
Amendments 2, 5, 8 and 11 seek to exempt anchor stores from the higher multipliers, thus reducing the revenue raised by the Bill overall. By reducing that revenue, the amendments reduce the support available to smaller retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, when providing that support is the entire purpose of this legislation.
I also fear that the definition of an anchor store could create problems for our high streets and town centres. During the debate in the other place it was said that the Treasury could decide what constituted an anchor store, but it was also admitted that it would be a difficult term to define. It is not uncommon, and not untrue, to say that several shops in a high street can indeed lay claim to that title, and I foresee difficulties in this regard if the amendment is passed.
It is also true that anchor stores are often the largest stores in town, usually part of a big chain, supermarkets being an obvious example. The effect of this amendment would be to exempt those larger businesses from the higher multiplier, again reducing the support available to smaller businesses. The entire purpose of the Bill is to support our smaller retail, leisure and hospitality businesses, paid for by that higher multiplier on larger businesses. Unlike the Opposition, we like to ensure that our numbers add up.
Kevin Hollinrake
What would the hon. Gentleman say to businesses that are trying to make their numbers add up? In its manifesto and previously, the promise—the commitment—of the Labour party was to level the playing field between online giants and small businesses, but, as the hon. Gentleman can see, that is not what is happening here. Many different premises, including manufacturers and large bricks-and-mortar retailers, are being hit by these increases. What would the hon. Gentleman say to those businesses, given that while there is currently no sign of any increase in their rates, that is exactly what they will see as a result of the Bill?
Mark Sewards
The Bill is designed specifically to revive our high streets. The hon. Gentleman will remember, because his party was in government at the time, that our high streets were struggling and suffocating, and it is incumbent on this new Government to revive them. That is why it is so important for us to pass the Bill today. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman mentioned manufacturing, and his hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) chirps from a sedentary position—[Interruption.] I mean “chunters”. I think it important to recognise that the Government are supporting manufacturing too. There are other mechanisms for doing that, but the Bill we are pursuing today, and passing today, is all about supporting our high streets, and I am very proud to support it.
Queen Street is in Morley, in the centre of my constituency. You are welcome to visit it any time, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a lot on offer, almost of all of which comes directly from small businesses. The Lords amendments to which I have referred do not prioritise them; nor do they prioritise the smaller parades of shops in Farnley, Drighlington, Gildersome and Wortley, and they do nothing for the shops and businesses in Ardsley, Tingley, Robin Hood and Lofthouse. That is why I cannot support them. I back the businesses in Morley high street, along with all the other small businesses that I represent.
Lords amendments 15,17,18 and 19 would, in effect, reintroduce the tax break for private schools. We have had this argument about private schools at the general election, in the House, in Bill Committees and again today, but as a former maths teacher at a state school in Leeds, I am more than happy to cover old ground to reinforce my own argument. The proposed amendments seek to remove an integral part of the Bill that generates the revenue that we need to support our plans in government. I will make no apologies for supporting the 94% of children who attend state schools. We all—and I include everyone in the House—want children to have the best opportunities in life, with the highest-quality teaching and schools to match. It should be a basic function of the state to provide well-funded, excellent state school places for all students, whether their parents choose to take advantage of that or not.
On the Labour Benches, as we have proven over recent months, we are prepared to take the action necessary to ensure that all children can access through the state the education they deserve. The £70 million raised by the measure in the Bill, alongside the other revenue-raising measures we have taken in the Budget, will result and do result in a real-terms increase in per pupil funding for the 94% who attend our state schools. I am very proud to support that. We will never make any apologies for properly funding state schools by ending the tax breaks that were previously enjoyed by private institutions. That is why I will not be voting for the amendments.
To conclude, I am pleased to support the Bill in its current, unamended form. I will support our high streets. It will give confidence to small businesses and it will give state schools the funding they desperately need.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I, too, begin by putting on record my thanks to the noble Lords in the other place for all their work on the Bill, in particular those on the Liberal Democrat Benches: Baroness Pinnock, Lord Shipley and Lord Fox.
Business rates reform is long overdue and, while we welcome the proposal to permanently reduce business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, in the meantime many businesses across my constituency, and indeed the country, are reeling as they see the impact of the reduction in rates relief in bills landing on their doormats. I have heard from a number of businesses just in the past few days. I am really concerned about pubs, restaurants and cafés in my constituency who are wondering how, with the national insurance rise and the reduction in rates relief, they will continue.
The Liberal Democrats would like to see a fundamental overhaul of the business rates system, not just the sticking-plaster solutions proposed in the Bill that tinker around the edges. As I said, lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure are a step in the right direction, but there are countless small businesses outside those sectors that need their tax burden reduced too, for example manufacturing businesses. We tabled amendments on Report to improve the Bill and to ensure it gave consideration to whether there should be provision for manufacturing facilities, which can be big and built on expensive land but sometimes produce relatively low-value goods. Lords amendment 4 sought to do the same, whereby manufacturing premises would also pay new lower business rates under the Bill. Without that, light engineering and printers, among other businesses in our town centres’ mixed economies, could be priced out.
A recent report by Barclays bank concluded that the words “made in Britain” were worth an additional £3.5 billion to UK exporters, so it is important that something is done to support the manufacturing sector. We have learnt the hard way in recent years, with the pandemic and wars, that we need to be much more self-sufficient as a country, yet there has been a big drop in confidence in the sector since autumn, with an increase in manufacturers’ costs and orders in general reported to be smaller in size. That comes on top of the additional Brexit red tape that those businesses have to contend with to export. Therefore, we support retaining this amendment in the Bill.
As I have said, we want fundamental reform of business rates so we can boost small businesses and our high streets. We tabled an amendment on Report to require a review of the impact of the Bill on businesses, high streets and economic growth, so we support retaining Lords amendment 13, which would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the Bill on businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000 and so will be caught by the new higher business rates.
Turning to our NHS, yet again we see the Government giving with one hand and taking with the other. As with national insurance contributions, so with the business rates changes: there are unintended but significant consequences for our health service. Lords amendment 1 sought to exclude hospitals and other healthcare settings from paying new higher business rates for properties with a rateable of £500,000 or more. Without the amendment, 290 local hospitals will be caught by the rates, an unacceptable new burden when the NHS is already struggling. As my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock pointed out in the other place, without the amendment the likes of Great Ormond Street hospital for children will have an additional burden of £600,000 per year on business rates alone, the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford has a potential business rates increase from £3.4 million to £4.1 million, and the Hull Royal Infirmary could see its bill rising from £1.8 million to £2.1 million. Those are typical figures for hospitals across the country. I do not believe it is the Government’s intention to reduce hospitals’ abilities to drive down their waiting lists, yet that is exactly what the impact of these changes and the consequent higher charges will be, so we support the amendment.
The Bill also levies a tax on education by removing the business rates exemption for private schools that are charities, a measure that will be compounded by the Government’s move to levy VAT on private school fees and the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions. As I have said many times since the general election—and indeed before—the Liberal Democrats are opposed, in principle, to the taxation of education, as it is a public good. We strongly support and champion parents’ right to choose, on which both those tax measures are an assault.
Mark Sewards
Does the hon. Lady not accept that this Government won an election on the basis of a promise that we would introduce VAT on private school fees, so it is incumbent on us to deliver that manifesto pledge?
Munira Wilson
I am very grateful for that intervention, because I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that his party won the election with less than 34% of the vote. I cannot remember what the turnout was, but—
Munira Wilson
My hon. Friend tells me it was 60%. I cannot do the maths quickly enough—clearly, I need to do maths to 18—
Munira Wilson
There we go—basically, not many voters voted for Labour’s manifesto. I will happily let the hon. Gentleman continue to plough that furrow, because I have had that argument made to me before—for instance, in the petitions debate on VAT on private school fees just last week.
Mark Sewards
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. The simple fact is that we have the electoral system we have, and it is incumbent on whomever wins a majority to deliver their manifesto pledges to govern the country. She may take issue with the electoral system, but it is the one that we have, and we must deliver our manifesto pledges.
Munira Wilson
I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that a rise in employers’ national insurance contributions was not in his party’s manifesto, nor was a cut to the winter fuel allowance, nor was the farmers tax, yet these are all things Labour is implementing.
Munira Wilson
Unless the hon. Gentleman wants to make a different point from his party’s manifesto, which was not voted for by many people, I will not give way, although I will pick up on another point he made earlier.
Clause 5, which implements the removal of charitable rate relief for private schools, undermines the principle that I referred to: we should not be taxing education, and we should respect parents’ right to choose. The clause will undermine the ability of independent schools to undertake the brilliant partnership work that they do in our communities and with state schools. I have talked many times in this place of Lady Eleanor Holles and Hampton schools in my constituency, which have done amazing work with underprivileged communities in the Feltham area, such as with Reach academy, and helped to transform the life chances and outcomes for young people in that community. The measure will also limit those schools’ abilities to extend bursaries to children from more disadvantaged backgrounds.
Suella Braverman
The hon. Lady is absolutely right in what she is saying on private schools, and I agree with everything she has said on that point. Does she agree that as well as the damaging effects on children who go to private schools, this will affect children in state schools? In Hampshire, thousands of young pupils attend independent schools, but the state schools are running at nearly 100% capacity. This measure is going to push hundreds, if not thousands, of children into state schools, which are already full, thereby harming and undermining the education of all children. Is that not unforgivable?
Munira Wilson
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. I am aware, from talking to colleagues, that there are real pressures on school places in different parts of the country. Clearly, that is where we will see a negative impact. In my own constituency and, indeed, across London, we are struggling with secondary school places, although rolls are falling in primary schools, which will feed into the secondary sector. These pressures of children leaving the private sector to go into the state sector are different in different parts of the country.
Mark Sewards
The hon. Member has been very generous with her time. On the points that she made about funds for state schools and about the other difficult decisions that this Government have had to make, does she not accept that when we came to power, we found an economy that had been absolutely ruined by the Conservative party? We found every Department in reserves and a £22 billion black hole that had to be filled, because we are the party of economic responsibility.
Munira Wilson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Where we can make common cause is over the absolute mess in which the Conservatives left both our public services and our economy. I have no quibble in agreeing with him on that point. We Liberal Democrats set out a whole series of tax measures—actually we were the only party that was not afraid to put forward revenue-raising measures—but his Government are choosing not to accept any of them. They included taxing our big tech giants that are ruining the mental health of our children and young people—[Interruption.] Yes, in fact, they are planning to slash that tax altogether. We also suggested reversing the tax cuts that the Conservatives gave to the big banks, so that we can continue putting free school meals on the table for children, which, again, his Government are thinking of cutting. Then we suggested reforming capital gains tax—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are in fact debating Lords amendment 1 and the Government motion to disagree.
Munira Wilson
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply seeking to address the hon. Member’s point. I am coming in to land now.
Time and again we see Government policy at odds with their stated objectives. They want to tackle NHS waiting lists but then slap business rates on to large hospitals and put national insurance rises on to our GPs, hospices and social care providers. They claim to drive growth but then slap business rates on to much-needed manufacturing and put a cliff edge on small businesses in our town centres. They want to extend opportunity to all but then go after charitable independent schools that are serving their wider communities—not to mention punishing parents who dare to make that choice for their children.
Amid some good intentions, the Government have lost their way in parts of the Bill. I implore Ministers to genuinely consider the amendments before them in order to support our hospitals and allow businesses up and down our country to grow and flourish.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Division off.
Question agreed to.
Lords amendment 4 accordingly disagreed to.
Lords amendments 5 to 12 disagreed to.
After Clause 4
Review: threshold effect
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 13.—(Jim McMahon.)
Great British Energy Bill
Tuesday 25th March 2025
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberGreat British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 25 March 2025 - (25 Mar 2025)
18:24 - The House divided: - Ayes: 314 / Noes: 198 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 2 and 11. If either of Lords amendments 2 or 11 is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 3
Objects
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 2, amendments (a) and (b), and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 3 to 12.
Michael Shanks
I am pleased that the Great British Energy Bill has returned to this House. I would like to thank all Members of both Houses for their scrutiny of this important legislation. I extend my thanks in particular to the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his invaluable support and collaborative approach in guiding the Bill through the other place.
Twelve amendments were made there, which I will seek to address today. Before I turn to them, I remind the House that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to set up Great British Energy, and that is exactly what the Bill does. Since the Bill was last in this House, we have appointed five start-up, non-executive directors and announced Dan McGrail as interim CEO, based in Aberdeen, so that Great British Energy can quickly get the expertise needed to help the company develop. I was delighted to convene the first meeting of Great British Energy’s board of directors last week in Aberdeen.
We are determined to get Great British Energy delivering for the British people as soon as possible. It has already made some incredibly exciting announcements on initial projects, including a partnership with the Crown Estate, and most recently announcements on solar for schools and hospitals across England, with funding also for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We look forward to GBE making further investment decisions on projects this year, driving forward our clean power mission and creating thousands of jobs across the country in the process.
Lords amendment 2 would prevent the Secretary of State from providing financial assistance to Great British Energy if credible evidence of modern slavery was found in its supply chains. There has understandably been significant interest in this amendment from Members in the other place and on both sides of this House. We recognise that concerns have been raised widely on this issue, and I am seeking to approach it in a collaborative and open way with hon. Members.
I will also address amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, as our approach to this amendment is similar. I first of all thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for amendment (a). I have been grateful for her engagement with me ahead of the Bill returning to this House. I also pay tribute to her tireless work over many years on this important issue. Her amendment would amend Lords amendment 2 made in the other place by creating a cross-ministerial taskforce to which Great British Energy would need to prove that its supply chains were free of forced labour.
I want the House to be in no doubt that this Government are absolutely committed to confronting and tackling modern slavery in energy supply chains. As set out by my colleague Lord Hunt in the other place, Great British Energy has a range of tools to tackle modern slavery in its supply chains. GBE will prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement when it meets the thresholds set out under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That will outline the steps it is taking to ensure that slavery and human trafficking are not present in its supply chains or any part of its business.
Under the Procurement Act 2023, GBE can reject bids and terminate contracts with suppliers that are known to use forced labour themselves or that have it anywhere in their supply chain. I commit here that GBE will utilise the debarment list to ensure that suppliers with unethical supply chains cannot participate in procurement or be awarded contracts by GBE.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
That is not altogether correct. The Minister will know full well that the Procurement Act can only be enacted once a supplier has had a conviction under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. To do that, proceedings have to be able to be taken against the company that is involved in the slavery. A British company involved in agency is not involved in the slavery. It would have to get the Chinese Government to prosecute the Chinese company to make sure that they got a prosecution here. That is never going to happen.
Michael Shanks
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his many years of work on this issue. I will come to some of the detail in addition to this measure, but it is important to say that the debarment list, which was part of the Act passed by the Conservative Government, has been in force since February and will be populated in due course. We will use that list as the basis of challenging the decisions that Great British Energy can make not to take contracts with those on that list. I will look in more detail at the specific points that he raised, and I will come to some of that later in my speech.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
My constituent Dorit Oliver-Wolff is a Holocaust survivor. She knows what slave labour looks like, and she has written to the Prime Minister to urge that our energy transition does not repeat so many of the atrocities that she has seen. She is awaiting a reply from the Prime Minister. Will the Minister nudge No. 10 to ensure that she gets the response that she needs and deserves on her own behalf and that of victims of modern slavery across the world?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I saw that powerful letter, which was widely reported in the press. I am not sure that nudging No. 10 is quite within my gift, but I will certainly raise the issue for a response. The wider point raised is absolutely right. I recognise the need not just in the energy sector but across our economy to ensure that we remove any risk of forced labour in supply chains. We all share that commitment across the House. We need a number of different measures to make that happen. I am determined that Great British Energy will a leader in the sector on doing that, particularly within the energy space.
Returning to the focus that Great British Energy will have at the highest levels of its work, I can commit today that it will appoint a senior individual in the organisation to lead on ethical supply chains and modern slavery. Further, the statement of strategic priorities outlined in the Bill, which the Secretary of State will issue to GBE once it receives Royal Assent, will include an overarching expectation that GBE proactively works to deliver on these commitments and, in doing so, becomes a sector leader in this space, as we would expect from any company owned by the British public.
To further demonstrate our commitment across Government, we will write to all FTSE 100 companies outlining our expectations on responsible businesses to ensure that these issues, especially forced labour and supply chains, are being effectively identified and addressed. Given the importance of tackling modern slavery, it is crucial that businesses play their part to tackle that abhorrent crime. We cannot do this without their support, so it is an important step across Government.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Minister is explaining what the Government are doing, but they are not doing what Members of this House and of the other place want—not just asking people to do stuff but leading. That is what this amendment does: it would allow the UK to really show its leadership on behalf of the British public. This will be a huge public company. Why will the Minister not just commit to that further step today?
Michael Shanks
Let me come to that point, because the specific reason that we disagree with their lordships on this amendment is that it would not actually do what the hon. Gentleman says. It would force the Government to cease all GBE’s activities, rather than give it the scope to address any of the issues that we are raising today directly within the framework that we have outlined. As I said, we as a Government are wholly committed to doing this. Great British Energy will be committed to ensuring that the highest standards are maintained. The amendment would cease the funding immediately, which would not give GB Energy the scope to actually invest in the appropriate supply chains and to tackle those issues directly.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Minister accept that many people listening to this will see it as evading rather than addressing the issue? We can have the Procurement Act, the taskforce and the letters to all the major companies, but the fact remains that most companies will seek financial assistance for the kinds of projects that they wish to do. If credible evidence is discovered that supply chains have been contaminated by slavery, the easy way of stopping purchases from suppliers who act in that way will be to say, “You’re not getting any support.”
Michael Shanks
I do not disagree with that at all, and that is possible. Nothing forces Great British Energy, or any other company, to take investment from any individual or company. They can choose not to do so for a whole variety of reasons, and if one of those reasons is credible evidence of modern slavery in the supply chain, I would fully expect them not to invest in those companies. That is exactly what we are talking about today. The point is that that conversation must be broader than one just about Great British Energy. It is about wider supply chains and companies right across the economy, and that is what we are hoping to tackle.
In parallel, although the energy sector is particularly important to me, I want to work across Government to outline a comprehensive plan to tackle modern slavery, which is a question right across the economy. Rather than dealing with the problem on a company-by-company basis, we must look to do so more broadly. To drive forward that work, I confirm that in the coming weeks I will convene cross-departmental ministerial meetings involving the Department for Business and Trade, the Home Office, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and my Department to discuss how we can accelerate work across Government on this really important issue.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Minister for his speech and the consideration that he is giving to this issue. Will he look at a reverse burden of proof so that, instead of proving an exclusion, it is switched to show no association with modern slavery?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I will come to that briefly in a moment.
All of this work builds on the implementation of the new procurement regime, which focuses on ensuring fair and open competition and treating suppliers equally, as well as the work that we are doing on the relaunched solar taskforce—it started under the previous Government and has continued under this Government—to develop resilient, sustainable and innovative solar supply chains that are free from forced labour.
We recognise that the landscape has shifted since the Modern Slavery Act came into effect, which is why yesterday the Home Office published updated statutory guidance on transparency in supply chains that provides comprehensive and practical advice for businesses on how to tackle forced labour in their supply chains. Great British Energy will, of course, follow any new measures on modern slavery to which it is subjected, just as any responsible public or private body should. I hope that the new steps I have outlined will reassure the House that Departments across Government will continue to work intensively on this issue.
Before I move on, I will reflect briefly on amendment (b) to Lords amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), which would require the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to define “credible evidence” in Lords amendment 2. While I thank him for the amendment, we have to resist it as the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner’s role was established to encourage good practice rather than to look specifically into supply chains of individual companies. The amendment would place a significant lawmaking function on the commissioner, which the role was not designed for, and is currently not within the commissioner’s powers. The amendment would also have wider implications for how evidence of modern slavery is assessed and could create unnecessary legal uncertainty and precedent.
I turn to the remaining amendments. The Government were pleased to table Lords amendment 1 and Lords amendments 3 to 12 following positive discussions with peers in the other place. Lords amendment 1 puts community energy on the face of the Bill. The Government had a manifesto commitment to deliver a step change in community energy across the UK. We set up GBE to deliver our local power plan: it is at the heart of our plans for GBE. However, we recognise that during the Bill’s passage, it was highlighted that the role of community energy should be made explicit in the Bill. As my colleagues in the other place said, the Government have accepted that, and it is right that that is now in the Bill.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I very much welcome the amendment. Does the Minister agree that community energy is important not just for jobs and investment but for engaging communities with the transition to a new energy system? Does he recognise the need for the Government to support those initiatives with funding going forward?
Michael Shanks
I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. Community energy is incredibly important to give communities a stake in their energy future and to deliver the social and economic benefits that go with it. Just last week we announced a significant amount of funding through GBE for community energy projects across England, and funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to spend on similar projects, including community energy projects in their own areas.
Michael Shanks
I will give way briefly, but then I will have to make a bit of progress.
Dave Doogan
Can the Minister advise the House on the level of recurrence to that funding? Will it be year-on-year funding? Will he also give us an indication—maybe not precisely, but broadly—what that funding stream will be year on year under GB Energy?
Michael Shanks
It will not be recurring in the same methodology. GBE does not yet exist, so we carried out the initial set of investments in a particular way. Going forward, those projects will be on the basis of the individual investment propositions put forward. Individual projects in Scotland or in other parts of the UK will therefore apply for funding, they will be considered alongside other investments and those investments will be made. However, we will not deliver funding on a population share on that basis going forward. Of course, funding is already going to the Scottish Government, with a significant increase in the budget this year to fund, for example, the community and renewable energy scheme and the community energy work, which are going on in Scotland already.
Briefly, Lords amendment 3 came in recognition of concerns raised about the length of time GBE could operate without strategic priorities. We have agreed to an amendment that would prepare a set of strategic priorities within six months, although I will say to the House, as I did in Committee, that we intend to move far faster than that. Lords amendments 4 to 10 were brought about following positive engagement with the devolved Governments and we are committed to collaboration on a UK-wide basis. The amendments, which relate to clause 5, moved from consulting with devolved Governments to consent in relation to devolved competencies. I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for engaging so productively and for the Parliaments’ legislative consent motions on the Bill.
Lords amendment 11 introduces an independent review of Great British Energy’s effectiveness. Finally, Lords amendment 12 ensures that Great British Energy will keep the impact of its activities on sustainable development under review. I know that was a concern raised by a number of Members in relation to how we conserve nature and biodiversity while advancing clean power. I therefore hope the House will join me in welcoming that addition.
I look forward to this debate—albeit short—and I urge the House to support the Government’s position on the amendments.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
This is a sad and quite incredible day in this House. We have debated this Government’s energy policies on many occasions in the past few months. We have frequently debated the merits, or lack thereof, of Great British Energy, an organisation about which we still know very little—what it is for and what it will do.
We were told by the Labour party that it would bring down bills by £300, but bills have gone up. We were told by the Labour party that it would create jobs, but nobody can tell us how many or by when. We were told by the Labour party that it would be based in Aberdeen, but the interim chairman is based in Manchester and it looks unlikely that we will see little more than a brass plaque in the granite city. We were told that it would employ thousands of people, but that then turned to hundreds. We were told it would generate energy, but it will not—it does not have a licence to do that. We were told that it would guarantee a positive return on every investment, but that is impossible. I therefore ask the Minister again: what will the entity actually do? Do they know? Will it be seeking an electricity generation licence? How will it bring down energy costs in this country?
Turning to today’s proceedings, far from the Secretary of State and the Minister’s insistence that Great British Energy will free us from reliance on foreign dictatorships, this headlong rush to clean power by 2030 will, in fact, make us more reliant than ever on the People’s Republic of China. He and his Ministers are quick to note the reluctance to rely on petrostate dictators. I wonder how he would characterise the People’s Republic of China, where political opposition is illegal, where citizens have more limited political rights than in the Russian Federation, where dissent is invariably punished and where the use of forced labour is proven.
In 2022 we blocked China General Nuclear from involvement in Sizewell C. In 2020 we prevented Chinese influence on our communications networks under the guise of Huawei. Yet despite serious concerns about the national security implications, the ethical implications and the high climate emissions, the Secretary of State and Ministers are opening the gates to Chinese technology in our North sea wind farms, to solar panels made with slave labour and to using coal power.
It is in the context of our increasing reliance on foreign states that I wish to speak to the Lords amendments, and particularly Lords amendment 2, tabled by Lord Alton of Liverpool. I am grateful to him, and we all recognise his long-standing dedication to this serious matter.
I said that this was a sad day, and I feel for those Labour MPs, for many of whom I have a great deal of respect, who came into this House, into politics and specifically into their party because they believed in social justice and decency, and for whom this is not just a job but a vocation. They came here in July believing that they would be part of a project to create a better world, in the spirit of Bevan, Attlee, Hardie and Wilson. I wonder what those titans of that proud labour movement would make of this today, because it was on this day in 1807 that the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act received Royal Assent, and 218 years on, Labour MPs are going to be whipped to allow the state to directly fund imports of goods built by slave labour in China. [Interruption.] They complain, but it is true.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that building more of that infrastructure here in the United Kingdom would be good for British jobs and for our energy security, just as issuing new oil and gas licences in Scotland would be, as that would allow us to produce more of our energy here at home and make us safer from volatile energy markets abroad?
Andrew Bowie
My hon. Friend will not be at all surprised to learn that I agree with him entirely. It is purely the imposition on this country of arbitrary, needless targets, such as clean power by 2030, to generate headlines and get the Secretary of State’s name up in lights that is requiring us to become more reliant on the People’s Republic of China for the goods, technology and equipment to develop the solar farms, nearly all of which will be tainted by slave labour in some way, given the reliance on slave labour in part of that country for that infrastructure and technology. So of course I agree with him, and of course it would be much better if we were issuing new licences and continuing to support our own domestic oil and gas industry. That is something that we have debated time and again, and I am sure we will come back to this House to debate it again in the future.
Great British Energy is not great, it is not British and it will not generate any energy. Public funds should not be—must not be—funding imports tainted by modern slavery and slave labour. British taxpayers deserve better: a domestic supply chain that creates jobs at home rather than funding abuses abroad. That is why we support Lords amendment 2, and I urge Labour Members to do the right thing today and vote for it as well.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I rise to speak to my amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, which I hope might act as a bridge between our two Houses. Although I welcome this Bill, from the moment it started its journey through Parliament I have been issuing a warning. Without proper safeguards in place, our transition to net zero will be carried through on the backs of those in slavery.
Renewable energy is vital for our transition to a low-carbon economy, but we know that human rights abuses are inherent in our green technology. There is evidence of child labour in cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and of labour exploitation in nickel processing in Indonesia. Forced labour is committed at scale in Xinjiang in China, with the abuse of Uyghurs in steel production—a material that makes up nearly 80% of our wind turbines—and, of course, there is well-documented abuse in the production of solar panels.
On Report, I was hugely grateful for the Energy Secretary’s commitment to me:
“We have been clear that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain, and we will be working with colleagues across Government to tackle the issue of the Uyghur forced labour in supply chains”—[Official Report, 29 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 775.]
But too often we have accepted warm words at the Dispatch Box that have failed to materialise.
The Bill is a serious piece of legislation, not least as the Government have committed to capitalising GB Energy with over £8.3 billion. If companies want to benefit from taxpayers’ money, they must be able to prove that their supply chains are free of forced labour. I have tabled amendment (a) to that effect, as it would place the burden of proof on businesses.
Cross-Government working is the only way to end the stagnation in our response to modern slavery. Once slavery is found, we must take action, including by placing rogue companies on the Procurement Act’s debarment list to ban them from winning other public contracts. The public deserve a guarantee that their money will not be used to fund human rights abuses. To quote a Business and Trade Minister, “no company should have abuses in their supply chains”, so I admire Ministers’ resolve to give genuine commitments to root out slavery in their areas of responsibility. When it comes to GBE, my amendment offers a simple, cost-effective method to achieve that. I am glad that the Minister agrees, but for clarity, let me repeat what I believe he has committed to and push him a little further.
Primarily, will the Minister confirm that there will be clarity within GB Energy’s strategic objectives and framework document that designated companies must not use forced labour in any part of their supply chains, and that that needs to be mapped down to raw materials? I am glad that there will be a cross-ministerial working group to work across Departments to tackle slavery in supply chains—that is exactly what needs to happen—and a commitment to leverage the Procurement Act’s debarment list where there is evidence of bidders or suppliers with unethical supply chains. Let us remember that the Act includes discretionary grounds that do not require a conviction. Of course, all of that requires a designated leader within GBE to take accountability.
Finally, I have one more ask: will the Minister prioritise buying British to boost our economy and avoid the risk of reliance on slave-made renewables from international sources? Of course, the issue of modern slavery is bigger than renewables, but we must start somewhere. With a clear path and strong commitments, GB Energy can lead from the front and stop the UK becoming a dumping ground for slave-made goods.
Based on the Minister’s word, and having sought those clarifications, I will not press my amendment. I hope it also satisfies the other place that the Minister has listened and acted to stamp out modern slavery in GB Energy’s future procurement, and I thank the Minister for that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Alongside community groups across the country, including Power for People and Community Energy England, I am pleased to welcome the inclusion of community energy and benefits in the Bill through Lords amendment 1. It was possible after all, and I congratulate the Government on taking this step. We Liberal Democrats have pushed hard for that in this House and the other place, but there has been a lot of cross-party working to achieve it, and I am delighted that its inclusion is now enshrined in law. This is a victory for community voices, giving them a real stake in the energy transition through full or partial ownership of local power. Communities like mine in South Cambridgeshire, where many are off grid and struggling with volatile oil prices, want to generate and sell their own green energy locally. It is absurd that that is not possible.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
There are five community energy schemes in my constituency, and they all contribute to local energy supplies. An increase in community energy projects would boost the local economy, as my hon. Friend says, create jobs and reduce energy costs, especially in rural areas. Does she agree that we must go further and create long-term plans to support this type of initiative?
Pippa Heylings
I completely agree. The Great British Energy Bill gives a statutory steer that helps us have those long-term plans.
The clean energy transition has to be done with communities, not to communities. I commend the Government for committing an additional £5 million to the community energy fund, bringing certainty at least to its short-term future.
Lords amendment 1 also addresses community benefits, which are critical for taking people with us on this pathway to the energy transition. If communities are to host energy infrastructure, whether for onshore wind or large-scale solar farms, those benefits have to go beyond token gestures such as roofs for scout huts or some apprenticeships. In Scotland, for example, community benefit is worth £5,000 per installed megawatt per year. This means that a controversial large-scale solar project in my constituency, such as the Kingsway solar farm, could provide £2.5 million annually to the local community. That is the scale we should be talking about, and it has to be the community that determines how and where that money is spent.
Lords amendment 12 is also a vital addition to the Bill, requiring GB Energy to keep its impact on sustainable development under review. Credit is due to Baroness Hayman, who fought tirelessly in the other House to ensure that sustainability is embedded in our energy transition through that amendment. We welcome the assurances we have received that in the updated framework agreement, not only will the local economies of coastal communities be taken into consideration, but there will be an explicit climate and nature duty for GB Energy. GB Energy has to consider economic, environmental and social needs, ensuring that future generations can meet their needs.
I would have liked to discuss amendment (a), in the name of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and amendment (b), in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), both to Lords amendment 2. Modern slavery is a barbaric practice that should have been eradicated long ago. We look to the promise of our green energy transformation, but it cannot take place at the cost of human rights abuses across the world.
Research from Sheffield Hallam University has directly linked China’s labour transfer programme to the global solar panel supply chain. China produces 40% of the world’s polysilicon and 80% of its solar panels, and right now, 2.7 million Uyghurs are subjected to state detention and forced labour. It is incomprehensible that the Government are seeking to vote down an amendment that would withdraw GB Energy investment from supply chains tainted by forced labour. GB Energy has to set the standard, not muddle along.
There is nothing sufficiently robust in the Bill to ensure that there is no forced labour in this supply chain. The solar taskforce does not have the mandate to ensure that. As we have heard, the Procurement Act 2023 cannot address the issue. This should be an issue not just for the energy sector. The health sector has shown leadership by addressing the matter in the Health and Care Act 2022. The Great British Energy Bill is a key piece of legislation, and measures on forced labour should be part of it.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
This is not just about the practicalities of the need to include these measures. Is it not essential that we show the public that the measures we are promoting to achieve net zero—a cause for which there is overwhelming public support, notwithstanding some parties’ attitudes to our need to get there and when—are not tainted by human rights abuses?
Pippa Heylings
I completely agree. That is why the Liberal Democrats will continue to call for restrictions on trade with regions where abuses take place, including Xinjiang, and advocate for Magnitsky-style sanctions against individuals and entities involved in Uyghur persecution. This is about more than Britain. It is about playing our part conscientiously in a global movement to see all human rights abuses stopped.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak in support of my amendment (b) to Lords amendment 2, in my capacity as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is undertaking an inquiry on forced labour in UK supply chains. Lords amendment 2, tabled in the Lords by our Chair, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and passed there, seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from providing financial assistance to any company designated “Great British Energy” when there is “credible evidence” of modern slavery in its supply chains. My amendment takes into account some of the arguments made by the Government in the Lords, and seeks to refine the Lords amendment by providing a mechanism for determining “credible evidence”. My amendment empowers the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to define what constitutes “credible evidence” of supply chain slavery. It is crafted so as to allow the Bill to be as business friendly as possible, while ensuring that it still has teeth. The commissioner is backing this initiative.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful to be called at this point, Madam Deputy Speaker. Others will want to speak, so I will be as brief as I possibly can.
As I said earlier, the Minister is incorrect in believing that the Procurement Act gives any protection at all against modern slavery in the supply chain. That is a fact of life that we have known for ages. I was one of those who brought the Modern Slavery Act into being 10 years ago, but at that time we did not understand how bad the situation was in China. Over 90% of polysilicon is made in China, and we know for a fact that 97% of all the solar arrays being sold here contain polysilicon from Xinjiang, which will have been made by slave labour. There is no dispute at all about that.
The question facing the Government is not—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the Minister could listen. The question facing the Government is not whether they think that modern slavery is good—I do not for one moment accuse them of thinking that. What has gone missing, and what Lord Alton’s amendment focuses on, is recognition that there is no requirement on the Government to deal with slavery in the supply chain, and no way for them to do that. As has been said, America has turned the burden of proof upside down and said, “We assume you have slave labour in your product. You must prove to us that you do not.” That is the only way to deal with this. The Americans then sanction offending companies, but under our legislation, the Government do not have such measures available to them.
The Procurement Act does not even do a whisper of that, because it needs a prosecution to have been mounted under the Modern Slavery Act, and that cannot happen because a company that is an agent for a Chinese-made solar array will not be prosecuted. Under the present laws, only the Chinese company that makes the solar array can be prosecuted. That means that no prosecution will take place; no company in China will be prosecuted by the Chinese Government, because the Chinese Government are the ones who set up this ghastly process. Why? Because it makes their arrays cheaper than anybody else’s in the world. That is how they have pretty much wiped out all other array production in the world. Let us ask ourselves: where will we get our arrays from? The answer is that we cannot get them anywhere else, but if we had to, we would have to pay a lot of money. I understand that there is probably a debate going on in Government about whether we go down that road, which would make arrays awfully expensive.
In conclusion, the Government know the facts. I support amendment (b) to Lords amendment 2; I support the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who brought it forward for the right reasons; and I support the way in which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) brought forward her amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2. The Government must act. If we do not act, make forced labour illegal and punish the companies involved in it, directly or as agents, then we will be guilty of increasing slavery in China—that is what tonight’s debate is about.
I am sorry that the Government will get rid of this Lords amendment. They could have done a deal to enhance it or whatever, but now they will have to commit to coming forward with legislation to increase and improve the Act that they already have, which will take another debate. I say to the Government: for goodness’ sake. By the way, I had this issue with my own party when we were in government, and I voted against it; I voted with the Labour party to put this provision in the Health and Care Act 2022. We did that together.
I hope nobody thinks that I am being party political, because I am not. I am sanctioned by the Chinese Government because we raised this issue originally. I say to them that I and many in this House will not stop until the Government face up to one thing and one thing only: not one life through modern slavery is worth a lower cost on a solar array. That should be the epitaph of the ridiculous position that the Government are in.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
As an energy industry professional before entering this place, I am very pleased to see that Great British Energy is making impressive strides. It has secured a landmark partnership with the Crown Estate, and we have seen it commit to more and more solar power, which is much welcomed by my constituents. We have also seen investment in carbon capture and storage clusters in Teesside and Merseyside, bringing thousands of jobs to those areas.
More broadly, I welcome the Government’s move to lift the ban on onshore wind in England and to promote funding in newer, emerging industries, including hydrogen and fusion energy. I also look forward to the Government announcing the winner of the small modular reactor contract at some point over the coming weeks, when I hope that the Government will also place a sizeable order.
As we advance towards a future of clean, secure, home-grown energy, we must ensure that that future is built on principles of justice and respect for human rights. I will therefore speak to Lords amendment 2. Since being elected last year as the Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, I have been contacted by constituents voicing their concerns about what is happening in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region of China. In 2021, Sir Geoffrey Nice KC delivered the Uyghur tribunal’s judgment here in London deeming that the Chinese Government’s policies amounted to
“a deliberate, systematic and concerted policy”
to bring about
“long-term reduction of Uyghur and other ethnic minority populations”.
I am afraid that forced labour is being used as a key instrument in this campaign of oppression.
More than 1 million Uyghurs have been detained in re-education camps, and many are transferred to work in factories, mines and fields under barbaric conditions. As has been mentioned, some of those factories produce polysilicon, which is a critical component in 95% of the world’s solar panels. On that basis, it is estimated that around 40% of the UK solar industry may be at risk of sourcing materials tainted by this state-sponsored forced labour. That is why I believe this House has a responsibility to ask hard questions, as these Lords amendments have done. If we are to stand as a country that champions both human rights and climate action, we must ensure that our clean energy future is not built on the backs of exploited peoples.
The choices we make on legislation such as this on who receives British taxpayers’ money and what standards we demand in procurement are not abstract: they are ultimately a measure of whether we are willing to trade convenience for complicity. It is therefore right that we always examine how supply chains operate. It is right that we consider how credible evidence of forced labour should be defined and who is best placed to determine that. It is right that we reflect on whether our current legal frameworks are sufficient.
As has been mentioned, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was groundbreaking at the time, but it lacks the teeth to tackle the forced labour taking place in Xinjiang. In that context, we should note the steps taken across the Atlantic. In June, it will be three years since the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act took effect in the United States, and I believe similar resolve is needed here in the United Kingdom. We should expedite updating and strengthening our modern slavery legislation in the light of Great British Energy’s ambitious plans. The Uyghur people, and others facing slavery around the world, deserve to know that Britain will not turn a blind eye. We cannot end all injustice, but we can ensure that our laws, procurement policies and public financing do not sustain atrocities. I therefore implore the Government to listen to Members on the Labour and Opposition Benches today. I thank the Minister for the significant steps he has already outlined, and ask him to reassure us once more that the relevant steps will be taken to prevent Great British Energy from in any way contributing to promoting or sustaining known atrocities.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I appreciate that a number of Members still want to speak, so I will keep my comments short. The Government’s refusal to support Lords amendment 2 shows the absolutism of their net zero and energy policies. The amendment is not only sensible but morally correct, and in voting against it, the Government are signalling that their ambition to reach net zero trumps everything else. Can that really be correct? If we cannot support those who are suffering from modern slavery, what are we doing? Is the rush to net zero really worth that?
Net zero is intended to prevent people on this planet from going down a route towards a planet that is not inhabitable—that is what we have been sold. What are we saving the planet for, if not to enable people to work in a safe, secure way? We cannot sacrifice that; we cannot condone forced labour by selling our morals to China in order to rush towards net zero. The Uyghur Muslims in China do not have a safe, secure place to work. They are oppressed, and by not supporting Lords amendment 2, the Government are supporting that oppression. We have rightly condemned slavery in the past. The Government have rightly condemned past slavery, but they are now happy to condone forced labour in China.
It is an unbelievable situation that we find ourselves in, but we are getting used to this sort of behaviour from the Government. We have seen the heartless policies that they have implemented since they came to power, whether that is the family farm tax, the tax on jobs that is putting people out of work, or taxing children’s hospices, which the Government have voted for this afternoon. By not supporting Lords amendment 2, the Government are effectively saying that they are happy to turn a blind eye to modern slavery across the world. That is something that Conservative Members cannot possibly support. Until July last year, those in the Labour party were happy to promote their morals, but it seems that those morals were left in front of the last door they knocked on in July.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.
Michael Shanks
With the leave of the House, I will sum up the debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, although it has been short, on a number of the amendments but perhaps most importantly on forced labour and modern slavery in our economy. I want to reflect on some of the contributions from Members on both sides of the House, but let me start by saying that I hear the very strong views that have been expressed on this issue. It is right that Governments of whatever party constantly challenge themselves to go further in tackling these issues, because—as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) put it—even one person being affected by forced labour is an absolute disgrace. We should collectively tackle that issue using whatever means we can.
As such, I want to reiterate clearly that contrary to some of the contributions we have heard from Conservative Members, Lords amendment 2 is about amending the Great British Energy Bill, not about the Government’s wider commitment to tackling modern slavery. It can be repeated as often as Conservative Members like, but it is simply disingenuous to come to this place and suggest that the Labour party has suddenly decided not to care about this issue. I really do take issue with that.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber for a lot of the debate, but I will give way to him.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I think the Minister would accept that Lords amendment 2 is a very modest proposal that could make a significant difference to people’s lives and outcomes in China. There is talk of Labour buying off its Back Benchers by saying that further legislation is coming down the line—is that in six months’ time, a year’s time, or two years’ time? When is it going to come?
Michael Shanks
First, the right hon. Gentleman cares so much about the issue that he has only just turned up to the debate. Secondly, he was a senior member of the Government for 14 years. If this was an issue that he cared about so much, why are we here debating it now? The truth is that the previous Government could have tackled this issue in a much clearer way. I will not follow him on that point.
As I said clearly in opening the debate, which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was here for, there should no modern slavery anywhere in our economy or our supply chains. To deliver, we must work across Government and across the economy, because it is not just about the investments that Great British Energy makes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Shanks
I will give way briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), and then I need to finish.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023 do not work in this area. To do anything, two criteria must be met, and they are only advisory. In the World Health Organisation, we had to prove that organ harvesting was not an “ethical organ transplant system”, and we cannot get to the supply chains, which are state-invented, state-imposed and disguised. I urge the Minister to give a commitment that he will listen to the argument in these two amendments.
Michael Shanks
I understand the argument that my hon. Friend is making, but the issues she rightly highlights, as other Members have, go much wider than Great British Energy, which the Bill sets up as a publicly owned energy company. Those issues are about the wider economy and investment across our supply chains.
Michael Shanks
I need to close. I am sorry.
In part, we are setting up Great British Energy because we want to deliver home-grown supply chains and an industrial strategy, in spite of the Conservative party having completely failed to deliver that for 14 years—in fact, it had a complete ignorance of how to build supply chains. Had it delivered on some of the supply chains in this country, we might not have to import so much. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can shout all they want; they know that they failed on this matter, and we are picking up the pieces.
For those Members who were in the debate, I want to respond to the points raised, in particular in the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). On her point about how widespread the problem of forced labour is, that underlines why a piecemeal approach, legislating on individual companies here and there, is not the right one. We need to work across Government to tackle the problem throughout the economy. She asked for clarity on some of the points made. She is right to reiterate the point that I intend to pull together Ministers from across Government, including the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade and my Department, to look at how we can collectively tackle the issue. There will be a designated leader within Great British Energy to drive this work forward. We will utilise the debarment list.
More broadly, we fully expect Great British Energy to do everything in its power under the relevant guidance and legislation to remove any instances of forced labour from supply chains. GBE must not approve the use of products from companies that may be linked to forced labour.
This is an important debate on a Bill that was in our manifesto. It delivers the first new national publicly-owned energy generation company in 75 years. It is backed by the British public, and it will deliver jobs and investment all over the country. It will deliver the deployment of clean power. We will tackle the supply chains to ensure that jobs come to this country and that we tackle the scourge of modern slavery, not just through GBE but across the economy. That is our commitment. I urge Members to support the Government’s position. In the 15 seconds I have left, I reiterate the point I made earlier: I am willing to work with Members across the House to tackle this fundamental issue, which is of extreme importance across the Government.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Tuesday 25th March 2025
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-R-I(b) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (4 Mar 2025)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 13.
Dan Jarvis
The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill—Martyn’s law—has returned to this House in good shape. Only a small number of amendments were made in the other place, with all but one made by the Government, all of which we shall consider this evening.
The Government have been particularly grateful for the collaborative approach to scrutinising the Bill across both Houses, and I hope that this will continue this evening, as we take the final steps to passing this important piece of legislation.
I shall begin by speaking to Lords amendments 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 and 13. These amendments, brought by the Government in the other place, make minor and technical changes to further clarify the conditions for qualifying premises and qualifying events. Specifically, these amendments clarify the intention that premises and events are not in scope where attendance is in a personal or private capacity—for example, a wedding attended by relations and friends, or an office party attended by employees and customers. These are private events, not publicly accessible, and the amendments make it even clearer that they should be out of scope. These amendments do not alter the intended policy or the scope of the Bill. They are technical changes to provide further clarity on who will be within scope of this legislation.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 5, which was tabled by Baroness Suttie on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. This amendment places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult as appropriate before publication of the guidance under clause 27. As my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint made clear in the other place, the Government are happy to accept this amendment. We are acutely aware of the importance of the guidance that will accompany this Bill and it is vital that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have both the time and the information needed to ensure that they can plan, prepare for, and, ultimately, implement the requirements. It is also essential that the guidance is informed by proper consideration and engagement. This had always been the Government’s intention and we are content to enshrine the principle of appropriate consultation in statute by virtue of this amendment.
I turn finally to Lords amendments 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, which were brought by the Government in light of the clear cross-party support to further strengthen the safeguards on the use of certain Henry VIII powers in the Bill
Amendments 3, 4, 6 and 9 consolidate into clause 32 the powers previously found in clauses 5 and 6, which allow the Secretary of State to add, omit or amend the description of public protection procedures or measures.
Amendments 7 and 8 place conditions on these powers that the Secretary of State must satisfy. These conditions are also added to the powers in clause 32 that enable the Secretary of State to alter the qualifying thresholds for standard duty premises, enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. These conditions limit the use of the powers to lower the thresholds—or to add new procedures or measures—to where the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so for public protection.
Conversely, the thresholds can be raised—or procedures or measures omitted or amended—only if the Secretary of State considers that their retention is not necessary for public protection. Additionally, Lords amendment 8 will require the Secretary of State to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before exercising any of the powers specified in clause 32, including those I have just described.
The Government consider that this approach provides an extra level of assurance if future Secretaries of State are considering using these powers. It strikes the right balance between ensuring the Bill can be kept up to date, while providing in the Bill an important set of further safeguards to ensure that these powers, if used, are used appropriately and with proper consideration.
I am grateful to those in the other place for their considered scrutiny of these measures and for continuing the collaborative approach that has flowed through the passage of the Bill. I particularly want to thank Lord Anderson of Ipswich for his constructive challenge, and I am pleased that he felt able to add his name to the Government amendments. I am sure this House agrees that the amendments provide further safeguards and ensure that if and when the powers are used, they are used appropriately and with sufficient consultation.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
On 22 May 2017, Islamist extremist Salman Abedi carried out a sickening attack on the Manchester arena following a concert. This barbaric act of terrorism killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000 others, many of them children. It was the deadliest act of terrorism in this country since the 7/7 bombings in 2005. What was taken from the victims and those who love them can never be given back. That of course includes Figen Murray, whose determination and fortitude we honour this afternoon and whose son Martyn Hett we remember, along with all the others who were killed or injured on that horrible day.
This Bill, inherited from the previous Government, is an attempt to address an insufficiency in our anti-terror framework by ensuring that our public spaces and public events are better prepared for any future attacks. This is a noble goal and one that colleagues on both sides of the House undoubtedly support. When the Bill was last in this place, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), spoke of the concern we all share to get the balance right. Our safeguards against potential future terror attacks must be robust but also proportionate and pragmatic. He spoke of the spirit of support, co-operation and openness in which we suggested small amendments to the Bill, and I believe amendments were tabled in the other place in that same spirit.
We particularly welcome the change from invitations to tickets and the clarity that provides on private events being out of scope of this legislation. We are sorry not to see more of those amendments in this place for debate. I urge the Minister, who I know is very conscious of the different pressures and the need for balance, to keep the thresholds under review, which clause 32 provides for, and to continue to assess the impact of this legislation on community institutions. We continue to have concerns that in its current form the legislation risks adding to the already enormous burden of regulation and paperwork that small hospitality and community venues such as pubs, churches and village halls must navigate on a daily basis, so we welcome amendment 8 on consultation.
It is right that people of this country should be able to go about their daily lives and go to events in the knowledge that they are safe. It is also right that we take action to ensure that horrific attacks like the one carried out in Manchester in May 2017 do not happen again. As we pursue this noble goal, we should remain aware of and sensitive to the potential negative impacts of our good intentions. Small venues across the country are already struggling, and we must be cautious about adding to that burden, but we are happy to support the Lords amendments today.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
My contribution will be brief. I start by thanking the Minister and Lord Anderson in the other place for their hard work with others on bringing the Bill to fruition. I also thank them for the kindness and courtesy they have shown my constituents Figen Murray and her husband Stuart. I echo what the Minister said earlier in paying tribute to them and the whole campaign team who have worked so hard on this. They have asked me to place on the record their view that the other place did a good job in its scrutiny of the Bill; it was cross-party and collaborative, and the considered amendments from the other place will strengthen the Bill. For my part, I am glad that the thresholds were not further watered down, and I understand that it is important to keep them under review. This is a good Bill, and it will be a good law. It will have a deterrent effect and a protective effect, and it will save lives.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to return to the Chamber to consider the Bill. Over recent months, it has been scrutinised in detail at the other end of this building, and I thank colleagues in the House of Lords for their collaborative work. The changes brought forward are sensible and proportionate, and they reflect the broad cross-party consensus behind the aims of this legislation.
A number of the changes were technical in nature but crucial for clarity. They address several concerns that I and others raised on Second Reading about the scope of qualifying events under the Bill. The Lords amended it to make it clear that private events—weddings, office parties or similar—sit outside its scope. That helps to ensure that the law is designed for public-facing venues without overreaching into personal or private spaces.
In addition, several important changes were made to strengthen the safeguards around delegated powers. The amendments consolidate into a single clause the key power of the Secretary of State to amend the public protection procedures that must be in place in each tier. They also require the Secretary of State to meet a high bar of necessity to make changes to qualifying thresholds for protective measures, and to consult relevant parties before exercising these powers. These are welcome changes that introduce further transparency and ensure that the Bill’s implementation is balanced and accountable.
Another key area of discussion throughout the Bill’s passage has been the need for clear and accessible guidance. On Second Reading, I and others cautioned that venue operators would struggle to comply with the law without adequate support. I am therefore pleased that the Minister in the Lords gave a firm commitment, repeated by the Minister today, that guidance will be published well in advance of the changes coming into force, and that there will be a period of engagement to ensure that it is robust and practical. I thank my Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Suttie for her tireless work on this point and for her amendment, which helped secure this assurance. Her contributions in the Lords have strengthened the Bill considerably.
It is impossible to consider this legislation without remembering why we are here. Martyn’s law was born from an unimaginable tragedy—the terrorist attack at Manchester Arena in 2017. As the MP for Hazel Grove in Greater Manchester, I witnessed at first hand the resilience and the unity that followed the arena attack. I remember joining my community in Romiley Precinct when residents came together in quiet solidarity the evening after. It was an act of remembrance, but also a statement that terrorism will never define us, and that we will not be divided by it.
Among the 22 lives taken that night was Martyn Hett, a 29-year-old from Stockport. His mother Figen Murray has shown extraordinary resolve in the years since the attack. Her campaign for Martyn’s law has been defined by compassion, determination and a belief that no other family should ever experience what hers has had to endure. Today we are seeing the fruits of her dedication. The Bill is a testament to her courage and unrelenting hope that something good could emerge from the darkest of circumstances. Thanks to Figen’s advocacy, this country will be better prepared to keep people safe in our public spaces.
I welcome the Bill and the amendments before us today. Martyn’s law will not bring back those who were taken from us, but it will save lives. In doing so, it will stand as a lasting tribute to Martyn, Figen and the people of Greater Manchester. The Liberal Democrats are proud to support it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I thank the hon. and gallant Minister. We all look to him for his guidance and support, which is much appreciated by us as individuals on behalf of our constituents. Let me put on record my thanks to all the police forces across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, particularly the Police Service of Northern Ireland for its work to keep us safe. Without them we could not operate here, nor could we have protection for our constituents, who we are duty bound to represent in this House. I will not delay the House too long, but I wish to ask two questions in relation to the Bill, which are both relate specifically to Northern Ireland. I hope that the House will bear with me for a couple of minutes as I illustrate them.
I have spoken on the Bill several times, and I have always sought to ensure parity of conditions throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Lords amendments to clauses 32 to 35 in particular seek to remove the UK-wide imposition of polygraph licence conditions for terrorist offenders. Will the Minister confirm that their removal will not leave the PSNI in Northern Ireland without the means to watch and assess terrorists as closely as can be done on the mainland and that existing legislation referred to in the amendments is capable of securing protection?
Secondly, it is imperative that police forces have access to transfer of prisoners. Lords amendment 76 has been designed to ensure that provisions could continue to apply to restricted transfers between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the purposes of determining release. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are convinced that there can be seamless transfers between all nations in this great United Kingdom when necessary? If the Minister does not have access to those answers immediately, I am happy for him to come back to me on that, if that is helpful. I would appreciate the answers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Those questions may not fall within the scope of the debate. With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), for the constructive way in which she has approached the debate. I assure her that the Government completely understand that we need to strike a balance, and I hope that she will acknowledge that we have been at pains to consult extensively and work across the House. I am happy to discuss these matters with her further.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) not just for his contribution this evening but for his support of his very special constituent. I am also grateful to the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and join her in thanking Baroness Suttie for the important contribution she made in the other place.
I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contributions in terms of both quantity and quality. In fact, I was thinking about him just the other day because I had the privilege of visiting his part of the world, which is a part of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that I hold in the highest regard. I hold him in that high regard as well. He raised some important points, and I am grateful to him for saying that he would be happy for me to write to him about them. To ensure that we address them properly, I will do so. I guarantee that he will get a very good response.
The Bill was a manifesto commitment, and I am proud to say that the Government have delivered it, and done so early in the Session. The public rightly deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events, and the cross-party approach to passing the Bill and getting it right will demonstrate to the public that nothing matters more than security; it is the foundation on which everything else rests. I very much hope that this will continue and that the House will support the amendments.
I take the opportunity again to thank all of those who have aided in the passage of the Bill. I also take the opportunity to thank Lord Hanson of Flint, my colleague in the other place, whose long experience and sound judgment have been much appreciated. I also thank the excellent team at the Home Office. I am grateful for all their hard work, support and dedication. They have been particularly impressive throughout the Bill’s passage—they have always gone above and beyond—and I am grateful for their service.
I want to restate the Government’s thanks to the intelligence agencies and all those who serve in law enforcement who work tirelessly around the clock to keep us safe. This is the most vital work, which they do every day, and we as a country owe them a debt of gratitude.
Finally, there is someone, above all, who we must pay tribute to and that is Figen Murray. Her campaign has been nothing short of extraordinary. To have lost her son, Martyn Hett, in the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017 and to have yet still found the strength to drive the campaign forward is both inspiring and phenomenal. I know that all Members right across the House will join me in paying tribute to Figen. She previously said,
“It’s time to get this done.”
I am very proud to say that this Government have done just that.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 13 agreed to.
Deferred divisions
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Jonathan Reynolds relating to Terms and Conditions of Employment. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Question agreed to.
Terms and Conditions of Employment
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move,
That the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.
The purpose of the regulations is to increase the national living wage rate and the national minimum wage rates on 1 April 2025. The regulations were laid in draft before Parliament on 4 February and approved by the other place on 17 March.
The Government are committed to making work pay. The plan to make work pay will tackle the low pay, poor working conditions and poor job security that have been holding our economy back for far too long. Earlier this month, the House approved passage of the landmark Employment Rights Bill, which will benefit more than 10 million workers in every corner of the country and deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Some aspects of the Bill and accompanying legislation and guidance will not come into effect for some time as the Government continue to engage with stakeholders, businesses and trade unions on its implementation. When we took office last year, however, we committed to taking immediate action where we could, and on the minimum wage we have done so.
One of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government was the creation of the national minimum wage, which eliminated the extreme low pay that was blighting our country. We are proud to say that one of the first actions taken by this Labour Government within a month of last year’s general election was to overhaul the remit to the Low Pay Commission. For the first time, the remit now explicitly includes the cost of living as one of the key factors to be considered when making national living wage recommendations. We have begun the journey towards creating a genuine living wage, as well as extending that to all workers aged over 18 by moving towards a single adult rate.
Before turning to the precise details of the regulations, I want to extend my thanks to the Low Pay Commission. The commissioners and their officials have worked diligently and efficiently, particularly after the updates to the remit were made, and we were pleased to accept all their recommendations. That is testament to their social partnership model and expert analysis and engagement, which ensure that the Government can deliver on their ambitious agenda, but without adversely impacting on businesses, the labour market or the wider economy.
Turning to the detail of the regulations, which, after parliamentary approval, will take effect on 1 April, the national living wage rate, which currently applies to workers aged 21 and over, will increase from £11.44 to £12.21. That represents a rise of 77p or 6.7%, which is well above all measures and projections of inflation, therefore delivering real terms pay increases to an estimated 3 million workers.
We will also be delivering large increases to the other national minimum wage rates. The 18 to 20-year-old rate will increase by £1.40 from £8.60 an hour to £10 an hour. That is a record 16.3% increase for that age group. It means that a full-time worker on the 18-to-20 minimum wage rate will see their gross annual earnings increased by around £2,500 a year—a well-earned pay rise and a significant step towards parity with the headline rate. The national minimum wage rate for 18 to 20-year-olds will be equal to 82% of the national living wage in 2025, compared with 75% in 2024.
The minimum wage rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18 years old will increase from £6.40 to £7.55 an hour—a large rise of £1.15 or 18%. The same rise will apply to the apprenticeship minimum wage rate, which applies to apprentices aged under 19 or in the first year of their apprenticeship. Finally, the accommodation offset rate, which is the maximum daily amount that an employer can charge a worker for accommodation without it affecting their pay for minimum wage purposes, will increase by 6.7%, or 67p, to £10.66.
I draw Members’ attention to the comprehensive impact assessment, which the Department published alongside this legislation. As they may have noted, the impact assessment, which includes an equalities assessment, has received a green fit-for-purpose rating from the independent Regulatory Policy Committee. As I have touched on, we estimate that the increases to the minimum wage rates will deliver a direct pay increase for over 3 million workers, while an additional 4 million could benefit from the positive spill-over effects. The minimum wage has greatly reduced pay inequality in the UK, with the share of low-paid jobs in hourly terms estimated at 3.4% in 2024. That is a record low, and down from 21.9% in 1999.
But the work does not stop there, as we continue to build towards a genuine living wage and the extension of eligibility to workers aged between 18 and 20 by ending the discriminatory age bands. To that end, we will publish in due course a fresh remit to the Low Pay Commission, asking it to recommend minimum wage rates to apply from next April. As part of this, the Low Pay Commission will consult about the appropriate trajectory towards the single adult rate as we ensure that this is delivered without adverse impacts on youth employment as well as participation in training and education. Like the previous Labour Government, with their creation of the minimum wage over a quarter of a century ago, this Labour Government will be proud to leave a profound legacy for workers’ rights, because we are making work pay and we are proud to make more progress on this by supporting this instrument today. I commend the regulations to the House.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I rise to say that we will not oppose the increases to the national minimum wage or the national living wage—the national living wage being something that my party introduced to make work pay. We celebrate the fact that progress was made in ending low pay, and the Minister cited that from the Dispatch Box this evening. But it is also our duty, as His Majesty’s official Opposition, to scrutinise the Government on all matters, so I have several questions for the Minister this evening.
In particular, I want to highlight the fact that the work that the Low Pay Commission has done—for which I also thank it—was done before the Hallowe’en Budget of broken promises last October. After the increases to the national living and minimum wages in the Budget—but also measures such as the increase to national insurance—the Unison assistant general secretary Jon Richards welcomed the increase to the pay measures but said that
“as it stands, the new legal minimum is more than the current lowest hourly rate in the NHS, universities and some other public services. This will give employers multiple headaches.”
So my first question is: what will the Government do to address the pay implications of this rise on those working in the public sector in such important roles?
The second question relates to the national minimum wage for workers above school leaving age but not yet 18 going up by nearly 18%. On 1 April this year, the national insurance threshold for employers drops to £5,000 per year. This means that an employer will have to start paying national insurance on any young person if they work for 13 or more hours a week. Because of this, businesses have warned that they are cutting back on hiring younger workers or reducing the hours that they give to them. That risk, of course, is faced not solely by those in work, but by those seeking to get into work. What assessment has the Minister made since the Hallowe’en Budget of the impact of the increase on young people’s ability to access jobs? What will the Government do to ensure that young people or those looking for a job will not be penalised by this increase?
The increase will significantly affect small and medium-sized enterprises. As usual, it looks like they will bear the brunt of the increased labour costs. It looks that way not just to us; according to the Government’s own impact assessment, SMEs will face 56% of the cost of the increase despite representing only 37% of the share of employment. That is another cost increase on smaller businesses, which already have to pay for this Government’s national insurance jobs tax, for the hike in business rates, and for the impact of the measures from the Employment Rights Bill. In particular, businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector are most likely to pay the minimum wage.
I remind the House that the Government’s own impact assessment states that they expect the policies covered within the Bill to impose a direct cost on businesses of up to £5 billion a year. It also notes that, on average, those costs will be greater for those smaller businesses and microbusinesses. Will the Minister provide the House with a figure for the total cost increase of employing someone full time on the previous national living wage because of the other changes introduced by his Government?
The Government have created a challenging business environment. They recognised that themselves when they stated in their impact assessment that
“there is some evidence of challenging business conditions for SMEs”.
Around 42.7% and 36.8% of microbusinesses and small businesses respectively reported having less than three months of cash reserves in September 2024. We support the principle of fair pay for workers and making work pay. However, having listened to businesses, we are concerned that the rises could impact workers and businesses in industries already facing financial challenges through a range of unintended consequences.
It is easy for those in Whitehall to squiggle their pen, but all those measures combined have real-life consequences for businesses across the country. The national insurance jobs tax and the Employment Rights Bill are piling additional costs on to businesses and hammering the private sector, which we rely on to grow the economy.
In summary, have the Government considered the full impact of all these increases on businesses that are happening at the same time? I fear that tomorrow’s emergency Budget will be another wakeup call.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
We have heard how the rise in the national minimum wage will deliver a direct pay increase for over 3 million workers. For the first time in history, the minimum wage in this country is being linked to the true cost of living, beginning the journey of making it a genuine living wage. We can take from history a wealth of economic evidence on the positive impacts of minimum wages, which shows they lead to overall rises in pay with no significant impact on employment.
Although I take on board the questions of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), and I appreciate her contributions as a fellow Treasury Committee member, studies have shown time and again that while similar concerns echoed throughout the ’80s and ’90s, the overall outcome of increasing the minimum wage is simply that: an increase in pay with no significant impact on employment.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the concerns shared by the Conservatives are the same as those raised at the time of the introduction of the minimum wage?
Yuan Yang
Yes, that is the case. We have heard such concerns raised throughout history, yet when we look at econometric evidence that looks in hindsight at the actual impact on the economy, we see that there is no discernible impact.
I will whizz through a few different studies. In the United States there is David Card and Alan Krueger’s study, based on the 1992 increase in New Jersey’s minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California’s minimum wage and the federal minimum wage increase the following year. In the European Union there is Tomas Kucera’s 2017 study from 18 countries. In the UK there is Christian van Stolk’s 2017 study. We can go on and on about the evidence, but we can see from the trends that, although these concerns have been raised over time, the outcome is increases in the minimum wage, which is what we are seeking to ensure.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that these uplifts are a huge boost for equality, because they benefit women, younger and older workers, workers with disabilities and those from minority ethnic backgrounds more than others?
Yuan Yang
I absolutely agree. As the Women’s Budget Group has shown, the measures on the minimum wage in the Employment Rights Bill will disproportionately benefit female workers, who are likely to be paid less than men.
These studies on the minimum wage use econometric methods to confirm what many of us can see in our communities at first hand: that too many people have too long been due a pay rise, and when we make the lowest paid better off, that spending goes back into our high streets and local economies. I would like to see even more studies done, producing better data. That must start with improvements to the labour force survey, which the hon. Member for West Worcestershire and I have discussed on the Treasury Committee, as many organisations have flagged that data as an area of concern.
Today I want to focus on one particular group of low-paid workers who are very significant for me and my constituency of Earley and Woodley: young people. There are around 13,000 undergraduates at the University of Reading, which sits in my constituency, who will be better off because of this new law that raises the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds to £10 an hour. It will mean a record wage boost for that age group, who will see their gross annual earnings rise by £2,500, and for apprentices, too, who are the skilled workers of tomorrow.
I support the Government’s youth guarantee, to ensure that all young people are in education, employment or training. The King’s Trust has found that one in 10 young people outside of education, employment or training have turned down a job because they could not afford the costs associated with it—for example, travel, clothing or childcare. For many young people, a barrier to employment is that it does not pay well enough for them.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I was concerned by what I think I heard the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) say about the rate at which the living wage is paid to young people, almost advocating for a reduction in that rate because of the impact it would have on business. Does my hon. Friend agree that is a rather regressive view, given that what young people need is the ability to pay their bills, live a life they enjoy and build a home for themselves in the future?
Yuan Yang
I very much agree with that sentiment. Young people are the future, and to ensure they get off to the best possible start in life, they need work that pays and enables them to live in stability, not concerned about paying the bills from day to day or month to month.
Most young people nowadays have to do a mixture of work and education or training to make ends meet. More than half of full-time students were working long hours in paid jobs in 2024, which is a significant rise from 2021, during the pandemic, when two thirds had no term-time employment. That has been driven by the escalating cost of living for young people, and especially rises in rent.
I want to quote a constituent of mine called Poppy, who is 20 years old and studies at the University of Reading. She says:
“Working part-time was never optional but rather a necessity... With my wages being so low…I found myself working 20-25 hours a week—leading me to miss some lectures and seminars throughout the month”.
I want to ensure that young people such as Poppy are able to study without worrying about how they are going to pay their bills. We also know that young people are less unionised, which means they have less bargaining power and less ability to fight against unfair terms or ask for pay rises, so it is even more important that we support them by raising the minimum wage.
In conclusion, it is essential that we make work pay, for the sake of our high streets, our living standards and our future—our young people. Poppy said:
“I personally cannot wait for the new minimum wage increase in April as it means I should be able to reduce my hours at work, giving me more time to focus on my studies”.
For people like Poppy, in my constituency and across the UK, the new deal for working people is transformational, and I am very glad to support today’s motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Let me begin by thanking the Government for laying this important statutory instrument. The Liberal Democrats welcome this uplift in the minimum wage. We all have constituents who we know are struggling to make ends meet. Nobody should be in a position where they cannot pay their bills despite being in employment. I am particularly pleased that apprentices and those under 18 will benefit from increased pay under this instrument. In a few weeks’ time, I will join Wilshire College students and businesses across my constituency at a careers fair, and this will be an important piece of legislation to share with them.
My constituency is rural, and many of the people I represent are elderly and depend on the social care system to stay independent. Unfortunately, they are struggling to get the care they need and deserve, in part because care workers are not being paid properly. If we paid care staff more, we might encourage more people into that hugely understaffed sector. In south-west England alone there are 13,000 vacant jobs, and in a rural constituency such as mine, where public transport is expensive and unreliable, care staff are not compensated for their travel time, and they often end up bringing home less than the minimum wage. While I share the official Opposition’s concern about small businesses, of which my constituency has a huge number, it is important that low-paid workers earn enough to live, especially our young people and women.
If the Government were to adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal for a carer’s minimum wage, which would see carers receive £2 more per hour than the current minimum wage, a staggering 850,000 care workers across the UK would benefit from that increase in pay, and over 80% of them would be women. We understand that the carer’s minimum wage is not a silver bullet, but it is serious proposal that could make a big difference to patients and families across the country. Although the Liberal Democrats support increasing the minimum wage, it is a shame that this statutory instrument does not go further and give weight to that proposal.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the Unison trade union.
When the national minimum wage came into force on 1 April 1999, I was working as a trade union official in Unison’s northern region, representing many low-paid members of staff who were working in social care and other sectors in the north-east, and with colleagues in the TUC, who in many cases were on even lower wages. That fantastic achievement came after 30 years of fighting in the face of huge opposition at the time from the Conservative party, but after 26 years of the national minimum wage, I think we can say that the argument has been definitively won—so much so that there are Members of this House who have never known a time without a statutory minimum wage.
On 10 April 1999, I was proud to don a high-vis vest and join my trade union colleagues and Members on a march across the Tyne bridge from Gateshead to Newcastle. That was part of the campaign for a living wage to celebrate the introduction of the national minimum wage, and to argue for it to be improved. We were led by the then general secretary of Unison, Rodney Bickerstaffe, and I well remember a photograph in our local newspapers as we prepared for the march, with an AA sign directing traffic that said, “Campaign for a living wage—long delays expected.” Well, we have continued to campaign for a living wage since that time.
I am so glad to speak here today, with a Labour Government again in power, making real progress towards a real living wage. The changes we are making with this legislation will mean a direct, real-terms pay increase for over 3 million workers. That includes steps towards a single adult rate, with a record increase in the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds, amounting to £2,500 per year, as well as directions to the Low Pay Commission to look at the cost of living in its future decisions.
Back in 1999, when the national minimum wage was first introduced, it made such a difference to so many people in the north-east. Similarly, I know that the legislation we are passing today will make a huge difference to my constituents.
Let me be clear that my ambition is for good, well-paid jobs for people in the north-east. My constituents and people in our region deserve decent pay and secure work, and I will continue to work towards that. Meanwhile, for those on minimum wage, this legislation will mean more money in their pay packets, which is a real Labour achievement. Taken with our Employment Rights Bill, that means there will be a real shift for working people across the country and in my region.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Increases to the national living wage and national minimum wage will always be supported by Scottish National party Members. Indeed, we have been pushing for the UK Government to adopt the real living wage for those of all ages since 2011. Disappointingly, we have to continue to do so, as the Labour party has failed to take the opportunity to do that, now that it is in government.
While we support the changes that are being introduced today, the SNP’s position is clear: we want the real living wage for all workers, not just a politically convenient definition of the living wage that falls short of meeting the actual costs of living, and not just for those who are 21 and over. The Resolution Foundation has the real living wage set at £12.60, whereas this regulation increases the national living wage for workers aged 21 or over from £11.44 to £12.21 per hour. It is evidently still short of where it needs to be.
Furthermore, for those aged between 18 and 21, the national living wage is 18% lower, at £10 per hour. Given that the Minister today said that there would be a consultation looking at the cost of living, can he tell me if rent is 18% lower for those under 21? Do 18-year-olds get a special rate on their electricity bills, or on petrol for their car? Do supermarkets give them an 18% discount?
Chris Law
I will not, as I would like to make this point very clear, because it is important. The answer to my questions is obviously no. While I welcome the Minister’s comment that the national living wage may be looked at next year, and may be increased so that there is parity for everybody, we are not there yet. I would like the Government to go further, and I look forward to hearing more about how they will consult on doing so next year.
It is worth noting that in Scotland, the SNP Government have taken proactive steps to ensure that the real living wage is implemented wherever we have control, particularly in our public sector. The Scottish Government have paid all staff within their pay scheme, including NHS staff, the real living wage since 2011—that is 14 years ago. Scotland has the highest proportion of employees paid the living wage of any nation in the UK, with 25% of accredited real living wage employers in the UK based there. The Scottish Government are also providing funding to enable adult social care workers to be paid the living wage, benefiting up to 40,000 care workers, and they are working to ensure that all staff in private nurseries delivering our childcare pledge are paid the real living wage, too.
The Labour Government should demonstrate similar willingness to tackle the scourge of low pay. In their manifesto, they pledged to make changes in line with the real living wage, and to take into account the cost of living, but they have failed, at least today, to do so. They were voted in with a mantra of change, and it is in their power to legislate for the introduction of the real living wage for all, but so far, they have chosen not to. They must go further and adopt the living wage for people irrespective of their age, as the SNP has called on successive Governments to do for the past 14 years.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my trade union membership.
I welcome today’s move by the Government to bring a record pay boost of around £1,400 to over 3 million workers. The measures will also mean a record wage boost for 18 to 20-year-olds, who will see their gross annual full-time earnings rise by £2,500. For apprentices, the skilled workers of tomorrow, there will be a boost of 18%, so that they can learn their trade with better financial security. Why is all of that important? Because when I visit food banks in my constituency in Doncaster, I have been saddened to learn that some of the people accessing those services are in work, yet still cannot make ends meet. For too long in this country, work has not paid, but with this legislation, that will change.
We hear a lot about the tough choices that this Government have had to make after the 14 years of Conservative Government, whether because of the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-Budget, which left mortgages soaring; the neglect of our prisons, which were allowed to fill up to the point of collapse; or the lack of investment in our NHS. This Labour Government have taken a number of very difficult decisions to get our country back on track, but I can tell hon. Members that it has not been a tough choice to give millions of workers a pay rise. It has not been a tough choice to ensure that our apprentices have better financial security—in fact, it is a choice that I am proud to make; it shows that this Government value workers across the country and value the working contribution of young adults from the age of 18. This measure, along with our landmark Employment Rights Bill, will mean that it will once again pay to work in this country, and secure employment will be the foundation of the British economy, which will be strong going forward.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The increase in the national minimum wage in the next fortnight is very welcome. Nobody in work in this wealthy country of ours should be struggling to make ends meet. While that uplift is a step in the right direction, it does not address the challenges that we face in social care, both nationally and in Devon, the area that I know best. Devon has 28,000 filled social care positions, but 2,000 positions remain unfilled, and I am very concerned about that shortage in the workforce. It partly explains why people are going without care, and why our hospitals are struggling to discharge patients.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I take the hon. Member’s point about the social care sector. Does he therefore welcome Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, which includes a negotiating framework for our social care staff, to ensure that they are properly paid and can progress in their jobs?
Richard Foord
I think a negotiating framework might be helpful, but a lot will depend on the negotiations. It would be far better if the Government looked at the minimum wage, sector by sector, and identified social care as a special case.
The turnover rate for social care staff in Devon is 27%. That is not only higher than the national average, but roughly double the figure for other sectors. That is why I want a separate, higher minimum wage for social care. A striking 16% of social care workers cited low pay as the primary reason why they left the job. Many of them are simply not paid enough for the skilled, difficult and vital work they do, and many are earning more by moving into jobs such as stacking supermarket shelves—important though that is—than by doing the vital work of social care. In a rural county such as Devon, people have to travel long distances between the people for whom they care, which sometimes means that their real income is less than the national minimum wage.
We in Devon are looking at a shortage of social care beds. Devon county council projects that by 2027, Devon will face a shortfall of 270 care home beds for older people with complex needs. Looking further ahead, the situation gets worse. By 2033, in Honiton, the unmet need will be 72 care beds; in Cullompton, the need will be 79 care beds. In Seaton and Ottery St Mary, an additional 40 care beds will be required by then.
The shortage of facilities in mid and east Devon makes it plain that even more care workers will be required to meet the growing demand for social care. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the introduction of a carers’ minimum wage, £2 per hour more than the minimum wage. Of course, that funding cannot come from thin air. According to Skills for Care, increasing pay by between £1 and £2 per hour above the national minimum wage for care workers could save up to £947 million from reduced hospital admissions, but there would need to be some funding up front to make that happen. I suggest that the remaining funding comes from an additional tax on the gambling industry, which, according to Public Health England, costs the UK economy about £1.4 billion annually due to the financial, physical and mental impacts of problem gambling and the resulting crime and loss of productivity.
According to the Gambling Commission, 300,000 adults and 40,000 children in the UK suffer from problem gambling. It is not an industry that we should be incentivising through low taxation. Doubling the remote gaming duty is recommended by the Social Market Foundation. That would not only address the harms of problem gambling, but be a fairer way of funding that £2 per hour increase above the national minimum wage for social care workers.
It is time that the Government acted to ensure that those who profit from gambling contribute more to the public good. Increasing pay for the lowest-paid social care workers is a simple, effective step to attract and retain staff, and ensure that people in our communities receive the care that they require. I support the national minimum wage increases, but we must go further and pay our social care staff more, recognising their vital role in looking after the elderly and vulnerable.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the proposed increases to minimum wage rates, which will help people of all ages across all communities in our country. There is a particularly welcome boost for apprentices, who are the future of our economy. Those increases will make a real difference to people in my constituency and across our great nation, for three reasons.
First, as colleagues have said, we must make work pay; that is vital for the health of our economy. It is crucial that we ensure that those who contribute to our economic growth, deliver services in our communities, and manufacture the goods that we need are fairly rewarded, but for too long, that has not been the case in my constituency, or in other areas. Between 2014 and 2022, salary growth in County Durham was among the lowest in the United Kingdom, increasing at less than half the rate of the growth in regions such as London. To tackle these issues, we need to drive economic growth in regions like mine, but we also need clear action to ensure that those on the lowest wages see the growth in their pay that they deserve.
Secondly, it is crucial that we tackle the cost of living crisis. In the two and a half years I spent campaigning as a Labour candidate before being elected to this House, the cost of living crisis was raised with me time and again. Family after family has been hit by rising bills but flatlining pay. That issue affected my local residents particularly acutely, because median weekly pay for those in full-time work in my constituency is £150 less a week than the UK average—that is £600 a month less to pay the bills and make ends meet. That is why it is so vital that this time, the Government have taken the cost of living into account when setting minimum wage levels.
Thirdly, we must support growth. If we are to grow our economy, routes into work—including apprenticeships, entry-level jobs and other routes into starting a career—must be attractive. A key part of that is having pay levels that reward those going into work and incentivise participation in the labour market. For young people in my constituency, getting a job with decent pay has too often meant moving away from the town they grew up in. That is another reason why this direct action to tackle low pay is so important. As the representative of a constituency with a significant history of manufacturing, including modern manufacturing, such as in the fantastic Hitachi trains factory, I particularly welcome the wage increase for 18 to 20-year-olds, and for those on apprenticeships. It will ensure that young people going into work, who are the future of our country’s manufacturing sector, are paid properly, and that a secure future is possible locally.
I came into politics to make a genuine difference to the people of my home town of Newton Aycliffe, the wider constituency, and our country. Increasing the minimum wage is one way to do that, putting more money into the pockets of 3 million of our citizens. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
This Government have made a solid commitment to make work pay and put more money into working people’s pockets. In my constituency, we have a large number of distribution jobs, and as a result of this Government’s actions, people in Kettering on the minimum wage will have more money in their pockets to last them through to the end of the month.
Having spent my career in business, I know how important it is for businesses to have a productive, motivated workforce with minimal turnover. That benefits not only businesses but workers. In Kettering, it means that people earning a decent wage will spend their money supporting our local economy. It is shameful that the Conservative party let this country get to a place where people who work full time are queuing at food banks to feed their family. The uplift in the national minimum wage is a huge part of the national renewal that Labour has promised this country, and will mean a pay increase for 3 million people in Kettering and across the UK.
Young people in my constituency deserve a minimum wage that reflects the work they do. I speak to many 18 to 20-year-olds in Kettering who face the same financial pressures as adults older than them. One of the best things about my job is visiting many schools and colleges across my constituency, where young people talk to me about their plans for their future. This uplift will mean a wage boost of 18% for apprenticeships in Kettering, so that we can incentivise young people to see apprenticeships as a financially viable option and start to fill the skills gaps that businesses across the UK face after 14 difficult years under the Conservatives.
The last Labour Government brought in the national minimum wage, and it is this Labour Government who will secure Britain’s future and make work pay.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I start by declaring an interest as a proud member of the GMB and Unison unions. This is a debate about four numbers: 3 million, £1,400, £2,500 and 10 million. Three million is the number of people who will benefit from the fantastic measures being announced today; £1,400 is how much they will benefit—a real life-changing amount—while £2,500 is how much someone aged 18 to 20 years old will benefit from these changes and 10 million is the number of people whose lives will see a transformative impact from our Employment Rights Bill. All of that is being achieved by a Labour Government, with our plan for change delivering security for working people, but so much of it is opposed by the Conservatives.
On a day when we are debating giving a pay rise to 3 million people, it is striking and speaks volumes that the Opposition Benches are completely empty. That is the difference between the Government and the Conservatives. That pay rise is the difference that a Labour Government make.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) just tried slightly to rewrite history, but I am old enough to remember the pre-minimum wage era and who brought it to an end: a Labour Government. The introduction of the national minimum wage was a radical and transformative step, and it was opposed every step of the way by the Conservatives. When Labour included a policy for a minimum wage in our 1992 manifesto, Michael Howard claimed that it would destroy up to 2 million jobs. When we brought it to this place as legislation in 1998, the Conservatives fought it tooth and nail every single step of the way.
The Conservatives’ concerns turned out to be totally unfounded. It was a pointless opposition to measures that increased the wages of more than a million workers immediately in the UK, as the evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) pointed out. Indeed, the shadow Chancellor at the time, now better known for his railway journeys, eventually ended Tory opposition to the minimum wage, saying:
“The minimum wage has caused less damage to employment than we feared.”
How different the picture looks today. We have a Leader of the Opposition who recently said that the minimum wage was “overburdening” business and that maternity pay was “excessive”. In an article for ConservativeHome, the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) said that our measures to boost employment rights and make work pay would have a negative effect on business,
“especially in lower-wage sectors like hospitality and retail”.
Perhaps the shadow Chancellor does not realise that the entire point of these measures is to bring these workers—in particular, young workers—out of low pay, to improve retention, to keep people in work and to boost our economy. The low-wage, low-growth economy that the Conservatives presided over for 14 years brought with it stagnation and a growing number of people who either left employment or never entered it in the first place. Given that, we all know where we stand.
I will wrap up by saying that this measure represents a choice. Our choice is to increase the minimum wage and put money back in the pockets of working people. It is a choice to put people first. It will help thousands of people in Hendon and millions of people across this country, and it is a choice I am proud to support.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
May I begin by declaring an interest as a member and former employee of Unison? I know that its young members will welcome the unprecedented rise in the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds. As we have already heard, it will add £2,500 a year to their gross salaries.
This is a record change, and it will make a huge difference for young constituents of mine. Moreover, the Labour Government have made it clear that this is only the start of a journey. We are working towards increasing the youth rate so that we eventually have a single adult rate. Equal pay for equal work has long been a belief of the Labour party, and it is right that that also extends to younger people, but I am delighted that this Labour Government will also deliver for disabled and black, Asian and minority ethnic workers, and that we have embarked on a consultation on the introduction of mandatory pay gap reporting in respect of those workers.
The change in the youth rate, in particular, goes hand in hand with our youth guarantee and our plan to create pathways to good-quality employment for those under 22 with health conditions, whom the last Government left on the scrapheap with no help at all. Labour will ensure not only that those young people are helped to find jobs, but that those jobs are decently paid. We will make work a better choice than benefits for young people.
As I said earlier, the decision that we are making today is the beginning of a journey. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), said that the Conservatives would not vote against the motion, although I must say that in her speech she gave a very good impression of someone who was against it. In my view, if the Conservatives do not agree with it they should vote against it, and should tell us how much they think young people are worth. They should tell us whether we should pay them £10 an hour. They should tell us whether £12.21 is the minimum wage that they would pay. They should let us know by how much they would cut people’s wages. In contrast, the Labour Government are proud to be putting money back into 3 million working people’s pockets—money that they will spend with local businesses and in local high streets. After 14 years of failure from the Conservatives, Labour is making work pay.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will begin by addressing the many contributions that were made to what I think was, overall, a very positive debate. I welcome the support of the Liberal Democrats, and also welcome the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) to the Chamber: it is good to see her back in her place. She made some important points about the social care sector. We know that the abuse of travel time reimbursement is a huge issue. The Low Pay Commission is keen to look into it, and I am sure that once the fair work agency is up and running, it will focus on it as well.
The hon. Lady’s colleague, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), also talked about the importance of that sector. Our impact assessment has established that about one in five social care workers will receive a direct pay rise as a result of the increases announced today. As would be expected, before making its recommendations the Low Commission has consulted widely with, among others, representatives of social care workers. We believe that they have been undervalued for far too long, which is why we are introducing the first ever fair pay agreement in the adult social care sector so that care professionals are recognised and rewarded for the important work that they do. While I appreciate the hon. Member’s wish for a separate rate for care workers, we think we are taking the right measures to recognise and value them. The operation of different rates brings a range of challenges relating to enforcement and to clarity for employers, which we think is important.
There were, I have to say, a number of excellent speeches from the Labour Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) made the positive economic case and referred to the wealth of evidence in support of increases in the minimum wage. On the Labour Benches, we passionately believe that increased protections at work and increases in the minimum wage are good not just for individuals but for the wider economy. She mentioned the many young people in her constituency who will benefit from the moves to parity for the 18 to 20 age band with the adult rate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) has great knowledge and experience in this area. She said that this is the beginning of the journey. That is right. We recognise that it will take time to achieve our ambitions for the Low Pay Commission for the people in this country, but it is a journey we are determined to finish.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) took us back into the depths of history. I must declare that I am one of those who can remember what it was like before the minimum wage. When I tell my children how much I used to earn in my first jobs, they cannot believe it. But it was true: that is what the world was like before the minimum wage. She also reminded us of the doom-laden warnings we got from the Conservative Opposition at the time. We heard a small echo of that tonight, but I think history has proved that those warnings were wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) spoke passionately about the issues with in-work poverty, which is one of the key things that we must change in this country. For too long, people have not had work pay for them. Earnings have not kept up with the cost of living and that is one of the reasons why the Low Pay Commission’s remit has changed.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Low Pay Commission previously said that about 300,000 people are not being paid the minimum wage despite being on it—they are being underpaid. Will he update the House on the Government’s progress to ensure that all people on the minimum wage are paid the minimum wage?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend makes a very important point that those rights are only as good as the ability of the Government to enforce them. As we know, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a very effective system to deliver on the minimum wage and we will shortly be releasing our latest round of naming and shaming of those employers who have not done the right thing. We hope that the fair work agency, when it is established, will be even more effective at delivering fairness across the country and ensuring that everyone gets the minimum wage they deserve. We know there are particular sectors where there are acute challenges.
I turn to the points made by the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), about the bills and costs of an 18-year-old being the same as those for an adult. That is something I absolutely understand. It is why we changed the Low Pay Commission’s remit to ensure that we eventually get parity for that age group on the full adult rate. It is also why we have changed the remit of the Low Pay Commission to move towards a real living wage for all adults. We understand that that is such an important thing for us to deliver on. He may feel that we are not quite there yet, and we must ensure we take evidence as we go along from businesses on how it impacts on particular sectors and particular parts of society, but 18 to 20-year-olds are getting a £2,500 pay rise this year as a result of the regulations. That is something I am sure he will welcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) raised very well the regional impacts of the wage increase in his part of the world. It is the case that the regulations will mean 140,000 workers in the north-east, or 14.5% of the total workforce in that region, will benefit from the increase. We should all be absolutely delighted about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) also raised in-work poverty. That is why the remit is being changed. We want to ensure that in-work poverty is consigned to the history books.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) set out in stark terms the figures associated with the regulations. I may mention them again at some point before I finish. They are the bold numbers that will go directly into people’s pockets and that we can show as tangible proof of a Labour Government delivering for working people.
My hon. Friend also raised the matter of the empty Opposition Benches. I do not want to equate that with meaning that the Conservatives do not support these increases, as I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), said that they did. I do put her on notice, though, that her party leader has been less than full in her support for the minimum wage, so I hope that the shadow Minister’s support for today’s measures has not damaged her career prospects. It may well be that there is another leader in a few months anyway, and that things will be looking up. We do hope that the Conservatives continue to support the minimum wage as we move forward and that they do not change tack now that they have entered opposition.
However, the shadow Minister did raise a number of important questions, which I will now try to address. She raised the impact on public sector workers. Of course, pay for most frontline workers is set through pay review body processes, which do take account of national living wage increases as part of their processes. We do not believe that many public sector workers will be directly affected by this change, but it is something the Departments will take into account when they set their budgets.
The shadow Minister also asked about the cumulative impact of the changes. The impact assessment does show that this year’s upratings will represent a 0.14% increase in the UK-wide wage bill, which I think is incredibly good value for what we are delivering into people’s pockets. Of course, the total impact of the Employment Rights Bill is, at most, 0.4% of the total wage bill.
The hon. Lady raised questions about burdens on SMEs. The Low Pay Commission does take into account the impact on business as part of its operations. It looks at the competitiveness of individual businesses, the labour market and the wider economy, drawing on extensive labour market pay analysis and stakeholder evidence when recommending rates, and we would expect the commission to do exactly the same next year. Small businesses have, of course, had support from this Government. We have increased the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, meaning that 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance contributions at all, and more than half of employers will gain or see no change from this measure. We have also extended business rates relief for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors.
The hon. Lady raised concerns about the impact of the measures on young people. The youth guarantee will ensure that every young person has access to education or training to help them to find a job, and we are transforming the apprenticeship levy to ensure that young people get the opportunities they deserve.
The shadow Minister raised concerns about the overall labour market. I would just make the point that payroll employment is actually higher now than it was this time last year, and the latest labour force survey last week showed record numbers of people in work. Perhaps the negative headlines that we have been seeing are not actually the reality of the situation. I like to deal with facts, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the facts are that these regulations will put more money into the pockets of workers around the country—around 200,000 workers in Scotland, 160,000 workers in Northern Ireland and 150,000 workers in Wales. This will make a real difference to people: £1,400 for a full-time worker and £2,500 for someone on the 18-to-20 rate.
This is truly a worthwhile exercise, and we thank the Low Pay Commission for its work, as well as HMRC, which enforces on behalf of the Department, and ACAS, which offers impartial advice and expertise to ensure that workplace disputes can be resolved and workers’ rights can be upheld. This is a meaningful change being delivered by this Government that delivers a powerful message: this Government, and indeed this Parliament, are committed to making work pay. These real-terms increases to the minimum wage will end insecurity at work. I commend these regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before the House on 4 February, be approved.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 11 and 12 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)
[Relevant document: 246th Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners’ Liability) Measure; Church Funds Investment Measure, HC 771.]
That the Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners’ Liability) Measure (HC 773), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for his Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.
That the Church Funds Investment Measure (HC 772), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for his Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.—(Marsha de Cordova.)
Question agreed to.
Financial Assistance
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, a grant or grants exceeding £30 million and up to a total of £129 million to BioNTech UK Limited to support their planned expansion of Research and Development and Artificial Intelligence activities in the UK over the next 10 years.—(Gen Kitchen.)
Question agreed to.
Petition
Veterinary Products in Waterways
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I am delighted to secure my first Adjournment debate, and for it to be about veterinary products in waterways, specifically neonicotinoids such as fipronil and imidacloprid. From now on, for your sake and mine, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall be referring to these neonicotinoids as neonics.
I have been extremely keen to secure a debate on this matter for some time now, having had it raised with me before the general election by a constituent, Ueli Zellweger, who is a vet. It is high time that we gave this topic the scrutiny that it so desperately needs.
We are a nation of pet lovers. It is estimated that there are around 25 million cats and dogs in the UK. I speak as a doting dog and cat owner myself and I know that our furry friends are an integral part of millions of British families. And so when fleas and ticks come biting, bringing discomfort and annoyance to our beloved pets, we of course want to act swiftly and efficiently to alleviate their suffering.
Flea treatment products containing fipronil and imidacloprid are seen as a highly convenient and effective way of dealing with the problems caused by fleas and ticks. In the UK, Imperial College London claims that fipronil is an ingredient in 396 different pet anti-flea and tick treatments, with imidacloprid authorised in some 138 veterinary products. However, this convenience comes at a cost to our waterways and associated ecosystems. Popular though these products are, safe they are not. These two ingredients are extremely toxic. They are very powerful killers indeed and the picture is not pretty. In fact, so powerful are these chemicals that just one drop of fipronil has the potency to wipe out 30,000 bees as well as causing serious neurological damage and hampering the mobility of thousands upon thousands more.
As well as this, according to extensive research conducted by Imperial College London, one monthly flea treatment for a large dog contains enough imidacloprid to kill a staggering 25 million bees. The decline in pollinator populations, which in part can be attributed to the use of imidacloprid, threatens agricultural productivity and has very serious long-term implications for our national food security. This is not simply a mere triviality to be neglected.
Authorities have recognised the toxicity levels and the hideous harm that these chemicals can cause on the natural world. Since 2017, fipronil has been banned in agricultural use, and imidacloprid has been banned since 2018. But given the unregulated nature of these chemicals in relation to flea products, we are allowing these products into our environment through the back door, and our aquatic and nearby ecosystems are paying the price.
There is not just one route for these neonics to enter our British waterways. It is important to be aware of all the various pathways towards this pollution. The most obvious, and most direct, is simply the contact of pets with water bodies themselves. If a dog goes swimming in a river after receiving their course of treatment, the product is then introduced into the waterways, allowing it to enter our rivers, lakes and streams and go wherever the water takes it, wreaking havoc as it travels. Dissemination can also occur because of rainwater run-off, with residual product washing off from treated animals into drainage systems and ending up in our waterways. Equally, the washing of pet bedding and even pet owners’ hands are thought to be common ways in which these dangerous products enter our waterways.
There are some less direct pathways that still pose a problem—and at this point I must apologise to those currently eating their supper. These products are generally harmless to our dogs and cats, but they can be absorbed by our four-legged friends. Once absorbed, the products can be excreted, and even when responsible owners clean up after their pets—something that is not universal, unfortunately—the traces of fipronil and imidacloprid left behind can still prove incredibly damaging once washed into our waterways.
Studies have revealed that imidacloprid is one of the most frequently detected pesticides in dogs’ urine, but the level is still comparatively low, with the National Office of Animal Health finding that only around 11% of topically applied fipronil is systematically absorbed. The shedding of treated hair or skin can also lead to a pathway being created.
Once these products are in our waterways, not only are they utterly deadly for the thousands of native aquatic organisms in the UK, but they are highly toxic to sea and freshwater fish. Even at low concentrations, fipronil can be disruptive to aquatic life cycles. River sample data gathered by the UK Environment Agency over the course of a two-year period between 2016 and 2018 from 20 different waterways in England discovered fipronil residue in 98% of freshwater samples and traces of imidacloprid in 66% of all samples.
Beyond the effect on our waterways, other studies have found fipronil to be incredibly toxic to birds. It brings me no joy to report that this is not just an aquatic problem. Indeed, through a process of collecting 103 different bird nests, researchers found that every single one without exception contained fipronil, and an overwhelming majority had significant remnants of imidacloprid.
The truth is that the decline in aquatic insects that emanates from the flowing of these products in our waterways affects fish populations, who rely on these insects as a primary food source. This in turn impacts bird species that prey on fish, producing a dangerous snowball effect that reverberates throughout the ecosystem. This deterioration of biodiversity greatly diminishes the overall resilience of our ecosystems, exposing a vulnerability to factors of climate change and invasive species.
One of the most troubling aspects of the likes of fipronil and imidacloprid is their persistence in the environment. The chemicals disintegrate slowly and can remain in soils and waterways for extensive periods of time. In the case of imidacloprid, scientists say that the residual effect lasts in soil for months, sometimes even years, and the breakdown product of these chemicals is understood to be even more toxic than the parent compound.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Member agree that some pet owners may not be aware of how bad this issue is, and so packaging, usage guidance and point-of-sale advice for pet treatments should give some warning of the danger that the product could affect aquatic life if it ever entered watercourses?
Rachel Gilmour
I am coming on to that later, but the hon. Member is absolutely right.
It is also important to note that the economic costs of mitigating the environmental and health impacts of these chemicals are substantial.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this issue forward. She is right to outline the problems with fipronil and what it can do to our water, but there are many other things that can affect water. Northern Ireland Water goes around all the farms providing a free service collecting herbicides, weed killer, sheep dip, insecticide sprays, rodenticides, fungicide sprays, veterinary medicines and empty containers. Take all those things out of the country and away from the waterways and we can make our water cleaner. This issue is not just about the specific chemicals that the hon. Lady mentions; there are many other things that need to be removed as well. Does she agree with that?
Rachel Gilmour
I thank the hon. Member for his interesting intervention. I agree, and I will talk about farmers in particular in a moment.
It is also important to note that the economic cost of mitigating the environmental and health impacts of these chemicals is substantial. Water bills are set to rise precipitously this year, causing pain to the average consumer. In Tiverton and Minehead, rises of 20% and 32% have been announced by the two water companies that supply us. Purifying contaminated waterways and restoring the ecosystems blighted by those chemicals requires significant financial resources, placing a burden on communities and straining local government purses. How much of that financial impact is reflected in these bill rises? Are consumers facing price rises in their water bills because we are not effectively regulating problem products such as neonics?
We know that there is an issue with our water quality—the issues at Dunster beach and Blue Anchor in my constituency spring to mind. That is why the Government passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025—and why my party leader fell into Windermere several times during the general election campaign to raise awareness. When will we clean up our act and put in place the firmest restrictions on these polluting water companies? When will we look at what we can do to stop other pollutants from getting anywhere near our waterways in the first place? I will be interested to hear from the Minister whether this cost has been factored into the Government’s thinking on this issue, and whether there could be some answers to the questions I have posed.
On a broader note, I will touch on how we can help our farmers and those in our rural communities with these environmental challenges. Our waterways make up a key part of our natural biodiversity, but each part relies on the other. That makes the recent decision to axe the sustainable farming incentive scheme all the more worrying and damaging to our rural communities. If there is not the money for sustainable farming, agricultural practices will naturally follow economic sense, if not the careful environmental custodianship on which our farmers pride themselves.
Farmers are suffering at the hands of this Government, and with them so suffers our environment. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the House that her colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are doing everything they can to support our farmers as they balance the agricultural and environmental needs of the land? Will she also ensure that due consideration is given to the restoration of the SFI scheme, so that we can keep making progress on our environmental goals, hand in hand with farmers, and not be distracted from the harms of damaging products such as the neonics that I have been talking about by losing our much needed local and rural allies?
I am aware that this speech has been slightly doom and gloom, but I will now turn to what we can do as an alternative. Research has shown that the likes of coconut oil, citronella oil, good old lavender and eucalyptus provide good natural and, most importantly, non-toxic alternatives for flea and tick repellents. The market is awash with collars for cats and dogs infused with these essential oils, which are both practical and natural. There has been very little emphasis on these solutions. We should be doing much more to promote the benefits of these chemical-free remedies.
As seen in recent developments in Switzerland, where the Government are carrying out water testing, there is a clear need for environmental impact assessments of the use of fipronil and imidacloprid. These should be launched as a matter of urgency, and I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on this point. We Liberal Democrats have called for any emergency authorisations of neonics to be revoked, and for the introduction of tighter restrictions on their use. I invite the Minister to comment on the state of play and whether there is a serious appetite in the Government to address this issue.
It is clear that we have a serious challenge on our hands. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) said, these products are advertised widely and sold ubiquitously. I am not blind to the fact that these products have brought undeniable benefits in pest control, but their unintended consequences serve as a stark reminder of the need for sustainable and nature-friendly practices. I genuinely believe that there is a desire to do more to regulate these highly toxic chemicals. Lawmakers were right to impose a blanket ban on fipronil and imidacloprid in agricultural settings in 2017 and 2018. The will should be there to ensure that these products cannot be allowed to continue damaging our freshwater ecosystems. Further regulation is the only way forward to remove harmful contaminants and arrest the degradation of aquatic fauna in this country’s waterways.
The Government also need to go further and faster in regulating our waterways and the water companies damaging them overall. The Water (Special Measures) Act is a good first step, but the Government can and must do more. Ofwat is failing in its duties. The time has come for a new clean water authority to replace it as we up our game in protecting our precious waterways. I see no reason why reforms designed to keep neonics out of our waterways cannot come hand in hand with our push to keep sewage and other contaminants and pollutants out of our waterways.
In the short term, for neonics, restrictions should be placed on the trade of fipronil and imidacloprid, with the only exception to their continued use coming under strict conditions of prescription only by veterinary medical professionals and for a limited time period. We know that Amazon and the over-the-counter market in pet stores can lead to the propagation of those products in our natural environment, so restrictions would make some sense.
When the time allows, a ban for all other usage should certainly be in the Government’s scope. It is clear that decisive action must be taken on this matter. Could the Minister shed some light on whether the Government would be willing to assess the potential merits of moving in that direction? From all that I have seen, that appears the prudent—and perhaps only—direction to take.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing the debate, and I especially congratulate her on her first Adjournment debate in the House. I am sure that it will be the first of many—and probably the first of many regarding water, so we might get used to seeing each other on such evenings.
Obviously, we cannot miss the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his birthday. I am sure that I speak for the entire House when I say that I hope he has had a wonderful day. An Adjournment debate would not be the same without him, so I thank him for joining us, even on his birthday.
I know that the Government have carried out monitoring in the Tiverton and Minehead area to deliver programmes such as updating the water framework directive status, natural capital ecosystems assessment and catchment sensitive farming. As hon. Members know, the quality of our rivers, lakes and seas is essential for supporting our ecosystems, providing clean water and producing our food. Our beautiful rivers, lakes, seas and beaches are a source of pride for our communities, and we want to restore them to that end.
I totally agree that we are a nation of pet lovers. Again, I have to mention my three wonderful cats— I never miss the opportunity to mention them—who are Meglatron, Lily and Serena. Serena was given that name because she is such a beautifully serene lady, and Meglatron because he is a crazy little boy we have running around the house all the time. The hon. Lady is quite right, and I am sure that the concerns about fleas and ticks are felt by many pet owners up and down the country.
On our wider neonics work, on 21 March—just four days ago—we released the national action plan on pesticides. It has three objectives: to encourage the take-up of integrated pest management; to establish a timeline and targets for the reduction of the use of pesticides; and to strengthen compliance, to ensure safety and better environmental outcomes. Can you believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the NAP, which we published just last Friday—we put out the written ministerial statement on Monday—had been waiting over a decade under the previous Government? We managed to get it out in eight months. I am quite proud of that.
On our wider work on neonics, before Christmas we made a written ministerial statement talking about how we wanted to ensure a complete ban in the use of the emergency authorisation. The hon. Lady will know that I declined this year’s emergency authorisation for the use of Cruiser pesticides. That demonstrates the Government’s commitment to tackling some of the concerns that are widely held.
The quality of our water is, of course, essential for supporting ecosystems, providing clean drinking water and producing our food. Maintaining healthy and clean water sources is vital to achieving the Government’s mission for sustainable economic growth, but the public are also concerned about chemicals used for the treatment and prevention of fleas and ticks for pets in UK waterways. The Government are committed to understanding the impacts of veterinary medicines entering our environment.
Speaking more widely about water quality, the flawed water system that the Government inherited is still discharging record levels of sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas. The situation is not just an environmental failure; it is also a public health crisis, demanding our immediate and decisive action to rectify decades of neglect and mismanagement. We need a systematic approach to tackling issues that impact the whole of the drainage and waste water systems, stopping the unnecessary pressure from rainwater and sewage misuse entering the system to the point at which it is discharged into the environment.
As mentioned, the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 gained Royal Assent on 24 February 2025, boosting the power of water sector regulators to tackle pollution. That major legislation delivers on this Government’s promise to clean up the water sector and is the most significant increase in enforcement powers for water industry regulators in a decade. The Act will give regulators new powers to take tougher and faster action to crack down on water companies damaging the environment and failing their customers. However, we do not just want to give that—oh no, we want to do so much more.
Further legislation aimed at fundamentally transforming how our entire water system operates will be guided by the findings of the Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, which is currently conducting the largest review of the industry since privatisation. I also mention the wonderful start to the day I had today, because earlier this morning, at 9 o’clock, I met Sir Steve Redgrave and lots of young rowers from the University of Reading to discuss how we can improve our water quality for the rivers and lakes that we all love. It was a pleasure to have a cup of coffee with him very early this morning and talk about our shared ambition to clean up our rivers.
Having spoken about the importance of water quality, I will turn in detail to the topic of veterinary medicines in waterways. The Government recognise the presence of parasiticides—I nearly got away with that—in the wider environment as a significant concern, and we are actively gathering evidence on that complex, multifactorial issue. All veterinary medicines undergo a rigorous scientific assessment before approval. As the regulator for veterinary medicines, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate balances the benefits of veterinary medicine for animal health and welfare, as well as human health protection, against the associated risk, which obviously includes environmental risks. Medicines are only ever authorised if the benefit outweighs the risk. The VMD follows internationally recognised guidelines for assessing the environmental risks of veterinary medicines for all animals, including pets.
Fleas and ticks can lead to, as mentioned, discomfort and distress in pets. Those parasites can host microbes that cause disease in pets and potentially in pet owners who encounter the fleas and ticks. Topical flea treatments play a crucial role in protecting both animal and human health from fleas, ticks and disease. It is therefore essential that we take a balanced approach to the benefits of such treatments and their potential environmental impact when considering the issue.
While there is evidence of the presence of fipronil and imidacloprid in fresh waters, it is well established that, as insecticides, these substances are inherently toxic to invertebrates and we do not understand the effects that current levels are having at a population and ecosystem level. We are, however, committed to understanding the potential impacts of veterinary medicines entering the environment. The VMD has led on the formation of a cross-Government group on pharmaceuticals in the environment to develop a co-ordinated strategy to reduce the impact of the substances in the environment. The group includes key governmental bodies, including the Environment Agency, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and representatives from the devolved Governments. While the VMD is prioritising the development of an evidence base, working to resolve the issue will require involvement by all key stakeholders, including the pharmaceutical industry and veterinary professionals.
The work does not come without challenge and stakeholders remain divided on the way forward. Some advocate for the benefits of year-round parasiticide use for humans and animal health, others emphasise the need for more cautious use, while some push for a complete ban. Any decision to limit use must be carefully weighed against the benefits to ensure a balanced approach, as restrictions could impact animal welfare, animal health and even public health. Also, there is still a critical evidence gap in understanding the full impact of those options on both animal and human health, as well as on the environment, and that must be explored further before any regulatory action is taken.
Emma Hardy
I will give way to the hon. Lady on the Liberal Democrat Bench and then to my hon. Friend.
Tessa Munt
Could the Minister just clarify whether that group will consider the benefits of using natural remedies, or a combination of natural remedies, and of ensuring that people are fully aware of the benefits of that, and that that will be in some way quantified, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) mentioned during her speech.
Emma Hardy
Yes, we are going to look at all the evidence on the available options. As I say, there is a difference of opinion over the best way forward; people have different views on that. It is my job, as we are a responsible Government, to look at all the evidence and try to find a balanced way forward, so that will be included as part of the evidence base.
Jayne Kirkham
Is there a rough timeline for that group to come back with a report?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is always very dedicated to DEFRA-related issues, and it is always nice to see her here. I will check to see whether I can give her a more detailed decision on timing—if I cannot do so in this meeting, I will ensure that I let her know afterwards.
As I said, the VMD is developing the evidence base and has commissioned scientific research to investigate how these substances reach rivers and streams. It is working closely with stakeholders to collect data and address the issue. It is supporting calls for a review of the internationally agreed environmental risk assessment standards. The VMD and the Environment Agency are working closely together to understand the risks posed by these chemicals and to respond appropriately.
To further address this issue, the group on pharmaceuticals in the environment has developed a road map for reducing levels of two veterinary substances in UK surface waters. The priority for this road map is to raise awareness and improve pet owner education on risks and appropriate use—I know that point has come up here. Once finalised, that road map would be available to all stakeholders. As unresearched policies can fail badly, any changes we implement must be evidence based and measurable to achieve success.
This Government will not turn the other way or continue to allow our rivers, lakes and seas to be polluted. Through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, the independent Water Commission, future legislation and many other actions, we are demonstrating our commitment to a comprehensive reset of the water industry and will drive long-term transformative change. We remain dedicated to addressing the environmental impact of veterinary medicines, and will continue working with relevant stakeholders to find solutions that protect both animal health and the environment. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead on securing the debate. The public want clean water and we are determined to deliver it.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. The draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations were laid before the House on 13 February. The draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025 were laid before the House on 25 February. Let me set out in turn the reasons why we are bringing each set of regulations forward, and what they will provide for, starting with the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations.
Planning is principally a local activity, but a well-established principle is that, in limited circumstances and where issues of more than local importance are involved, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to make planning decisions. Recent experience, including the response to covid-19, has exposed that the existing route for securing planning permission on Crown land, namely the urgent Crown development route under section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which was introduced in 2006, is not fit for purpose. Indeed, it is telling that it has never once been used. Furthermore, Departments have struggled to secure local planning permission for nationally important public service infrastructure such as prisons.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, passed by the previous Government in the last Parliament, made provision to address those challenges by providing two new routes for planning permission for Crown development in England. The first route, referred to as Crown development, is for planning applications for Crown developments that are considered of national importance. Such applications are to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate directly, instead of to local planning authorities. An inspector will consider and determine the application, unless the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government recovers the application to determine herself.
The second route is an updated urgent Crown development route, which will enable applications for nationally important developments that are needed urgently to be determined rapidly under a simplified procedure. Applications under the urgent route will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Those new routes can be used for developments only where clearly justified. Provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act require that applications can be accepted by the Secretary of State only if she deems that the proposed development is of national importance and, in the case of the urgent Crown development route, urgent.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that I am a local councillor. Given what the Minister has outlined, will he give us a flavour of how local people can make representations, even if it is straight to the Secretary of State or the Planning Inspectorate? I am concerned that removing applications from local councils and putting them through the new routes he has described will make it harder for local residents to feel that their voice has been heard, even on important national infrastructure projects.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me deal with community engagement under both routes. With the Crown development route, community engagement will be a key part of the process. Communities will be fully engaged throughout. Much like an application submitted to a local planning authority, there will be mandatory consultation and publicity about the consultation for a minimum period of 21 days. That period will be 30 days if the development is one that requires an environmental impact assessment and is therefore an EIA development. That will enable members of the community to view and comment on the application.
We expect that the majority of Crown development applications will be subject to a public hearing. Those who made comments will be notified when that is to take place. Interested parties may attend the hearing if the inspector allows it. Only comments made during the consultation, the publicity period and the hearing that raise material planning matters will be taken into account as part of the decision-making process.
The local planning authority will be consulted and will have a role to play in publicising the application. It will need to place the application and associated documents on its planning register. Where PINS—the Planning Inspectorate—does not have a local presence, the local planning authority will be required to affix site notices during the mandatory period and to notify those owners or occupiers who adjoin the site. For urgent Crown development, the other route that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provides for, the local planning authority will again be consulted as part of the application. That is mandated by section 293C(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In the draft regulations, we have made provision about the consultation procedure.
While we appreciate the importance of community engagement, given the urgency with which decisions must be made, under the approach to consultation with the community in this process they will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In circumstances in which decisions need to be made very quickly, it may not be possible to conduct a meaningful public consultation and reach an urgent decision. I hope that satisfies the hon. Member for Broxbourne on the different types of community engagement under both routes.
The new routes, as I said, can be used only for developments for which it is clearly justified, and provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act require that applications can be accepted by the Secretary of State only if she deems that they are of national importance and, in the case of the urgent Crown development route, urgent. I made a written ministerial statement on 13 February that set out the principles under which national importance and urgency will be determined. When submitting an application, applicants are required to set out the reasons why they consider that the development is of national importance and, in the case of urgent Crown development, needed as a matter of urgency.
The draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations make amendments to primary legislation to reflect the two new Crown development routes. For instance, they amend references to planning permission set out in a range of pieces of legislation. They also remove references to the previous urgent Crown development route in section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act, which now applies only in Wales. The instrument also sets the fee for an application for planning permission under both routes, set at the same fee, which would have been paid to the local authority.
Following the statutory instrument coming into force, a further suite of statutory instruments will be made through the negative parliamentary procedure. They will set the procedures for the two routes and make further consequential changes to secondary legislation to reflect their implementation. We have published the instruments in draft ahead of the debate, in order to provide proper transparency about how the routes will operate. I reiterate that the Government are committed to ensuring proper transparency to Parliament at every stage when the routes are used. When the matter was considered in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, I stressed that point to the then Minister.
The following are the ways in which we want to ensure that proper transparency takes place. First, where an application under any of the routes is accepted, the relevant Members of Parliament will be sent a letter. That letter will include details of where the application can be viewed and the next steps. The letter will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Secondly, when a decision is made on whether to grant planning permission, the relevant Members of Parliament will be sent another letter. That letter will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Finally, on an annual basis, the Secretary of State will publish a report of all decisions taken under the routes. Taken together, those steps will ensure that Members in the other House are properly appraised of any applications that relate to their constituencies. It also means that both Houses of Parliament will be provided the opportunity to consider and scrutinise the general operation of the routes.
The second set of regulations we are debating make changes to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. The changes will ensure that when development comes forward after it is granted planning permission through the Crown development route, such development can be liable to pay the community infrastructure levy if the local authority charges CIL in that area. In addition, under section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act, applicants can apply to the Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, for a planning permission decision when an authority has been designated for poor performance. We are amending the CIL regulations to ensure that the levy can be charged on development that comes forward under this route if the local authority charges CIL in its area. That ensures that fair financial contributions to local infrastructure are made by such development.
Finally, some incidental and consequential amendments are made to the Town and Country Planning (Section 62A Applications) (Procedure and Consequential Amendments) Order 2013 to enable relevant information to be provided in relation to CIL where an application is made under section 62A.
To summarise, the regulations are important in ensuring a more timely and proportionate process for dealing with planning applications for Crown development in England. The Government are taking steps to ensure that the routes are used appropriately, and that there is full scrutiny of the use of the powers. The changes we are making to the CIL regime are also important to ensure that CIL can be charged on development in a consistent and fair way, even when the local planning authority is not the decision maker.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am delighted to see the Minister in front of me once again. We had a very late night last night, although it was not as exciting as it sounds: we were debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I look forward to serving on the Bill Committee with him over the next few months. I am grateful for the opportunity to ask him several important questions in relation to the draft regulations. I do not intend to ask questions on the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025; on those, we broadly support the aims of the Minister.
I must express some concern over the absence of a public consultation on the legislation. While I believe the Minister, knowing him personally, when he says that there has been engagement between his Department and the Welsh Government, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, can he update us on what specific regulations the Welsh Government directly contributed to? Furthermore, we are told that the legislation will foster development, but can the Minister clarify what general development he believes this Labour Government will promote on Crown land, and how the Government plan to take full advantage of the changes? When can the House expect to be updated on any specific development proposals arising from the changes?
We must not forget the critical role of environmental protections, especially when it comes to Crown land. The balance between development and the protection of our species and habitats is of the utmost importance, so I ask the Minister—you will see that I am just asking questions in my contribution, Ms Lewell, so as not to detain the Committee—what steps have been taken to ensure that environmental concerns are appropriately addressed within this framework? How does his Department plan to reconcile the need for essential infrastructure development with the need to adhere to environmental regulations?
I note that the Minister previously described the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, introduced by the former Government, as a planning Bill in all but name,
“albeit in a shiny but ultimately flimsy levelling up wrapper.” ––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Public Bill Committee, 12 July 2022; c. 405.]
While I understand that perspective, I express my relief that the Minister has had a change of heart and now recognises that the 2023 Act was a more substantive piece of legislation, which shows how robust and far-reaching it really was. Imitation is the best form of flattery in this case.
As we move forward, the Opposition remain committed to carefully scrutinising the proposals that come from the Government, particularly as they relate to planning, development and land use. We will not divide the Committee this afternoon, but as the Minister heard me mention last night in policy terms closely related to the regulations that we are discussing in this Committee, it does seem to be a wider goal of the Government to introduce such regulations within the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I look forward to scrutinising those measures over the next few months.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I rise to raise concerns about the new Crown route, and the danger of its being overused by the Government, cutting out opportunities for community involvement. Will people have a right to be heard in the decision-making process for those applications, as they have been when they come to a planning committee or to a public inquiry or other appeal?
If the CIL changes in the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025 go ahead, they should attract community infrastructure levy payments. We will welcome that aspect because we need to secure infrastructure, and one of our chief concerns with proposals for development is that funding for infrastructure is frequently not in place—including, for example, the lack of GP surgeries in my constituency. The Liberal Democrats support the CIL aspects of the changes, but I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage will raise some concerns about the Crown route.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Our concern about the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 is that the criteria that would be used for deploying the proposed powers is somewhat vague and too broad. It would be useful to hear more clarity from the Minister on what criteria will be employed.
There is also potentially a risk that the Government are consuming too much political capital with these regulations when combined with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that we debated yesterday evening. Building new infrastructure—while respecting nature and economic growth—is of course vital for local communities and business, but it must come from community-led decision making. To keep the consent of our constituents, it is important that it is done with them, rather than to them.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, for his constructive tone. I also thank the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Didcot and Wantage for their questions.
The shadow Minister asked which cases the Crown development route and the urgent Crown development route would be used for. I will discuss each route in turn because they will have different applications. It will ultimately be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is deemed nationally important. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific schemes.
The Crown development route will most likely be used for HMG programme nationally important public service development. That would include but not be limited to new prisons or border infrastructure, to give just two examples. It may also be used for defence-related development, as PINS is able to put in place special procedures to handle information dealing with matters of national security. Special provisions exist whereby the Secretary of State may issue a direction limiting the disclosure of information relating to matters of national security of a premises through section 321 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Crown development route may also be used for particularly sensitive or significant development being brought forward by or on behalf of the Crown. Let me be clear: we expect only a few applications to be submitted through this route each year.
For urgent Crown development, it will again be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is nationally important and needed urgently on the basis of what has been submitted as part of the application. Again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific schemes but we expect the urgent Crown development route to be used very rarely, where other planning application routes cannot be used to secure a decision quickly enough. It will be used only in cases where development needs to be put in place quickly, in a matter of days or weeks, and where the development is in the national interest. That may include, for example, medical centres, or storage and distribution for key goods and services in the event of a pandemic.
The shadow Minister asked what environmental protections are in place. We are maintaining important environmental safeguards in both routes, which are subject to existing environmental impact assessment and habitats regulations assessment requirements. For example, where development is considered EIA development, accompanied by an environmental statement, there will be a requirement to publicise the application and consult specific bodies for no less than 30 days. Environmental impacts will remain a key consideration in whether planning permission should be granted. In the Crown development route, we are ensuring that development being brought forward is also subject to mandatory biodiversity net gain—namely, the permission must secure a 10% increase in biodiversity value.
The shadow Minister, if I understood him correctly, raised transparency, as did other Members. As I set out comprehensively in the written ministerial statement issued on 13 February, both routes have important safeguards and transparency measures. That feature was not apparent at the time of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, and I pressed the then Minister on that point. I have worked very hard—it was very important to me—to ensure that important safeguards and transparency measures are in place so that people will know the rationale for where these powers and routes are used, and what safeguards will apply.
Lastly, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage asked, I think, how we would define national importance and urgency, because there is a subjective element to that. The Government are obviously committed to a planning system in which decisions are made locally. Last night, we had a long discussion about local plans and planning committees on Second Reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but it is a well-established principle that in limited circumstances it is necessary for the Secretary of State to make planning decisions where planning issues are of more than local importance.
What is considered to be of national importance will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Secretary of State will use the principles set out in the written ministerial statement that I mentioned when determining whether a proposal meets this bar. The Secretary of State will, in general, consider a development to be of national importance only if the development would involve the interests of national security or foreign Governments; contribute towards the provision of national public services or infrastructure, such as prisons and border infrastructure, as I mentioned earlier; support a response to international, national or regional civil emergencies; or otherwise have significant economic, social or environmental effects on strong public interests at a regional or national level. It will obviously be for the applicant to set out evidence as part of the statement accompanying the application that demonstrates that at least one of those principles has been met.
What is considered a matter of urgency will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Again, the Secretary of State will use the principles set out in the written ministerial statement. In these circumstances, the applicant will be required to provide a statement to accompany the application, setting out why they consider the development to be both nationally important and needed as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State will accept applications through the urgent Crown development route only where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development meets both those conditions.
Furthermore, the Secretary of State will consider something to be needed urgently only where the applicant can demonstrate the need for an expedited planning process. To that end, the applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed development needs to be made operational to an accelerated timeframe and is unlikely to be feasible using other application routes, including the Crown development route, and will need to evidence the likely consequences of not securing a decision within the accelerated timeframe. I hope that answers all the points raised by hon. Members.
The two new routes for planning permission that we seek to implement are necessary and timely, and these regulations represent a crucial step towards their delivery. The changes that we are making to the CIL regulations are equally important in order to maintain the integrity of the CIL charging regime. As I said, they will ensure that a clear and consistent approach is taken to the levy regardless of who the planning decision maker is. I hope that the Committee will welcome the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment etc.) (England) Regulations 2025. —(Matthew Pennycook.)
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting)
Tuesday 25th March 2025
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesTerminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 March 2025 - (25 Mar 2025)
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. I remind Members that interventions should be short, and raise points of clarification or questions; they should not be speeches in and of themselves. Members who do wish to give a speech should bob and continue to do so throughout the debate that they wish to speak in, until they are called. When Members say “you”, they are referring to the Chair. “You” should not be used to refer to each other. Debate should come through the Chair.
Clause 32
Secretary of State’s powers to ensure assistance is available
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 525, in clause 32, page 19, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 537, in clause 32, page 19, line 27, after “assistance” insert
“by a registered charity but not”.
This amendment would limit the provision of an assisted death to charitable providers and not permit provision as part of the National Health Service.
Amendment 528, in clause 32, page 19, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) cannot authorise a body other than a public authority from providing such assistance even if that body is to be contracted by a public authority to do so.”
Amendment 529, in clause 32, page 19, line 28, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 530, in clause 32, page 19, line 31, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State may not lay a draft statutory instrument before either House of Parliament that makes provision containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (1) unless they also lay before both Houses an impact assessment on such regulations.
(6) The impact assessment under subsection (5) must include an assessment of the impact of such regulations on the workforce of health professionals and on the National Health Service.”
Clause stand part.
Amendment 545, in clause 39, page 23, line 6, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under section 5(3A), 8(6A),30(3), (Voluntary assisted dying services: England) or (Voluntary assisted dying services: Wales) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(4) Any other statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State containing regulations under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) The Welsh Ministers may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under section (Voluntary assisted dying services: Wales) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.”
This amendment brings together the various provisions about the procedure for regulations. It also makes regulations under clauses 5 and 8 about training, qualifications and experience, and regulations under NC36 and NC37, subject to the draft affirmative procedure.
New clause 36—Voluntary assisted dying services: England—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision securing that arrangements are made for the provision of voluntary assisted dying services in England.
(2) In this section ‘commissioned VAD services’ means services provided by virtue of regulations under subsection (1).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make other provision about voluntary assisted dying services in England (whether or not the services are commissioned VAD services).
(4) Regulations under this section may for example provide that specified references in the National Health Service Act 2006 to the health service continued under section 1(1) of that Act include references to commissioned VAD services.
(5) Regulations under this section must provide that section 1(4) of that Act (services to be provided free of charge except where charging expressly provided for) applies in relation to commissioned VAD services.
(6) Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament; but they may not amend this Act.
(7) In this section ‘voluntary assisted dying services’ means—
(a) services for or in connection with the provision of assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with this Act, and
(b) any other services provided by health professionals for the purposes of any of sections 4 to 22 except section (Determination by panel of eligibility for assistance).”
This new clause imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations securing that arrangements are made for the provision of voluntary assisted dying services in England. It also confers a power to make other provision about voluntary assisted dying services in England.
Amendment (a) to new clause 36, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) cannot authorise the National Health Service in England to provide voluntary assisted dying services.”
Amendment (c) to new clause 36, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) cannot authorise a body other than a public authority to provide voluntary assisted dying services if that body is to be contracted by a public authority to do so.”
Amendment (b) to new clause 36, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may not amend, modify or repeal section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006.”
Amendment (d) to new clause 36, leave out subsection (6).
Amendment (e) to new clause 36, after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State may not lay a draft statutory instrument before either House of Parliament that makes provision containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (1) unless they also lay before both Houses an impact assessment on such regulations.
(6B) The impact assessment under subsection (6A) must include an assessment of the impact of such regulations on the workforce of health professionals and on the National Health Service.”
New clause 37—Voluntary assisted dying services: Wales—
“(1) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision about voluntary assisted dying services in Wales, including provision securing that arrangements are made for the provision of such services.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may make any provision that—
(a) could be made by an Act of Senedd Cymru, and
(b) would be within the legislative competence of the Senedd if it were contained in such an Act.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about voluntary assisted dying services in Wales.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may make any provision that—
(a) could be made by an Act of Parliament, and
(b) would not be within the legislative competence of the Senedd if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd.
(5) Regulations under this section may not amend this Act.
(6) In this section ‘voluntary assisted dying services’ has the meaning given by section (Voluntary assisted dying services: England).”
This new clause confers a power on the Welsh Ministers to make provision about voluntary assisted dying services in Wales, including provision securing that arrangements are made for the provision of such services. It also confers a power on the Secretary of State to make provision about such services, where the provision would be outside the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru.
Danny Kruger
It is very good to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, on what is probably our last day in Committee. I fully expect that we will reject clause 32 in due course, so although I want to move my amendment, I have no intention of pushing it or any of the other amendments in this group to a vote, but I do want to take the opportunity to address the clause and to speak to the amendment in my name.
Clause 32 was always going to be an important one, because it would have allowed the Government to provide money to fund the assistance to die; it would have allowed the Secretary of State to make financial arrangements to secure the provision of assistance under the Bill. What we might have been debating if we were sticking with this clause—I think it is still worth inviting the hon. Member for Spen Valley and people who support the Bill to speak to this point—is that the Bill will require the Government to fund the provision of assisted suicide services, but it makes no provision to fund the supply of palliative care. I think everyone in this Committee recognises the absolute imperative of a properly supported palliative care sector, and I deeply regret that although the Government are supporting a resourcing of this new service, there is no balancing commitment to provide what we have all acknowledged is the essential corollary of any assisted dying service. What is worse, in clause 32 and in new clause 36, which will replace it, we have something different.
Last Wednesday night, just as the Committee rose, the hon. Member for Spen Valley tabled amendment 538, which would remove clause 32 from the Bill. This is the clause that committed the Secretary of State to make the financial commitments—commitments that were debated in principle when the House debated the money resolution on 22 January. Once again, I regret that important undertakings that were made by the Government and by the hon. Lady have, in the course of the debate subsequent to Second Reading and now subsequent to the money resolution, been superseded by further provisions.
Amendment 538 is consequential on two new clauses, one of which is new clause 37, which will allow Welsh Ministers to set up a system to implement the Bill in Wales. This will give very wide powers to Welsh Ministers, including the powers to make provision about the service that would be outside the legislative competence of Welsh Ministers. That is significant. Unlike clause 32 and new clause 36, which will replace it, new clause 37 does not make any reference to the health service in Wales. I think it is worth us teasing out the challenge to the devolution settlement that these new clauses represent; I am sure the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd will speak to that.
I want to speak briefly, but I hope clearly and powerfully, to the essential challenge. Without getting too involved in the party politics, we all talk about “our NHS”, and in a sense it is our NHS: this nation’s great domestic institution, created in the 20th century in response to the shamefully inequitable provision of healthcare that preceded 1946. Labour rightly claims the credit for having introduced the NHS under the Attlee Government and in fact the Liberals also have a good claim to it—it was a Liberal, Beveridge, who first advocated the provision of a national health service—but what is not enough recognised is that, as I am sure my hon. Friends are proud to say, it was a Conservative Health Secretary who first put before the House of Commons a plan for a national health service: Henry Willink, Health Secretary in the wartime coalition Government. Unfortunately, the public voted us out of power in 1945 and it fell to Labour to implement a slightly different plan. Nevertheless, we can all claim some parentage of this great institution, the NHS. That is why it is so significant that in the new clauses we are debating, a fundamental change to the NHS in England is proposed.
The duty on the Secretary of State under the National Health Service Act 1946, as updated in 2006, is to promote
“a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England…and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”—
that is, physical and mental illness. That has been the purpose of the NHS since 1946.
I find it curious that a linguistic sleight of hand is being practised in new clause 36. The new phrase, “voluntary assisted dying services” or “VAD services”, is introduced, and it is used to avoid having to spell out that section 1(1) of the NHS Act 2006 will now include references to “assistance to end” the lives of people in England and Wales—that is the language of the Bill as introduced, in the long title and in nearly every clause up to this point. The explicit language that this is about ending people’s lives is avoided in the new clause. Why? I put it to the Committee that it is a hard thing to do: to take a red pen to Bevan’s legacy, to fundamentally change the NHS from one that is
“designed to secure improvement…in the physical and mental health”
of the people of England and Wales, and dedicated to
“the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of…illness”,
and to add to that founding clause “to end” the lives of terminally ill people.
I will be blunter than the drafters have been. New clause 36 changes the NHS from being the national health service to the national health and assisted suicide service. That is its direct implication. Furthermore, the new clause is also designed not only to alter fundamentally the national health service, but to enable the private sector to be paid from NHS funds to end the lives of terminally ill people—and not only that, but to do so with a Henry VIII power so broad as to enable any changes in the NHS or any law to facilitate that goal.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that end-of-life care is also part of the NHS? That has always been part of the NHS, and it is not promoting health but enabling a good death.
Danny Kruger
No, I fundamentally disagree: end-of-life care is healthcare. It is addresses symptoms and conditions, and it is designed in a way that is completely compatible with the founding principle of the NHS, whereas the Bill—I appreciate the honesty of the drafters in recognising this, even if they do not quite spell it out—and its proposal of an assisted suicide service is not compatible with the founding principle of the NHS. That is why adapting that founding subsection as in the original NHS Act is required. Of course I recognise that end-of-life care is healthcare and completely compatible with what the NHS does. I wish it were more part of the NHS—that is another debate. Palliative care should have been more closely integrated into NHS provision, and it still should be.
I want to tease out a tension among the drafters and advocates of the Bill about exactly how the assisted suicide service will be facilitated and provided. We have got a bit closer to it, but some questions remain, which is regrettable when here we are on the very last day of the Committee’s debate. Last month, the hon. Member for Spen Valley told the Committee:
“This is not assisted suicide by the state. The state is not involved.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 11 February 2025; c. 318.]
I am perplexed by that. I think many members of the public would not agree with that analysis of how the Bill has evolved in Committee. If involving the state in the provision of this service was not intended, then that is not the Bill we have.
In contradiction to that, and I think more accurately, the Minister for Care told us that the promoter’s intent—speaking for the hon. Member for Spen Valley—is
“to ensure that the assisted dying service is available as an integral part of the NHS. Officials are working on amendments to later clauses to establish the operating model for her consideration.” —[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 802.]
That is clearly what has happened, and it is where we are now. However, I am sorry to say that I do not feel that the operating model is now clear. We still do not have an impact assessment, we do not know how the Government envisage it working in practice, and important information is still lacking for the debate today. We do not know the possible impact on general practice or medical specialists, nor how it might impact money that is available for palliative care. I hope the Minister can tell us more today about how he envisages the service being implemented, especially in the light of the British Medical Association conference earlier this month, which supported the motion that
“Assisted dying is not a health activity and it must not take place in NHS or other health facilities”.
That is a principle I agree with.
On 5 March, the hon. Member for Spen Valley said:
“there is no expectation that assisted dying would be set up as a private enterprise or service. It would be delivered within the provision of the NHS.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 799.]
That now agrees with the Minister—fine, interesting; it is to be an NHS service not to be provided privately. But the new clauses do not rule out private provision, nor any profit making by providers or remuneration of people outside the NHS. Indeed, the new clauses refer to “voluntary assisted dying services”, which suggests the hon. Member for Spen Valley is supportive of services outside those that are NHS commissioned, which will be possible under subsections (1), (3) and (7)(a). That will be in line with comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, who made a very coherent case for private provision of assisted suicide if that is what Parliament chooses to legalise; he said that nothing should prevent someone from opting for private provision. In response, the hon. Member for Spen Valley said:
“This service, like many others, will be delivered through a range of providers”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 800.]
I remain unclear about the extent to which this is an NHS monopoly, as it were, or whether there will be private provision that is privately paid for, or private provision that is publicly paid for. I would be grateful for the hon. Member’s clarification.
Lastly, on the question of profit, in an article in The Times that appeared to have some briefing behind it, there was a suggestion that there would be a cap on the profit of private companies providing the service, limiting them to “making a reasonable profit”. Again, there is nothing in the new clauses about limitations on providers’ profits. If the hon. Member could clarify how she envisages the private provision of the service, I would be grateful.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I rise to speak to amendment (b) to new clause 36, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon). The amendment states:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may not amend, modify or repeal section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006.”
For clarity, I will read out the relevant part of section 1 of the 2006 Act:
“The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—
(a)in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and
(b)in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.”
Those core principles have remained the same since the National Health Service Act 1946. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire stated, in a Britian that was devasted by war, Clement Attlee and Nye Bevan together promised a better future, one where healthcare should be available to all, regardless of wealth. It enshrined a principle that as a society we will care for the ill and we will do that together. No one’s health should be left behind, especially that of the vulnerable.
The NHS stands as the greatest legacy of a Labour Government—despite the input of Opposition parties referred to by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—and perhaps of any Government since the second world war. The establishment of the NHS lives on in section 1 of the NHS Act. It is why at the height of the pandemic NHS staff courageously put themselves on the frontline to protect us. It is their mission to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of all, free at the point of service. As we consider assisted dying, we must not lose the values at the heart of the NHS.
Section 1 of the 2006 Act has changed little from the corresponding first section of the 1946 Act. It is not just a line in legislation; it has become part of our national story and our national identity, and amendment (b) to new clause 36 is about continuing that. It seeks to preserve the legacy of Attlee and Bevan, and that of Labour Governments committed to the betterment of the people.
Twenty-five senior doctors and pharmacists from Shetland and Orkney spoke of that legacy in their written evidence:
“We note with pride the founding principles of the NHS, with the 1946 National Health Service Act stating, ‘It shall be the duty of the Minister of Health…to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness.’ We believe that Parliament must reflect the lasting ethos of our founding document.”
There are very few lines in legislation that come to represent an institution in this way. It is a testament to the ideal of those founding principles in section 1 that they guide doctors to this very day. This is the thread that runs through the 1946 Act to the 2006 Act—two Labour Governments, 60 years apart, united by this mission to improve the physical and mental health of the people. This Committee should continue the thread of those principles.
Of course, I understand that previous legislation may need to be amended to provide assisted dying services, and that may include the 2006 Act. New clause 36(4) clarifies that specified references to commission voluntary dying services may be included in that Act. I note with regret that the new clause gives us so little information elsewhere about the use of these powers, which are commonly known as Henry VIII powers or clauses. This is not a term that I was familiar with until very recently. I am sure other Members are much more familiar with it than I am, but on the off-chance that there are one or two Members who need a reminder, I will read Parliament’s own official definition of the term:
“‘Henry VIII clauses’ are clauses in a bill that enable ministers to amend or repeal provisions in an Act of Parliament using secondary legislation, which is subject to varying degrees of parliamentary scrutiny.”
Helpfully, it adds:
“The expression is a reference to King Henry VIII’s supposed preference for legislating directly by proclamation rather than through Parliament.”
I accept that it might be rather odd to talk about Henry VIII in this debate, but we should not let that distract us from the serious question of this new clause, which could result in a significant transfer of power from Members of this House to the Secretary of State, and it is not clear what that power will be used for.
The Hansard Society has noted that there is little indication about what role or nature these powers will take, saying:
“A key principle that the House of Lords Constitution Committee has applied to delegated powers is that they ‘should not be framed in such a way that gives little indication of how they should be used.’ The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s guidance to Departments states that the Delegated Powers Memorandum should set out how it is proposed that a power should be exercised.”
I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and Ministers could provide clarity on those questions. New clause 36(1) does not specify that voluntary assisted dying be provided on the NHS, but subsection (4) allows for the National Health Service Act 2006 to be amended. What is the intention of these powers? What will the structure of the voluntary assisted dying service be? How will it be funded and who will be responsible for the provision of the services? The answer to those questions will inform which legislation needs to be amended, and that information should be in the Bill.
To be clear, as I have said, I accept that changes to previous legislation may be required. However, the provision of assisted dying should not amend the foundational principles of the national health service. It should not break with the legacy of Attlee, of Bevan and of Labour. That is why I support amendment (b) to new clause 36.
Dr Opher
My hon. Friend is making a reasoned speech. The thing is that the way the NHS is delivered is already very complex: for example, GPs are private providers who are on a contract with the NHS. Amending the Bill to completely ban private providers will not in any way enhance it; it will create a situation in which almost no doctors can get involved. We need to keep the private aspect simply so that the NHS can control what is going on, albeit the providers can be from independent organisations.
Sean Woodcock
I am afraid I just do not agree. My view is that if we are going to do this, it should be done via the NHS. As somebody who stood on a Labour election platform not too long ago, that is something I stand by.
We know that geography and socioeconomic factors render access to healthcare, especially private healthcare, unequal. In oral evidence, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and Fazilet Hadi of Disability Rights UK both explained how the impact of the Bill on an unequal society might cause problems. Baroness Falkner said that
“from what one understands, GP provision and general access to healthcare are poorer where demographics are poorer than it is in the better performing parts of the country. One other factor to consider in terms of a postcode lottery is that people in wealthier parts of the country tend to be more highly represented in private healthcare than in public healthcare and use of the NHS. That also impacts their choices and the care they get.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 181, Q235.]
The system must not only be fair, but be seen to be fair. If we had such a system of private provision in place, public trust would almost certainly fall. We do not have to look far to see what happens if these matters go unaddressed. When we have a lack of oversight and accountability, it is the public who suffer. There have been too many scandals in recent history for us not to recognise that reality.
One of the big factors in the Post Office Horizon scandal was that Fujitsu, the supplier of specialist computer software, did not admit when it knew that things were going wrong. I have spent much of my working life in the public sector and I am not saying it is perfect—far from it—but the Horizon scandal is an example that teaches an important lesson. Sometimes private companies will not share information that could mean they lose a lucrative contract. They do not have the same oversight as public authorities, which are ultimately accountable to the Government, to Parliament and, through them, to the public.
We must give the public reason to trust that assisted dying services will have proper oversight; otherwise, the consequences will be felt not just in the provision of assisted dying but in healthcare more generally. Amendment (c) to new clause 36 addresses some of the risks by establishing that voluntary assisted dying services must be provided by a public authority. Furthermore, a body contracted by a public authority to provide the service must be a public authority.
A public authority is defined as:
“A body substantially publicly funded which performs statutory duties, objectives and other activities consistent with central or local governmental functions.”
It is clear that public authorities have stronger mechanisms for transparency and reporting. Requiring assisted dying provision to be through such authorities also places the responsibility firmly with the state. It allows the direct implementation of regulations and guidelines on the provision of assisted dying. Best practice is easier to establish when the regulations apply to the same types of organisations.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. In similar circumstances, with the provision of intense personal services such as in vitro fertilisation, there are a range of providers, some in the private sector and some in the public sector—in fact, most are in the private sector even if they deliver under NHS funding or an NHS contract—but they are all subject to the same rules, inspection and regulations. Does my hon. Friend not accept that if it can work in an intense, personal and sometimes ethically complex situation like that, it could equally work here, because there is experience in that sort of environment?
Sean Woodcock
I accept that it could work, but my view is that it is far less likely to work and that it is more likely to be successful if it is wholly the responsibility of public authorities.
I will vote in favour of amendment (d) to new clause 36. It would remove subsection (6), which says:
“Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament; but they may not amend this Act.”
It strikes me as dangerous to provide in the Bill for the Secretary of State to amend primary legislation, and we should vote to remove that power. It is surely a weakening of the Bill’s safeguards. Assisted dying must remain firmly in the control of the democratically elected Parliament. I urge Members to join me in voting to remove subsection (6).
If we fail to rule out the possibility of private provision and allow the Secretary of State the power to amend primary legislation, we will fail to implement the necessary safeguards. Amendments (c) and (d) to new clause 36 would go some way to addressing that, by ensuring that the state that sanctions assisted dying is also the body that provides it. Assisted dying services need strong reporting and accountability; otherwise, we risk inequality, or the abuse of assisted dying going unchecked. The provision of assisted dying through public authorities is essential to proper accountability, reporting and best practice, so I urge the Committee to support the amendments.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.
In Richmond Park, a Henry VIII power has traditionally meant the right of the monarch to hunt the deer in the large open space that gives my constituency its name—something that I am sorry to say he has in common with the dog of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—
Sarah Olney
He paid a hefty fine, I think.
The efforts of Henry VIII’s descendants to try to enclose the park and maintain the powers for the exclusive benefit of the royal family were defeated by a popular and somewhat genteel uprising of the residents of Richmond. I stand here today as the Member for Richmond Park to do a similar job: to assert the rights of the House of Commons and the Houses of Parliament to determine what legislation is, and not to allow it to be delegated under Henry VIII powers.
The normal approach is that legislation made by Ministers is delegated legislation, and such legislation is therefore of subsidiary character to primary legislation. However, there is a type of power, known as a Henry VIII power, that gives Ministers the power to amend even primary legislation. The glossary on Parliament’s website says:
“The expression is a reference to King Henry VIII’s supposed preference for legislating directly by proclamation rather than through Parliament.”
We may in the course of time start to refer to them as President Trump powers—who knows?—but that is the precedent we act on.
The Hansard Society, a non-partisan organisation that is neutral on assisted dying, issued a report that was critical of the power in the Bill. It said this:
“little can be deduced about how it is thought this power will be used in practice, beyond the fact that it may, in particular, be used to enable the provision of assisted deaths through the National Health Service.
But as the DPRRC”—
the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—
“has previously stated, where a power provides that delegated legislation may ‘in particular’ include a specified matter, it implies the legislation may deal with matters beyond that specified matter. The explanatory notes shed little more light, except to clarify that the power could be used to make arrangements for the funding of any provision made by the regulations. Could the regulations thus be used to enable the provision of assistance through the private sector on behalf of the health service in England and in Wales? If the intention is that the regulations will be used only to establish an assisted dying service, either within or separately to the NHS, would they require that the service be free at the point of access to the person requesting assistance?
A key principle that the House of Lords Constitution Committee has applied to delegated powers is that they ‘should not be framed in such a way that gives little indication of how they should be used.’ The DPRRC’s Guidance to Departments states that the Delegated Powers Memorandum should set out how it is proposed that a power should be exercised.
In the current absence of the DPM, MPs may therefore wish to seek clarification from the sponsor of the Bill, Kim Leadbeater, about how she envisages the power being used, and similarly from Ministers how they expect to use this power if it were granted to them.”
The drafter of the Bill, Dame Elizabeth Gardiner, appeared on the Hansard Society podcast and gave some further detail on this power and how it arose:
“In other areas, like, is it going to be delivered through the National Health Service or in some other way, indeed the regulation of any substances that might be involved, in the time available, we didn’t have time to go into all the detail of how those regimes work and to make the provision on the face of the Bill, and so there are regulation making powers there, which enable that provision to be set out in detail, as you say, when the Government has looked at it and decided how it would implement it.”
Given the time available and the constraints of the private Member’s Bill process, the hon. Member for Spen Valley can be forgiven for not including the detail of how assisted dying will be provided on the NHS in the Bill on its introduction, but she and the Government have now had months to think about it. Many people had hoped that clause 32 would be replaced with detailed arrangements for the delivery of the service, to be put on the face of the Bill by way of an amendment, which the Committee could properly scrutinise.
On 5 March, the hon. Member for Spen Valley repeatedly said that it would be made clear by clause 32. When the hon. Member for East Wiltshire called for clarity in the Bill as to how the service would be delivered, the hon. Member for Spen Valley said: “It will be.” The Minister said:
“Officials are working on amendments to later clauses to establish the operating model for her consideration.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 802.]
This does not appear to have happened, which means Parliament will be limited to a 90-minute debate on this issue when the regulations are eventually made, and such a motion will be unamendable. Surely the issue of how the service is to be delivered is much more important than that and deserves greater scrutiny.
It is disappointing to see new clauses 36 and 37 as the replacement clauses. Ideally, instead of the new clauses we would have had a detailed set of amendments to specify exactly how assisted dying is to be delivered. We do not have that; instead, we have a Henry VIII power that provides even more power than the one in clause 32, because the new one includes a power to modify Acts of Parliament passed subsequent to this legislation.
New clause 36 provides very little guidance on how the Henry VIII power would be exercised. Will assisted dying be provided by the state? If so, would that be on the NHS or through another body? Subsection (1) one does not specify that it must be on the NHS. Subsection (4) gives the power, but not the duty, to change section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006—a foundational piece of Labour legislation if there ever was one, as the hon. Member for Banbury said—but subsection (5) requires it to be free at the point of use.
The question of whether assisted dying should be provided as part of normal NHS services, or in a parallel service, as requested by both the BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners, is not answered by new clause 36, although hopefully it can be fleshed out in the debate on the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. Alternatively, it would seem that the power can be used to commission private providers to deliver the service on behalf of the state. Instead of deciding between the various models, new clause 36 simply leaves it open. It therefore gives very little indication about how it should be used.
When giving the Gray’s Inn reading at Gresham College last year, Lord Falconer said:
“The wider the power—because there is less material in primary legislation to define how it should be exercised—the greater the reduction in parliamentary scrutiny, but also the harder”—
it would be—
“to identify any legal basis of challenge.”
He went as far as to suggest that such wide Henry VIII powers were “unconstitutional”. Given his great support for the Bill, it would be interesting to hear the response of the hon. Member for Spen Valley and the Minister to Lord Falconer’s remarks.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire referred to IVF. My wife and I have been through IVF, and what exists is exactly what the hon. Member for Richmond Park described. There is an annual show at Olympia where it has been commercialised and it is put to people, “Why not go down this route? Why not go down that route?” Does the hon. Member agree that that is really not a route we want to go down?
Sarah Olney
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, because it provides a comparison. We are talking about there potentially being a market for end-of-life services. I do not think that is the way we should be going.
Dr Opher
I thank the hon. Lady for her impassioned speech, but we are rather getting off the point. The division between private and NHS provision is spurious in a process that will be delivered by doctors who are working under a code of practice. They will be rewarded in their pay which, as we have said, will be stipulated by the BMA in contracted arrangements with the Government and will be proportionate. The doctors will do the work and get the money for that. That is no different from IVF or anything else. If we accept that the NHS will be the commissioning body and will ensure standards in that way—sorry, I am going on a bit, Ms McVey; I shall now finish—the division between an NHS provider and a private one is spurious.
Sarah Olney
The issue is who is commissioning the service. The issue is not the doctors or how they are recompensed for the work that they do, but who is doing the recompensing and what their incentives are. If the process is part of an NHS-provided service where it is agreed that it is a compassionate end of life choice, and where it is properly regulated within the wider NHS service and connects with other NHS services, that is one thing.
If the person commissioning that doctor has any kind of incentive around making a profit—and any profit-making organisation will be incentivised to increase the amount of profits that it makes—then, however carefully regulated, there will be subtle influence, pressure, coercion or persuasion that assisted dying is an option that patients should choose, or possibly not-so-subtle influence, to take the example from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. Under other circumstances, in an NHS model, that may not have been a solution they would have been persuaded to choose. It is that issue of persuasion and of incentives that really troubles me.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am not clear: is the hon. Lady suggesting that doctors who operate in the private sector are less ethical than doctors who operate in the public sector?
Sarah Olney
I think I said very clearly to the hon. Member for Stroud that it is not about the doctors. It is about the people who are commissioning them. I absolutely do not believe that about doctors operating in the private sector, who in my experience are often the same doctors as the ones in the NHS. It is about who is commissioning them and who is asking them to carry out this work, and whether those commissioners are motivated by a profit incentive as opposed to the incentive in the NHS to provide the best possible care.
Danny Kruger
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. We are all equally ethical and unethical—the point is that we respond to incentives, and incentives have their effect. Does she agree that there is a further concern? If we had a tariff system, which we probably would, that would by definition create a market, if there was the opportunity for private provision, to earn tariffs—to make more money the more assisted deaths one provides. Furthermore, to the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud that this is all perfectly fine and normal, what about the opportunity to top up the public provision—the tariff one gets from the NHS—with one’s own money, therefore definitely creating the opportunity for some sort of upmarket arrangement through the additional fees and services that might be provided? As the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, we could see expos dedicated to providing the most luxury or glamorous forms of assisted death through private providers with NHS funding.
Sarah Olney
That is not a prospect I particularly want to reflect on, but it is worth noting that the particular risk in assisted dying services is that, as we heard in oral evidence from the chief medical officer, it is really hard to define, first, whether an illness is going to be terminal and, secondly, that somebody has only six months to live. There is an element of subjective judgment in assessing who is going to be eligible for assisted dying. Aligning subjective judgment to a profit incentive could create a serious ethical minefield.
I want to state absolutely clearly for the record that I am not questioning the ethics of doctors or the ethical standards of doctors or of any of the bodies that represent them in any way at all. My question is merely about introducing a profit incentive to this issue. As I said, this process could be contrasted with something like the provision of abortion services. Abortion services are clearly available only to pregnant women. The fact that the qualification, as it were, for this service is on a rather more subjective basis creates a risk.
Without this amendment, I am concerned that the Bill commodifies the end-of-life process and pushes what should be a sensitive, careful process towards being a transactional one. It also increases the risk that everything becomes focused on facilitating ending the patient’s life rather than supporting the holistic ethos of the NHS in addressing all the patient’s needs. Without the amendment, I worry that the Bill opens a door to the commodification of death, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has so graphically anticipated. What should be a careful, compassionate process could slide into something more transactional: a service that is marketed, packaged and sold.
We need look only to the parallel of care homes to see that danger writ large. In England, social care has been quietly overtaken by for-profit providers. Today, 75% of adult care homes, and over 80% of children’s homes, are run for profit—not by design or explicit policy, but by the slow creep of market forces. The Economics Observatory, drawing on studies such as Patwardhan et al. 2022, Barron and West 2017 and Bach-Mortensen et al. 2022, reveals a stark truth: for-profit care, particularly where private equity is involved, consistently delivers worse outcomes.
Similarly, a 2019 BMJ study found that private providers running NHS-funded services had higher rates of complications in procedures such as hip replacements compared with NHS trusts. The focus on cost efficiency can lead to skimping on follow-up care or using less experienced staff. Why does that happen? Profit-seeking behaviour drives cuts to staff, to resources and to time. Now, if we transpose that to assisted dying, let us imagine the pressures on a private provider to trim costs and the pressures on the quality of assessments. How thoroughly are mental health conditions, or the risk that something else might be going on, explored? How great is the depth of attention to medical records? Is what is relevant to the doctor influenced by the ticking clock? Will they tick a box rather than a safeguard?
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
The hon. Lady said that she is not questioning the ethical judgment and practice of doctors, but the comments she is making suggest otherwise.
Sarah Olney
Again, I am talking about the companies that are running the service. I am not questioning the ethics of the doctors involved. I am merely suggesting that the people who are commissioning the doctors to carry out the service will have their own priorities that are not directly related to the safety or welfare of patients.
Kit Malthouse
I am sorry if I have failed to understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but under the Bill as it stands, every single stage is supervised by a doctor, even the final moments. I fail to see how the motivations that she seems to be applying to the private sector, malign or otherwise, might affect the conduct of the doctors, given that she accepts that doctors are equally ethical in the private and public sectors, unless she thinks that those motivations are pressuring doctors to behave unethically.
Sarah Olney
It clearly remains to be seen, but that may be an outcome as we do not yet know what model we are proposing for the delivery of assisted dying. Perhaps doctors will feel pressured to deliver an outcome because that is how the model has been set up. If we have a model that incentivises profits, particularly if we do not have a similar service within the NHS itself, it is quite possible that that will happen. It will not necessarily affect the care that doctors give to patients at the end of life, but the point is that we do not know.
We cannot fully explore that matter in Committee, because we do not have the full clarity of exactly how the process will be delivered, so we cannot examine the proposed model and identify its potential risks and pitfalls. That continues to be a real concern. Perhaps doctors will feel that pressure; perhaps the service will be precisely designed to encourage them to, for example, diagnose someone with having fewer than six months to live even when it is a slightly more subjective judgment and a different doctor operating in a different system may come to a different view.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I am just trying to wrap my head around the argument. We already know that integrated care boards and other commissioning bodies have incentives given to them when they commission services, so it would be in their interests to diagnose or produce a demand for a service in a particular area. There is already an analogous situation within the NHS; I do not see how that is any different.
Sarah Olney
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but those incentives are not about creating profits that make money for individuals. They are about directing the way that resources are allocated to ensure that a broader range of health outcomes are achieved. When I talk about a profit incentive, it is an entirely different kind of incentive from the one he has just raised.
Danny Kruger
This is a very important debate, and my concern is that there is a naive assumption that the innate goodness of doctors will render them impervious to all the incentives in the system. As the hon. Lady suggests, if it were possible, as I think it is under the Bill, for a profit-making organisation—a company—to set itself up to provide an assisted suicide conveyer belt as a pathway through this process, and to earn money publicly or privately according to the volume of the provision it enables, we are setting up incentives that would corrupt the doctors who would be required to sign it off.
I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has such an optimistic view of human nature that he thinks that no doctor would respond to the incentives in the way that is clearly enabled through the Bill. There are other medical professionals—ethical doctors—who do respond to incentives, such as those in the cosmetic surgery industry.
Danny Kruger
I would, but actually I am making an intervention. It may appear that I am making a speech, so I will soon sit down, but I would be interested in the hon. Gentleman’s response to the suggestion that even he —the paragon of virtue that he is—might not be entirely resistant to the economic incentives in the system. That is why we have an NHS that explicitly tries to exclude profit making from the provision of healthcare.
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not associate myself with his use of the word “corrupt”; I am absolutely not implying that in any way, and I want to be very clear about that. However, there is a grave risk—even for the most ethical person, if they are offered money to carry out an action that they are inclined to carry out anyway as part of their professional practice—that those incentives drive behaviour that leads to worse outcomes for patients, specifically in relation to assisted dying.
Sarah Olney
As I say, we do not have a model before us that we can fully scrutinise or test for risks, and we will not have the opportunity to propose amendments to address those risks—nor will we at any stage. There is a serious risk about all the different parts of the system, not just the doctors, being incentivised by private profit. My amendment would comprehensively remove that, so it would not be a risk. Given that we cannot fully and properly scrutinise the proposed model, my amendment is the best we can do.
Sarah Olney
We do not have the model to scrutinise, and we do not know within that whether the first or second co-ordinating doctor will be paid for their services in carrying out those initial assessments. To say that there is no incentive for making the final decision ignores the fact that people might be incentivised for making those initial decisions, where the professional judgment is required and may differ between doctors. That is why there is a risk.
Kim Leadbeater
Clause 40(4) is very clear that medical practitioners can receive only “reasonable remuneration” for the provision of services, so it is clear that they cannot make money from the provision of assisted dying. Is the hon. Lady saying that where there is a private provider or one commissioned by the NHS—the model that I have set out in the Bill—there is a financial incentive for doctors to do more hip or knee operations, or other things? That is a question about the model of public and private healthcare as it stands, not about assisted dying.
Sarah Olney
On the hon. Member’s comment about clause 40, “reasonable” is a fairly elastic term. We will find in time that the word “reasonable” will come to have its own accepted definition, but it does not preclude a profit margin.
Sarah Olney
But the Bill does not say that. It does not say that the payment to the doctor should not include any consideration of profit. Regarding hip operations, someone would have one only if they needed it. My point is that assisted dying is one of a range of options at the end of life being presented here. The concern is that people motivated by profit would be incentivised to push for assisted dying at the expense of other options for the patient that do not attract the same level of reward. That is the issue. It is not a binary decision in the way that most treatments are.
Danny Kruger
In response to the hon. Member for Spen Valley, the scenario that she mentions is exactly the problem in many healthcare systems around the world, particularly in America, where doctors are incentivised to deliver volumes of treatments and procedures that are often not strictly necessary. We do have a problem even in our own system with the over-prescription of certain medical treatments, particularly pharmaceuticals, so incentives do apply. Doctors are subject to them, and we do our best to regulate them out of the system. One of the great advantages of the NHS compared with other healthcare systems is that we manage to prevent the over-provision of services in response to economic incentives. That is a founding principle of the NHS that we are overriding with this process.
Sarah Olney
I will conclude my remarks by observing that the only reason that we are looking at contracting out assisted dying services to a private provider is that the country is simply not ready for assisted dying. We know how overstretched and under-resourced our NHS is, and we are looking at cutting corners in the Bill, in our policymaking, in our scrutiny of this legislation, and in how this legislation and the service is delivered.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park, because I rise to speak to amendment 537, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. The amendment goes further than the hon. Member for Richmond Park would as far as local authorities are concerned.
The amendment also concerns both the national health service and the provision of healthcare by charities. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley knows both fields extremely well. She was the director of quality and strategy and chief analyst at the Department of Health, and then had a senior role at the Centre for Ageing Better. Her amendment would mean that assisted dying services could be provided only by charitable organisations and not by the national health service.
I strongly support the general principle that if we do have assisted dying, it should be free at the point of use. If this House decides that people do indeed have the right to an assisted death under the conditions that this Bill sets out, then it should not be something limited to those who can afford private healthcare. There are, however, strong objections among general practitioners to providing assisted dying as part of their services, and I do not think we should plan to have private firms work under contract from the NHS to provide assisted dying either.
The Royal College of General Practitioners said in its written evidence that
“any assisted dying service should be seen as a standalone specialised service that healthcare professionals may opt to provide with additional training and should not be deemed core GP work.”
The royal college’s advice, which is founded on the views of its members, means that we should give very strong consideration to putting assisted dying outside the normal workings of the NHS. If we do that, it seems that there are a few options. One is for the Secretary of State to invite private firms to tender for contracts and administer assisted dying services. As I have said, there are very strong reasons why we should not plan to have private firms work under contract to the NHS to provide assisted dying; for me, that it is one of the worst possible options.
Another option is for the NHS to fund a specialised assisted dying service that would be separate from its other functions. That could potentially be feasible, but it could also represent a significant cost for the NHS, because we still have not had the impact assessment from the Government and we have no idea how significant that cost may be.
There is also the worry that if assisted dying becomes available on the NHS, some people will become too frightened to access palliative care, as was outlined to the Committee by Dr Jamilla Hussain. I will read a brief part of her written evidence to the Committee. After talking to the patients in ethnic minority and other disadvantaged groups, she said:
“Overwhelmingly, racialised communities expressed deep concerns that they would be more likely to be pushed towards AD through systemic biases and societal attitudes about whose lives are valued… While safeguards were acknowledged, many remained sceptical that they would be applied fairly and equitably, fearing that vulnerable individuals, particularly those who lack strong advocates or English proficiency, might be at greater risk of being guided towards AD rather than offered appropriate care options.”
I want to share something with the Committee. We often get taxis to and from work and home; I got into a cab yesterday, and the chap who was driving was called Dave. His 84-year-old aunt died on Friday. When we were discussing this option, he told me really clearly that she has opted for a cremation, which would cost less money, just because she internalised that idea of burden and she did not want a cost for those that she left behind. She had not seen a doctor for 40 years. That brought home the idea of internalised coercion, internalised pressure and mistrust, because he also talked about what happened during covid. We had an interesting conversation. I told him that it was interesting that he had said that, and today I am talking about it. That is the reality: it is about how people perceive healthcare provision, the potential inequalities, and what the barriers are to access—all the preconceived ideas that we have about the provision of healthcare.
That brings me to a potential third way, which is what amendment 537 is about: charities. Charities are one way of addressing the concerns I and the hon. Member for Richmond Park have outlined about the risk with private companies and the risk of loss of confidence and access to the NHS, as well as the concerns outlined by the Royal College of General Practitioners. They could well be mitigated by ensuring that the lead responsibility for administering assisted dying is given to charities rather than the NHS.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I rise to speak on clause stand part and new clause 36, and in support of amendment 525 and amendment (a) to new clause 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire. This is a really important debate. The NHS is the greatest achievement of any Labour Government, and maybe even of any Government.
Rebecca Paul
It transformed the quality of life of British citizens at a time of mass unemployment and widespread slums, ensuring free healthcare, in the words of Beveridge, from cradle to grave. The provision of healthcare free at the point of delivery was life-changing and life-prolonging. Although it is far from perfect, we have seen time and time again that as a country we can be very proud of the NHS.
The National Health Service Act 1946 came into effect on 5 July 1948, as a direct consequence of the Beveridge report. Section 1 of the Act states:
“It shall be the duty of the Minister of Health…to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”.
It was set up to help people to get better and live healthy lives, and to give hope in situations where otherwise there would be despair. It was lifesaving and life-changing. New clause 36 turns all that on its head. Subsection (4) states that:
“Regulations under this section may for example provide that specified references in the National Health Service Act 2006 to the health service continued under section 1(1) of that Act include references to commissioned VAD services.”
If this new clause passes, the founding principles of the NHS will be monumentally changed to include helping eligible people to commit suicide. That is what it does.
I want to be really clear that it is entirely possible to support assisted dying—to want to ensure that a small group of people, whom palliative care cannot help, have that assisted dying option—but not to support this new clause, which forces provision of the service through the same channels as normal healthcare. Assisted dying is not a medical treatment or a healthcare service and accordingly there should be a degree of separation.
We should be incredibly cautious about incorporating the service into the NHS. It will forever change the relationship between doctor and patient, breed mistrust and fear, discourage vulnerable groups from seeking the healthcare they need and fundamentally violate the Hippocratic oath. Dr Catherine Day, a senior partner of a large GP practice in Coventry, states:
“Trust lies at the heart of the doctor patient relationship. I believe this trust will be shattered if patients consider that their GP…may think that they should end their life and stop being a drain on our NHS.”
Siwan Seaman, a palliative care consultant said:
“How could a terminally ill patient trust a doctor if they know that the doctor was prescribing medication to the patient in the next bed in a bay or cubicle with the intention of ending their life. Letting these assessments take place alongside other NHS services will irreversibly impact on patients’ trust in healthcare professionals and negatively impact our therapeutic relationship with patients as doctors.”
Kim Leadbeater
If the hon. Lady is saying that she would not want to see assisted dying services within the NHS, then where does she think they would sit? Would she support my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley’s suggestion that this should be done by the voluntary sector and charities, or would she suggest the private sector?
Rebecca Paul
It is important that there is a degree of separation, but I would say to the hon. Lady that it would have made more sense for her to put forward a proposal that we could evaluate, assess, and identify the upsides and downsides of. It would be much easier for me to then come up with suggestions. It does not make sense to ask me, “What is the solution and how would you do this?”, and for me to lay out the many different ways that this could be done, without having first laid a proposal in front of me.
Kim Leadbeater
There is a clause that I have laid before the hon. Lady—that is what we are discussing. I will come on to that in my comments. Since she is clear that she does not think this sits within the NHS, she must have given consideration to where she thinks it should sit, if it were to come into effect.
Rebecca Paul
I will come on to some of that, and it goes back to my belief that there should be a degree of separation. I think it should be separate from normal healthcare services and there are multiple ways that we could do that. I regret that we are not specifically debating the various different options, with a proposal in front of us detailing exactly how it would work. I am assuming, from the new clause put forward, that the proposal is for this to go through the NHS as healthcare; that is the only assumption I can make based on what is in front of me in this Bill, because there is no other detail to give me any other impression.
Sarah Davies, a consultant respiratory physician in north Wales, argues for a separate service so that ordinary NHS care is not associated with assisted dying. She said:
“It is already my experience that patients and their families are anxious about limiting treatment when they are dying. Many people believe that symptom control medication, such as those delivered in a syringe-driver to aid symptom control amount to hastening or bringing on death. This perception can hinder the patient’s acceptance of medications which can afford significant alleviation of distressing symptoms.”
I have raised my concerns about providing an assisted dying service alongside and in conjunction with day-to-day healthcare many times over the last few weeks. I think it is a massive mistake both for patients and healthcare staff. It blurs the lines of what a treatment is, increases the risk of bad decisions and, as we heard so powerfully from Dr Jamilla Hussain, it will discourage some of the most vulnerable groups from seeking essential healthcare. We have received so much evidence and it is really important that we take it on board, so I will be quoting some in my speech.
Dr Green of the BMA said:
“It should be set up through a separate service with a degree of separation. We believe that is important for patients, because it would reassure patients who may be anxious about the service that it would not just be part of their normal care… It would reassure doctors, because doctors who did not want to have any part would not feel that it was part of their normal job, whereas the doctors who wanted to go ahead would be assured of having support, emotional support and proper training.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 45, Q32.]
In oral evidence, Professor Preston argued for a separate system and pointed to the Swiss example. She said:
“In covid, we did research in care homes, and there was real concern about ‘do not resuscitate’ orders and emergency care plans that were blanketed across the care homes. Care home staff were traumatised by that, so there are real issues. We know that there are real issues day to day in how people are treated within the NHS. I think it is unconscious—I do not think people are intending it—but we know that people are treated differently and that different things are done. That is partly why we think a system outside that would protect them, because then you are not within the healthcare team that is treating you and giving you advice about such things”.
She went on to talk about the Swiss system, also being adopted in Germany and Austria, which seeks to
“protect these people by keeping it one step removed”
from normal healthcare. She said:
“Most hospitals in Switzerland will not allow assisted dying to occur, because they do not want a lack of trust in their patient group.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 246, Q317.]
I therefore support amendment 525, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, which would amend clause 32 in order not to allow the provision of the assisted dying service to be done through the health service. That would ensure that much-needed degree of separation. In light of what the Bill’s promoter has said, I recognise that there are different ways to do that; I am very open to those different ways, but I need to see that degree of separation from normal healthcare. I also support new amendment (a) to new clause 36, also tabled by my hon. Friend, which does the same thing.
Let me come to the other amendments in this group. Amendments 537 and 528, tabled by the hon. Members for Shipley and for Richmond Park respectively, are important to debate—we have had some good debate on them this morning—as they raise the different ways of delivering an assisted dying service. I have been listening closely to the points made. Amendment 537 would limit the provision of an assisted death to charities rather than to the NHS, and conversely, amendment 528 would limit provision to public authorities only.
I do not have the answer on the best way to do this, and that is why I regret that a royal commission has not been set up to properly investigate and evaluate all the options and recommend the best way forward. Instead, we are here without all the relevant information and expertise available to us, trying to land on the best way to do it. That is not the way to make such an important decision. I can tell the Committee, however, that—like many others, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire—I have huge reservations about delivering such a service through the NHS alongside normal healthcare.
I agree with much of the evidence that has already been cited: there should be a degree of separation. The BMA said that assisted dying could be part of the NHS, but should be outside existing care pathways and separate in some way:
“Our view is that assisted dying should not be part of the standard role of doctors or integrated into existing care pathways—it is not something that a doctor can just add to their usual role… The separate service could take the form of a professional network of specially trained doctors from across the country who have chosen to participate, who come together to receive specialised training, guidance, and both practical and emotional support. They would then provide the service within their own locality—for example, in the patient’s usual hospital, or their home. Or it could be a combination of some specialist centres and an outreach facility.”
In its written evidence, the Royal College of General Practitioners also proposed a separate service:
“The establishment of a separate service which covered every stage of the process would ensure healthcare professionals of multiple disciplines (including GPs) who wanted to do so could still opt in to provide assisted dying, but this would be arranged through a different pathway.”
I agree with both bodies that the service should be separated out in some way. It is now apparent that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), whose amendments would have created an assisted dying agency, was on the right track. I regret that the Committee did not explore his ideas in any real detail during our proceedings.
We received important written evidence from Robert Twycross, a pioneer of palliative care who sadly died in October, but had given his friend Ariel Dempsey permission to submit it. Dr Dempsey writes:
“Twycross recommends a de-medicalized model in which AD is a separate service, delivered outside of healthcare practice. He argues for a standalone Department for Assisted Dying, separate from the NHS. He writes, ‘Data indicate that the primary reason for a persistent desire for AD is to relieve distress over a perceived loss of autonomy and to experience a sense of personal control over the circumstances of their dying. These are not medical reasons. Thus, for patients fulfilling the legal criteria, a separate AD service should be established. Indeed, this would be the best way to prevent a corrosive effect on medical practice generally.’ ‘Given the widespread disquiet felt by doctors, a law with minimal medical involvement would be the most equitable.’ He suggests, ‘One way to achieve this would be for [AD] to be delegated to a stand-alone Department for Assisted Dying, completely separate from the NHS and with its own budget. Victoria almost achieves this with its combination of Care Navigators, mandatory training for participating doctors, and a separate Voluntary Assisted Dying Statewide Pharmacy Service.’
Twycross emphasizes that hospice and palliative care must be a ‘sanctuary’ for patients – ‘an assisted dying free zone. Even in the absence of AD, some people decline referral to palliative care despite unrelieved pain and/or other distressing symptoms because they fear they will be “drugged to death”…This unfounded fear will most likely be enhanced if AD is legalized, particularly if palliative care is involved’ and result in an overall increase in suffering.”
Dr Opher
Briefly, the hon. Lady says that only 30% of palliative care is funded by the NHS, but that is quite spurious, because everyone who gives palliative care—all doctor time, palliative care consultants, palliative care departments, all GP services, all district nurses—gives it under the NHS. What she must be talking about is social care, which is obviously very different from medical NHS care.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I was quoting written evidence, so I just quoted it, of course, as written.
We should be ashamed if what I have set out is where we end up as a result of this Bill. How would it in any way recognise patient autonomy and give them a real choice? Clearly, it would not. We will end up with patients taking an assisted death because there is no alternative to dying well. If as much effort was put into improving palliative care as has been put into legalising assisted dying, a much greater number of people would be given the dignified, comfortable deaths they rightly deserve. It is a travesty that we find ourselves considering the introduction of assisted dying while hospices are on their knees and patients face a postcode lottery when it comes to receiving adequate end-of-life care. Accordingly, I will vote against new clause 36.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you this this morning, Ms McVey.
I rise in support of new clause 36, which sets out an entirely workable, appropriate and safe set of provisions for the Secretary of State to ensure that these services are provided across England, as well as appropriate powers for Wales, although I am far from being an expert on those matters.
The new clause would convey powers to the Secretary of State to commission services free at the point of use, in a way that is entirely analogous to the commissioning of other health services that are provided, as we know, by a range of providers.
I came to this place having been an NHS manager for nearly 20 years, and I feel that the debate has sometimes slightly confused elements of commissioning, provision and the way in which the NHS commissions and manages services. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said that the state must oversee and regulate the service, and I entirely agree. Commissioning powers sitting with the Secretary of State will ensure that that is the case. The hon. Member for Richmond Park said that the issue is who is commissioning. Again, we are clear that the only person doing any commissioning will be the Secretary of State, potentially delegating this to NHS structures at the time.
The NHS and the Secretary of State are not unused to commissioning highly specialised, sensitive services in this way. Indeed, I would be amazed if the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley do not confirm that the Government were involved in the drafting of this new clause to ensure that it is equivalent to the other powers that the Secretary of State has.
This will clearly be a specialist service. It is a new service. At high levels of NHS England and equivalent bodies, there is significant expertise and practice in commissioning specialised services. The importance of the commencement period, which I hope we will discuss later today, is that engagement around the exact service specification will be drawn up in just the same way that it would be for a new cancer treatment or a treatment for a rare disease. It is right that the time will be taken to engage on that.
Fundamentally, services have to be commissioned. Some suggest that this will be a free-for-all, that anyone can provide this service and that anyone can be paid for it, but that idea is nonsense. There is no obligation for the Secretary of State to reimburse anyone who decides they want to provide this service. The service must be explicitly commissioned.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend says that this will be explicitly commissioned. I completely agree with everything he has said, but this will be a newly designed service by definition, so will that not leave the door open for new providers, such as Serco or G4S, to come in, design a new service and bring in the expertise to deliver it?
Lewis Atkinson
No, it will not, in the same way that G4S does not suddenly appear and provide treatment through a new cancer service that the Secretary of State decides to commission under specialist powers.
I am afraid that some opponents of the Bill are trying to scaremonger about potential provision as a way of altering the way people voted on Second Reading. A number of amendments clearly deal with whether potential providers should be public sector, voluntary or, indeed, private organisations. I emphasise that the overwhelming majority of GP services in this country are private contractors. It is inconsistent for Members to argue that we should maximise continuity of care and have the best safeguards around coercion and capacity by having someone who has known the individual for a long time, while also arguing that the Secretary of State should not be permitted to commission that individual’s GP to play any role. I challenge opponents on that matter.
Danny Kruger
As ever, the hon. Gentleman is speaking very coherently in support of the Bill and the principles behind it. I think he does regard assisted suicide as another form of healthcare that, as he says, should therefore be completely consistent with the normal duties of every medical professional. I would genuinely like him to help me to understand this. Does he envisage the service being provided by bespoke clinics in the NHS? Would established professionals set themselves up with the purpose of delivering it, or would it genuinely just be something that any general practitioner would provide as part of their services? Does he imagine that there will be specialists in the NHS whose sole job, or most of whose job, would be to provide this service?
Lewis Atkinson
I hope to help the hon. Gentleman with the points I am about to make.
What I would say to begin with is that we have talked throughout this Committee about using an opt-in model. There is this idea that everyone will be doing this, but we have rightly set out requirements for specialised training and so on. There will clearly be individual doctors in the NHS, and so on, who decide that they want to provide these services, and specialisms and appropriate regulation will accordingly be developed as part of that.
The other thing I would highlight is that the current drafting explicitly requires a range of provision. The second doctor must be independent. Indeed, clause 8(6)(d) requires that they must not be
“a partner or colleague in the same practice or clinical team as the coordinating doctor”,
so although some are suggesting, perhaps in a positive sense, that there should be one, entirely separate organisation that does all this, that would not meet those requirements. There are those who are trying to instil a fear of one large organisation being set up to take someone from start to finish, but that is not possible under the Bill as drafted.
Sarah Olney
I am reflecting on the earlier intervention on me by the hon. Member for Stroud about how the only payment under assisted dying would be made at the very end, so therefore there would no possibility of a doctor making an assessment at an earlier stage in the process being influenced. Now the hon. Member for Sunderland Central is saying—this is obviously implied by the drafting—that the different bits of the approval process would need to be delivered separately. Whether that involved a payment from the NHS or a private provider, the doctor making those assessments will clearly be paid at different stages in the process.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this points to the fundamental problem we have in this Committee, which is that we do not have a proposed model that we can properly scrutinise? All of us are just talking about potential suppositions about how things might work. We are effectively talking about a range of straw men.
Lewis Atkinson
No, I do not agree with the hon. Member, and I will tell her why. The reality is that the shape of the health provider landscape is different in different parts of the country. For example, in Wolverhampton, there has been a significant amount of vertical integration, such that in many cases GP services are part of the NHS provider trust. Therefore, those amendments that would prohibit any public body from participating would explicitly prohibit GPs in Wolverhampton from that provision. Elsewhere, some hospices—a small number—are provided directly by the NHS. Given the history of the hospice sector in the UK, there is clearly a strong voluntary and charitable element of that provision, which is entirely right, but that varies in different parts of the country.
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, there are some hospices and end-of-life providers who have made it known that, if this law passes, they may wish to explore whether they will provide such services. Equally, others will not. This goes back to the conscience debate that we had last week. There will be no obligation, so a hospice in one part of the country may well say, “Yes, we wish to provide this service as an option to our patients,” whereas a hospice in another part of the country might say, “We do not.” We need to get past this metropolitan mindset, whereby ll the providers are within easy travelling distance from each other.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman is making a strong point. Surely what should be at the heart of the organisation’s disposition is consideration of the condition and circumstances of the patient. Whether on the cancer ward, in the hospice or at home, the health service adapts, and has adapted with all sorts of treatments, to dealing with the different circumstances of the patient that it encounters. We must have a system that is flexible enough to allow it to do so for this.
Lewis Atkinson
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. These powers need to provide for that patient-centric nature, in a service that is explicitly commissioned by the Secretary of State, which will vary in different parts of the country, and not just in the provision landscape. The services provided in rural North Northumberland will, by their nature, probably be different from those provided in London, and that is entirely appropriate.
Danny Kruger
And yet the irony of this measure is that it is not specific to the patient. Genuine healthcare treats the symptoms and condition of the individual patient. This proposed treatment has nothing to do with the individual symptoms or the condition of the patient; it just kills them. It is totally unrelated to the condition, which is why it is not healthcare.
The hon. Gentleman suggested earlier that the Bill somehow ensures that the provision and the pathway are deliberately fragmented because the second doctor needs to be independent of the first. Does he agree that, with that single exception, it would be perfectly possible for an independent provider to set up to provide for the whole pathway of assisted death, with the single requirement that the co-ordinating doctor, who would manage the whole process from beginning to end, must get a second opinion from outside their organisation to sign the paperwork for the second assessment? With that single exception, the whole process could be managed by an independent, profit-making provider—commissioned by the NHS or otherwise—entirely on its own.
Lewis Atkinson
The hon. Gentleman is providing a masterclass in scaremongering. I know he needs Labour votes to switch before Third Reading, but this service must be explicitly commissioned by the Secretary of State, and it is inconceivable that they would commission that in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. The co-ordinating doctor is of course one person, and they would be involved in the first assessment and the provision of assistance. Whether that is a doctor employed by the NHS or somebody else, it can only be one individual, but there are the other safeguards we have talked about, such as the panel, which the hon. Gentleman has spoken against. It is absolutely appropriate that the Secretary of State has the powers and the duty to commission the service, and that they will do so from range of providers, reflecting the differences.
On the other point that some hon. Members have made about regulation, I remind the Committee that any provider will be regulated not only under this Act, but by the Care Quality Commission, in entirely uniform manner. I am therefore confused by the points made by opponents of the Bill. Some have said there should be no provision of this by the NHS or any public body, some say there should be no provision by charities—including, presumably, local hospices, should they make that decision—while others say there should be no provision by local GP practices to provide continuity of care.
Perhaps those different points reflect different ideologies within the Committee that are deeper than this issue, but they perhaps also reflect the fact that opponents of the Bill simply do not want this service to be provided at all.
Lewis Atkinson
No, I am going to finish this point.
The hon. Member for East Wiltshire did a good job of reading a Bevan quotation before—although I do not advise him to seek Labour party selection with such gravitas in his voice. However, I think he is the heir not to Bevan, but to Bernard Braine, the Member for South East Essex, who said in the 1967 debate on the David Steel abortion Bill:
“The idea has been spread around that it will be available on the National Health Service.”
In reference to the waiting lists, Braine went on to ask:
“Are our consultant gynaecologists going to make that list longer by making beds available to those who want abortions?”—[Official Report, 13 July 1967; Vol. 750, c. 1382.]
That is the tradition of objection that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is in. Just because he does not wish to have the option for himself, he does not believe that there should be free-at-the-point-of-use provision on the NHS for anyone else.
I will take Bevan back to this side of the Committee Room. He said:
“The essence of a satisfactory health service is that the rich and the poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability and that wealth is not advantaged”.
At the moment, at the end of life, wealth clearly is advantaged. Those who are wealthy and are able to go to Switzerland do have choice at the end of life. Dignity and independence and autonomy should not be based on ability to pay. That is why we need to pass this Bill; that is why the powers to commission in new clause 36 are entirely appropriate and necessary; that is why I support it.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr—thank you very much, Ms McVey. I rise to speak to clause 32 stand part and to new clauses 36 and 37.
It is gratifying that everybody on the Committee has taken so seriously the need to recognise where the powers lie in relation to the Senedd in Wales and Welsh Ministers, and Westminster and the Secretary of State. The evidence we heard from Professor Emyr Lewis is that clause 32 would contravene the Sewel convention by giving the UK Government powers of regulation to provide an assisted dying service in the NHS in Wales.
I am very appreciative of the way in which we have discussed the matter. This is, of course, a private Member’s Bill; by the nature of the subject it is discussing, it is unprecedented since devolution in 1999. As we talk about constitutional matters and the Sewel convention, it is important to remember what we are doing as a Bill Committee: we are trying to make sure that we tease out the questions about the environment in which all these services will be provided, and that we are giving people who are at the most vulnerable time in their life the appropriate protection and the appropriate autonomy. That is what we should always be balancing.
New clause 36, which relates to England, and new clause 37 certainly appear—I use the word with as much generosity as I can—to clarify the responsibilities as between Welsh Ministers and Secretaries of State. My amendments would go through the Bill clause by clause and would then insert a definition into clause 40, rather than making a broad statement as the new clauses do.
Although we have debated the content of new clause 36, I believe strongly that it is not for us in Westminster to specify how Welsh Ministers may make provision for those areas over which they have responsibility. It is appropriate that we have a debate, because that raises awareness of the potential for a legislative consent motion or motions. It is appropriate to have that discussion; it is also appropriate to be aware that there may be a discussion about the commencement date and the implications, which we will address in the debate on a later amendment.
I am looking particularly at Wales, and new clause 37 would do what my amendments were attempting: it would give us future-proofing. The powers that have been granted to the Senedd in Wales are considerably different, and lesser in their extent, than those that have been granted to Scotland and to Northern Ireland. That may well change in future, and new clause 37 would allow for that.
I put it on the record that I await further discussions between Welsh Ministers and the hon. Member for Spen Valley, although I understand that some have already taken place. It is already on the record that UK Ministers, the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and I will have further discussions as we move ahead. There will be opportunities on Report to do what the Committee is trying to achieve, which is to future-proof the legislation and ensure that it works as effectively as possible.
I welcome the changes that the new clauses would make. Clause 32, as it stands, does not recognise the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom, and it is important that we do that.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank the right hon. Lady for her constructive and collegiate approach to the Committee, particularly on devolution. I have contacted the Welsh Government and am keen to speak to them when Committee proceedings have finished. They have said that they are happy to do that. I am keen to continue to work with the right hon. Lady and other colleagues on devolution to ensure that we get the Bill right for the people of England and Wales.
Liz Saville Roberts
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments. I think there is a lesson to be learned. I understand that the legislation is unprecedented in coming through the private Member’s Bill route. After this, we will have to think about how we deal with such legislation because we are feeling our way. I appreciate the opportunity to work with the co-operation of colleagues on something for which there is no road map, but I fear, although I also appreciate, that we are making the road map as we go.
Daniel Francis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I genuinely did not intend to speak today, but the debate, particularly the speech by the hon. Member for Richmond Park and the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, has brought me to my feet.
It was 13 or 14 years ago that my wife and I embarked on the IVF road. It never worked—our children came naturally in the end—but I know the pain and despair of that process. Although I do not call into question the efficacy of any doctor, some companies, looking to their profit margins, will always prey on people.
We have had discussions today about the regulations to be made under new clause 36, but we need some clarity on Report. I referred to the annual fertility show at the Kensington Olympia; I have checked, and it is still held. I visited it about 13 years ago. Frankly, it is complete marketisation. People who are already on their knees and really depressed are left feeling that companies are simply trying to make a profit out of them. People can already book their tickets for the event in May and navigate a path through it: there are expert-led seminars, real stories, whereby people connect with others who have been through the process, wellbeing workshops and more than 70 exhibitors. Of course, they are all paying a fee to be there, and they all aim to have made a profit by the end.
Our first set of IVF treatment was free on the NHS. We paid £7,000 for our second, which was again through the NHS. We went through several visits to NHS and private providers to assess whether we were willing to pay a top-up for a slightly better service. I really did not intend to speak this morning, but I wonder whether, in the final part of the process that we are considering, there would be the sort of upsetting process that has taken root in the fertility industry in this country. We need more clarity on that by Report.
Naz Shah
I stopped myself intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central; I had lots of questions, and he has confused me even more. He referred to the provision in clause 8(6)(d) about the doctors being different. If I am right, healthcare providers such as Aspire or Ramsay Health Care could be commissioned to deliver the services. If so, does that mean, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire suggested, that we will need two separate doctors or providers because the co-ordinating doctor and the second doctor cannot be linked? That confuses me even further. After what we have heard this morning, it strikes me that we do not have any proposed model and the measure has not been thought through. It speaks to the idea that this is not right. We are spending hours and hours going through hypotheticals and possibilities—this could happen, that could happen—but there is nothing actually before us.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am not sure that anything in the Bill would preclude a private provider—“Virgin Health” or some such organisation—from providing the whole pathway of the assisted death, including employing, albeit in separate clinics or separate practices, the two doctors who would provide the two assessments. The provider would comply with the Bill, but the doctors might be part of the same organisation even if they work in different practices.
Naz Shah
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I have observed two things this morning. First, the reality has really hit home. Are we going to look at the amendment regarding local authorities providing the service? Are we excluding private providers? Are we excluding big firms? A new service has to be designed. Will it be two organisations or one? How will the Bill be delivered? We do not even have that before us, and that concerns me deeply.
Kim Leadbeater
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said, it is common practice in healthcare and in the NHS for services to be commissioned in a range of ways. We would not put such a level of detail in the Bill, but it would be normal practice for the Secretary of State to do that commissioning work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West has her own experience of that, I imagine.
Naz Shah
Absolutely. As a former commissioner, I am very familiar with commissioning; I commissioned millions of pounds’ worth of services across Bradford when I was in the NHS. The difference is that that was under Government Bills that had pre-consultation, impact assessments and a model that was debated. None of that has happened with this Bill. I agree that in an ideal world the process set out in new clauses 36 and 37 would be the right one, but without an impact assessment and a consultation, I am afraid that I have been left really disheartened.
I am disheartened about something else, too. I thank all Committee members, regardless of the points that they have or have not made, for the way in which the debate has been conducted, both before and during our sittings. On a few occasions, hon. Members have questioned other Members’ reasons for tabling amendments—but to suggest, as has been suggested today, that we are scaremongering, when we are actually going through the detail, is something else.
I am afraid. This is not me scaremongering; this is me being afraid for women who are anorexic. This is a gendered Bill. There are amendments that I support because I want to strengthen the Bill. I genuinely do not think that the Bill, as it stands, has that strength. I feel disheartened that we are talking about what is going to happen on Third Reading and potential votes, when we should be concentrating on the amendments on the selection list.
I oppose the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, which would replace clause 32. As my hon. Friend explained, new clause 36 outlines the powers that the Secretary of State for Health would have over voluntary assisted dying services in England. New clause 37 does the same for Wales, but makes changes that are necessary because health is a devolved power. I will concentrate on new clause 36, as I represent a constituency in England.
Put very simply, if new clause 36 is agreed to, it will give the Secretary of State three sorts of power. First, it will give the Health Secretary powers under subsection (4) to, effectively, change the National Health Service Act 2006. Secondly, it will give the Health Secretary powers to set out regulations about how any service, whether public or private, carries out assisted dying services. Thirdly, the Health Secretary will have powers under subsection (1) to commission assisted dying services. As I understand it, the wording means that assisted dying services could be provided directly by the NHS or by private firms working on contract for the NHS. I will discuss those powers in the order in which I mentioned them.
Subsection (4) of new clause 36 says that the Health Secretary may pass regulations that
“may for example provide that specified references in the National Health Service Act 2006 to the health service continued under section 1(1) of that Act include references to commissioned VAD services.”
To make it clear how the new clause works, I will quote from the subsection of the National Health Service Act 2006 that it would affect. It states:
“The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—
(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and
(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.”
That Act is an adaptation of the original National Health Service Act 1946, section 1(1) of which states:
“It shall be the duty of the Minister of Health…to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”.
The 1946 and 2006 Acts both give the Health Secretary a very clear set of duties that I think we can all support. Those duties have been the basis of how the NHS has been run for the nearly eight decades for which it has existed.
My hon. Friend’s Bill would give the Secretary of State powers to change the duties set out in section 1(1) of the 2006 Act. I ask my hon. Friend and both Ministers why the Bill needs to give the Secretary of State those powers. The only reason I can think of is that someone who was part of the drafting process has pointed out that the Health Secretary’s current duties might be incompatible with assisted dying.
The Health Secretary has duties to secure improvement in the people’s physical and mental health and in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness. Someone could bring a legal challenge on the basis that assisted dying does not fit with that duty, and that challenge might well succeed. I think that, to prevent that happening, my hon. Friend has proposed subsection (1) of new clause 36. If there is any other reason why she has suggested that we should give those powers to the Secretary of State, it is important that the Committee understands and hears it.
What is proposed underlines just how major a change the Bill would make. Since the NHS started operations in 1948, we have had a clear understanding of what it is there for. The 2006 Act is little different from the 1946 Act in that respect. For nearly 80 years, we have had an NHS that is there to improve health and to improve the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. The fact that we may have to change that shows us that we are taking a very big step indeed. To make such a fundamental change to the NHS, we should have had the best possible evidence and proper consultation, not three days of witness hearings and then hundreds of pieces of written evidence, often published after we had finished discussing the topics to which they relate. That is nowhere near good enough.
The next set of powers that I want to talk about is mentioned in subsection (3) of new clause 36, which says that the Health Secretary
“may by regulations make other provision about voluntary assisted dying services in England (whether or not the services are commissioned VAD services).”
I absolutely accept that if we have assisted dying services in England, the Health Secretary should ensure that they are properly regulated. That will have to include privately provided services as well as those offered on the NHS. However, I must ask: why does the Bill say that the Secretary of State “may” pass such regulations? The best interpretation I can think of is that a future Health Secretary might decide that private firms should provide assisted dying services directly to paying customers rather than via outsourced NHS contracts. In that case, the Health Secretary would need to provide regulations for those private sector services.
If that interpretation is correct, surely we could have tighter wording. For example, the new clause could say that if the Secretary of State decides to allow private firms to provide assisted dying to paying customers, the Secretary of State must make regulations to govern that. I would welcome clarification on the point, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley previously accepted an amendment—I think it was amendment 477—
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Horticulture Trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered horticulture trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. May I say at the outset that I am glad to see the Minister in her place? On a separate issue, I thank her publicly for her endeavours with a constituency query of mine a week ago, on which she went above and beyond the call of duty. Both I and my constituent are extremely grateful to her for doing so.
The horticultural sector encompasses mostly small and medium-sized enterprises, and it supports over 700,000 jobs across the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the original protocol agreement presented substantial difficulties for horticultural businesses based in GB in supplying Northern Ireland. It has to be said, and I am more than happy to say so, that in the time since then there have been some improvements, but unfortunately those improvements do not get us where we need to be. They simply get us a few steps along what seems as if it will be an exceptionally long road, and we have to try to make it much shorter than it looks like being at the moment.
The problems with which we were originally faced emanated from what I call the fantasy of the so-called hard border—the whole concept of a hard border on the island of Ireland—which just was not going to come about, but was used by the EU, and we ended up with the protocol as a result.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend my hon. Friend. He says there have been some advances or steps forward, but all they are really doing is just picking at the scab, so the scab is still there. Does he not agree that, after the Government have been saying for months that the kinks are being worked out, consumers in Northern Ireland are still finding it impossible to procure seeds for plants that simply pose no risk to the EU, which is absolutely frustrating? With the greatest respect, the Government must negotiate, on our constituents’ behalf, with those who refuse a common-sense approach. If only we all had common sense, it would be a big day, would it not?
Mr Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and yes, indeed. We have come a small number of steps, but there is an exceptionally long road to reach the finishing line.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. As he knows, I have raised this in relation to Colemans Garden Centre in my constituency. It has said about one of its suppliers based in Scotland, which got a new contract in Japan, that it is easier for that Scottish supplier to send plants to Japan than to send them 14 miles across the water to Northern Ireland. Richard Fry, the manager of Colemans, has said that when it engaged with that supplier it just came up against a wall of bureaucracy, in having to name everything on a pallet and in the trailer with the trailer’s registration number. The bureaucracy and the paperwork have actually stolen that easier trade.
Mr Campbell
I thank the hon. Member for that. He itemises a problem that is faced on multiple occasions by many of the companies in our constituencies. How that wall, or that restriction, came about was summed up by the then Chief Constable six years ago, who said:
“There are 300 crossing points between our two countries, how on earth are my officers supposed to police that effectively?”
He was of course talking about the security implications, but similarly it applies to the consumer border that exists.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Does the hon. Member agree that the sixfold burden on horticultural trade, encompassing regulatory divergence, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, certification requirements, increased costs and paperwork, is imposing an untenable strain on businesses across Northern Ireland?
Mr Campbell
I do indeed agree with the hon. Member. A year ago, I said:
“Whilst prohibitions have been lifted for 12 types of plants, engagement continues between the UK and EU on a further 9 species, there needs to be further progress.”
The horticultural working group was set up to identify and resolve issues such as this, but it needs to move on these outstanding problems so that a simpler system is in place to enable people of all backgrounds to purchase goods within their own country. For example, large full-scale advertisements in daily broadsheet newspapers for various seeds and plants say at the bottom that they are available throughout most of the United Kingdom—but not all. At the bottom of the adverts in small print there is the wording, “We are also unable to ship seeds or plants to EU countries and Northern Ireland.” That is as a result of the issues that emanated from the protocol.
A local nursery in my constituency works closely with Magilligan prison to reduce reoffending, and with inmates who are coming to the end of their term and are trying to work their way back into society. The local nursery project wrote to me recently to say:
“The project has established a ‘UK and Ireland Sourced and Grown’ accredited native tree nursery within Magilligan Prison, working with inmates to supply native trees to the public, private and voluntary sector. In recent weeks”—
they said almost six months ago, and I checked with them last week and this still pertains now—
“the tree nursery has run into difficulties sourcing saplings from UK suppliers...At present DAERA advise that it is impossible to bring from the UK to Northern Ireland, species on this following list”.
The letter itemises the list, and then goes on to say:
“The current situation threatens the sustainability of the tree nursery within HMP Magilligan with impacts on the future supply of trees from the tree nursery and the associated employment of staff assisting with delivery of the tree nursery (the funding of these roles with Causeway Coast and Glens Heritage Trust relies on income generated), and the rehabilitation of inmates engaged with delivery of tree nursery activities. I wished to bring this situation to your attention, in the hope that in your discussions with the UK Government you can raise the bizarre situation in relation to the bringing of plant saplings from UK suppliers to supply a UK and Irish Sourced and Grown Accredited Tree Nursery in Northern Ireland.”
That letter is from a local nursery that is telling me and others that there is a huge problem, where it is being told that it cannot bring in some saplings, and the outcome of not being able to do that threatens employment and the good work that the nursery and the prison are doing to try and rehabilitate prisoners coming to the end of their sentences.
The Consumer Council in Northern Ireland did research a few months ago looking at the experiences of retailers that do not deliver to Northern Ireland, focusing on online marketplaces. It did a survey of over 1,000 Northern Ireland customers, and 76% of those surveyed stated that they had experienced online marketplaces that do not deliver to Northern Ireland. The second most common product category was garden plants, seeds and horticulture—38% of those surveyed said that they experienced the impossibility of getting plants and seeds delivered.
The ironic thing is this: as an MP from Northern Ireland I am in Westminster today; before the end of the week, I will go to an airport. En route to the airport, if I wanted, I could go to a garden centre and acquire the self-same seeds. I could pay for them at the garden place, put them in my pocket, board the plane and arrive in Belfast, and there would be no checks whatsoever. I can distribute, plant, sow or do whatever I want with those seeds in Northern Ireland, having taken them from the same nursery that will not supply customers in Northern Ireland online or by post. It is no wonder that my local nursery in Magilligan says that this is utterly bizarre, and it needs to be resolved.
The Consumer Council informed us of the situation, and it says that the problem is not getting any better and that improvement is needed. That is why I hope the Minister can respond on the horticultural working group and what progress it has made. It would appear that the progress is quite small, in so far as it has achieved anything.
The Horticultural Trades Association represents 1,200 businesses, the majority of which are small and medium-sized enterprises, and it made a representation to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. My good friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), is present today, and he serves on that Committee. In its evidence, the HTA gave some information and highlighted the problems, including the continuing ban on up to 30 native plants and complete species, and it said that online sales from business to consumer were still not possible in Northern Ireland. The HTA indicated that the new Northern Ireland plant health label represents some marginal progress but still requires compliance with a range of rules, creating additional cost. The diversion of trade and re-orientation of production to the EU is a major problem.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In my constituency, we lost a large number of trees as a result of the storm five or six weeks ago. Mount Stewart had 10,000 trees destroyed, and other people across Strangford and the Ards peninsula, as well as those further afield, had something similar; but garden centres in my constituency tell me they cannot access the trees for replenishment. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is now an even bigger onus on us to ensure that the trees are available?
Mr Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is just further evidence of the ongoing problems. I suppose the problem is that we have potential solutions in the making but they seem interminably long. The establishment of Intertrade UK offers us the prospect of further progress, but it needs to be given adequate support not only to identify the problems, some of which we have identified here today, but to try to provide the solutions. The EU must be persuaded of the miniscule impact. In the grand scheme of things, Northern Ireland is 3% of the population of the United Kingdom, so any thought that this will jeopardise or provide unforeseen problems to the EU internal market is ludicrous.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this morning’s debate. I believe the biggest problem that we face is the fact that Northern Ireland has basically been left outside the UK’s plant health area, which means that NI businesses have to comply with EU rules over British ones. Many native British trees are not available in Northern Ireland, and the Woodland Trust free school packs are not available in Northern Ireland for that very reason. Decade-old trading arrangements have been undermined, and there is bureaucracy. The protocol and the Windsor framework are failing horticultural society, and we need our Government to step up and intervene for this sector, or it will fail.
Mr Campbell
My hon. Friend is right. I will conclude with this important point: this is not a political issue in the Northern Ireland sense of Unionists complaining about the protocol. Plants, seeds and business affect people of every community. This is not a Unionist problem; it is a problem of unfairness to everybody in Northern Ireland who wants to do business—every firm, no matter their background, and every customer, no matter their background or political persuasion. It is a problem that needs to be resolved.
There will not be any checks. I recently raised with the Home Office the issue of electronic travel authorisations in terms of visitors to the Republic coming to Northern Ireland, and the point I made was that there will not be any checks because there cannot be. There are 300 crossing points on a 300-mile land border. There are not going to be any checks for ETAs for travellers, just as there are not going to be any checks in terms of people taking seeds across by plane or by ferry, or a boat from Cairnryan to Larne.
We need to get it resolved. Burying our heads in the sand will not make the problem go away. The problem will not be dealt with by politicos simply complaining about it, which is what we have seen and heard about over the past few years. I have been exceptionally critical of those politicos who complain but do not offer a diligent, effective representation to try to get a resolution. I hope the Minister will be able to contribute and give us some examples and indications of the significant progress that will be made in the next few months.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
It is a great pleasure to respond to this debate and to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber, and for raising the many issues that he talked about in his speech. It was a pleasure to work with him recently to help one of his constituents. When we can do that, it is wonderful to see the results. I also thank all the other hon. Members who raised issues about their constituencies.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry is a strong advocate for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland, and I acknowledge the work that he has done and continues to do. As he said, we need to be constructive. We need to come together and get solutions. The debate will be significant in achieving that.
The first provisional estimate for farm incomes in Northern Ireland in 2023, published by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, showed that the horticultural sector had an output of £70 million, with the main horticultural export being mushrooms and vegetables, which made up £46 million of that. The total gross output for agriculture in Northern Ireland in 2023 was £2.87 billion. Just two weeks ago, I visited C & L Mushrooms in Newry to learn about its success in exporting to the organic market across the UK, which it does daily. I also picked some mushrooms and learned about that with the Northern Ireland DAERA Minister, Andrew Muir.
There is one fundamental point that we must accept when discussing the matter raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry. As a result of leaving the European Union, we have two trading entities—the European Union and the United Kingdom—and the ability to have different rules while seeking to ensure the freedom of movement of goods, which is so vital for businesses, jobs and consumers across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The practical outworkings of that situation are exemplified in the trading of horticultural goods, as the hon. Member has pointed out. It is important that we recognise that the island of Ireland has been treated as one single epidemiological unit for decades, and that is an important part of the negotiations that are happening now.
However, the hon. Member rightly pointed out that challenges exist. The Windsor framework protects the UK internal market, while enabling the EU to be confident that its rules will also be respected. Significantly, the arrangements in the Windsor framework protect trade in agricultural goods between GB and Northern Ireland through the establishment of the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme and the Northern Ireland plant health label, also known as the NIPHL. The framework has ensured that movements of agricultural goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain continue to benefit from unfettered market access.
The Northern Ireland plant health label removes the requirement to obtain burdensome and costly phytosanitary certificates, replacing them with free-of-charge, self-printed labels. Nearly 600 businesses in Great Britain and Northern Ireland have joined the Northern Ireland plant health label scheme since it went live on 1 October 2023. Indeed, the NIPHL has also ensured that seed potatoes can once again move freely between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Since the implementation of the plant health label, more than 1,500 tonnes have been moved, protecting this key industry.
Carla Lockhart
Perhaps the Minister will come and visit one of the largest potato producers in Northern Ireland in my constituency, which still experiences daily problems when getting seed and ware potatoes from Scotland. I have raised this issue in the House and I have issued an invitation to the Secretary of State, but perhaps the Minister would like to take up that invitation to come and hear that her words ring hollow for the businesses in Northern Ireland that still experience difficulties on a daily basis.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for raising that. I would be very pleased to visit and talk about exactly what practical issues still exist. The label scheme should have enabled free movement from business to business, so we need to address the fact that it has not in the case she mentions. The horticultural working group needs to address that as well. I would be pleased to visit and to hear more about the issues that she has already raised in the House.
The framework safeguards horticultural movements—generally—providing a sustainable long-term footing. However, I recognise that improvements need to be made in the areas raised by the hon. Members for Upper Bann and for East Londonderry, and by others. That is the focus of the horticultural working group, and I commend its work. The body is co-chaired by senior officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Cabinet Office, and it draws on support from other officials in those Departments and across Government as the focus of the agenda requires. There are representatives of the Ulster Farmers Union, the National Farmers Union and the Horticultural Trades Association. Business leaders, as well as a small number of other horticultural businesses, also sit on the working group. The group meets regularly to address issues, and I welcome the constructive and honest way in which it approaches its work. I am also very ready to meet any of its members; I met the Ulster Farmers Union last week.
There is guidance and support available to help businesses in Great Britian understand the schemes that can be used for moving goods from GB to Northern Ireland. The horticultural working group membership worked with UK Government officials to revise that guidance, which was published earlier this year. I reassure the House that it is a well-established process through which industry can raise issues and they will be addressed.
In addition, the framework and our improved relationships with our European Union counterparts continue to facilitate the movement of high-risk plants. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry pointed out, there has been progress, but more needs to be made and that is what we need to keep working on.
Through that constructive engagement, we are seeing results. Last month, we lifted the ban on a further two species of plant—silver and downy birch—taking the total to 23. The hon. Member for East Londonderry highlighted how important that is for the tree nursery in his constituency, which is doing such good work rehabilitating prisoners. The hon. Member for Upper Bann pointed out that the Woodland Trust free school packs are not available. I hope the horticultural working group will listen to that. I will point out the issue to its members, and they can work out why it is happening and work on common-sense ways in which we can overcome it.
Active scientific dialogue is taking place on a further six species, including white dogwood and English yew. There is a small list that is being worked through one by one. The UK Government have submitted a further 17 species for scientific assessment, again with areas of focus being led by industry and its priorities. In matters relating to horticulture, as in other sectors, the Government have sought to resolve challenges in constructive and mutually beneficial ways. These are the actions of a responsible Government responding to the concerns of their citizens and abiding by their commitments in international law on the world stage.
There are other ways in which the Government can intervene to protect and support the internal market and the flow of horticultural goods. The hon. Member for East Londonderry wrote to the Secretary of State recently to advise him of a GB-based seller of plants and seeds that was not selling to consumers in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State asked DEFRA officials to meet representatives of that company to provide more information on the schemes available to facilitate GB-NI trade. As a result of that conversation, the company has undertaken to review its current arrangements. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned that there needs to be common sense in this discussion. We need to have businesses exploring solutions with the Government, hopefully enabling us to support each other.
Mr Gregory Campbell
I thank the Minister for her reference to my correspondence with the Secretary of State. Indeed, I was quoting the management of that firm, who say that they are still unable to supply Northern Ireland. Will the Minister indicate when those discussions may terminate? Are they likely to end in the company revising that advert to remove the statement, and supplying to Northern Ireland?
Fleur Anderson
I recognise that it is frustrating that, this long after Brexit, we are still trying to work this out but it is the reality of the situation. I am glad that the hon. Member secured this debate because it adds to the urgency that is clearly needed by businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland. I want to see a solution agreed. The horticulture working group and businesses need to look at ways to work this out. Business-to-business is enabled, but business-to-consumer is hard. That is where the solution is needed.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for responding to this important and timely debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). The Minister knows that we are working through the consequences of a wholly disproportionate approach, in which the EU tries to control what we do within our own internal market. She has two significant opportunities coming up: Lord Murphy’s review and the negotiations between the Paymaster General and the European Union on SPS, and all the rest. Will she take the contents of this debate, and her experience of the frustrations of Northern Irish businesses and ensure that they form part of those processes?
Fleur Anderson
I thank the right hon. Member for raising the SPS veterinary agreement; it is an important part of the picture. Many issues need to be resolved soon, both through the processes that the right hon. Member mentioned and by resetting our relationship with the EU. I met deputy heads of missions from the EU last week to talk about the opportunities in Northern Ireland, the importance of a faithful working through of the Windsor framework, and resolving these issues. Work is absolutely being done to resolve all those issues, and it will be important to reach an SPS veterinary agreement. That will not just support the Government’s mission for economic growth, which is a priority for this Government, but further protect the UK’s internal market. Achieving those goals will not only support the Union but benefit consumers. I acknowledge the strength with which the hon. Member for East Londonderry supports both those aims and common-sense solutions to working through these issues for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I reassure him, and the House, that I share his support for and commitment to those aims, and to working this through.
Question put and agreed to.
Nutrition for Growth Summit
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Because of our delayed start, the debate may now continue until 4.47 pm. I call David Mundell to move the motion.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Nutrition for Growth Paris Summit 2025.
It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairman- ship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful for the opportunity to propose this motion and to make the case for a strong, ambitious and well-targeted UK commitment at the Nutrition for Growth summit, which takes place in Paris this Thursday and Friday, and which I am pleased to be able to attend alongside my friends the hon. Members for Exeter (Steve Race) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper).
It is more than three years since we last gathered in Westminster Hall to debate the previous Nutrition for Growth summit, held in Tokyo in December 2021. This debate comes at an important moment for global nutrition, especially in the light of recent decisions in the US and here in the UK about spending on aid and international development. It also comes the week after the publication of the report of the International Development Committee, on which I serve as a member, “The Government’s efforts to achieve SDG2: Zero Hunger”.
We all know that access to good nutrition is foundational to development. It plays a critical role in health, education, gender equality and economic advancement. It is essential to achieving so many of the other sustainable development goals.
For pregnant women, good nutrition in pregnancy leads to healthier mothers, fewer complications in childbirth, less chance of stunting in children and a greater chance of children reaching their educational potential. Proven, cost-effective interventions, such as providing expectant mothers with multiple micronutrient supplements can make the world of difference to a child’s start in life.
For children, good nutrition makes vaccines more effective, reducing the risks of infectious diseases, which can spread rapidly and which do not respect borders. A well-nourished child is 11 times less likely to die from common infectious diseases such as pneumonia than a severely undernourished one.
Good nutrition also reduces the risk of obesity, cancer and other non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, which are on the rise in many low and middle-income countries. Without good nutrition, individuals and communities cannot develop to their full potential, economic productivity and development are constrained, and stability and security are undermined.
Studies have shown that combating malnutrition can raise per capita GDP by up to 11%, helping to break the cycle of poverty, inequality and food insecurity. In addition, investments in nutrition are proven to be low cost and high impact, representing one of the highest-value development initiatives. According to the World Bank, for every $1 invested in nutrition, $23 is returned to the local economy. Conversely, malnutrition costs African economies between 3% and 16% of GDP annually. Yet, despite all we know about the importance of good nutrition, malnutrition is still the leading cause of death in children under five, claiming the lives of 2 million children under five every year.
In 2022, an estimated 45 million children under the age of five suffered from wasting, 148 million had stunted growth and 37 million were overweight. In 2023, an estimated 733 million people globally faced hunger. Around 200 million more people face acute food insecurity this year compared with pre-pandemic levels. Conflicts and humanitarian crises, including in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria and Gaza, are causing global hunger to soar. Up to 1.9 million people are estimated to be on the brink of famine.
The UK has a long and proud history of global leadership and action on nutrition. The UK was the founder of the Nutrition for Growth summit in 2013, when more than 100 stakeholders pledged more than $4 billion in new nutrition-specific projects, and a further $19 billion in nutrition-sensitive projects. Our excellent civil servants in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are world-class thought leaders and conveners on innovation regarding malnutrition, and the UK is home to world-leading scientists and researchers who are making strides to advance technologies and nutrient-dense, drought-resistant crops, supporting communities all over the world to have more secure and nutritious diets.
The recent cuts to official development assistance could have devastating impacts on the global hunger and malnutrition crisis. The nutrition budget was disproportionately impacted by the cuts to ODA in 2021; research conducted by Development Initiatives for the FCDO indicated that nutrition spending was cut by more than 60%. The Government must not allow this further reduction in spending to exacerbate the existing global crisis or to damage our reputation globally.
This week’s Nutrition for Growth summit is a real opportunity for the Government to show continued UK leadership and commitment to global nutrition. This Thursday and Friday, the Government of France, led by President Macron, will convene Governments, philanthropists, non-governmental organisations and business leaders at the summit to commit finances and make policy changes that will help to end malnutrition.
It will be the fifth Nutrition for Growth summit since it was launched by the UK in the margins of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. The previous summit in Tokyo mobilised $27 billion through commitments made by 181 stakeholders across 78 countries. Unfortunately, the previous UK Government were not able to make a commitment at the Tokyo summit in 2021, which sparked widespread criticism from partner countries. Thanks, I believe, to the great efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who was then a Minister in the FCDO, that decision was reversed two months later and the UK made a £1.5 billion pledge. We still hope that this year the UK will play its full part in ensuring the summit is a success.
The Paris summit is a crucial opportunity to build on that momentum and a critical step in turning the tide against the scourge of malnutrition. It will also put nutrition at the heart of the sustainable development agenda, recognising that nutrition is foundational to development—as indeed it is to the UK’s wider development aims—and will make the fight against all forms of malnutrition a universal cause. Since 2013, the Nutrition for Growth summit has been a key event for driving greater action towards ending malnutrition, mobilising the international community and placing nutrition higher up the development agenda.
This year, the commitments made will be more important than ever in elevating the fight against malnutrition. The summit’s outcomes will have a lasting impact on the health, development and economic potential of millions of people worldwide, especially women and children. We welcome the fact that the new Minister for International Development will represent the UK at the summit, but I hope the Minister here today will be able to confirm that the UK will demonstrate its commitment to leadership on sustainable development goal 2 by doing everything we can to ensure that the summit is a success. I also hope that he will commit to a strong, ambitious and well-targeted UK pledge at the summit—or, if that requires the spending review to be completed, that that pledge will come after the spending review.
In addition, I hope the Minister can reaffirm the recent commitment to integrating nutrition across all aspects of development at the summit to make meaningful progress in tackling the underlying causes of malnutrition. As the International Development Committee inquiry report recommended, as well as a generous pledge at the summit, I hope the Minister will commit to
“a new reach commitment on nutrition and food security within the next six months”,
which would
“focus efforts and improve accountability.”
The all-party group on nutrition for development, which I co-chair alongside the hon. Member for Exeter, is calling for the UK to invest at least £500 million in nutrition-specific interventions by 2030. I hope the Government can confirm that they will begin this journey by investing £50 million in the child nutrition fund this year. That would give us an opportunity to maximise our investment by leveraging domestic resources and philanthropic funding, with the potential to transform a £50 million contribution into up to £500 million-worth of impact.
Whatever colleagues’ views on the overseas aid budget, I am sure we all agree that taxpayers’ money should be spent as impactfully as possible. Therefore, we must prioritise nutrition and use summits such as the Nutrition for Growth summit to maximise our contribution at a time of restricted finances, and we must co-ordinate our approach with other countries to maximise the impact even further. It is vital that low-cost, high-impact nutrition-specific interventions, such as MMS and ready-to-use therapeutic food, are protected and prioritised. They can pull young children back from the brink of starvation in weeks.
I hope the Minister will set out an ambition to reach at least 50 million children, women and adolescent girls with nutrition-related interventions by 2030, and commit to reporting yearly on how many people are reached with nutrition-specific interventions. I also hope the UK Government will support global accountability efforts by funding the global nutrition report to enhance the nutrition accountability framework, which is a critical tool to ensure that Governments follow through on their Nutrition for Growth commitments. Finally, I hope the Government will ensure that partnerships with local civil society organisations are strengthened, so that they can advocate more effectively for nutrition to their own Governments.
To conclude, let me give just one example of the difference that such commitments can make by speaking about Hanzala. Hanzala struggled with pneumonia and malnutrition before he could even sit up on his own. Born in a remote village in Afghanistan, his mother was unable to access care, with the nearest clinic being more than 40 km away. That was until 2023, when World Vision Afghanistan opened a health centre supported by the FCDO in Hanzala’s village.
Hanzala’s mother rushed him to the clinic, where he was found to weigh just 6.8 kg, well below the 9.2 kg that a healthy 13-month-old boy should weigh. Hanzala was immediately enrolled in the out-patient department for severe acute malnutrition programme, receiving ready-to-use therapeutic food. His mother received nutritional counselling and a sanitation kit to improve their living conditions. I am sure that everyone will be pleased to learn that only four months later Hanzala had made a full recovery and was able to play like any other child—a direct result of decisions made by the UK Government and the support of organisations such as World Vision.
Let us grasp the opportunity that the Nutrition for Growth summit this week affords. Let us continue to wield our convening power as the UK and play a leading role as a key global nutrition partner, driving this agenda and working alongside other donors and high-burden countries to ensure that global nutrition investments are prioritised and deliver maximum impact. I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the Minister’s positive response.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms Jardine.
I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this important debate on the eve of the Nutrition for Growth summit in Paris. His long-standing commitment to improving the lives of the most disadvantaged in the world, particularly those experiencing malnutrition and hunger, is clear to see, both in this debate and through his work in the House. I am proud to work alongside him as his new co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nutrition for development, and to attend the summit with him over the coming days. I will also take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor as co-chair of the APPG, Lord Collins of Highbury, who continues to be a passionate champion for nutrition in Government as the Minister for Africa.
As the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale ably set out, the summit comes at a critical time for global nutrition and its outcomes will have a lasting impact on the health, cognitive development and economic potential of millions of people. Across the world, 733 million people suffer from hunger and over 2.8 billion people are unable to afford a healthy diet. Malnutrition claims the lives of over 2 million children every year, with millions more left with permanent physical and cognitive impairment, and more than 1 billion adolescent girls and women worldwide suffer from undernutrition. It is therefore critical that the summit this week is a successful platform for global action.
A few weeks ago, I visited Paris with the right hon. Member to meet the organisers of the summit, including special envoy and secretary-general of Nutrition for Growth, Brieuc Pont, and some of our counterparts in the French Parliament. They all emphasised the importance of the UK playing a leadership role at the summit and using our considerable convening strength to press for collective action on nutrition and to underscore its importance to global development and stability. I was again struck by the fact that addressing malnutrition must be a collective endeavour. It is not an issue that one country can solve by itself; we must all play our part.
The UK has a proud history on malnutrition and hunger. The last Labour Government’s strategy, “The neglected crisis of undernutrition”, marked the start of a decade of UK leadership on global nutrition, and the UK initiated Nutrition for Growth, convening the first summit in London in 2013. The UK’s first investment at that summit reached over 50 million people with nutrition services between 2015 and 2020. I am pleased that the new Minister for International Development will attend the summit this week, and I hope that the UK, as the founder of Nutrition for Growth, can play a full role, including by making an ambitious financial pledge. The urgency could not be clearer: the growing crisis of global malnutrition is inflicting immense suffering on millions of people, undermining economic development and driving instability, with huge geopolitical implications.
Just before I became a Member of Parliament, I travelled to Kenya with UNICEF, United Against Malnutrition and Hunger, and Action Against Hunger, along with the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), to see the positive impact of interventions to help treat and prevent malnutrition for children and families in hard-to-reach communities hit by severe drought. Seeing how UK development assistance is delivered on the ground had a profound impact on me. In Isiolo county, we visited mobile outreach stations set up by local health workers to deliver emergency nutrition, vaccines and maternal health, as well as education about nutrition. The nurses there told us that since the clinic has been running in the county, they have seen malnutrition rates drop year on year. These interventions work.
We know that access to good nutrition is the foundation on which sustainable development is built. Suffering from malnutrition at an early age will impact a child throughout their life; it will impact their education, economic and health outcomes. The children we met were getting what they needed not only to survive, but to thrive. That is why the all-party parliamentary group on nutrition for development would like to see the UK invest at least £500 million in nutrition-specific interventions by 2030. Those interventions, such as ready-to-use therapeutic food, known as RUTF, vitamin A supplements, support for breastfeeding and prenatal multiple micronutrient supplementation—MMS—are cost-effective, proven and powerful interventions that support women, who have the highest nutritional needs but often eat last and least, and enable them to give their children the best start in life.
MMS, for example, is proven to support the health of both baby and mother and reduce the risk of birth complications. At £3 per pregnancy, it is a low-cost intervention with a high return on investment. The recovery rate of children with severe acute malnutrition who receive a full course of RUTF is over 90%. Given that women and girls are disproportionately affected by hunger and malnutrition, I wonder whether the Minister might commit to ensuring that at least 90% of nutrition spending is gender-sensitive.
RUTF can also be locally produced and owned. In Nairobi, we visited a factory manufacturing RUTF that was part-funded by UK development assistance. The factory exports RUTF across east Africa, and is now trialling growing its own groundnuts—the primary ingredient of RUTF—in low-income communities in Kenya. That means that Kenya can produce its own nutrition products closer to people, supporting the local economy and creating jobs and livelihoods. These interventions work, provide value for money and build genuine partnerships with Governments. Will the Minister provide an update on the Government’s commitment to nutrition-specific interventions?
One way that could be achieved is through the child nutrition fund, which was developed by UNICEF with support from the UK Government, the Gates Foundation and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation. The fund has huge potential to create genuine, equitable partnerships with low and middle-income countries. It can also leverage significant additional funding through match-funding initiatives by global philanthropies. That would give the Government the opportunity to maximise their investment with the potential, as the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale said, to transform a £50 million UK contribution into up to £500 million of impact, maximising our contribution and our impact at a time of fiscal constraint.
Critically, the child nutrition fund also provides a means to unlock financial and political commitment from low and middle-income countries, creating a path to transition from dependency on global financing to domestic financing, and an exit strategy for global donors. Will the Minister provide an update on the Government’s commitment to the child nutrition fund?
The Government have demonstrated positive action on global hunger and malnutrition in recent months. The UK was one of the founding members of the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty, which was launched last November in Rio. The Government have also more than doubled their aid to Sudan and neighbouring countries, where malnutrition rates have soared due to the devastating conflicts and subsequent displacement. The FCDO has recently committed to integrating nutrition across all aspects of its work. These are really encouraging steps.
I will make two final points. First, can the Minister tell us how quickly the Government aim to pivot the ODA budget back to its core purpose? The use of ODA to support the broken asylum application system in the UK clearly needs to end. The Government have committed to that by putting money back into the asylum application processing system and shortening the time that asylum seekers spend in hotels. However, that must be accelerated so that the 0.3% ODA budget is spent on ODA programmes, as expected.
Secondly, will the Minister comment on the ways in which the UK can use its legislative clout to close tax evasion and other financial loopholes that deprive developing countries of tax income? The International Monetary Fund estimates that the tax gap is over $200 billion a year. As one of the global centres of finance, London is still awash with money effectively stolen from developing nations, and channelled and hidden through shell companies. That same status brings London the opportunity to further clamp down on that activity, and with significant ties to overseas dependencies that can facilitate the illicit transfer of cash, the UK Government can use their position to close the tax gap for good.
I hope that we can take this momentum to the Nutrition for Growth summit this week and recommit UK leadership, political will and investment in nutrition. Our leadership will help ensure that vital clinics like the one I saw in Isiolo county are able to continue to deliver life-saving support to the most vulnerable communities, especially their young children and mothers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. It seems to happen nearly every week now—I wish you continued success in what you do. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for leading this important debate. He is a very busy man too: last Thursday he spoke in a Westminster Hall debate, yesterday he chaired Westminster Hall, and today he is back at it again. Well done to him. This is a subject on which we are all very pleased to come along and support him.
I am genuinely pleased to see the Minister in his place. I know from all the years that I have known him in the House that his heart lies with this subject, and I do not think we will be disappointed when we hear his responses to our questions. It is always a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), in her place too.
Combating malnutrition across the world is crucial. We all have a heart for it, and that is why we are here. We are glad to support others in the world like we expect that they would support us back. In some African countries, the situation is hard, and there is more that we can do collectively.
I quickly want to thank—because I think it is important—the churches in my constituency, and churches across this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In particular, Elim Missions in Newtownards in my constituency of Strangford has a really productive strategy and plan for Zimbabwe and Swaziland. I understand that it has relationship of almost 30 years with them, and it has helped them with education, health, food production, and jobs and training. I commend the work that it does in Swaziland in particular, which is ravaged by HIV and all the complexities associated with that.
Of course, there are many other churches that do likewise: the Presbyterian Church, the Church of Ireland, the Methodist Church, the Baptist churches, and many others. There is a real role for a partnership with some of those church groups, which could be productive for everyone. First of all, we have got the heart of the churches and their congregations—they want to do something, and more often than not it is the congregations’ own money that is poured into that—but what they do sometimes fills a gap where the Government maybe just cannot get there. I often ask for this, but I do it because I think there is a partnership role that can be played. If the Minister does not mind, will he give us his thoughts on that?
UN sustainable development goal 2 is to create a world free from hunger by 2030—quite an ambition, to be fair —including bringing down rates of undernourishment, food insecurity, and childhood stunting and wasting. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale gave examples of those things, and I know that others will too. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation reported that in 2024 the world was still far off track achieving its goals, with progress having stalled since 2020. All of us here today, and those outside of this place watching, would be encouraged if the Minister could tell us what has been done to get us back on track and ensure that we can deliver the goal by 2030. One in 11 people globally, and one in five in Africa, faces undernourishment. There has been some progress on stunting and wasting, but we are still way off the 2030 target.
In 2024, the UK joined the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty, and announced some £70 million of funding over 18 months to address food insecurity. The UK is also participating in the new joint UN initiative on the prevention of wasting, which was launched in March 2025—just in the last week or 10 days. According to UNICEF stats, an estimated 5.7 million children in the region require treatment for acute malnutrition, with 1.8 million children experiencing life-threatening malnutrition.
The one time I watch TV is on a Sunday afternoon. More often than not, when I watch westerns—that probably tells us what age I am—the adverts on either side of the films portray child malnutrition and hunger very graphically. We sit in some grandeur, and we are never hungry for food. The sight of young children from across the world in poverty, and of the mothers who do everything they can to feed their child, is a salient reminder of the level of child poverty and what we have to do.
Child poverty is a widespread issue. As I am my party’s health spokesperson, these issues are close to my heart, and they warrant attention and effort to resolve them. It is important to be here and to recognise the good things that the Government do. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale outlined a number of things that the Government are doing, and I know that the Minister is committed to this. The Government are upholding the 2022 UK commitment to spend £1.5 billion from 2022 to 2030 on nutrition objectives, but there is more that can be done. Perhaps after reflecting on the figures, the Government can look at the impact and assess whether more is available to enable us to reach out and help communities that are under incredible pressure. We need to do more to support the global effort in combating malnutrition. Every father and grandfather would do whatever he could for his child or grandchild. I know the Minister is a compassionate person, and the Government have a duty to reach out and help.
We must do more to strengthen global partnerships with organisations and other Governments to advocate for better nutrition support in other countries. We cannot do it on our own, because our resources are limited, but we can do it with others and make it happen. I look to the Minister for any commitment that the Government can give to support those in extreme poverty, and for an update, if at all possible, on the UK’s contribution to the 2030 targets.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for organising the debate. So much has been covered already, and I do not want to reiterate or repeat it unnecessarily, but I want to draw attention to some key statistics around the fact that nutrition is a core issue, both for health and for global security. According to the stats from the World Food Programme on global security—they have been cited, but they are worth citing again—a 1% increase in food insecurity leads to a 2% increase in migration. If we think about geopolitical stability and all the issues that we currently talk about, a 2% increase in migration because of a 1% increase in food insecurity makes no sense in the world today. We need to do everything we can to mitigate that.
Similarly, nutrition is a global growth issue. We talk a lot in this country about economic growth, but we all know that we are as much in hock to world economic factors as we are to our own national factors. As the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale has said, according to the World Bank, if we invest $1 in nutrition we get $23 back into the local economy. By any account, with any economist, that is surely a no-brainer.
My interest in this subject arises from the fact that I am a public health consultant. Prior to my days in this place, I worked in an NGO that has already been named, World Vision, along with the Minister. We have been in this field for quite a long time, as have many hon. Members here, and we have heard the same conversations about nutrition come up again and again. We all sit here as human beings, and we all have the same basic level of need. In public health, as in so many other disciplines, there is something called Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: if we cannot satisfy our basic human needs, we cannot do anything else. If we and our children are hungry, we cannot achieve any of the things we aspire to for our communities, for the people we live with or for our governance, stability and growth.
We think about those foundational elements in two ways. Acute interventions have been mentioned; my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has talked about the ready-to-use therapeutic foods and vitamin supplements that can address fundamental critical needs in so many places around the globe, including in our own country. Those malnutrition needs are different, but they are malnutrition needs none the less, and we must implement those acute interventions.
Alongside that is longer-term nutritional stability, which is a global conversation as well as a UK one. How do we make sure that the food we grow on this planet is sustainably grown, has the right levels of nutrition and is distributed equally? Those conversations have gone on for many years. The Nutrition for Growth conference in Paris is another opportunity to bring together people with excellent experience and try to push the conversation forward.
The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale mentioned maternal and child health. The first 1,000 days are critical. In the Health and Social Care Committee, we are looking specifically at the first 1,000 days in this country. Why we should focus only on this country is beyond me, however, because whether someone lives in this country or another country, they need exactly the same things. Humans are humans wherever they live. A global initiative looking at the first 1,000 days, and concentrating on good nutrition for mothers and babies in the early days, will significantly decrease childhood stunting, wasting and developmental delay. In all our communities, we want people to grow, thrive and do well, but those things cannot happen if the basic elements of nutrition are not in place.
As has been said, the UK has been a leader in this space for some years. I appreciate that there has been a cut in overseas development aid, but that does not mean that we cannot still demonstrate leadership in this space. As a responsible partner in the global health initiative—in our global safety, which has as much resonance for people in this country as it does for those in others—we must prioritise the things that will truly make a difference to people’s wellbeing, safety and stability. In the conference that starts tomorrow, I ask respectfully that our Ministers go forward and lead in this space; that they prioritise nutrition for growth in global health and security; and that they continue our proud history of global leadership in this area.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important debate.
Malnutrition is one of the greatest barriers to health, economic growth and development worldwide. It contributes to nearly half of all child deaths and has long-term consequences for education, economic productivity and global stability. The Nutrition for Growth summit presents a crucial opportunity for world leaders to address these issues and commit to sustainable solutions. The World Bank estimates that annual investment in targeted nutrition interventions must increase from £6.3 billion to £19.3 billion by 2034 to meet global needs.
The UK has long played a leading role in tackling these issues through targeted aid and development programmes, but recent reductions in the official development assistance budget threaten our ability to continue making a meaningful impact. The UK spent nearly £1 billion on bilateral aid for basic nutrition between 2009 and 2023. However, spending has declined sharply in recent years, from £146 million in 2017 to just £24 million in 2023. Similarly, broader nutrition-sensitive aid has fallen from a peak of £2.7 billion in 2016 to £1.2 billion in 2023. These reductions have been steeper than the overall decrease in UK aid spending. Since the shift to 0.5% of gross national income for aid in 2021, total UK aid fell by 21%, while nutrition-specific aid dropped by 61% and nutrition-sensitive aid dropped by 54%. The decision to reduce the UK’s ODA commitment to 0.3% of GNI by 2027 will only decrease our ability to meet this challenge.
Malnutrition does not just affect health outcomes. The UK has been a leader in development because we recognise that investing in nutrition delivers long-term benefits. Every £1 spent on nutrition intervention generates up to £16 in economic returns through increased productivity and reduced healthcare costs. Cuts to UK aid will leave a vacuum that countries such as Russia and China will fill. The Foreign Secretary has previously acknowledged the strategic risk of stepping back from development aid, and the Liberal Democrats have consistently warned that reducing aid weakens our ability to counter malign influences and support fragile states. Rather than cutting aid, the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to reverse the Tory tax cuts for big banks and tax the social media giants that are currently profiting from spreading misinformation and disinformation on behalf of our enemies.
The Nutrition for Growth summit in Paris is a moment to reaffirm the UK’s leadership in global development. We have always stood for a world where every individual has an opportunity to thrive. Liberal values are rooted in the belief that every person has worth, dignity and the right to a healthy life. The Government must ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of the fight against malnutrition, rather than retreating from it.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important and timely debate. I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) for their commitment to advocating for investment and focus on global nutrition through their work on the APPG on nutrition for development. It is fantastic to see cross-party support on this vital issue, and I wish them all the best at the Nutrition for Growth summit later this week.
The summit could not have come at a more critical time for global nutrition. Malnutrition rates across the world are soaring, and the most vulnerable, including women and children, are paying the price. For 2025, the World Food Programme predicts that 343 million people will be food insecure in the 74 countries in which the agency is active. The number of food insecure people is 200 million above pre-pandemic levels.
I will focus my remarks on conflict, which Members will not be surprised to hear has been identified as the main driver of food insecurity. Some 65% of people living in acute food insecurity live in fragile or conflict-affected areas, and 14 of the 16 hunger hotspots identified by the World Food Programme are conflict zones, including Gaza, Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia and Yemen.
Hunger and conflict coexist in a deadly cycle. When conflict strikes, civilian populations are often forced to flee their homes, land and livestock-grazing areas, leaving them food insecure and without access to their local markets or agriculture. Women, children and marginalised groups are disproportionately affected, bearing the brunt of violence and its long-term impacts. Malnutrition is a typical outcome in conflict zones, with children most affected by increased mortality and stunted growth. Conflict also disrupts supply chains and infrastructure, including farms and agricultural land, through looting or destruction of food stocks, agricultural assets, food production facilities and other objects of critical infrastructure, leading to long-term food insecurity.
Similarly, where extreme hunger and child deaths fester, so too do anger, instability and violence, with consequences that spread across the world. A world in which billions of people are malnourished produces instability and perpetuates injustice. Chronically poor populations are marginalised or vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Children and young people are particularly exposed to recruitment into armed groups, forced labour, early marriage and other forms of abuse. These crimes create fragile populations and instability. Addressing long-term drivers of fragility, as well as the immediate causes of conflict, is essential for addressing the deadly cycle of conflict and hunger. We know that adherence to international humanitarian law is vital for mitigating and preventing famine-like conditions in conflict, but across the world, respect for international humanitarian law is steadily being eroded, particularly through the deliberate withholding and blocking of food aid.
In its report “Food Insecurity and Armed Conflict and the Use of Siege-like Tactics” the Geneva Academy identified an increase in violations of international humanitarian law regarding the deliberate withholding and blocking of humanitarian aid to induce food insecurity and famine-like conditions. This tactic can be seen repeatedly in Sudan, South Sudan, Gaza and Mali, among many other crises and conflicts.
In Sudan, millions of people living in Darfur, North Kordofan, South Kordofan and Khartoum are at immediate risk of famine. More than half of the country—25.6 million people—are experiencing severe food insecurity. More than one in three children face acute malnutrition, which is above the 20% threshold for a famine confirmation.
This is a man-made crisis, rife with violations of international humanitarian law. Conflict actors have disrupted supply chains and infrastructure, including farms and agricultural land, through the looting and destruction of food stocks, agricultural assets and food production facilities, as well as other elements of infra- structure. Humanitarian operations are at risk of interference from conflict actors either through bureaucratic impediments or through violent attacks, severely hindering the ability of humanitarian actors to deliver lifesaving aid.
I was grateful to hear the Prime Minister name Sudan as a key priority for the UK following the decrease in order, but with such limited resources available, I am concerned that the UK will simply not be able to follow through on its commitments. Will the Minister commit to protecting nutrition spending in conflict-affected areas such as Sudan to ensure that lifesaving food aid gets to those who are at most risk of famine and malnutrition?
I am also concerned that other hunger spots such as Nigeria, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo will be forgotten, and the impact there will be devastating. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the funding cuts on some of these most fragile and conflict-affected countries, where rates of malnutrition are sky high? If they have not conducted such an impact assessment, will the Minister commit to undertaking one?
I finish my remarks by picking up on what the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale said about British science and innovation being at the forefront of efforts to combat global hunger. My constituency of Sheffield Central is home to the world-leading Institute for Sustainable Food, based at Sheffield university. At the institute, scientists are developing drought-resistant crops in growth chambers, which can mimic the conditions brought on by climate change in arid conditions across the world.
With support from the UK Government, these innovations can be shared across the world to support food-insecure communities in some of the world’s toughest climates. Scientists at the institute have also developed the pioneering desert garden, a hydroponic system that enables nutrient-dense foods such as basil and tomatoes to be grown in materials that are available to communities in refugee settings, such as mattresses.
These desert gardens use minimal water and readily available conditions, so they are perfect for supporting vulnerable populations. They have been used in the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan to support those who are fleeing war and conflict to fend off malnutrition and maintain a nutrient-rich diet. Moreover, local people have been given responsibility for the projects, increasing their ownership and control, and supporting their livelihoods. I have seen this work at first hand and I am proud that it has been developed in my constituency, but not enough is known about it.
What work is the Minister doing in collaboration with other Departments, such as the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, to promote and champion the British science and expertise that is contributing to the global fight against hunger? Will the Minister explore ways to build on the UK’s existing nutrition policy expertise by partnering with Governments and research institutions to fund research in key areas such as preventing malnutrition and child wasting, adolescent nutrition and the integration of immunisation and nutrition? It makes sense to champion British science, which is at the forefront of efforts to combat global hunger and support innovative solutions.
As Members have said, the upcoming Nutrition for Growth summit is a key moment to address the global scourge of malnutrition, particularly for those who are trapped in conflict and war zones. I urge the Government to take this opportunity with both hands and not to let go the chance to make a strong commitment.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing the debate.
The Nutrition for Growth summit is an opportunity for the UK to reaffirm our country’s commitment to eradicating hunger. Since 2012, when we founded and hosted the inaugural Nutrition for Growth summit in London following our hosting of the Olympic games, Britain and British leadership have achieved so much. We helped to raise £17 billion to fight malnutrition and between 2015 and 2020, we surpassed our goal of reaching 50 million people with food assistance and nutrition-relevant programming, saving countless lives. But now we are at an inflection point, and there is a risk that progress on nutrition and the development goals is slipping.
In the UN’s recent report, we were warned that the world is on track to meet just 17% of our 2030 targets. On a further 17%, we have regressed, and nowhere has there been greater regression than on sustainable development goal 2, on zero hunger. Driven by spreading conflict, worsening climate change and the disruption of the pandemic years, the number of those suffering from malnutrition—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
We have 42 minutes left for this debate. I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Monica Harding to continue, please.
Monica Harding
It is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As I was saying, driven by spreading conflict, worsening climate change and the disruption of the pandemic years, the number of those suffering from malnutrition has risen by 150 million in five years. At this moment, we have a broader challenge. The Government have chosen not to redouble efforts to fight hunger, but to slash the official development assistance budget to its lowest level this century. We believe that that is a moral and strategic mistake that will exacerbate food insecurity and render all of us here in the UK less safe. Since the Prime Minister’s announcement in February, there has been little clarity about UK development priorities or about what existing promises this Government intend to honour.
The Nutrition Action for Systemic Change report published last year found that the Government were then tracking to meet our nutrition for growth commitment, made following the 2021 summit in Tokyo, of spending £1.5 billion on nutrition objectives between 2022 and 2030. Just one week before the development budget was cut by 40%, the then Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), again affirmed the UK’s commitment to that £1.5 billion figure. Will the Minister today repeat that pledge and assure us that the UK will not renege on the resources promised by multiple Governments to fight hunger?
In addition to worsening levels of hunger, the overall nutrition picture is growing increasingly complex. The so-called triple burden of malnutrition, obesity and vitamin deficiency requires solutions that combat all three issues together. Those solutions must encompass ready-to-use therapeutic food, vitamin A supplementation as well as other nutrients, and health interventions targeting obesity. Will the Minister share the specific steps that the FCDO is taking to ensure that UK nutrition policy addresses all dimensions of that triple burden, including by requiring that the development finance investments made by arm’s length FCDO bodies align with UK nutrition goals?
Nutrition-specific ODA, often delivered in a context of urgent humanitarian need, is indispensable. It is regularly the difference between life and death for some of the world’s poorest. As we speak, the UN World Food Programme is closing offices in Africa. That agency received about half its funding last year from USAID—the United States Agency for International Development— so is now facing acute financial pressures, cutting the delivery of lifesaving RUTF and other supplies.
The impact of USAID’s gutting is already devastating. In the coming year, reduced food assistance could result in as many as 550,000 deaths, according to The New York Times. We Liberal Democrats believe that there is a moral imperative for the UK to act in the face of that looming catastrophe. We believe that filling some of the funding gaps left by the retreat of USAID will require the UK to play a vital convening role, so could the Minister inform us of what conversations the UK is having and leading with partner nations, NGOs and other philanthropic organisations, aimed at catalysing targeted nutrition interventions?
At the same time, we must recognise that highly focused, specific interventions are capable of addressing only about 30% of the most persistent nutritional challenges, such as child stunting and child wasting. Progress on the other 70% requires progress on a wide range of nutrition-sensitive development areas, including maternal health, agricultural productivity, WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene—and climate change, and vice versa. A pregnant mother experiencing malnutrition and unable to access multiple micronutrient supplements is far more likely to give birth to a stunted child. Even vaccines are less effective when delivered to children experiencing malnutrition.
As the International Development Committee argued in its most recent report—as a Committee member, I must declare an interest—nutrition and food security are cross-cutting themes across UK ODA programming, so success requires not only highly targeted interventions, but a strategic approach that integrates nutrition throughout development work. I know that this integration is a priority for the FCDO, and I am pleased that the Minister will be championing a global compact on nutrition integration in Paris. However, according to the NASC’s 2024 report, from 2021 to 2022, the nutrition-sensitive share of the FCDO’s ODA spend actually declined. For humanitarian spending it fell from 27% to 22%, for health spending it fell from 11% to 5%, and for education spending it fell from 4% to just 1%. What concrete steps is the FCDO taking to reverse that trend and to model nutrition integration going forward? Moreover, what accountability mechanisms will be tied to the global compact on nutrition integration such that it changes behaviour and produces results?
There may be no area of development linked as closely to nutrition as conflict. The World Food Programme found that conflict was the key driver of food insecurity last year, and it showed that two thirds of those facing acute food insecurity did so in fragile or conflict-affected locations. Not only do violence, conflict and instability lead to displacement and migration, and create a breeding ground for terrorism that can threaten us here in the UK, but they undermine our professed nutrition objectives. Yet the integrated security fund, which addresses acute national security threats and is partially funded through ODA, is facing significant cuts due to the Government’s decision to slash aid. Will the Minister therefore assure us that the Government’s development cut will not result in cuts to the ODA-funded portion of the ISF?
I am also concerned that the cut will mean a further hollowing out of the UK expert capacity. When the Department for International Development was merged with the Foreign Office in 2020, it was expert teams that gave Britain the know-how on how to lead on areas such as nutrition, which were chronically under-resourced. Our capacity suffered as a result, and I urge the Minister to prioritise protecting the UK’s health and nutrition expertise, embedded in-country and in the FCDO.
I am very pleased that the UK will be represented by a Minister at the Nutrition for Growth summit. I give our envoy all our support and encouragement in convening and corralling support for a compact on nutrition integration, yet it is difficult to lead on global nutrition policy when we are stepping back from funding nutrition. I remain deeply disappointed that no new financial commitments will be announced by the Government to mark the summit.
Nutrition is foundational for development. Investments in nutrition are low cost and high impact, representing one of the highest value development initiatives. We also know how to do it. Indeed, we have achieved remarkable success, halving the proportion of people suffering from undernourishment in developing regions between 1990 and 2015. We have led that, but we are now in retreat. I urge the Government to renew that ambition, because nutrition is foundational. Without it, progress on global health, gender equality and peace building is nearly impossible, and the need for that is greater than ever.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this timely debate. He brings considerable knowledge and experience to it, not least as a long-standing International Development Committee member and as a tremendous advocate for global nutrition. Although the debate has been interrupted by votes, I have enjoyed it and found it incredibly interesting. It is fair to say that Members on both sides of this Chamber have brought considerable knowledge and perspectives, and I thank them for that.
This debate is timely, coming ahead of the Nutrition for Growth summit in Paris later this week. The summit is happening at the end of the UN decade of action on nutrition, and it aims to foster dialogue and action among diverse actors from around the world to put nutrition at the heart of the development agenda. I was pleased to meet the French special envoy on nutrition, Mr Brieuc Pont, when he visited London in December as his country was preparing to host the summit.
As Conservatives, we have very much led global action on nutrition. We convened the first Nutrition for Growth summit in 2013, where 100 stakeholders endorsed the global nutrition for growth compact and where the UK committed £575 million to nutrition-specific programmes and to reaching 50 million people by 2020. The global nutrition report found that we have reached the commitments made in London in 2013 and in Milan in 2017. We went further in 2022, and pledged to spend at least £1.5 billion up to 2030 on nutrition objectives. Those included addressing the nutrition needs of mothers, babies and children, tackling malnutrition in humanitarian emergencies and making sure that nutrition is central to the FCDO’s wider work.
In February, during her time as the Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) reiterated that £1.5 billion commitment. I understand that she was due to attend the summit in Paris this week. Following the appointment of Baroness Chapman as Development Minister, will the Minister confirm today that she will attend the summit? Can this Minister also confirm whether the Government continue to stand by the £1.5 billion by 2030 pledge and what steps are being taken to ensure that nutrition remains embedded into the FDCO’s work? We are led to understand that the UK will not be making a financial pledge at the summit, and that the Government are preparing to make a policy pledge. Can the Minister confirm whether that is still the case?
As well as playing a key role in Nutrition for Growth summits, the previous Conservative Government led many other nutrition-related initiatives. In November 2023, on the same day as publishing the International Development White Paper, we hosted the Global Food Security summit to galvanise action to deal with hunger and malnutrition, including through cutting-edge UK-funded science and technology.
The UK has a key role to play in solving these global challenges, especially through our superb science and technology and research sectors—the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) highlighted some of the work of Sheffield university. That is why the White Paper laid out our commitment to investing in agricultural technology and innovation, to address global challenges such as food security. I ask the Minister what plans there are to mobilise UK science and technology to support international development objectives such as supporting global food security.
I appreciate that we are yet to see the full detail of the changes to ODA, and we have had no clear answers from Ministers about what the priorities will be. Will the Minister confirm what the impact will be on the UK’s overall nutrition spend? If the Government still intend to make a commitment in Paris, it would be useful to have clarity on what changes we can expect. The former Minister, the right hon. Member for Oxford East, said in answer to one of my written questions that the Government were committed to continuing the integration of improved nutrition outcomes alongside successes in other sectors such as health, agriculture and humanitarian. Will the Minister outline what specific measures the FCDO will support in each of these sectors?
Members have been waiting since at least December for the Foreign Secretary to finish considering the international development review by Baroness Shafik. Can the Minister tell us if and when the Department plans to publish the review’s findings and when we can expect the Foreign Secretary’s response? Given the changes to ODA, it is only right that Members are given the opportunity to see the full detail of that review. In addition, has the review informed the wider decisions around ODA, or is it no longer fit for purpose following the changes?
Let me turn now to some country specifics and to some particularly challenging contexts that underscore the importance of this debate. In Sudan the humanitarian crisis is rapidly deteriorating: over 30 million people are in urgent need of assistance, and we see devastating food insecurity. We know that there are challenges getting aid in and distributing it effectively, so what steps are the Government taking to ensure that humanitarian aid can get through to Sudan and to open new routes? What guardrails are in place to ensure that aid reaches those who need it most, including women and girls?
In Ethiopia the World Food Programme identifies that recurrent conflict, drought, disease and inflation continue to drive up humanitarian needs—5.8 million people required food support in 2024. In 2023 we announced a new funding package of £16.6 million to support more than 600,000 people with food supplies and other nutrition. Over half of those people were women and children, and they bore the brunt of the country’s worsening crisis. Between 2015 and 2020, UK nutrition-related interventions reached 5.54 million children under five, women and adolescent girls. What is the latest assessment of the scale of humanitarian need in Ethiopia, and which of the programmes currently operating in the region are expected to continue?
Ukraine’s grain exports are crucial to ensuring global food security. Before Russia’s full-scale illegal invasion, Ukraine accounted for around 10% of global wheat exports and 12% of corn and barley exports. In 2023, Russia deliberately obstructed and withdrew from the Black sea grain initiative, and then attacked grain storage and export infrastructure. Thanks to Ukrainian resilience and innovation, our support and the support of international partners, as of February 2024 over 13 million tonnes of agricultural produce had been exported through the Black sea since September 2023. Those supplies are crucial for the resilience of global grain markets and global food security, and they are especially important for the developing world. Developing countries, including Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan, have received significant quantities of grain directly from Ukraine via that corridor. What is the Minister’s latest assessment of the quantity of grain going through the Black sea and of the resilience of Ukraine’s export infrastructure?
To conclude, this week Nutrition for Growth convenes at a crucial moment for the world, and we wish the parties a successful summit. The Conservatives are proud of the leadership we showed in bringing international partners together and in embedding nutrition at every level of the FCDO’s work. I hope the Government will build on that foundation and continue to address these challenges.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Jardine. It has been a genuine pleasure to listen to and take part in this debate between hon. Members on both sides of the House, who share a deep passion for these issues. I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing the debate, and to the APPG and the IDC for their crucial and important work.
The debate is timely, as I can confirm that my colleague Baroness Chapman will lead the UK delegation at the Nutrition for Growth summit in Paris. That shows our continued commitment to this issue. The ambassador looks forward to welcoming the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Steve Race) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) to the event she will host tomorrow at her residence to discuss these issues.
The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale gave a typically powerful and informed speech. He rightly noted the UK’s leadership on this issue. I have clearly heard his recommendations about the UK’s contribution to Nutrition for Growth, and the points he has raised in this debate and over the past months. I cannot provide him with all the assurances he requested on specific financial and related targets, but I will respond to the substance of many of the points raised by him and other hon. Members. I thank him for his kind words about our FCDO staff, with which I heartily concur.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter for his work as the co-chair of the APPG and for his kind comments about my ministerial colleague Lord Collins, who we all know has a strong passion for this issue, particularly in his role as Minister for Africa. We heard many powerful personal examples today, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. I had the honour to see similar work on hunger and nutrition in my past career in the humanitarian sector, including when I worked for World Vision, which was mentioned a number of times in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter raised a number of important points. I agree with him about the links between nutrition and health, which other hon. Members also noted. He mentioned illicit finance, and he will know of the Foreign Secretary’s important work in that area and on getting resources back into countries that need them.
It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), with his consistent and principled pressure on these issues. He rightly highlighted the important role of churches, and faith communities more broadly, on these issues, which reflects my own experience of working with such organisations. In response to him and other Members who asked about this, I can confirm that we are currently on track to meet the 2022 to 2030 commitment of £1.5 billion. To give the latest figure, we spent £366 million in 2022. I do not have more recent numbers, but I am happy to keep the House updated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West made important links between public health and nutrition—we know how crucial that is—and spoke passionately from her own experience. We heard excellent speeches from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed). She highlighted issues of conflict and food insecurity, and it was particularly important that she raised the situation in a number of places. On Sudan, our emergency assistance is helping over 1 million people, including Sudanese refugees who have fled the conflict and are seeking safety in Chad. On Gaza, UK support means that over 500,000 people have received essential healthcare and 647,000 have received food. Those are important issues, which my hon. Friend raised.
The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), asked about Ethiopia—[Interruption.] I am glad to have some inspiration on that issue. We are supporting Ethiopia through the child nutrition fund, which is helping the Government there to deliver lifesaving nutrition services through the health sector. She also made some very important points about Ukraine, and I can again confirm that we are providing over £240 million for humanitarian support. We are also providing support on issues such as energy and reconstruction, which are crucial to dealing with food and nutrition needs.
I understand the concerns that Members around the Chamber have raised about the Prime Minister’s recent announcement on the necessary cuts to our aid budget. We all know the challenges we face today—the challenges to our national security and to the security of Europe and our world order are truly unprecedented—and the choice made about ODA and defence spending was extremely difficult. It is one that the Prime Minister did not take lightly, as he shares our collective pride in the difference that UK support is making in saving and improving lives all around the world.
The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the entire ministerial team strongly believe in the importance of our international development agenda for the national interest and our standing in the world, and in terms of our moral obligations to serve the most vulnerable. I have been privileged to see at first hand the impact of that work on many occasions. We have a proud record, and as the Prime Minister has said, we are committed to spending 0.7% of GNI as soon as conditions allow. Until then, we will use every pound we have to focus more than ever on maximising impact and value for money. However, for many of the challenges we face—including in this area—we require more than money, and the partnerships we will be creating in this important work on nutrition are part of that work.
The UK’s contribution to this year’s summit squarely reflects that approach. We have worked tirelessly with the Government of France to prepare for a successful summit in Paris, and we have mobilised commitments from a wide range of stakeholders. Central to that is an initiative we are launching tomorrow, which is the global compact on nutrition integration, which came up in many of the speeches. It is designed to ensure that policies and investments in key sectors such as health, food and climate place nutrition at their heart. It will help us to make the biggest impact while making the most of limited resources, including through more joined-up service delivery and targeting root causes more effectively. It will have an important impact on our wider work on climate resilience and economic growth, which of course depend on a well-nourished population, and the wider work we are doing on health has been made very clear.
The compact will improve our chance of making progress at the scale and speed we need. Many good examples have been reflected on today, but the compact will support mothers and children to access supplements and therapeutic foods as part of routine visits to primary healthcare, and make sure that the poorest can easily purchase from local markets all the foods they need for a healthy diet. We have already taken that approach with many of our partners, and I have given some examples already. We also support farmers and businesses to produce the most nutritious foods—for example, lentils in Nepal and vegetables in Ethiopia.
We cannot do this alone; we need others to join us if we are to succeed. We need to continue our work on integrating nutrition with our wider development work. One of the areas I would highlight is that only a tiny percentage of climate finance is allocated to nutrition, which is an unacceptable missed opportunity. We need to work with our partners to give more attention to the nutrition impact of their policies and investments in food systems more broadly. That is why we are calling on all those with a stake in Nutrition for Growth—countries in the global north and south, multilaterals, private investors and civil society organisations—to back the new global compact. That more integrated, coherent approach will ensure that the sum of everyone’s commitments is greater than the parts. This is a challenging time for the summit, given the global economic climate, but we think it will set out a good way forward and bring people together.
The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and others have lobbied for new financial pledges and specific targets. The spending review and the need to look afresh at the specifics of our portfolio mean that we cannot announce a financial commitment this week—I want to be honest with the House about that—but we will submit the specifics of our commitment in due course through the official Nutrition for Growth channels, noting that France has set a deadline of the end of June. We will of course keep the House updated on that and on the work of the compact as we develop it.
Before I end, I want to say a few words about our continued commitment to tackle child wasting—the deadliest form of malnutrition. Only two weeks ago, Lord Collins reiterated his commitment at the launch of the joint UN initiative for the prevention of wasting—a new partnership with UNICEF, the World Health Organisation and the World Food Programme. That important part of our work complements our work on scaling up treatment through the child nutrition fund, which my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter asked about. Since the FCDO’s initial investment of £8 million, the CNF has attracted more than $29 million from 16 partner Governments and $300 million from philanthropists, including a recent pledge from the Bezos family to match further contributions with up to $250 million. Our contributions to the child nutrition fund were £15.74 million as of the end of 2024 through the child wasting innovation programme. Again, we are working in partnership with a range of sources and making important contributions.
This has been a hugely helpful debate. It is hugely informative to hear the strength of feeling in the House on these issues. I hope that my words today, and the important words of Baroness Chapman tomorrow in Paris, will reassure the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, members of the APPG and the Opposition spokespeople that we are not turning our back on the world and that nutrition will remain a key part of our development agenda.
David Mundell
I commend you, Ms Jardine, on your chairmanship in challenging circumstances in the House. We have still managed to have a very constructive and informed debate. Of course, there are significant challenges on these issues—not least financial challenges—but I feel that the very fact that this debate has taken place will positively feed into the summit and send the message that the United Kingdom takes these issues seriously. I will certainly do my best to convey that.
I should have thanked Lord Collins earlier for his work in the APPG before coming into government, and for the work he does now in the very challenging role of Minister for Africa. I thank my co-chair, the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race), who spoke of his personal experience of seeing on the ground the difference that interventions can make. That is so important. It really is worth Members who get the opportunity making such visits, because they will see the difference that is being made.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised an important matter that affects not just nutrition but all development issues: securing public support. We must join with civil society groups across the UK and more widely to ensure that there is public support for development, particularly in relation to nutrition, which is a significant contributor to development—indeed, it is foundational, and critical to achieving most sustainable development goals.
The hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) made the important point that a 1% increase in food insecurity leads to a 2% increase in migration. If people are serious about dealing with migration, they must be serious about dealing with food insecurity.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made an important point on the need to ensure continued UK global leadership on these and other issues; otherwise Russia, China and other malevolent actors will become involved. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) set out, we have done tremendously well in soft power terms in our work on the global stage, but we cannot give that up.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) made a very important contribution on two points, the first in relation to conflict, which is so important to the issue of malnutrition and food insecurity. I was very moved by the exhibition of drawings by children from Sudan, and a lot of the drawings were of people being shot while gathering food. It brought home the connection between conflict and food insecurity. The hon. Lady mentioned the University of Sheffield’s institute for sustainable food.
The International Development Committee visited Kew Gardens to hear about its work. I recently visited the John Innes research centre in Norwich with the APPG. A tremendous amount of work is being done on ensuring that we have more sustainable farming and food production that takes account of climate change and local circumstances.
I thank the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) for her continued support on this issue. She has been a key member of both the International Development Committee, including in producing our report, and the APPG, and she made a particularly important point about ensuring that the UK keeps its expert capacity. I am very positive, as the Minister recognised, about the team in the FCDO, but we have to ensure that that capacity remains if we want to have global leadership. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills did a great deal in her time at the FCDO to make sure that UK leadership was maintained in sometimes challenging circumstances—I think that is the best way to put it.
I welcome not just the content but the tone of the Minister’s contribution. I know that there are many in the Government who want to ensure that we still maximise the benefit we get from ODA spending. We make the case that spending on malnutrition has the best bang for buck, and many Members have spoken of the output from the relative input.
As the Minister mentioned the child nutrition fund, I hope he will be sympathetic to the call the hon. Member for Exeter and I made on increasing that contribution to £50 million. Given the longer pledging window, I look forward to the post-spending review, as I hope the Government might come back with a financial pledge. That is certainly the mood of this debate.
The Nutrition for Growth summit in Paris is a key moment for the international community to come together and address the scourge of malnutrition. The UK has a leading role to play and, on the basis of this debate, I hope it will play that role—I look forward to observing it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Nutrition for Growth Paris Summit 2025.
Seriously Ill Children: Financial Support for Parents
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I will call Chris Hinchliff to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered financial support for parents caring for seriously ill children.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
I begin by paying tribute to my constituents Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, who are in the Public Gallery today. Their tireless advocacy, following the tragic loss of their six-year-old son Hugh to cancer in 2021, is an inspiration to me, and I know this feeling is shared by colleagues across the House.
Ceri, Frances and the charity they set up, It’s Never You, have highlighted the immense challenges faced by families caring for seriously ill children. When a child is born, there is a support system in place for parents. Maternity pay provides a safety net for those who must stop work to care for their child, and the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 covers the parents of babies who are admitted to neonatal care within 28 days of birth. However, if a child falls seriously ill outside those periods, parents must navigate burdensome and insufficient systems that were not designed for families facing what is, for most, the very hardest time of their lives.
Ceri and Frances experienced this unfairness at first hand during the 100-mile round trips they had to make to be with Hugh during his treatment. Thankfully, they were financially stable, but they witnessed the harsh reality of our benefits system as they saw other parents being forced to sell their homes and give up work to care for their seriously ill children. Of course, these issues are compounded by the cost of living pressures that all families face, even without family emergencies piling on.
Approximately 68% of women and 57% of men with mental health problems are parents, which highlights the emotional strain that families across the country already face. Last year, a quarter of parents with children aged 18 and under said they struggled to provide sufficient food for their children, and Shelter estimates that 1.7 million private renters do not have enough savings to pay their rent if they were to become unemployed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate, and I spoke to him beforehand. Charities such as the Family Fund provide a wide range of grants to families in Northern Ireland who are raising a disabled or seriously ill child or young adult on a low income, to spend on kitchen appliances—a fridge, a cooker or a washing machine—or clothing, bedding, sensory or play equipment, technology or just a much-needed family break.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact such charities are stepping in no way abdicates the Government’s responsibility to do more to help families when they need help? He is speaking about compassion. Compassionate action is what we need.
Chris Hinchliff
I agree that we should commend such charities. The hon. Gentleman shows moral clarity in rightly saying that the Government have an obligation to support families going through this incredibly difficult time.
Research shows that all the factors I have described mean that families are on a difficult footing even before facing the additional pressures of caring for a seriously ill child. When families need extra support during such challenging times, they are often met with bureaucratic hurdles that only add to their mental and financial stress. To access disability living allowance, parents face a 90-day waiting period, a daunting 40-page application form and long waits for responses. Universal credit and shared parental leave are unsuitable options for too many parents in this situation, as the rigid eligibility criteria mean that many parents of seriously ill children simply do not qualify.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
My constituent Vicky came to my constituency surgery and spoke about Hugh’s law and how she had to take time off to look after her son, who has thankfully recovered. Does my hon. Friend agree that the £750 grant would provide certainty and help parents, by stopping the rigmarole of going through universal credit and those sorts of things? Would the grant help?
Chris Hinchliff
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I encourage the Minister to reflect on the fact that all the evidence we hear from It’s Never You shows that this very real problem is impacting families right across the country.
The systems that are in place were not designed to accommodate the urgent and unpredictable nature of childhood illness. Studies have shown that delays in financial support during critical life events significantly increase psychological stress and deepen financial instability. Research published in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology found that economic insecurity heightens parental stress, which can in turn hinder a family’s ability to provide the best possible care for their child.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for his excellent advocacy for Hugh’s law since his election to Parliament. I wholeheartedly agree with the campaign. Two families wrote to me in anticipation of this debate. One family’s child was diagnosed with stage 4 liver cancer at the age of just two. They were forced to drastically reduce their joint working hours so they could not only care for their sick child but also look after their other children. It is an enormous burden:
“No parent should face financial ruin while fighting for their child’s life.”
Does the hon. Member agree that day one support for these parents, as advocated by the Hugh’s law campaign, would be very welcome?
Chris Hinchliff
The hon. Lady eloquently highlights the importance of this campaign. I wholeheartedly agree with her.
The benefits system available to parents in these situations leaves a gaping hole for the families of seriously ill children, who find themselves with nowhere to turn, grappling with financial ruin, growing debt or the devastating thought of not being able to be at their child’s bedside when they are needed most. The British Journal of Social Work reports that families in medical crises without immediate financial support often face long-term debt, mental health struggles and career disruption, even after treatment ends.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this critical debate. He mentions the significant financial impact on families who are trying to make sure their children get the care they need. Statistics from Young Lives vs Cancer, and from my meetings with constituents in Redditch and the villages, show that some parents actually miss getting their children to appointments because of the financial challenges they face. This is not just about what happens to their long-term financial security; children are missing important appointments because their parents cannot afford to get them there.
Chris Hinchliff
I agree that the gaping hole in our benefits system is devastating for families. My hon. Friend once again highlights how incredibly important it is that the Government resolve this as a matter of urgency.
Over 80% of surveyed families experienced a significant decline in household finances due to their child’s illness. The core principle underpinning our welfare state is that nobody should have to consider their bank balance when faced with challenges not of their own making. Benefits exist to ensure that when life deals a cruel hand, its cost does not crush those who are already burdened. Instead, we share the responsibility across society, leaving nobody behind.
There is no group more deserving of support than families caring for seriously ill children. If, as a society, we fail to address this gap and spread the burden, we betray the very principle on which our welfare state was founded. Hugh’s law offers a straightforward solution to plug this gap, by providing immediate, non-means-tested financial support to parents of children diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses. It would provide a grant of £750 a month for up to three months, activated from the day of diagnosis. Eligibility would be limited to children diagnosed with life-threatening or chronic conditions requiring hospital care. Applications would be completed by the healthcare provider, cutting out needless stress for families and meaning no more 40-page forms.
There are examples of similar policies across the world, including in Sweden, France and Canada, where the employment insurance family caregiver benefit provides financial support to parents caring for a critically ill or injured child under 18 years old. Benefits are paid for up to 35 weeks, helping families to manage the financial strain while focusing on their child’s care. It is estimated that Hugh’s law would have an annual cost of just £6 million to £7 million and would support around 4,000 families annually.
To put that into context, the figure represents just 0.0025% of the Department for Work and Pensions’ 2023-24 budget. Given the unimaginable challenges these families face, caring for a seriously ill child while grappling with emotional strain, financial hardship and uncertainty, it is clear that the cost of such support is minuscule in comparison with the burden they carry. Life does not stop when a child gets sick. In fact, families often face higher day-to-day costs that impact them immediately—not in 90 days’ time, when support might become available.
Hugh’s law would offer much needed financial relief, allowing parents to focus on what matters most, being by their child’s side, without the crushing weight of financial anxiety. We have heard about the immense challenges faced by families caring for seriously ill children, which go beyond emotional strain to include financial hardship and bureaucratic obstacles. The tireless advocacy of Ceri and Frances, through their It’s Never You charity, has highlighted a gap in our welfare system that we simply cannot ignore.
Hugh’s law offers a practical and compassionate solution: immediate support to parents with a child diagnosed with a life-threatening illness. Some 70 MPs signed my letter to the Prime Minister, and I have since written to the Department for Work and Pensions and met the Minister, who advised that the policy could be pursued with the Department for Business and Trade. I have now requested a meeting with the relevant Minister there.
My request to the Government and the Minister today is simple: embrace this campaign and take practical steps to make Hugh’s law a reality. I will meet with any Minister necessary to advance this policy, but the Government must do the right thing and work proactively to turn Ceri and Frances’s inspiring campaign into law.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate, commend his consistent advocacy on this topic, and welcome the thoughtful and passionate speech he has made this afternoon.
I have now met my hon. Friend twice, and his constituents Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, who founded It’s Never You—which I think is also what they said when they received their son’s diagnosis. I thank them for telling me what had happened and telling me frankly about the journey they went through with their son Hugh, who was in hospital with a very serious illness. Their heartfelt reflections and the Hugh’s law campaign help people like me to understand and appreciate much better the emotional and financial impacts that parents experience at an extremely difficult time. I commend the outstanding work that that charity and others do to support the parents and families of children with cancer and other very serious health conditions.
Many parents caring for children and young people with serious illnesses are likely to need additional support through social security. Caring naturally has an impact on work and therefore, very likely, on household income. Financial support is available through universal credit, and if needed support can be available on day one through a universal credit advance. Alongside the universal credit standard allowance, additional amounts—the child element, the disabled child addition, the carer element and housing costs—are added as appropriate. Of course, universal credit is means-tested, and I recognise that it will not help households with greater financial resources, but it is there as a safety net if those financial circumstances change.
In the tragic circumstances of a child dying, the universal credit bereavement run-on is in place. It is designed to ensure financial stability for the initial period following the bereavement, and it can last for up to three months. Universal credit elements—the child element, the disabled child addition, the carer element and housing costs—will all remain in payment for the assessment period in which the child died and two further assessment periods beyond that. To support parents at this very difficult time, benefit conditionality is switched off for six months, which ensures that bereaved parents do not have to work or search for work during that period. After three months, a work coach will be in touch to offer additional voluntary support, which may or may not be taken up.
There is also disability living allowance for children aged under 16 and personal independence payments for those over 16. They are available if a child or young person’s condition or illness is of a long-term nature and gives rise to care, daily living or mobility needs. They are not means-tested. We are currently consulting, following last week’s Green Paper on pathways to work, on raising the age at which young people move from DLA on to PIP, the adult disability benefit, from 16 to 18. That proposal has been quite widely welcomed since we published the Green Paper.
Comparing January to February 2020, just before the pandemic, with September to October 2024, the number applying for DLA for children has increased by 193%—it has nearly tripled in that period. As a result, I am afraid the average journey time for DLA claims has risen; it is up now to about 20 weeks. I very much regret those delays and the Department is working to reduce them. We have increased the number of staff dealing with applications; they are clearing cases in date order, to be fair to everybody.
These benefits are a contribution to the extra costs that may arise as a result of a disability or health impairment. They are assessed on the needs arising, not on the condition itself, so they are available irrespective of the diagnosis. The highest level of benefit is over £9,500 per year. The benefit is generally paid to the child’s parent or guardian, so it can help with overall family finances and be used as the family choose to meet their needs. Many children and young people with serious illnesses may spend a lot of time in hospital. For those under 18, DLA and PIP continue to be paid in full, which is a difference from the adult benefit.
I will now address the three-month qualifying period—which my hon. Friend rightly referred to in his remarks—that applies to disability benefits such as DLA and PIP. Payment begins once the three-month period has been completed, which helps to establish that the disability and resulting care and support needs are of a long-standing nature and provides a division between short and long-term disability. Claims can be submitted during the three-month qualifying period. Consideration will always be given to whether the qualifying period has already been served, at least in part, before the date of claim.
I want to highlight this point: the three-month qualifying period begins when the care needs began, and we depend on the parents to tell us when that was. It could well be a week or a significant period before the diagnosis or the hospital admission, and before the benefit application was submitted. It is important to look at when the care needs began, because that could have been well before the application was made. If the child sadly has an end-of-life diagnosis, as my hon. Friend knows, special rules apply: claims are fast-tracked and the three-month qualifying period does not apply. The highest rate of the DLA care component or the enhanced rate of the PIP daily living component will be paid from the date of the claim.
My officials are currently exploring the legal implications of another measure that has been proposed, which would introduce a run-on for child DLA and extend disability living allowance for a period after the death of a child. They will report on their conclusions once they have reached them. Receiving DLA and PIP can passport to a range of additional support, such as premiums in income-related benefits, carer’s allowance, the Motability scheme and exemption from the benefit cap, providing further help for families.
Help from social security is part of a wider commitment on the part of the Government. For children and young people who have cancer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has relaunched the children and young people cancer taskforce, which is focused on identifying tangible improvements for that particular patient group. I commend the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who co-chairs that taskforce and will spearhead its work on patient experience alongside her co-chair, Professor Darren Hargrave of University College London and Great Ormond Street hospital.
The taskforce will examine a wide range of issues across both clinical and non-clinical care, early diagnosis, genomic testing and treatment, research, innovation and, importantly, patient experience, looking at issues such as travel, food and psychological support. Ceri and Frances will be in a position to say a good deal about that, drawing on their own experiences in hospital with their son.
The cost of travel can be a real problem for families of children with serious illnesses. The healthcare travel costs scheme provides financial assistance to patients in England who do not themselves have a medical need for transport, but need help with the costs of travelling to NHS services. The Government recognise that some patients and their families who one might think should benefit from that scheme are in fact unable to do so as it is currently configured. The Department of Health and Social Care is looking at that issue and whether more should be done, alongside its wider work on cancer.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) and I have just been talking about something that we all feel is very important. When a child is experiencing terrible bad health—bad health that, as the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire said, could lead to their death—the pressure on the parents and immediate family is enormous. All they want to do is be with their child and love their child all the time. They need someone there to help—“Here are the forms you need to fill out; here is the help we can give you”—to take the pressure off so that they can focus entirely on their child. That is the issue.
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the pressures on the family in those circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire referred to the fact that from April this year, the Department for Business and Trade is introducing a new entitlement of up to 12 weeks of neonatal care leave and pay for those with babies in neonatal care, to make sure that parents have appropriate support during that time—for exactly the reason the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has just set out. That new entitlement was introduced under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which started as a private Member’s Bill in the previous Parliament and received cross-party support. When opening this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire said that he will speak to Ministers in that Department about some ideas along those lines.
It is important that all parents of children with serious illnesses are supported to return to or remain in work, if that is what they choose to do. Carers for seriously ill children are already protected from employment discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and parents are entitled to up to 18 weeks’ unpaid parental leave to look after their children for any reason.
The Government’s new Employment Rights Bill will make it easier to access that entitlement, and will make the leave available from day one of starting a new job. It will also make it more likely that flexible working requests will be accepted by employers. To support existing, new and potential unpaid carers to make informed decisions about combining work and care, the Job Help website provides advice and information all in one place, and our new deal for working people will provide further support and help.
This debate has reminded us all that having a child who is seriously ill is surely one of the most worrying and stressful situations a parent can experience. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire for the initiative, which has given us the opportunity to talk about that today. There are no current plans to introduce a day one, non-means-tested grant for parents in this situation, like that proposed in the Hugh’s law campaign and supported in this debate, but I underline that there is already significant support offered by my Department. That is just part of the very important work across Government to improve support for parents in these circumstances, including, in particular, the relaunched children and young people cancer taskforce.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. It is an important and sensitive subject, and I commend him for pursuing it so energetically, the cause having been raised with him so effectively by his constituents. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, and I have no doubt at all that we will return to this subject.
Question put and agreed to.
Construction Standards: New Build Homes
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered construction standards for new build homes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It is an honour to hold this debate today on the construction standards for new build homes. I will start by thanking the tradespeople who work in my constituency—the brickies, sparkies, plasterers, plumbers, joiners and groundworkers, to mention just a few. I know first-hand how hard they work and how poorly they can be treated sometimes. It is important to note throughout this debate that the quality of the work of most tradespeople is something we and they should be very proud of. The quality of new builds is an issue for many of my constituents. Having one’s own home is a dream for many people across the country, including in my constituency of Sherwood Forest. Having a safe, affordable and warm home for all is something we should all strive for.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is clear that the issue is not necessarily with the workers, but with the developers. There must be rules and legislation in place to ensure that developers cannot cut corners or ignore the guidelines, and that they supply safe properties. If that does not happen, the Government need to enforce it, with fines if necessary.
Michelle Welsh
I thank the hon. Member for his important intervention. I will say more about that later.
Over 70% of people in Sherwood Forest own their own home.
Michelle Welsh
Over 70% of people in my constituency of Sherwood Forest own their own home, either outright or with a mortgage or loan, and a large proportion of them will be living in a new build home.
I know that we need to build more homes across the country and I am proud that this Labour Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million quality homes over the course of this Parliament. Personally, I know the importance of growing up in a safe, warm house—a place to call home. Of course, new homes that are built will be for homebuyers, for social housing and for housing some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. However, the key to the Government’s commitment must be quality.
There is a growing narrative around new build homes, suggesting that their construction standards are lower than those of homes built earlier. That is because we too often see new build homes that are not fit for purpose, and that are damaged, draughty or unsafe to live in. It is wrong that when someone moves into a new home or into their first ever house, they may not get the quality that they are paying for.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that not only the house must be of a very high quality, but the surrounding estate that the house is built on? That is essential because the guarantees and building certificates that come with a home do not relate to that surrounding estate, and if there are problems with, for example, the drains or the roads, it can be very difficult to get them fixed, which is a nightmare for a new homeowner.
Michelle Welsh
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and I completely agree with her point, which my constituents have also raised with me. Homebuyers deserve to feel confident that their new home is safe and will not begin to crumble as soon as the key is in the door.
I will refer to the experience of one of my constituents with their new build home. Kelly and her husband Simon moved into their new home in Bilsthorpe in October 2024. They opted to go for a new build home because of their disabled son, thinking that a new build would be clean and that they would not have to spend much time adjusting it to meet their son’s needs.
Almost immediately, however, they realised that the high-standard and handcrafted home that they had been promised was not to be. They discovered numerous issues with the house. These included an incorrectly fitted and sized boiler cylinder, which left them without heating for three days; an improperly installed bath. which dropped and left gaps in the tiles; dirty tiles; damage to the flooring; and windows with scratches and stickers left on. I could go on. All of this was on top of the usual moving house stress. I know from my own experience that the days and weeks leading up to moving house are taken over by worry about what could go wrong. That a new home could contain even more nightmares is the last thing on someone’s mind.
When Kelly and Simon raised their issues with their constructors and builders, Harron Homes, they were met with more bad treatment. Through their complaints, my constituents learned that despite some of these issues being known to the site manager and sales executive, the home was in fact signed off. Harron Homes stated that there was “nothing to stop them” living in the property and that it was “happy” with the state of the home. I know everyone here will agree that the conditions my constituents faced in the house were certainly not good enough, and should have stopped them from being allowed to live in the property, especially with a disabled son.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I feel for the hon. Member’s constituents. In Silsden, in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, Harron Homes carried out a development of 50 plus properties where my constituents faced exactly the same challenges and scenarios of snagging that she is quite rightly indicating. Alongside her, I reiterate my call to the likes of Harron Homes to, essentially, sort themselves out for the benefit of the constituents of us both.
Michelle Welsh
I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman.
When moving into a new home, a high quality and safe living environment is expected. We should not be expecting anyone to live in properties that do not meet these standards.
What has further shocked me about this case is the treatment of my constituents by Harron Homes. In an email, Kelly and Simon were described as “a pain” and they have had to wait weeks for repairs, and even just for a response. They deserve better, yet they are not alone in their experience.
Sara, a constituent in Hucknall, got in touch with me immediately following my election in July, regarding her ongoing case with Persimmon Homes. Like Kelly and Simon, Sara walked into her new home to find it completely below standards, with over 117 different faults and damages across the property. These included damaged flooring, poor insultation leading to cold spots, and plumbing issues. The company had even left my constituent with a broken patio door that had large gaps around the side, leaving her and her family fearing for their safety as the door could not be locked. This has understandably been extremely distressing for Sara and for her elderly mother. While Persimmon Homes has offered Sara some money to put towards the cost of repairs, it will not be enough to cover the full extent of the damages and faults in her home. Over 70 defects still remain. It is wrong that Sara was ever in this position, and that the construction standards of her home were not properly monitored. How many more families like Sara’s have to battle just to get the quality of home they originally paid for?
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and for the case she is setting out. This is something that I have experienced with residents in Mid Sussex over a number of years, particularly in the village of Hurstpierpoint. The village has taken considerable numbers of new houses, and there have been houses among those developments that have been substandard. I think in particular of a family who had a brand-new house where, if you ran your hand down the wall, you could tell there was a film of grey mould. It took years of hassling the housing association and the developer for them even to admit that there was a problem and that they were are at fault.
Does the hon. Member agree that if we are to win the hearts and minds of people who are sceptical about housing growth in their villages and towns, confidence in the quality of new build housing must be beyond question?
Michelle Welsh
I completely agree. I was pleased that the Government announced they are accepting some of the recommendations in the Competition and Markets Authority’s housebuilding market study. I am particularly pleased that we are implementing a statutory UK-wide new homes ombudsman scheme and supporting the development of a voluntary ombudsman scheme to improve consumer protection ahead of the statutory scheme’s launch. For too long, customers have felt like they have nowhere to turn, are not being listened to by the big developers, and do not know their rights. I hope this is a step towards changing that.
I ask the Minister that when drafting the new UK-wide scheme, the Government put quality at the heart and ensure that people have all the necessary protection in cases such as those of my constituents. We must also have better oversight and accountability for companies that do not deliver high-quality construction standards. It is vital that we showcase what good practice looks like. I know there are many builders who do an exceptional job, and take great pride in their work. We cannot let the reputation of new build homes be ruined by a few rogue companies.
I mentioned earlier that I am proud that this Government have committed to delivering 1.5 million quality homes. In my constituency, the quality has sometimes been very lacking, the infrastructure has been very lacking, and the local Ashfield district council has been gerrymandering with its local plan, which continues to put precious historical land at risk, while there are more than enough brownfield sites to be used across the district. I ask the Minister that when we deliver these homes, the necessary steps are taken to ensure that the right companies and builders are selected to complete this work; that we work to provide the infrastructure that is needed; and that when councils let their communities down, like Ashfield district council has, the Government will step in.
I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government and local authorities have the necessary oversight powers to ensure that quality is maintained throughout the house building process. We have a real opportunity to build the homes we desperately need, while beginning to close the skills gap and shutting out rogue companies that underperform. Tradespeople need protection so that they are able to do a high-quality job.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech, and I agree with many of her points. Does she agree that when someone buys a new home, not only do they expect to have the mains water running, electric and gas, but in this day and age they expect to have a good broadband connection? Although the last Government made significant progress with obliging new house builders to connect properties, the £2,000 cap is sometimes giving developers an opt-out—a get-out—from connecting some properties to high-quality broadband. Does she agree that we should go further to ensure that all properties have access to high-speed broadband?
Michelle Welsh
I completely agree with that, as somebody who represents a constituency that has a large very rural chunk. With these new builds it is really important that such communities stay connected.
Future generations deserve to know that they are buying and/or living in quality homes, whether that is in new social housing, or their own home that they have purchased. Our construction workers of today and tomorrow, and the future of our housing, rely on us, as a Government, to get this right.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Because of the various interventions, we can now continue until 7.47 pm this evening.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this important debate. I am very happy about it, because for about 10 years Persimmon Homes, which she mentioned, has been on my radar both as a local councillor and as a Member of Parliament.
We have an estate in Huthwaite in my constituency called the Mill Lane estate, which was built by Persimmon some 12 or 13 years ago. The standard of work was, to say the least, quite shoddy. There were lots of snagging issues when people moved in, but it is too late then—they have paid the money, they have got the mortgage and they are in these houses with dodgy patios, patio doors that do not fit, kitchens falling to pieces, uneven floors, walls that are not lined up and doors that do not fit. When they complain to Persimmon, it takes ages to come out and see people and put the work right.
In fact, Persimmon did not come out at all, so I ended up, as a councillor, putting in formal complaints on behalf of the residents who had snagging problems. I did it through the previous MP’s office, and lo and behold, once the MP got involved and we put in formal complaints, Persimmon started to come round to people’s houses and put the problems right. However, it should not be for somebody who has just forked out thousands and thousands of pounds, and made themselves skint to get their new dream home, to have to go to the local MP or councillor to complain about a brand-new but shoddy home and try to get the work put right. The owner of a brand-new home would expect it to be right first time. Imagine waking up one morning and seeing all these problems after being in there for a week. That has been happening to residents in my constituency.
We have another Persimmon estate in Ashfield—the Owston Road estate in Annesley. Persimmon—I will name and shame it because I think it is important to do so, as it has been dreadful to my constituents—decided to put a road on this estate made out of semi-permeable blocks of stone. It is not a normal road, but a type of block paving that has been put on the whole estate. Nottinghamshire county council had never seen this block paving before, so it quite rightly refused to adopt the estate, because once it adopted the estate, it would be responsible for the block paving. They have been arguing the toss for over 10 years, and I have been working on this for 10 years as a councillor and an MP. Every year or so, Persimmon staff turn up on site with their high-vis jackets and their boots, and they meet me and speak to residents. They promise to have a plan to put it all right within six months, and six months later Persimmon has swapped staff or sacked somebody, and another person turns up.
This has been going on for 10 years, and I have a resident called Mr Warhurst—Alan Warhurst—who has been campaigning with me for the past 10 years. I actually feel sorry for this bloke, because it has got to the point where he thinks he is banging his head against a brick wall. The killer is that when people try to sell their houses, they may struggle. Some of them may struggle to get a mortgage on these houses, because the estate is in essence a private one. Nobody has adopted it, and nobody wants to adopt it or the highway, because it could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to put this work right.
I have a solution. I am not sure whether the Minister will agree with me, but I strongly suggest this for house builders such as Persimmon. Don’t get me wrong; I have had this with Ben Bailey, Avant and other house builders, but they have been much better and much more forthcoming in putting right the repairs. I suggest that if we have persistent problems with a house builder, we should reject any planning application from it in the future, until it starts to build houses correctly. I think that is the only way to stop these people.
When a council adopts a new estate, it takes on full responsibility, and the house builder knows that. However, once the house owner has purchased the house—once they are in their house, have the keys and have a mortgage —they are locked into that house and they are stuck with it. They cannot really battle with the house builder, whereas a local authority can. The local authority holds all the aces. It can say, “No, we’re not adopting that road, these pavements or these street lights until you’ve built them to our standards.” It is the same with the local water authority, such as Severn Trent, which can say to the house builder, “No, we’re not adopting that sewer or that freshwater supply until you’ve built them to our standards.”
John Lamont
The hon. Member is doing an excellent job of highlighting the problems with new house developments in his constituency. The National House Building Council will in many cases provide a guarantee backing up the developer to fix the repairs that are required, but I have certainly had difficulties with the NHBC in the past. Has he any reflections on the role it plays?
Lee Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which, as usual, is spot on. He is quite right, and I have had loads of these problems over the years. In fact, I had a big project running on a few of my new house builds in Ashfield a few years ago, and I was getting exactly that problem. People think they have a 10-year guarantee, but when they try to get in touch with the NHBC to get the work put right, they find it is next to useless. That is why the people on these new housing estates are contacting their local councillor and their local MP in great numbers.
While I am here, I will give right hon. and hon. Members a tip. Because of what the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest has said, if they get a new housing estate in their patch—I am getting one shortly—they should go and knock on the doors, deliver a snagging leaflet or do a survey to ask people whether they are satisfied with their house builder. Hon. Members would be surprised how many surveys we get back from constituents who are deeply unhappy with the state of their house.
Alison Bennett
I have done exactly that. I sent out a street letter and flushed out all sorts of problems with new build estates. Problems with management companies sometimes come up in those surveys. Is that something that the hon. Gentleman wants to comment on?
Lee Anderson
It is. We have had problems with management companies in one of my estates in Kirkby-in-Ashfield over the maintenance of a local park and some of the green spaces that come with these new house builds.
I want to touch on what the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest said about our problems with Ashfield district council. We have not had a local plan in Ashfield for nearly 25 years. Each time the administration changes, it falls out over a local plan. That has meant that developers can apply to build anywhere in Ashfield, and they are attacking our green spaces at great pace. In 2018, we were promised a local plan to protect our green spaces within three years by the current independent-led council, the Ashfield Independents, because they had ripped up the old plan. Fast forward seven years and there is no local plan. One has been put in, but it does not protect our green spaces. It will allow developers to run roughshod over our green spaces in Ashfield. It will allow developers of new houses to come in and build their shiny new houses on green fields, which will lead to loads of problems. In my constituency, we will get loads of people complaining about their new build houses.
As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said, people expect to have the internet connected to their houses these days, and some of these housing companies are deliberately misleading their customers. They do not admit that there will not be any broadband in the houses they are selling. Most people assume that in this day and age, it is another utility like their gas, electric and water. It has been a complete nightmare for some of my constituents on the newer estates. I will close there, and I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest once again for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I want to talk about some of the new build housing in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper)—a very able colleague—and I have had difficulties with the same set of developers, so I will hand over to him to talk about the difficulties we have had with the housing in Spen View and Astbury Park, which were dealt with by Stewart Milne Homes. I will also not be giving an honourable mention to the job that Vistry has done in Loachbrook Meadow in Congleton. It is trying to persuade my residents to take on a management company and take over management of the estate, despite the fact that it has not built the sewers or roads to adoptable standards. I can see nods around the room; it is clear to me that I am not the only one suffering with these difficulties.
Currently, however, the leading problem developer in my constituency is Zenith House Developments, which produced Scholars Place in Sandbach. Scholars Place, a mixed development of detached homes and social housing, looks absolutely beautiful. Unfortunately, it was not finished with any sort of sewage pumping station, and that is as bad as one might imagine. At the moment, sewage from these homes simply goes into a well, which has a semi-piece of plasterboard covering it and is inadequately fenced, so it is totally accessible and a massive drowning hazard of excrement. It is incredibly dangerous, and it is about 200 metres, at most, from a local primary school. It is absolutely horrific. There are some real questions about whether we have sufficient legal powers in this country, given that that was ever allowed to happen. It is a public health hazard, causing sewage to back up into people’s homes and on to the streets. The road literally runs with poo.
The problems associated with this development and the Spen View development have an impact on social housing providers. In both cases, there were section 106 agreements and social housing was provided. When these enormous and expensive problems occur for residents, the social housing providers that part own the shared ownership homes on such sites become financially entangled in trying to deal with the matter. Because they part own the homes, it is of course appropriate that they should help their residents. However—I suspect this is a national problem—social housing providers, which need to provide social homes, effectively have to cross-subsidise the failings of the private sector in producing these houses. It is an absolutely shocking situation.
It is important to me that we implement section 42 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which would improve the situation around sewer adoption, and that we have an equivalent for highways adoption. The problem across every one of the developments that I have mentioned is that the sewers and roads have not been dealt with properly. People have bought their dream homes—they are so excited—and then they find they have an enormous financial liability. It is a widespread problem in my constituency, and it is destroying people’s lives. It is destroying their mental health; the level of distress among my constituents cannot be overstated.
While we are on the topic of new build homes, I will briefly touch on disability and accessibility in relation to construction standards. In London, category 4 disability access as a planning requirement has been the norm since 2004, but in the rest of the country that is not the case. Baseline category 1 only enables a household to be hypothetically visitable by a disabled person, and it does not guarantee ease of access for someone in a wheelchair. It seems to me to be a very basic minimum that homes that we are building now should be visitable by people who use wheelchairs.
We have an ageing population and lots of people who are waiting for accessible housing. As a Government, we are doing a large amount of affordable housing development, which I welcome. However, I want us to ensure as a minimum that that housing is accessible and adaptable, that a significant proportion of it is fully wheelchair adaptable and that more of it is fully wheelchair accessible.
I suggest we look at the planning frameworks from 2018, because they require local authorities to consider the impact of requiring accessible housing on the viability of their local plan. It is almost a requirement that housing should not be accessible if that will make it difficult to deliver the required number of homes. With the developers I have just described, of course the first thing that they say is that they cannot afford to provide accessible homes —but, of course, they can. They need to be producing good quality homes that everybody can access, in estates surrounded by safe and secure environments in which the roads and sewers are usable. That does not seem too much to ask in an advanced industrial society.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this important debate. As I said in my earlier intervention, it seems that we have both experienced the challenges of Harron Homes, and she has my full sympathy for having to deal with them. In my own constituency, I had the managing director come out—not that he wanted to, but I managed to get him there—and we had a meeting with residents to talk through some of the challenges. I share the concerns that she raised on behalf of her constituents, because it is not a good housing developer and it does not have its residents’ best interests at heart.
Construction standards are not just about bricks and mortar; they go into a home, and they go beyond that, into the sense of belonging that one feels when living in a good quality space. Construction standards are also about the process of planning, site security and development maintenance, all of which play a part in the experience of a resident who moves into a property.
I will use this opportunity to talk about some of the challenges that I have experienced in my constituency, particularly in Long Lee. In Redwood Close, a development is being undertaken by Accent Housing Group. I was called to look at the condition of an existing construction site about eight months ago. It is derelict because those involved in the construction went bust, but this is a site that is right in the heart of Long Lee and, dare I say it, has been causing a huge nuisance not only to those who wanted to move into the development and are now experiencing delays, but to those living in close proximity. I was invited along to see the access challenges to this particular site for myself. Neighbouring properties have had boundary walls, drainage and access all disturbed as the result of ongoing, existing construction. It is completely unacceptable.
I met again with the director for development, who came out on to the site with me around four months ago and reassured me that things would change at speed. I can tell hon. Members that nothing has changed at all, other than giving me further reassurance and then holding a residents meeting. They have told me that Esh Construction Ltd has now been appointed to complete the works, but those works are not due to start until mid-spring and construction of the site at Long Lee will not be completed until 2026.
All the while, those neighbours—who have had their property damaged, access hindered and boundary walls to their properties completely removed, allowing easy access to a dangerous site—have had to live with this right on their doorstep. It prompts the question: what has the local authority been doing throughout this whole process? Bradford council has not monitored the construction, nor has it carried out sufficient enforcement action; indeed, no enforcement action seems to have been taken at all. That is not a satisfactory outcome for the residents in Long Lee.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and he is right to highlight the important role that local authorities have. However, speaking as a former commercial property lawyer, I think part of the problem is that, when buying a new home, the purchaser is forced to take a contract package that is geared in favour of the developers. When someone buys a second-hand home, there is a degree of negotiation between the parties, but when buying a brand-new home they take the pack from the developer and the remedies for the purchaser to deal with snagging items are very limited. Does he agree that that is part of the problem?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree, and that point has been made by the hon. Members for Sherwood Forest and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson): once someone has purchased a property or is tied into a contractual relationship, dealing with those snagging issues is a huge challenge. Where can they go from there? They have been taken out of the local authority’s remit to deal with it, because it has approved the planning application—having probably not carried out any enforcement action at all. That is the problem I observed with Bradford council’s lack of any attention to the challenges that we faced in Keighley, Ilkley and the wider area that I represent.
The problem is that, when someone is locked into a contractual relationship, or has even moved into a property, and there are snagging issues, they are effectively trapped and there is no real ability for any organisation with any weight to deal with that. Will the Minister address in her closing remarks what action the Government will now take to deal with cases where new developments have been constructed of a poor quality and concerns have been consistently raised?
It should not take a Member of Parliament to deal with those concerns—it seems that only housing developers only then suddenly realise they have to do something about them. What will the Government do to provide more weight to these concerns that are being raised, so that people with snagging issues can have reassurance that those problems will be sorted out?
I will conclude my comments by discussing the challenges associated with dealing with section 106 moneys. When planning applications have been approved, there is then effectively a negotiation that takes place between the developer and the local authority. I again have to rely on Bradford council negotiating the best deal for whatever that section 106 money is contributing to. Section 106 money is effectively a payment to deal with any mitigating factors that have been negatively imposed on our community through that development. I give the simple example: if those negotiations are not robust enough, that disadvantages the communities we represent. If that section 106 obligation is not spent or enacted within a reasonable time, our constituents are significantly disadvantaged as a result of a local authority—such as Labour-run Bradford council—not responding well enough. That disadvantages the communities we represent.
Alison Bennett
I have no knowledge about the workings of Bradford council, being a Sussex MP, but in my experience—and I should declare an interest in that I am a district councillor in Mid Sussex—local councils do not necessarily have the powers needed to move swift enforcement action. In section 106 negotiations, they do not necessarily have the deep pockets of the development sector to lawyer up and get those good deals. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Robbie Moore
I would politely push back on that. My understanding is that local authorities do have the powers available to them throughout the planning process to challenge the planning application put before them and to have a robust level of negotiation with the developer, resulting in a section 106 obligation being firmly and robustly constructed to deliver residents’ best interests. It is up to the local authority whether it chooses to utilise the powers awarded to it. In my case, I feel that Bradford council does not use any such powers in the first place.
Mrs Russell
In terms of the ability to do those things, the many years of cuts to local authority budgets—amounting to about 30% of local authority budgets over the last 14 years—are highly relevant. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is also a question here about directors’ duties? If those organisations go insolvent, no matter how great a 106 agreement is, that money cannot be recovered because the organisation no longer exists to recover it from. It should never have been possible for such a level of disruption to have happened to those residents, or for the people behind it to just go off in their Range Rovers.
Robbie Moore
The hon. Lady raises two points. I will take the second point on the director’s responsibility first. I absolutely agree that it should not be possible for a housing developer to move away from a scheme, leaving it unfinished, as happened in Long Lee, where Accent Housing effectively did not deliver, causing huge nuisance to local residents. That should not be an acceptable situation.
On the section 106 negotiations, the question comes down to this: when is the trigger point kicking in, and is it in the best interests of those residents? If it is not, why? I would argue strongly that, in the scenarios I have seen with Bradford council, those trigger points are not negotiated in the best interests of my residents. That local authority, back in 2021, threw its statutory obligation to Government and said that it was in sound financial health. I do not think that resource or Government cuts are an issue in relation to how it anticipates those negotiations going on; it is just pure lack of willingness to do its job. I conclude my remarks on that point, because I know that there are many other speakers who want to contribute.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. We have to move on to the Front Bench contributions in 12 minutes, so please keep your remarks to five minutes each.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) has previewed, I will focus my comments on the collapse of Stewart Milne Homes North West, and the lasting consequences it has had for many families across my constituency and no doubt the wider north-west region.
Stewart Milne Homes went into administration in January last year, leaving several housing developments half-built, although the three in my constituency had been completed for some years. Nevertheless, homeowners have been left burdened with a potential financial nightmare, as streets and sewers were never properly adopted by the local highways authority or the water company. That has created a situation where residents, who have every right to expect a functioning, safe environment, are instead left with a looming threat of significant costs. The reason for the predicament is simple: there was either no bonded section 38 agreement in place with the local council, or no bonded section 104 agreement with the water company for the adoption of sewers—or, in some cases, neither—despite residents having deeds, on completion of their sale, showing that the estate would be adopted.
I can only speak with direct knowledge of my own constituency, but I am aware, through research undertaken by my team and through conversations with the local authority and with United Utilities, that that is far from a unique situation, leading one to wonder whether Stewart Milne either acted negligently, or actively mis-sold properties on the basis that their roads and sewers would be publicly maintained. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton makes a reasonable point about director’s duties in that circumstance.
Without those legal agreements, there is no guarantee that local authorities or utility companies will take responsibility for maintaining those essential services. As a result, the burden of making these streets and sewers adoptable—essentially bringing them up to standard—is being shifted directly on to the homeowners. Families who have already invested in their homes, often using their lifelong savings, are now facing huge, unexpected bills.
That is a situation that residents in one development in Middlewich are currently facing. Despite the estate having been practically complete for a decade, the lack of an appropriate agreement means that the sewers on the development have not yet been adopted by United Utilities. Initial estimates from the inspections to date suggest that costs for the required remedial works could run into thousands. Costs are therefore liable to fall on residents. These homeowners are being forced to pay for poor planning, poor practices and poor execution, through no fault of their own.
We cannot and must not allow this situation to continue unchecked. There is a fundamental need for greater oversight and accountability in the house building sector. The mistakes of Stewart Milne should not become the burden of individuals affected by them, and the gaps in regulation that allowed that to happen must be addressed so that no homeowner is ever left in this position again. We need clearer, stronger regulations on the adoption of streets and sewers. Developers must be held accountable for ensuring that all necessary agreements are in place before any properties are occupied, not after the damage is done. On the utility side, that can be done very easily by implementing section 42 of the Flood and Water Management Act, but I would argue that an equivalent is needed for highways.
The financial cost of completing unfinished works should not fall on the shoulders of families who are innocent victims in this situation. In addition, there must be better protection for homeowners in the event of a developer’s failure. We cannot allow this pattern of abandonment and negligence to continue, with large companies walking away without facing the consequences and residents being left with the fallout. We must ensure that this situation is rectified and that no more homeowners are left to bear the burden of a developer’s failure.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this important debate.
Having listened to the contributions from my good friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who represent neighbouring constituencies to mine, I am deeply saddened to hear of the difficulties that their constituents have faced during what should be a moment of joy and achievement, particularly for those families who are first-time buyers.
While many aspire to own their own home, in my Mansfield constituency it has become a dream that many cannot afford. Equally, however, those who cannot also deserve to live in a home that is high quality and fit for purpose. That is why I also welcome the efforts and the work being done by Mansfield district council with its new council home building project. As I saw with my own eyes a few months ago during a site visit, the council are now midway through a £7.7 million development scheme on the Bellamy Road estate in Mansfield, in which an initial 22 high-quality affordable homes are being built. I must say that these homes, which will be rented to local families on the council’s housing list, are all being built to an extremely high standard, and one better than that which is legally required.
The council is ahead of the game in delivering these homes to exceed the future homes standard, which will seek to ensure that homes are built to an environmentally friendly specification. This includes building homes with higher standards of insulation, to keep energy bills as low as possible, which is good both for the planet and for my constituents’ pockets. I am glad to say that the council’s partner, Mercer Building Solutions, had to include a range of social value actions in the development. For instance, it ensured that almost 90% of the workforce lived within a 20 mile radius of the district. These are truly local houses for local people, built by local people.
I am keen that councils and house builders look to British industry for solutions in construction. My constituency is home to Power Saving Solutions, a company that is enabling reduced reliance on diesel-generated power on building sites, and I learnt recently about JCB’s response, with its hydrogen-powered combustion unit, which will also reduce carbon emissions in the construction industry. Those are two great examples of private sector firms enfranchising themselves in our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower.
While I congratulate my council on its innovation and forward thinking, what I have heard in this debate is that it is time for the private sector to up its game and put the quality of houses before profit. As a part of this, we must invest in our local workforce to support the British construction industry. That is why I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of £600 million of funding to train tens of thousands more skilled construction workers in the next four years. The money will go towards creating more places at technical excellence colleges and expanding skills in the sector.
I promised last summer that I would bring good-quality jobs and opportunities to people in my constituency. With this Government pledging to build 1.5 million new homes, it is important that they are built to the highest standards. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about what the Government will do to ensure that they are.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this important debate and on her powerful description of the impact on her constituent, Sara, of the 70 remaining defects in her home.
Given that 89% of homeowners are satisfied with the quality of their home, we might think that all is well in the world of house building, but throughout the debate hon. Members have highlighted where it simply does not work for our constituents. Just scratching at the surface clearly shows the different reality beneath, because alongside that satisfaction rate sits the stark statistic that 27% of new homeowners report 16 or more defects in their home. That is not minor snagging; it is a quarter of new homeowners moving into homes that are riddled with problems.
As the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) set out, existing homeowners are affected as well. Let us be clear: this is not a new problem. Reports going back as far as the 2007 Callcutt review warned about poor-quality construction and inadequate warranties, yet here we are in 2025, debating the same failures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) pointed out that confidence must be beyond question, but time and again we have seen developers prioritising profit over quality. The consequences can be devastating. Look at Solomon’s Passage in Southwark, completed in 2012 and condemned just six years later due to serious defects. In my Newbury constituency, a new-build estate, Lancaster Park in Hungerford, does not meet the expectations of the people paying a high price to live there. These are not one-offs; these are symptoms of a broken system.
We cannot ignore that the UK has some of the worst-insulated homes in Europe. Six million households in the UK are living in fuel poverty, including 3,000 in my constituency, yet new homes are still built with gas boilers and inadequate insulation. Minister, we cannot keep building homes that are outdated the moment they are finished. The Government had the opportunity to mandate future home standards in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but they did not do so.
The Liberal Democrats would change that. Zero carbon must be the default. Every new home should have solar panels and renewable energy as standard. Planning must include climate resilience and flood mitigation, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) mentioned in reference to section 42 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Retrofitting must be a priority.
Lee Anderson
The hon. Gentleman talks about all these great ideas for what the Lib Dems will do—fitting solar panels and heat pumps and stuff like that—but does he trust house builders to do that to a high standard?
Mr Dillon
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which gets to the heart of this debate. Whether it is building a damp-proof course correctly or installing cutting-edge climate technology, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that a strong regulator holds developers to account when they fail. As Members around the Chamber have said, we have seen failure, but that should not prevent us as Members of this House from setting a high bar for developers to reach.
Finally, I shall talk about infrastructure. It is not enough to build houses; we need to build communities, yet too often we see developments spring up without the GP surgeries, schools, public spaces or public transport links that people rely on, or with highways that cannot be adopted, as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) highlighted. That is why we Liberal Democrats are calling for a planning system that guarantees delivery alongside housing targets. That means mandatory commitments from developers to fund GP practices, schools and green spaces; to put public transport first—new developments should be built around sustainable travel, not car-dependency—and deploy sustainable drainage, with grey water recycling included as standard in all new builds.
Although the Government have taken positive steps, there is still much to do. Those are all things that have been proven possible. Across the country, Liberal Democrat councils have led the way, from zero-carbon homes when we ran York, to 1,300 new council houses in Portsmouth. We know what works. Now the Government must follow our lead. Every family deserves a safe, warm and high-quality home—not just a roof over their heads, but a real foundation for the future. I urge the Minister and the Government to take action. No more delays, no more excuses—just homes that work for the people who live in them.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you once again, Ms Jardine. I, too, add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing the debate.
I was reflecting, as we watched House staff go about their business, that Hansard will record all the words that have been spoken by Members in this debate. Indeed, they will mirror some of the historical records of ancient Rome and ancient China, when politicians complained about the quality of the construction of the Great Wall and many iconic buildings, and reflected on what could be done to ensure that buildings were constructed to the standard needed.
Of course, for each new generation the specific challenges change. We have different aspirations for the standard of our homes, as well as different technology and construction methods, and we need to ensure that what is built is fit for purpose. Although its focus has been on new homes, the debate has been wide ranging, touching on elements of housing tenure and the implications for the ability of occupiers to get change dealt with, the complications of the legal situation around warranties and insurances, and the challenges reflected in the ability or otherwise of local authorities to address complaints when they are brought forward.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) started out talking about tenant satisfaction. It is striking that, on the whole, people in the UK describe a high level of satisfaction with their accommodation, private renters being the most satisfied. Beneath that, however, as the hon. Gentleman set out, there are a number of challenges.
I encourage the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest to make contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—a forest theme seems to be emerging among Members raising this issue—who has a private Member’s Bill specifically on consumer protection for those who commission building work. That would begin to address in law many of the issues that have been raised this evening. Indeed, earlier today I informed a group of housing associations about the need to appoint a clerk of works for new developments—someone who is there every single day, monitoring on their behalf exactly what is being constructed, in order to ensure that the kind of problems that Members across the Chamber have described are not present when they come to undertake the landlord role in those properties.
The Federation of Master Builders has a number of proposals to ensure that the construction industry in the UK adopts significantly higher standards, not only building on the experience of other countries but reflecting the particular circumstances of the UK housing market.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Talking about future-proofing our homes, a key things we could do with an ageing population is to ensure that all new homes are built to higher accessibility and adaptability standards. The previous Government consulted on that, but never implemented anything. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was a lost opportunity? By not implementing M4(2) standards, many new homes have been built that do not meet those higher standards.
David Simmonds
I would not describe that as a lost opportunity, but it is an opportunity that we need to consider. We recognise that we have a new Government with aspirations for housing. We had a Government who, despite all the challenges, set themselves a target of about 1 million homes and came very close to delivering on that during the life of the previous Parliament, but as I frequently point out in debates, we need to ensure that we are not simply thinking about the numbers of units. The 1.5 million target is not something we can achieve by packing the highest number of properties—studio flats—into various locations. We need to think about the nature of the homes and the type of housing that communities need, and about how a more nuanced approach can ensure that we build homes that support our housing market. For example, people may wish to downsize or to move because of disability, and to find accommodation that is fit for purpose in their local area.
A number of Members touched on the role that building control services play in signing off developments to assure that they are fit for purpose. All the debate, as reflected on by Members across the House, has demonstrated the complexity of this issue: fire safety is considered through the lens of one set of legislation; building control is about fitness of construction standards; the local authority has its planning responsibilities to ensure that what is built is what has planning consent; and, too, there is the insurance industry, which in essence is a private market that decides for itself what it considers fit to be an insurable and occupiable property. That has enormous influence.
In my constituency, I have the former Royal Air Force Lime Grove development constructed by Taylor Wimpey, where I have been engaging with constituents since I was first elected. That has been a very slow process, not least because things such as drainage have been built well below the standard required and can only be rectified if we are prepared to demolish all the homes that sit on top of that drainage. Those kinds of challenges are enormously complicated.
I place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for the points they made. They described from their personal experience how they engaged with developments that took place in their constituencies in different ways—to enable new occupiers to bring to wider public attention the concerns that they identified, to hold local authorities to account for failure or lack of action, to deal with issues that were patently obvious and needed to be addressed, and to deal with some of the legal complexities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk described. It is all very well having a contract and legal rights in theory, but if those rights cannot be enforced, they do not lead down a useful path.
If we were in government, we would be taking forward these matters, but as we are in opposition, we are challenging the Government to consider them. I will make a few brief points in that respect. A number of Members have highlighted adoptable standards as a significant issue that needs addressing. In encouraging new planning applications to be delivered, I encourage the Government to consider how we will ensure that adoptable standards are complied with. Members on all sides have raised a number of examples of subsequent landlords, such as FirstPort, whose management of the sites has been completely inadequate and compounds the other problems that have been described.
Finally, as we consider the learning from the Grenfell report, which highlights just how complex these projects are to manage, can we ensure that the learning described by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), where the private sector and the local authority worked well together to bring innovation to bear and to ensure higher standards, is put into the structures of our legal approaches when it comes to all the different issues around development, housing, planning and building control described by Members across the Chamber this evening?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing the debate, and other Members on their excellent contributions.
There is a great deal of consensus about the challenges that Members of Parliament face when they are trying to provide the support that constituents require in these circumstances. I am deeply sorry to hear about the experiences of constituents for whom moving into what they thought was their dream home has in fact turned into a nightmare. From my own experience as a constituency MP, having to deal with similar cases, I know just how traumatic and challenging that can be for all concerned.
Everyone deserves a safe, decent and affordable home, but after a decade of decline in house building, the dream of home ownership is getting further out of reach for so many. This Government were elected to tackle the housing crisis. We made a commitment in our manifesto to build 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament. To deliver those ambitious targets we will take a holistic approach to reviewing the entire housing system, so that we can unlock house building growth while ensuring that standards continue to be met.
I am grateful to hon. Members for highlighting their insights and some of the issues that we need to keep a close eye on. Building more homes of all kinds is a crucial part of the Plan for Change to grow the economy, raise living standards and transform people’s lives. Growth is our No. 1 mission, but even as we pull out the stops to boost the pace of house building, we remain absolutely focused on our commitment to protect and enhance our natural environment and strengthen the health and safety standards of the homes we build.
Regulatory reforms have already fundamentally changed the way in which buildings are designed, built and managed, with more stringent oversight. The Building Safety Act 2022 brought in new structures, new ways of working and new expectations. The Building Safety Regulator has a duty to keep the safety and standards of buildings under review, which means that as evidence comes to light, updates to building regulations and approved documents can be brought forward as needed.
Last December, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that approved document B on fire safety is now subject to continuous review, and asked the Building Safety Regulator to undertake a fundamental review of the building safety regulations. Guidance will be produced, updated and communicated to the construction industry, with statutory guidance covering building design that is now subject to continuous review by the Building Safety Regulator. We are building on the work that has gone on so far. The regulator is developing plans to launch a consultation on further changes by autumn 2025.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
In my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire, there are lots of young families seeking to buy their first home. I am pleased that the Government are committed to building 1.5 million new homes, but it is important that people can trust that they are buying a good-quality home. Just down the road, at the Darwin Green site in Cambridge, 36 new build houses with building control privately managed have had to be demolished for foundational failures. Does the Minister agree that, since the part-privatisation of building control under Margaret Thatcher’s Government, it is a real problem that developers can essentially choose their own regulator, and that it is leading to falling standards?
Rushanara Ali
I hope that I have already addressed some of those points in my remarks. We are of course looking closely at what further improvements can be made to building regulations.
We recognise that the industry needs access to materials that are safe and of sufficient quality. We are setting clear directions for growth for the housing sector, and expect suppliers to increase their capacity to meet demand. On the work in relation to the long-term housing strategy, this Government are focused on ensuring that there is quality alongside the quantity that is desperately needed to ensure that people have the housing they need. Homeowners of new builds must feel confident that their new home is safe. The points on that today have been well made. We know that we must take the necessary action to get the quality, as well as the quantity right.
This Government are absolutely committed to improving redress for home buyers when things go wrong. The regulatory framework ensures that the Government’s commitment to 1.5 million homes over the current Parliament can and must be achieved safely and sustainably. Ultimately, by emphasising quality and safety, the reforms pave the way for innovative construction practices and materials, attracting skilled labour and boosting productivity within the sector.
However, we recognise that, as we have heard in the debate today, things can go wrong for people when buying a new build home. That is why we will bring into force measures to introduce a new homes ombudsman scheme, which developers will be required to join. It will have powers to investigate complaints and make determinations.
Rushanara Ali
I want to address the points that have been made—including the hon. Gentleman’s points, if he will let me continue.
The ombudsman will have powers to investigate complaints, to make determinations, including requiring compensation to be paid, and to help to set expectations of scheme members around standards of conduct and standards of quality of work. We will also have powers to issue or approve a code of practice. That will make it quicker and easier for home buyers of new builds to gain redress when things go wrong and help our wider objectives to bring up standards in the sector.
The introduction of the new future homes standard represents a considerable improvement in energy efficiency and standards for new homes. From 2025, new homes will be future-proofed with low-carbon heating and high levels of energy efficiency. These homes will be zero-carbon ready, meaning that no further work will be needed to ensure that they have zero carbon emissions as the electricity grid continues to decarbonise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) mentioned her local plan. Due to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in the planning system, I am unable to comment on the details of that specific local plan. However, this Government are committed to the plan-making system. Bringing local councils and their communities together to agree their future plans is the right way to plan for the growth and environmental enhancement that our country needs.
I will respond to a number of points that hon. Members made; if I do not address all the points that were made in the debate, we can follow up in writing. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), to the hon. Members for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) for raising a number of issues, including what more we can do around planning. We will look at the points that have been raised.
On the point made about disability, we will set out our policies on accessible new build housing shortly. The Government expect local authorities to plan for and deliver the housing and infrastructure that their communities need. The national planning policy framework, which was revised in December 2024, promotes mixed use sites, which can include housing designed for specific groups. That means that councils must consider the needs of disabled people and older people when planning new homes, and reflect that in their local plan.
I am conscious that I need to leave a bit of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest to sum up. Points were made about water efficiency, and about drainage and waste disposal, which approved document H addresses. However, I am happy to write to hon. Members about the points that were raised that I have not been able to address today.
I am grateful for this debate and for the really constructive contributions to it from all Members, including the Front-Bench speakers, on this very important issue, which affects all of us in different ways in our constituencies, and I am determined to make sure that we work together to address it.
Michelle Welsh
I thank all the hon. Members here in Westminster Hall today for their contributions to what I think was a very important debate for us to have. It was very clear from all the contributions, regardless of party, that those buying new homes need better protections. Going forward, however, it is not just those better protections that they need. When they are tackling issues, they should not have to contact a Member of Parliament to get them resolved.
We have heard some really horrifying stories today and my constituents, like people across the country, deserve better. When someone buys a property, they are locked into a contractual agreement. Often, however, it is impossible to get repairs and snagging completed, which should not be the case. We must change that. Time and again, we see profit being put before quality. Accessible homes and affordable homes are crucial.
Today, hon. Members have raised issues about the processes to ensure—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. Our time is up; I am sorry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered construction standards for new build homes.
Science, Innovation and Technology
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
…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.
[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 19 March 2025; c. 3.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
…First, there are presently no unambiguously applicable 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 terms “notified provider” and “provider” to the term “person” because the Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Penalties) (Rules for Calculation of Turnover) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/2712) and the 2021 Act are not consistent with one another.
Other Corrections
Sarah Smith
Crime and Policing Bill
The following extract is from the Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill on 10 March 2025.
Sarah Smith
Crime in Hyndburn and Haslingden is currently out of control. Robbery has skyrocketed in my constituency by 75% in the past year, which is far worse than the already shocking 17% increase that we have seen across Lancashire. Shoplifting has soared by 70%, which, again, is significantly worse than the 23% rise across the county. Those numbers are not just statistics; they represent victims—business owners whose livelihoods are threatened, families who feel unsafe and communities torn apart by lawlessness. Indeed, just last week local businesses in Accrington saw around 10 break-ins. Almost half of my constituents—44%—will experience violent crime.
[Official Report, 10 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 714.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith):
Sarah Smith
Crime in Hyndburn and Haslingden is currently out of control. Robbery has skyrocketed in my constituency by 75% in the past year, which is far worse than the already shocking 17% increase that we have seen across Lancashire. Shoplifting has soared by 70%, which, again, is significantly worse than the 23% rise across the county. Those numbers are not just statistics; they represent victims—business owners whose livelihoods are threatened, families who feel unsafe and communities torn apart by lawlessness. Indeed, just last week local businesses in Accrington saw around 10 break-ins, and 44 in every 1,000 of my constituents will experience violent crime.
Higher Education: Protecting Public Money
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Today I am setting out the actions this Government are taking to tackle concerning evidence of abuse of public money associated with the franchised higher education system which we inherited.
Franchising, where one higher education provider subcontracts provision to a delivery partner, grew significantly under the previous Government, but most franchised providers were not placed under the direct oversight of the regulator—the Office for Students. When done well, franchised higher education can be an important driver of inclusion, but against a backdrop of growing financial instability within higher education, for some institutions, it is apparent that franchising became less about expanding access and more about maximising income.
In 2023 and 2024, the Government Internal Audit Agency, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee all raised concerns about abuse, unethical behaviour and fraud. Without the necessary guardrails, or a funding settlement that put universities on a sound financial footing, in some institutions the system has become a breeding ground for abuse, unethical behaviour and fraud.
Earlier this month, I was made aware that there is a disproportionately large number of Romanian students settled in the UK who receive student funding from the Student Loans Company.
Investigative work undertaken by the Student Loans Company suggests organised exploitation both of Romanian students and of the UK taxpayer.
Under this Government, this abuse will end. The Department for Education and the Office for Students already have a programme of investigations under way related to franchised provision. Where these investigations have found abuse of the student finance system there will be serious consequences. I have now also asked the Public Sector Fraud Authority to tackle this threat and take forward this work across Government.
We will also take immediate action on the use of agents to recruit students. The Government can see no legitimate role for domestic agents in the recruitment of UK students. We are taking urgent steps to prevent any further abuse of the system.
Since taking office in July, the Government have moved at pace to tackle the many inherited challenges in the higher education sector, which this Government believe should be treated as a public good, not a political battleground. In November, I set out changes to the level of tuition fees and maintenance, for the first time in seven years, and set out the five principles for broader reform of the sector which underpin the approach this Government will take. We have already reformed the Office for Students, accepting the report of Sir David Behan and bringing new leadership and a tighter focus.
I have written to Edward Peck, the incoming chair, to ask him to make protection of public money a top priority. To support this, I will bring forward legislation at the next available opportunity to give the Office for Students stronger powers to act more quickly and effectively to protect public money.
In January the Department launched a consultation on franchised higher education. The proposals would bring much closer regulatory scrutiny of the largest franchised providers—the ones in which there has been significant growth in recent years—bringing them under direct oversight by the Office for Students. The Office for Students is also consulting to strengthen its conditions of registration, to stop providers with weak governance arrangements from being able to register in the first place. We have asked it also to urgently strengthen the requirements on the providers who subcontract provision. Together, if implemented, these proposals would impose new and significant controls on franchising.
Higher education providers are engines of growth and drivers of opportunity, but these issues threaten the integrity of the sector. With the regulator, we will set the rules, we will enforce them and we will protect public money. However, ultimately universities must take ownership of these issues for themselves and we will look to them to take responsibility to ensure abuse like this is brought to an end. There can be no excuse for the abuse of public money, and under this Government there will be no hiding place for those who perpetrate such abuse.
[HCWS547]
Social and Affordable Housing Capital Investment
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
In the multi-year spending review later this year, the Government will set out the full details of a new grant programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. Alongside wider investment across the Parliament, this new programme will help deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.
The Government have already allocated an additional £800 million in new in-year funding for the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. As a result of significant demand from housing providers across the country, this additional funding is already on course to be oversubscribed.
We know that there are a large number of housing providers who could progress new projects in advance of the new grant programme if the necessary funding were made available. We also know that providing greater funding certainty ahead of the forthcoming spending review will encourage more providers to come forward with ambitious projects and help drive up social and affordable housing supply in this Parliament.
The Government are therefore announcing today an immediate injection of £2 billion of new capital investment to support delivery of the biggest boost in social and affordable house building in a generation and contribute to our plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament.
This new funding, which will be made available to housing associations and local authorities on the same terms as the affordable homes programme for 2021 to 2026, will act as a bridge to the future grant programme to be announced at spending review and thereby maximise rates of social and affordable house building in this Parliament.
The funding will deliver up to 18,000 additional new social and affordable homes by the end of the Parliament. The majority of that additional funding will fall in 2026-27, and all projects funded will need to have started by March 2027. A tail of funding will cover completions, with projects funded being required to finish by June 2029.
The Government encourage providers to come forward as soon as possible with bids for new ambitious projects, including those ready to commence quickly. We will ask Homes England, the Greater London Authority, and bidders to continue to prioritise homes for social rent in their proposed developments, in line with the Government’s firm commitment to support this tenure and the approach taken to recent in-year top-ups.
The £2 billion of new capital investment announced today will, in time, be supplemented with additional funding for 2026-27 and beyond. Full details of wider long-term and future grant investment will be announced at the spending review. Once the new grant programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme opens for bidding, the window to bid for the £2 billion of capital investment announced today will close and any unallocated funding will then be allocated under the terms of the successor programme.
[HCWS549]
Broadband Industry Commitments: Telegraph Poles
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Today, the Independent Networks Co-operative Association (INCA) and the Internet Services Providers’ Association (ISPA), the trade bodies representing the fixed-line broadband industry, have published new best-practice recommendations for the deployment of telegraph poles.
The Government understand the concerns of people across the country about the use of telegraph poles to support the deployment of new gigabit-capable broadband networks, especially where this duplicates other infrastructure or seems unnecessary.
I have heard from people who were not aware of new infrastructure coming to their street until telegraph poles were erected, and from people whose access to their driveway was blocked by a new unannounced pole. I certainly do not want to impede or slow down the roll-out of essential connectivity. I support the commercial and competitive roll-out, but I do want to ensure that this is done sensitively and proportionately.
Telegraph poles can play an important role in delivering connectivity. This is particularly important in areas that do not yet benefit from gigabit-capable connections, but even in areas that already benefit from gigabit-capable broadband, competition between different operators using poles and ducts can bring greater choice and lower prices to consumers.
Sharing existing infrastructure is obviously better for everyone, but it will not always be possible, for instance in areas where the existing broadband infrastructure was directly buried in the ground, without ducts. Ducts may also be full, or damaged. In some cases, developers have discovered that underground cabling is buried rather than ducted. In such areas, it is generally not possible to use existing infrastructure. Building new underground ducts can be up to 10 times more expensive than installing poles, and comes with its own challenges such as traffic disruption. Higher costs to operators will ultimately raise costs for consumers or result in infrastructure not being built at all.
The Government considered a range of options to ensure that we can effect change without negatively impacting roll-out. I have met with telecommunications providers on multiple occasions. I have sought targeted action where I was made aware of specific issues, and also voiced my strong concerns about the deployment of new infrastructure where alternatives, such as sharing existing infrastructure, would be viable.
In response to my concerns, INCA and ISPA undertook to work with their members and the wider fixed-line broadband industry to produce new guidelines for the deployment of telegraph poles. These guidelines set out conditions that must be followed when deploying telegraph poles, and set out what operators are expected to do when installing new infrastructure.
But more importantly, the new guidelines include a commitment by its signatories to always consider the needs of communities during the design and construction of new fibre networks.
I am grateful for the efforts of the industry, and trust that this new commitment, underpinned by strong expectations towards operators, will mean that communities can be confident that their needs are put first as the roll-out of gigabit-capable connectivity continues.
A copy of the “Telecommunications Poles Working Group Best Practice Recommendations” will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS548]
Maritime Decarbonisation Strategy
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
By publishing our new maritime decarbonisation strategy today, the Government have set out plans to encourage and support our maritime sector in using fuels of the future and shipping “chargepoints” to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The maritime decarbonisation strategy sets out the Government’s vision of for the future of the UK’s maritime sector, by setting new domestic decarbonisation goals for a 30% reduction by 2030 and an 80% reduction by 2040—both relative to 2008—and outlines our key policies to meet them.
To support this, we are also publishing two supplementary calls for evidence: on “Net zero ports” and on “Decarbonising smaller vessels”, with measures for small, sub-400 gross tonnage (GT) vessels and accelerating uptake in targeted subsectors. These calls for evidence will allow us to gather evidence to provide a more holistic understanding of the current state of play of the maritime sector and how to decarbonise the sector moving forward.
In 2019, the UK domestic maritime sector produced around 8 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, on a fuel lifecycle basis. Decarbonisation of our maritime sector will support this Government’s missions: driving the uptake of clean fuels and energy, helping to make Britain a clean energy superpower, seizing the green growth opportunities which will help to kick-start economic growth, and realising the co-benefits that reducing emissions can have for health, supporting our health mission, in line with our plan for change. It is conservatively estimated that the decarbonisation of the UK maritime sector could support £130 million to £180 million of gross value added (GVA) and around 1,400 to 2,100 jobs in the UK on average in each year between now and 2050. This is in respect to the provision of on-board technologies, fuel storage and engines alone. The investments required on land to support the decarbonisation of the sector, including the production of zero and near-zero GHG emission fuels and energy are also expected to further drive growth in the UK, and deliver energy security.
This ambitious, but credible and evidence-based maritime decarbonisation strategy is based on a state-of-the-art maritime emissions model, representing a significant step change in our ability to estimate the emissions from the UK maritime sector. Responses from the two calls for evidence will also inform the development of the maritime emissions model as we look to increase our understanding of how to decarbonise maritime.
Maritime Decarbonisation Strategy
The maritime decarbonisation strategy outlines this Government’s vision for how the maritime sector can decarbonise. The strategy sets new goals for domestic maritime emissions, aiming for zero fuel lifecycle GHG emissions by 2050, with at least a 30% reduction by 2030 and an 80% reduction by 2040, relative to 2008 levels. These interim goals are aligned with the level of highest ambition of the 2023 International Maritime Organisation GHG strategy, allowing us to take pragmatic action domestically while continuing to push for high ambition internationally.
These goals highlight our commitment to decarbonising the maritime sector and will provide the industry with the certainty it needs to invest, playing its part in kick-starting economic growth and making Britain a clean energy superpower.
The strategy will cover five key policies to drive decarbonisation from now to 2050:
Fuel regulation. Alongside a fuel standard being developed at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), we will, subject to consultation next year, introduce domestic fuel regulations to drive the uptake of zero and near-zero GHG emission fuels and energy sources.
Emissions pricing. The UK emissions trading scheme (ETS) will be expanded to include UK domestic maritime GHG emissions from 2026. At the IMO, we are also continuing to push for emissions pricing through a global shipping levy, introduced from 2027.
Ports and emissions at berth. We are considering further action to reduce emissions at berth and are launching a call for evidence to inform this work alongside the maritime decarbonisation strategy.
Smaller vessels and targeted subsectors. We need to reduce emissions from the whole fleet over time, including smaller vessels. To build our understanding, we are launching a call for evidence to begin this policy development. We are aware that while this will be challenging for some subsectors—such as fishing vessels—there are others that could move quickly, such as offshore wind vessels.
Energy efficiency. We will support the IMO review of short-term measures to further incentivise energy efficiency and explore domestic energy efficiency measures.
This strategy continues to build on the innovation and expertise developed through our research and development programme UK SHORE, which, as well as accelerating the commercialisation of the future fuels and technologies necessary, positions the UK as a leader in clean maritime development and drives investment into clean maritime technologies. Supporting this will be the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s new UK maritime innovation hub, which will encourage innovation and research and development, and support economic growth by helping innovators bring new technologies to safe commercial use in the sector.
“Net zero ports” Call for Evidence
This publication will collect evidence to support the Government’s consideration of an at-berth emissions requirement in the maritime decarbonisation strategy. It looks at the role of ports in enabling shipping to decarbonise and reduce shipping’s wider environmental impacts. This includes providing new infrastructure and aims to capture evidence on the future electricity demand at ports, recognising this is a shared asset to enable ports, shipping and port tenants to decarbonise and capture new commercial and economic opportunities.
The publication also looks at the progress ports are making in decarbonising their own operations and how Government could potentially galvanise the sector to decarbonise. We focus on whether ports are planning to decarbonise their own operations, their goals and what they have included in their strategies, including wider environmental considerations.
“Decarbonising smaller vessels” Call for Evidence
This call evidence will provide Government with essential information and data to help decarbonise and reduce the environmental impacts of vessels under 400 GT. It asks questions on the costs of these vessels, when the new technologies will be ready, what infrastructure will be required and where these vessels are likely to be built. It seeks to identify which subsectors have a clear decarbonisation pathway and may be able to move quickly. This call for evidence represents a balance between ambition and deliverability, recognising that some subsectors such as fishing will need more time, and that this is the start of a conversation with them. This means we will have a stronger evidence base to make informed policy decisions in the future.
Next steps
Following the publication of the maritime decarbonisation strategy, and the two calls for evidence, we will continue to work with the sector to deliver the domestic decarbonisation goals and to reduce wider environmental impacts. We will collect and analyse the responses from the calls for evidence to inform our next steps and will publish a consultation on future UK fuels regulation. Furthermore, we will continue to champion ambitious action at the IMO to drive the global maritime sector towards zero emissions and deliver the IMO GHG 2023 strategy.
[HCWS550]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, shall we kick off? You know the drill, but if there is a Division in the Chamber, I will let the Committee know and we shall adjourn for 10 minutes to allow noble Lords to vote.
Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Cluny
That the Grand Committee do consider the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Baroness Smith of Cluny) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this order today. It comes as the result of collaboration between the two Governments in Scotland and makes provision as a result of changes made to the existing disclosure regime in Scotland. The order before us, if passed, will be made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act. Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action, and I am pleased to say that this Government have taken through seven orders since we came to power in 2024. I will now go on to explain the purpose of the order.
This order is in consequence of the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020, which deals with the circumstances in which information about a person’s criminal history and other information held about them by the police and other law enforcement bodies can be disclosed. The disclosure Act seeks to modernise and improve proportionality in the disclosure system in Scotland. As a result, some changes have been made to the disclosure regime and this order is accordingly necessary to ensure the continued provision of conviction information, cautions, relevant police information and records of fingerprints that are held by UK law enforcement bodies to the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of the disclosure regime.
The order places equivalent duties on the chief officers of UK law enforcement bodies in relation to disclosure information, where relevant, to those which the disclosure Act places on the chief constable of Police Scotland. This ensures that the chief officer must provide information to the Scottish Ministers in the same way that the chief constable is required to do in Scotland. Without this order, there would be significant consequences for safeguarding across the UK, as the cross- border disclosure and information-sharing arrangements already in place under the Police Act—that is, the duties on and powers available to chief officers of UK police forces—will no longer operate. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, first, I am glad to be able to debate with the Minister. I had a conversation with her when she was first appointed, but this is my first opportunity to do that. I am obviously grateful to her for introducing this order.
The Minister has more expertise in this field than I have, but I had a look at the instrument—I can see why we need safeguarding, of course, and why there is a desire to tidy it up and ensure that there are comparable rules around the UK—and it would appear that some differences remain. In particular, the situation in Scotland is that where other, related issues are being addressed—in other words, non-criminal ones—the person who has their information disclosed has the right to make representations before it is disclosed to the applicant for the information. This instrument, as I understand it, says that where UK authorities are handing information related to other parts of the UK to Scottish authorities, they have to take that into account. Indeed, they have to apply that law, which is fine if that is what the law says, but I worry that police authorities across England, Wales and Northern Ireland will need to know that the law in that context is different. What assurances are there that that will be observed, and that information will not inadvertently be disclosed which the affected party has not had the right to test? That was highlighted in the statutory instruments committee’s comments on the order.
Although it is stated that the overall purpose of this SI is to bring more coherence, consistency and simplification to the system across the UK, it still leaves differences. The Scottish law basically says: “We have a standard, which doesn’t apply in England and Wales, but if you are feeding information into Scotland, you’re obliged to be aware of that standard”. My main question is: how are we to ensure that all the relevant people know about it, bearing in mind that we are talking about not just the police here but potentially about other related bodies that may have information?
Of course, at the other end of the scale in the changes that are made, all those who are employing people or taking them on as volunteers need to know what their rights are, what they can get and the circumstances in which they can get it. Given the change- over in volunteers, again, who is responsible for ensuring that? Presumably, it is Scottish officers in Scotland, but, obviously, it is other agencies elsewhere in the UK. I ask the Minister: what steps will be taken to ensure that the differences that still apply are understood by all the relative parties and do not lead to a situation where either information that should be disclosed is not or a person’s right to have it tested before it is disclosed does not apply? If that is the case, in effect, the law is being broken. What would the penalties be for any authority outside Scotland that broke the law? Is there any provision for a penalty in that case, or is it just unfortunate?
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome the noble and learned Baroness the Advocate-General for Scotland to the Front Bench. Although she has been in post for a while, this is the first time that I have been in Grand Committee with her, and I wish her well in all that she does for His Majesty’s Government. I am grateful to her for her opening remarks on this order.
In terms of the original legislation as passed by the Scottish Parliament, the Disclosure (Scotland) Act is intended to simplify the process by which information on a person held by the police can be shared. It will go into effect on 1 April this year, replacing the existing three levels of disclosure with just two levels. It is worth noting the broad welcome that the legislation has received, as well as cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament; for instance, Volunteer Scotland welcomed the Act for both its potential to remove barriers for individuals with past convictions seeking employment and its ability to strengthen the PVG scheme. However, we must remain mindful of the complexities and nuances involved. These changes will undoubtedly have a significant impact on various professional sectors, particularly those that work with vulnerable groups. In addition, it will significantly affect how personal data, including criminal history, is shared.
The purpose of the order before the Grand Committee is, rightly, to ensure that the existing arrangements for cross-border information sharing between UK law enforcement bodies and Scottish Ministers continue. It will also help prevent any disruption to the flow of crucial data between UK law enforcement and Scottish Ministers.
Although we do not oppose this order, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I observe that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted this as an instrument of interest because it would create inconsistencies in the way in which information is shared between police forces and Scottish Ministers, as compared to the rest of the UK. Police forces outside Scotland would have a duty to allow the subject of a request to make representations on other relevant information when a request originated in Scotland, despite having no such duty for other requests in the rest of the UK. That introduces a critical question: why is it necessary to create this distinction? There is a concern that this difference in treatment could lead to inefficiencies for both law enforcement agencies and individuals. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments as to the position of the UK Government on this seeming inconsistency.
Further, can the Minister clarify how police forces across the UK will be supported in managing these new obligations on the ground, especially in ensuring that adequate resources are there to ensure that the transition to a new system does not lead to delays or hinder in some way the sharing of critical information? Finally, given the complex nature of this situation, can she assure us that the guidance due to be published will be easy to understand and clear to the public? I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who has done a lot of work in anticipation of this order, which has been in inception for some time. I am grateful for the points raised and the opportunity they allow for some reassurance to be given.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, commented that it is a question of how the differences will not come to be a problem in practice when, plainly, police forces and other public bodies are essentially required to treat requests differently, to a certain extent, depending on where in the United Kingdom the case emanates from. Many of the processes are the same; it is really on the question of review that there comes to be a bit of difference. It is also worth observing that there is a process whereby an applicant can ask for a review under the current regime and the one that will remain in England and Wales. The substance of the process—the fact that a police force is required to undertake a review—remains the same. The skills and the tests are the same. It is the substance that matters a great deal to the applicant.
It is the case that the weight of obligations will change a little bit. At present, an applicant may be asked for additional information, whereas this order places a duty on the public body to do so and to have regard to it. However, I reassure noble Lords that the substance of the matter and the questions to be asked remain the same. There is also one other difference, which is the opportunity to have an independent reviewer look at the process.
I understood the noble Lord to be asking what work has been undertaken to ensure that these differences are understood and therefore can be implemented beyond simply police forces because, as he observed, this will affect a wider group than just police forces. Scotland Office officials have worked to create the policy as well as draft this order alongside counterpart officials in the Scottish Government, the Ministry of Justice—my office—the Home Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and the Welsh Government. Police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have been consulted and have provided valuable input until January this year. Statutory guidance has been developed and the same police forces and bodies have been involved in its drafting. The guidance aims to be as consistent as possible with the existing guidance issued to officers across the United Kingdom.
It is worth observing that Disclosure Scotland has existing relationships with all the public bodies that provide information at the moment, so it is not a question of the scope of public bodies with which it needs to interact changing. There are relationships there, and the functions are understood. Engagement has been led by Disclosure Scotland through the National Police Chiefs’ Council, as well as with wider parties, to ensure that there is a clear understanding.
I hope I can reassure noble Lords that there has been good engagement. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, it is important that the guidance is clear, and efforts have been made not just to make it clear but to engage the affected parties so that it is clear to them as well as to the Government. One concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was that the wrong information may be disclosed. I hope that that will not be a consequence of this order, for the reasons I have given: the substantive exercise to be undertaken and the tests to be applied remain unchanged; it is simply a question of the opportunities for review and how those reviews are undertaken. As for a failure to apply the review processes properly, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I think that speaks to the policy purpose behind introducing the independent reviewer function, which allows not only another step of review to take place but indeed for that to be undertaken by someone independent.
On the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on additions to guidance and a concern around inefficiencies, I detect that that may speak to the question of resources. Again, I hope that because of the extensive engagement that has gone on over a period of time and the fact that the guidance is being drafted in consultation with those affected that will not be an issue and it will simply be the case that public bodies recognise, with the assistance of Disclosure Scotland, that this is a request coming in from Scotland and that there are slightly modified rules to be applied if, and only if, the applicant asks for a review, as of course many of these issues will be dealt with without that being required.
I close by saying that this order demonstrates the continued commitment of the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland.
Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government take the security of public telecoms seriously. As noble Lords know, the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 received Royal Assent on 17 November 2021. The Act established powers to introduce a new telecommunications security framework and introduced new vendor security powers. It is these vendor security powers that are relevant to this statutory instrument.
The Act allows the Secretary of State to issue a designation notice to a vendor whose presence in the UK networks poses national security risks, and designated vendor directions to public communications providers placing controls on their use of equipment or services by a designated vendor. The Act also gives the Secretary of State powers to impose a penalty on a public communications provider that does not comply with a designated vendor direction issued to it. That penalty can be up to 10% of a provider’s turnover. The Act states that the Secretary of State must set out rules for how they intend to calculate a provider’s turnover. That includes what relevant business the Secretary of State will take into account when calculating that turnover.
The Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Penalties) (Rules for Calculation of Turnover) Order 2003 sets out rules for Ofcom to calculate a provider’s turnover when it contravenes conditions set under the Communications Act 2003. The statutory instrument makes changes to the 2003 order so that rules in that legislation apply when calculating turnover for the purposes of determining a penalty for enforcement of designated vendor directions. It also defines what is to be treated as a network service facility or business by reference to which the calculation of turnover is to be made.
The Secretary of State could have relied on the 2003 order for the purposes of enforcement of a designated vendor direction. However, this SI removes any ambiguity and provides legal certainty and absolute clarity on the rules that apply. Turnover will be calculated in line with accounting practices and principles generally accepted in the United Kingdom and will be limited to the amount derived by that provider after the deduction of relevant taxes.
In conclusion, this is a narrowly focused but important statutory instrument through which we are ensuring legal certainty and clarity. It makes clear the Secretary of State’s approach to calculating turnover, which will underpin any decision to penalise a provider in relation to the designated vendor directions. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this draft statutory instrument; it was brief and to the point. These penalties will be able to reach 10% of turnover or £100,000 per day for continuing breaches, so getting the calculations right is crucial. However, I have some concerns about the SI, the first of which is about timing.
I do not understand why we are looking at a three-year gap between the enabling powers and the calculation rules. The Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021, which I worked on, was presented to this House as urgent legislation to protect critical national infrastructure, yet here we are, in 2025, only now establishing how to calculate penalties for breaches in the way set out in this SI. During this period, we have had enforcement powers without the ability to properly determine penalties. As I understand it, tier 1 providers had to comply by March 2024, yet the penalty calculation mechanism will not be in place until this year—no doubt in a few weeks’ time.
Secondly, there is the absence of consultation. The Explanatory Memorandum cites the reason as the SI’s “technical nature”, but these penalties—I mentioned their size—could have major financial implications for providers. The telecoms industry has complex business structures and revenue streams. Technical expertise from the industry could have helped to ensure that these calculations are practical and comprehensive. The technical justification seems remarkably weak, given the impact these rules could have. For example, the current definition of “relevant business” for these calculations focuses on traditional network and service provision, but modern telecoms companies often have diverse revenue streams. There is no clear provision for new business models or technologies. How will we handle integrated service providers? What about international revenues? The treatment of associated services needs clarification.
Thirdly, the implementation sequence is an issue. We are being asked to approve penalty calculations before seeing the enforcement guidelines. There is no impact assessment, so we cannot evaluate potential consequences. I understand that the post-implementation review is not scheduled until 2026, and there is no clear mechanism for adjusting the framework if problems emerge. The interaction with the existing penalty regime needs clarification.
There are also technical concerns that need some attention. The switch from “notified provider” to “person” in the 2003 order, as a result of this SI, needs rather more explanation. The calculation method for continuing breaches is not fully detailed, there is no specific provision for group companies or complex corporate structures and the treatment of joint ventures and partnerships remains unclear.
Finally, I hope that, in broad terms, the Minister can give us an update on progress on the removal of equipment covered by the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. That was mandated by the Act; I know it is under way but it is not yet complete.
This is about not merely technical calculations but creating an effective deterrent to the telecoms industry, while ensuring fair and practical enforcement of important security measures. Getting these rules right is essential for both national security and our telecoms sector. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these points.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this important SI forward today and for setting it out so clearly and briefly. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. He made a range of interesting points: in particular, the point on timing was well made, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers on that. This instrument seeks to implement provisions relating to the enforcement of designated vendor directions—DVDs—which form part of the broader framework established under the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. That Act, introduced under the previous Government, was designed to strengthen the security and resilience of the UK’s telecommunications networks, particularly in response to emerging national security risks.
We all know only too well that one of the most prominent issues at the forefront of this framework has been the removal of high-risk vendors, such as Huawei, from UK telecommunications infrastructure. Huawei’s involvement in the UK’s 5G rollout has long been a point of debate, with growing concerns about national security risks tied to its equipment. This SI therefore provides a mechanism for enforcing the penalties that may be applied to public communications providers —PCPs—that fail to comply with the DVDs to ensure that the UK’s telecommunications infrastructure remains secure from undue foreign influence.
The primary change introduced by this SI is the formalisation of the penalties regime for public communications providers that fail to comply with the conditions outlined in DVDs. It establishes a framework for calculating and enforcing penalties that may be imposed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State retains discretion in imposing penalties, but they must be applied in a proportionate manner. In considering penalties, the severity of the breach, the culpability of the provider and the broader implications for the sector must all be taken into account. The aim is to ensure compliance with DVDs while protecting the integrity of the UK’s national infrastructure.
However, while the objectives of this instrument are understood, this debate offers a good opportunity to scrutinise some of the specifics a little, particularly with regard to the proportionality of penalties and the potential economic consequences for the sector. It is with that in mind that I shall raise questions in just three areas regarding the provisions set out in this instrument.
First, the SI grants the Secretary of State significant discretion in the imposition of penalties. Of course, we recognise the value of flexibility here, but there is legitimate concern that this discretion may result in inconsistent enforcement across different public communications providers. Can the Minister assure us that transparency and accountability will be maintained throughout this process? How will the Government ensure that the application of penalties is fair and consistent, particularly when considering the varying size and scope of telecoms providers?
Further to this, can the Minister clarify how the penalties will be calculated? I echo the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, particularly in cases where a breach does not pose an immediate or severe national security threat. Do the Government anticipate that penalties will be tiered with lesser fines for breaches that do not substantially compromise national security? Can the Minister further explain how such decisions will be communicated to the public and to industry to ensure transparency?
Secondly, providers are required to remove Huawei equipment from the UK’s 5G networks by 2027. This is, of course, a significant and costly task for telecom providers. Given these financial challenges, will the penalties for non-compliance take into account the costs already incurred by providers in replacing Huawei’s technology? Will the penalties be adjusted to reflect the substantial financial burden that these providers are already facing in removing Huawei equipment from their networks? Thirdly, where PCPs have been issued with a DVD, this can be a long and demanding process. How are the Government going to keep track of progress? What progress reports can be shared with Parliament and the public?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. We believe that legislative certainty is important, which is why we are seeking to resolve potential ambiguity by making this instrument at the earliest opportunity. This SI will ensure that important decisions on national security, specifically the enforcement of national security powers introduced by the Telecommunications (Security) Act, have clear rules underpinning them.
I will now have a go at answering the questions raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the three-year gap and why the SI was not taken forward earlier. I should thank Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee clerks for asking for clarification on the operability of the regime. The system has not been inoperable for four years. The Secretary of State can and has used their powers to monitor compliance with a direction under the current rules. The Secretary of State could have taken enforcement action without this SI being in place. The 2003 order could have applied for the purpose of enforcement of a designated vendor direction. However, there is some ambiguity concerning whether the rules set out in the 2003 order can apply to the enforcement of a designated vendor direction. This could have left enforcement action imposing a penalty on a provider vulnerable to legal challenge. We are therefore making an SI to ensure that there is legal certainty and clarity when penalties are imposed, and that position was set out in a letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee clarifying that.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also asked about the lack of consultation, but this is a technical clarification for rules that were already in operation. He asked about how turnover would be calculated. It will be done in conformity with the accounting practices and principles that are generally accepted in the United Kingdom. The turnover will be limited to the amount derived by that provider from the relevant business after deduction of sales rebates, value added tax and other taxes directly related to turnover. If the provider’s relevant business consists of two or more undertakings that each prepare accounts, then the turnover should be calculated by adding together the turnover of each undertaking. Any aid granted by a public body to a provider should be included in the calculation of turnover if the provider is a recipient of the aid and if that is directly linked to the carrying out by that provider of the relevant business. The business activities to be included in the turnover calculation for a provider are as follows: the provision of public electronic communications network; the provision of the public electronic communication of services; and the making available of facilities that are associated with facilities by reference to such a network or service.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the removal of equipment and the progress report on that. Using the powers provided by the Telecommunications (Security) Act, the former Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport issued a designation notice to Huawei and a designated vendor direction to 35 providers in October 2022. The direction gives 12 specific requirements for telecom providers’ use of Huawei equipment. The previous Secretary of State decided that these legal controls on the use of Huawei equipment or services were necessary and proportionate to the national security risks they were designated to mitigate. The UK is now on a path towards the complete removal of Huawei from its 5G networks by the end of 2027.
The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked whether the application was being applied in a fair and consistent way. I would say that this was an evidence-based decision, reflecting the national security risk. The designation notice issued to Huawei set out the reasons why the use of its equipment is viewed as a national security risk; it includes concerns about, among other things, corporate control, cybersecurity and engineering quality. This action builds on long-standing advice from the National Cyber Security Centre and the Government on the use of Huawei equipment in UK public tele- communications networks.
The noble Viscount asked about the cost to business of removing this equipment. The Government have estimated that the removal of Huawei equipment due to the designated vendor directions will cost providers up to £2 billion in total.
The noble Viscount also asked how the Secretary of State monitors compliance with a direction. The Communications Act 2003, as amended by the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021, provides the Secretary of State with powers enabling the monitoring and enforcement of requirements imposed in designated vendor directions. The Secretary of State is responsible for determining compliance with a direction, based on evidence provided by the industry and Ofcom. The Secretary of State may give Ofcom a direction requiring Ofcom to monitor providers’ progress in complying with the direction and to report to the Secretary of State to inform their assessment of compliance. The former Secretary of State received Ofcom’s report in spring 2024 on the removal of Huawei from relevant providers’ core network functions, and that ongoing appraisal continues.
I hope that I have answered all the questions that were asked. If I have not answered on something that is very technical, I can write to noble Lords, of course. In the meantime, I hope noble Lords agree on the importance of introducing this instrument to ensure legislative certainty and therefore agree that enforcement through these powers should be introduced as swiftly as possible.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Is the Minister confident that the 2027 deadline will be met; that no vendor, purchaser or telecoms company will be caught by the Act; that no fines will be levied; and that what we are talking about today is, therefore, entirely theoretical?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
While the Minister is working on her answer, perhaps she could include in that something about how progress against the delivery of these objectives will be reported to Parliament, potentially —and, indeed, to the public.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am sure that it says in my brief that we are on target to meet the 2027 deadline. If I am mistaken about that, I will write to noble Lords, obviously.
In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, of course Ofcom reports to Parliament in the normal way, through its annual report, and I am sure that this activity will be included.
Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 13 February. They make consequential amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other primary legislation, as well as to the planning application fee regulations. These amendments reflect the two new routes for planning permission for Crown development that were introduced through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This legislation forms part of a wider suite of statutory instruments needed to implement these new routes. These routes are crucial to ensure that there is a more timely and proportionate planning process for nationally important public services and infrastructure.
I will start by providing some context and background to these regulations. Recent experience, including the response to Covid-19, has exposed that the existing route for securing planning permission for urgent Crown development, which was introduced in 2006, is not fit for purpose—so much so that it has never been used. Furthermore, government departments have struggled to secure local planning permission for nationally important public service infrastructure, such as prisons. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act made provision to address these challenges by providing two new routes for planning permission for Crown development in England.
The first route, referred to as Crown development, is for planning applications for Crown developments that are considered of national importance. These applications are to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate directly instead of to local planning authorities. A planning inspector will consider and determine the application, unless the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government recovers the application to determine herself.
The second route is an updated urgent Crown development route. This will enable applications for nationally important developments that are needed urgently to be determined rapidly under a simplified procedure. Applications under the urgent route will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
These new routes can be used for developments only where it is clearly justified. Provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act require that applications can be accepted by the Secretary of State only if she deems that the proposed development is of national importance and that it is urgent, in the case of the urgent Crown development route. I made a Written Ministerial Statement on 13 February which set out the principles under which national importance and urgency will be determined. Applicants are required when submitting an application to set out the reasons why they consider that the development is of national importance and, in the case of urgent Crown development, is needed as a matter of urgency.
I turn to the detail of the regulations. This is the first of a suite of statutory instruments needed to implement the Crown reforms. It makes amendments to primary legislation to reflect the two new Crown development routes. For instance, it amends references to planning permission set out in a range of different pieces of legislation. It also removes references to the previous urgent Crown development route in Section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act, which now applies only in Wales. This instrument also sets the fee for an application for planning permission under both routes. This is the same as the fee that would have been paid to the local authority if the application had been submitted to it.
Following this statutory instrument coming into force, a further suite of statutory instruments will be made through the negative parliamentary procedure. These instruments will set the procedures for the two routes and make further consequential changes to secondary legislation in order to reflect the implementation of these routes. We have published these instruments in draft ahead of this debate to provide proper transparency on how the routes will operate.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I have no difficulty at all with the thrust of this statutory instrument, but I have one or two queries.
Throughout her speech, the Minister referred to Crown development, but the Explanatory Memorandum says that this concerns
“planning permission for the development of Crown land”.
Does this apply only to development on land that the Government already own? Or, as the Minister said, is this about Crown development, possibly on land owned by other people or organisations? If I am right and this is confined to the development of Crown land, as the Explanatory Memorandum says on pages 1 and 3, is there a definition of “Crown land”? We are familiar with the Crown Estate but what exactly is Crown land?
Secondly, can the Minister give us some examples of the sorts of development that might be relevant to this statutory instrument? I understand the process that she described, but I did not get a picture of exactly when this would be used by the Government. It would be helpful if she could flesh that out.
Thirdly, this measure applies to development that is urgent and in the national interest or
“securing planning permission for nationally important and urgent Crown development”.
Is that justiciable? In other words, would it be possible to slow down the whole process if somebody came up and said, “This is a misuse of this statutory instrument. This is not nationally important or urgent”? In that case, the whole objective of this SI—to speed things up—could be nullified if the decision to use it was justiciable.
My final point is a petty one. I notice that, on pages 2 and 3, a whole lot of legislation is being amended. It is not clear to me why the Caravan Sites Act 1968, for example, has to be amended as a result of what we are doing in this SI. Is there some particular caravan site occupying a site of enormous national importance that might have to be used for the purpose of some giant infrastructure scheme? Looking at pages 2 and 3, one sees a whole series of pieces of legislation, and it is not absolutely clear why they all need to be amended to bring this SI into effect.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond satisfactorily to the points that he raised.
Reading the Explanatory Note, my question is: who decides whether an application for a development is “of national importance” or “a matter of urgency”? I assume that there is a proposal from a department, presumably from the relevant Minister, that then goes to the Secretary of State in the noble Baroness’s department, and that the final decision is made by the Secretary of State, but on the recommendation of the relevant department. I assume that this means that the relevant department cannot itself define that something is urgent and of national importance. I think I have concluded that it is both, but that the final decision will lie with the Secretary of State. For me, the vital question for the Minister to clarify is: will the public be able to object? The Minister talked about the need to try to ensure consultation with local people, but will local people be able to object to an application, or will the decision lie simply with the Secretary of State?
I noticed the Minister’s comments on scrutiny. I think she said that there will be full scrutiny of the use of powers, but paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The instrument does not include a statutory review clause”,
and paragraph 10.2 says:
“The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government will monitor the overall effect of the implementation of the Crown Development and Urgent Crown Development routes for planning permission”.
It is not clear to me to what extent that will involve Parliament. I want to hear from the Minister that the monitoring review will be thorough and part of normal parliamentary procedures on matters of this kind.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the Minister for her explanation of how we got from there to here; its clarity is welcome. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, for their forensic questioning, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. We on these Benches are in agreement that projects in the national interest, especially those deemed urgent, must and should be expedited as swiftly as possible. We are also in agreement that the present system has failed to deliver the improvements necessary to promote economic growth and improve the productivity of our vastly unequal regions.
Subsidiarity, a word we do not hear very often, cuts to the heart of this SI and the changes it introduces. Decisions must and should be taken at the most appropriate level, proportionate to the impact of the decision, which this SI attempts to do. Only time will tell whether it has been successful.
However, to me, this is a two-way street, with powers devolved down as well as taken up. It is nothing short of madness that when I was an elected mayor, I had to go through a four-year torment and two judicial reviews needing the Secretary of State’s approval—of which there were many during those four years—to be able to turn an allotment site into much-needed facilities for our local hospital. Conversely, it is also unacceptable that plans to build a third runway at Heathrow have been in discussion for decades. Evidence abounds that something needs to change and the system is failing. I am therefore interested in the Minister joining the dots for me as to how the new regional super-mayors will be involved in this process, given that the Government are also giving them greater planning powers.
We can also see how this joins up to the Government’s broader agenda. We have all lived through the Crown Estate Act and agree with its aims to use land—we look forward to the clarification mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—to create lasting and shared prosperity for the good of the nation as a whole. We can see how the SI is designed to drive through nationally significant projects at pace. However, the then Opposition, us included, were greatly concerned that such powers would be used only when necessary and with appropriate safeguards in place.
We will have to watch to see whether the safeguards and processes envisaged by these changes are effective, and whether the definition of “national importance” has been consistently applied and the criteria as laid out adhered to. Perhaps the Minister can give us some examples of what applications constitute a matter of urgency and warrant an expedited planning process.
Our overriding concern is the need for accountability and transparency. Can the Minister clarify what is envisaged—in the words of the Minister in the other place—to ensure that
“the House as a whole”
will have
“the opportunity to consider and scrutinise their general operation”?—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/25; col. 33WS.]
Is this for each application or the generality of the process? To paraphrase my noble friend’s question, we would seek clarity on the review.
There are legitimate concerns around the erosion of local democracy—of not listening to local voices and their elected representatives. Can the Minister reassure us that all voices will be heard and consultation will be wide ranging, as appropriate to the application? I underline that phrase. Does the Minister agree that the undeniable right to be listened to and consulted does not confer a right of veto?
I am unconvinced that a retrospective annual report in the form of a letter of decisions taken, placed in both Libraries, fulfils the commitment to make sure this is scrutinised and accountable. We are looking forward to the changes to come in the context of the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which I am sure we are all eagerly looking forward to—or not. However, that is an argument for another day. We support this SI, with caveats on future scrutiny and transparency.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, as usual I declare the fact that I am a current councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for her explanation on the SI and the reasons behind it. Like my fellow noble Lords, I recognise that we need to get on with these major infrastructure projects. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, gave the example of Heathrow, but one can also think of the Lower Thames Crossing, which I understand has received approval just today, after about 800 million pages of planning documents.
It is important that we do that, so in principle we support the need for the SI. The Minister has reiterated to us how important it is to get on with these things, but to do so by completely ignoring the public and the local planning process is a concern to this side of the House. We really want the assurance that it will be done only in exceptional circumstances and where speed is absolutely necessary. We recognise that the planning process is far from perfect; I too look forward to debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. This very much seems to be a mechanism to shoehorn through a process in a system that does not work. We really ought to look at making the system work.
I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on why it is so necessary to do that and her assurances on why it is necessary to circumvent local planning processes and local transparency. I also support the calls from fellow Peers that local involvement should be maintained and representations to the Minister should be still able to be made.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a helpful debate. As ever, our great experts on planning in the House contributed to a good discussion. I will, of course, attempt to answer all the questions. I am sure that noble Lords will pull me up if I do not if I do not answer them. I will, of course, check in Hansard afterwards and reply in writing on anything to which I have not responded to fully.
The noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Shipley, asked who is able to apply for planning permission through these routes. Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act defines who is an applicant known as an appropriate authority for the purpose of applications under these routes. For example, this includes where land belongs to a government department or is held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of a government department. That department is considered to be an appropriate authority. For land belonging to His Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the duchy is the appropriate authority and for land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, a person that the Duke of Cornwall appoints is the appropriate authority. So land that goes into any of those routes will be appropriate for this route.
The uses for Crown development and confirmation of which developments Crown development can be used for was the subject of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young. I am sure that he will ask again if I have got that wrong. It will be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is deemed nationally important, and it would not be appropriate to comment now on specific schemes. However, it is likely that the Crown development route will be used most for HMG programmes relating to nationally important public service development. For example, this would include, but not be limited to, new prisons or border infrastructure. Traditionally, those things are difficult in the planning process. The route could also be used for defence-related development, as PINS is able to put in place special procedures to handle information dealing with matters of national security. Special provisions exist whereby the Secretary of State can issue a direction limiting the disclosure of information relating to matters of the security of a premises through Section 321 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Crown development route can also be used for particularly sensitive or significant development being brought forward by, or on behalf of, the Crown. We expect few applications to be submitted through this route every year. It is not going to be used all the time; it would be an exception.
In terms of urgent Crown development, again, it will be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is deemed nationally important and needed urgently. When I looked at the papers for this SI, the first thing that came to my mind was the time when, during Covid, we were getting desperately short of mortuary space. This is a bit of a morbid subject but, in the middle of a pandemic, it is vital that you think about that and you may want to have an urgent process to deal with that sort of thing.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific schemes, but the urgent Crown development route is expected to be used very rarely, where other planning application routes just cannot be used to secure a decision quickly enough. The pandemic might have been one of those instances. It will be used only where development needs to be put in place quickly, in a matter of days or weeks, and where it is in the national interest—for things such as medical centres, the storage and distribution of key goods and services in the event of a pandemic or, potentially, mortuary space.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked who makes the decisions—he was correct in his assumption on that; I hope that that is helpful—and whether the public will be able to object. I will come to those issues in a moment.
The noble Lord asked about how national importance is defined. The Government are committed to a planning system in which decisions are made locally. However, it is a well-established principle that, in limited circumstances, it is necessary for the Secretary of State to make planning decisions where issues of more than local importance are involved. In general, the Secretary of State will consider a development to be of regional or national importance only if it would: involve the interests of national security or foreign Governments; contribute to the provision of national public services or infrastructure, such as prisons or border infrastructure; support a response to international, national or regional civil emergencies; or otherwise have significant economic, social or environmental effects and strong public interest. The applicant will have to set out, as part of a statement accompanying the application, evidence demonstrating that at least one of those principles has been met.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked how “urgency” is defined. The applicant will be required to provide a statement to accompany the application setting out why they consider that the development is both nationally important and needed as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State will accept applications through the urgent development route only where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development is both of national importance and needed urgently. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed development needs to be made operational in an accelerated timeframe and that it is unlikely to be feasible using other application routes, including the Crown development route, and will need to evidence the likely consequences of not securing a decision within the accelerated timeframe. I hope that that is helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked me about mayoral powers and strategic planning. I share her pain, as any local councillor will, over the planning process. I will never get back the hours that I have spent in discussion about great crested newts and rare species of bats and insects, so I feel her pain on that. However, these reforms are for national and very urgent issues only.
On mayoral or strategic powers, the Crown reforms will affect the ability of combined or mayoral authorities to call in applications of potential strategic importance. The relevant combined authority will instead be consulted for development coming forward through the Crown development route, so it will be done at that strategic level.
In response to all noble Lords’ questions about how further information on this will be provided, we will publish updated planning practice guidance to reflect the new routes coming into force. We intend to publish the amended guidance closer to the implementation of the routes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked about transparency. As I said, applicants need to demonstrate that the application is of national and urgent importance, and the Secretary of State can accept that application only if she considers that that is the case.
When a decision is made to accept an application, as I set out in my opening speech, a letter will be written to the MP whose constituency the development falls in and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Application documents will be available and applications to both routes will be determined on planning merits, with the reasons behind whether to grant or refuse set out in the inspector’s report or the Secretary of State’s decision letter. I hope that that is helpful.
In my opening speech, I set out in some detail how community engagement will work; the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson, raised it again. Of course, community engagement is very important. Any comments made during the consultation and publicity period that raise material planning matters will be taken into account as part of the decision-making process. The local planning authority will also have a role to play. It will need to place the application and documents on its planning register and, as PINS does not have a local presence, the local planning authority will be required to affix site notices during the mandatory publicity period and notify owners or occupiers who adjoin the site. So, for that purpose, it will work just the same as the local planning process.
Regarding urgent Crown development community engagement, as I said, we would encourage consultation with local communities, where possible. If it is possible to do meaningful engagement in a timeframe, we would encourage that. Where it is not possible, the Secretary of State should use alternative methods to make sure that community views can be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about fixing the planning system; we hope we will be able to do that. Working very quickly, we have already managed a major consultation on the NPPF and published a revised version in December. Yesterday, the other House had a long debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will come to this House shortly. My belief is that there will always be a need for an urgency procedure for decision-making in councils. There will always be a need for some kind of urgent process and for the Secretary of State to be able to make a decision on national grounds. I hope that that has answered all noble Lords’ questions.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
The Minister has been enormously helpful in answering the questions, but she did not touch on the question of whether a decision to use this route would be justiciable. She may not be able to answer that, but I assume that it would be.
The Minister mentioned the case of Covid and the mortuaries. As I understand it, this system can be used only where the Crown owns the land, so if it does not own the land, it will have to buy it before it can use this SI. If something is urgent but the Crown does not own the land on which the building is needed, I wonder whether the CPO will hold things up, or whether that can be part of a streamlined process.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was assuming that it would be an application made on land already owned, but I will write to the noble Lord and set that out in further detail.
On his other point, my understanding is that all things are, technically, judicially reviewable, but I will find out the detail of that and set it out. Obviously, if we are going to put an urgent and national process in place, we want it to be able to speed through as quickly as possible, but, in the planning world, it would be most unusual for there to be no process of review should that be needed. I will get our planning team to check that for the noble Lord, and I will write to him with the exact details.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I have a question; it is not dissimilar to the one from my noble friend Lord Young. As I understand it, from what the Minister has laid out, it will in essence be up to the Minister or Secretary of State to determine whether this is urgent, nationally significant and so on. My real question is: what constraints will there be on him or her in determining that? Where is the opportunity to challenge, review or assess? I know that the Minister is going to come back on the issue of judicial review. Clearly, we do not want to have an urgent process be bogged down by it for two or three years; however, we would want some constraint on it. So what process is in place to ensure that the Minister is not in a position to determine all of this by himself or herself?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for reiterating those points. I set out that there is a set of criteria deeming whether an application is of national importance. The applicant will need to say which of those criteria they are using to say that it is of national importance. The same applies to the urgent procedure: the applicant will need to demonstrate one of those criteria for it being urgent, and the Secretary of State will decide whether or not that is the case. Out of the criteria I set out, the applicant will need to demonstrate that at least one applies. That is how it is going to work. I will have to come back to noble Lords on whether it will be reviewable.
In conclusion, the two new routes for planning permission that we are seeking to implement are necessary and timely; all noble Lords agree with that, I think. These regulations represent a crucial step to their delivery. I hope that the Committee will welcome the regulations, which address this critical requirement for a proportionate planning procedure for nationally important Crown developments.
Israel: Arms Exports
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howard of Lympne
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Chapman of Darlington on 3 September 2024 (HL Deb cols 1065-69), whether they had discretion not to suspend the arms exports to Israel which they suspended.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, the assessment that there was a clear risk that certain UK exports might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law meant that such exports were no longer permitted under our strategic export licensing criteria, and were thus suspended. The SELC are statutory guidance, from which the Government may depart only when there is a good reason. Moreover, the UK’s international obligations, such as under the Arms Trade Treaty, remain binding on the UK under international law, irrespective of whether the SELC are being applied. My noble friend Lady Chapman was therefore quite correct to say that, under the criteria, the Government were required to suspend certain licences.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I thank the Minister for that answer but, when the Foreign Secretary announced the suspension, he was careful not to use the word “required”, and specifically referred to the fact that international humanitarian law was not the only factor to be taken into account. Whether one thinks that all arms exports to Israel should be suspended or no arms exports to Israel should be granted, surely we can all agree that Parliament must be given an accurate reason for the Government’s decision. Is not the very fact that the suspension is only partial proof that, contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, told your Lordships on 3 September and subsequently, the Government had a discretion in this matter that they chose to exercise in a particular way?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I must reiterate that my noble friend Lady Chapman was absolutely correct to say that, under the criteria, the Government were required to suspend certain licences. The decision not to suspend the F35 licences was a departure from the criteria, and Ministers anticipated such a course when the criteria were introduced.
However, our international obligations remain binding on the UK under international law, regardless of whether the SELC are being applied. So, for example, our actions to depart from the SELC and continue the export of items for the F35 programme still have to comply with the Arms Trade Treaty. Article 7 of that treaty requires a balancing exercise, considering factors including the risk of serious violation of international humanitarian law and whether exports
“would contribute to or undermine peace and security”.
Exports are prohibited under this article unless the risk of negative consequences is overriding.
Finally, the Government have been clear about the international humanitarian risks in this case, but also that F35 licences cannot be suspended without serious prejudice to the entire programme and, therefore, to international peace and security. Thus, the exemption of F35 licences was a case-specific decision based on specific factors, while the suspension of other licences was mandated by the criteria.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others have all condemned Israeli brutality and genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The International Criminal Court has declared Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, guilty of war crimes and issued a warrant for his arrest. Will the Minister agree that, in continuing to supply arms to Israel, however diplomatically we put it, we are complicit in the genocide of Palestinian men, women and innocent children?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Ultimately, these are matters for the courts to determine, not the Government. However, the clear risk of serious breaches of international humanitarian law has led us to suspend those licences. I will say one further thing: Prime Minister Netanyahu has not been found guilty of any breaches up until this date.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, are the Government taking a bit of a pick-and-mix attitude to international law? In the case of Prime Minister Netanyahu, what about the law of sovereign immunity? He has immunity as a head of state, and it is a state that never signed up to the International Criminal Court. The Government need to be clear on what they consider to be international law and what is not, and not just pick and choose.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I can only reiterate what I have just said, which is that this is a matter for the courts, not the Government, to determine. However, we have made our own decisions about the clear risk of serious breaches of international humanitarian law, which have led us to suspend the licences being debated.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, on 15 October my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne asked a Written Question of the Attorney-General, who I am pleased to see in his place. He asked whether the Attorney-General’s advice was that licences to export arms to Israel had to be suspended. The Attorney’s reply cited the usual convention that his advice was confidential. But, on 5 September, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, referred expressly to the substance of that advice when explaining to this House why arms exports had to be suspended. Her answer therefore both breached the convention on Attorney-Generals’ advice and contradicted the Foreign Secretary’s explanation, because he said in the other place that the Government had a “discretion” on whether to suspend the licences. Can we now finally have a clear answer to a clear question? Were the Government legally required to suspend those arms export licences or did they have a discretion that they chose to exercise in a particular way?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As I have made clear, our assessment was that there was a clear risk that there would be serious violations of international humanitarian law, so my noble friend was correct in her decision. The strategic export licensing criteria are cumulative, in that before a licence can be issued it must comply with all the criteria. Criterion 5 of the SELC is a separate criterion that allows the Government to weigh national security concerns when considering whether to license an export, and as such provides a discretionary basis on which to refuse exports. There is no scope to balance criterion 2(c) on international humanitarian issues against criterion 5.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, is it not a fact that we all know and can agree on that, during the course of the war in Gaza, schools, hospitals and aid convoys have been attacked, and families have been attacked in areas that the Israel Defense Forces has declared as being safe to go to? Rather than looking at the intricacies of legal arguments, is it not an absolutely clear fact, bearing in mind the proportionality principle of international humanitarian law, that it would be an astonishing argument to say that there have been no violations of international humanitarian law?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for raising those issues. We strongly oppose Israel’s resumption of hostilities and urgently want to see a return to a ceasefire. More bloodshed is in no one’s interest. The reported civilian casualties resulting from the recent strikes are appalling and we urge all parties to return urgently to talks, implement the ceasefire agreement in full and work towards a permanent peace. For the sake of the remaining hostages and their loved ones, for the people of Gaza and for the future of two peoples who have suffered so much for so long, we will continue to strive for a return to the path of peace.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, these Benches agreed with the assessment carried out last summer. But, given that there have been considerable and grave breaches since then, why have the Government not reviewed their assessment, to take into consideration the more recent developments and the concerns over breaches? Given that the assessment concerned the risk of grave breaches in Gaza, we have also seen—with almost impunity—the deteriorating situation in the West Bank. Surely the Government should be using the precautionary principle and we should not be trading with the Occupied Territories and should be restricting further activities, because these export licence restrictions represent less than 10% of all licences. Surely the Government must now use the precautionary principle and widen restrictions even further, especially with regard to the West Bank?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we keep all these decisions under review. The noble Lord is right to say that not all the licences have been suspended. Some of the items are not being used actively in combat; they are being used for humanitarian aid and other issues, to help, for example, the NGOs in those territories, so we did not feel that a full suspension was necessary.
Female Genital Mutilation
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley of Knighton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the prevalence of female genital mutilation nationally.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Female genital mutilation is an abhorrent crime. The Home Office concluded a feasibility study in 2024 to examine how to produce robust prevalence estimates for FGM; we are now considering the next steps. We monitor data on FGM cases from the police, the National Health Service and the Ministry of Justice. Of the 2,755 honour-based abuse offences recorded by the police in the year ending March 2024, 111 were FGM related. However, the hidden nature of FGM can make it challenging to quantify.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Although the biggest battle to eliminate FGM lies in sub-Saharan Africa, as the figures show, we cannot afford to be complacent in this country. Does the Minister agree that, although education is by far the best way to effect culture change, we still need the rule of law as a deterrent? Is the Minister at all concerned that between 2014 and 2024 we have had only two convictions for FGM? Furthermore, will the Home Office possibly agree to a request by Nimco Ali’s Five Foundation—she, of course, is a survivor—to update the 2014 estimate, thus informing policy going forward on ending FGM in the UK and helping signpost where survivors can get medical or psychological support?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has a long history of tackling this issue in legislation and bringing it before the House. He deserves credit for the work he has done to date. He mentioned a couple of key issues. We agree that the prosecution rate needs to be examined. The College of Policing has recently sent out further authorised professional practice notes to police forces and we recently confirmed £13.1 million of funding for a new centre to tackle violence against women and girls, which will help look at a range of issues, of which FGM will be one. He is also right that we need to look at the prevalence of FGM. The feasibility study I mentioned in my initial Answer looks at how we can record and understand better the level of crime being committed. One of the key things we are doing is looking at that study and what needs to be undertaken. I and colleagues will bring forward measures to this House and to the House of Commons in due course, of which support for survivors is key.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I believe that the figures for female genital mutilation reported by the National Health Service are considerably greater than the figures the Minister just gave us. This has been going on for years—not just under this Government, but year after year. Thousands of people are being mutilated in this way, usually children. Yet I think there have been not two but three convictions for this crime in all these years—thousands of cases and three convictions. Does this not have the stench of the Rotherham grooming scandal? Why is it so difficult to get justice in this country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The figures from NHS England, which I have before me, show that between April 2024 to June 2024, 985 new cases of women and girls with FGM were recorded by the NHS, with around 2,175 cases in total during these three months. He is right that there is, in my view, an underreporting of FGM and a need to up the level of prosecution when evidence is submitted. The purpose of the study that was commissioned and undertaken was to look at how we both better record and translate recording into prosecution. He is right that the prosecution level is too low. That is why the College of Policing is issuing guidance to police forces on how they can record information to put forward to the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that those prosecutions take place.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, are there not serious issues in these investigations that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, quite rightly pointed out? Obviously, many of the mutilations are arranged by parents, which means that the children may have to give evidence against their parents. The people who carry out the cutting are abroad, which means that they are beyond our ability to investigate, although various operations have been carried out at Heathrow to try to get these girls when they are travelling; some have been successful.
I worry that the health service is not recording all the data. I understand why: of course, we want patients to get care if they have had a terrible medical episode after one of these cutting episodes, or if they have subsequent medical problems. We need the data to see how big the problem is. I suspect, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, indicated, that it is far bigger than we know. The medical profession, I suspect, has the data for adults as well, because women need treatment later and it will be obvious what happened in earlier life. The Minister mentioned the study, but perhaps he could say a little more about how he intends to get that data.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The study we have commissioned is looking at what needs to be done to collect further data. We are looking at establishing a pilot scheme to look at the health service, the police, the Ministry of Justice and other data collection points to ensure we get the proper picture of FGM instances.
The noble Lord is right that many women and children are transported abroad for this. I am sure he will be aware that Operation Limelight is an ongoing operation to target inbound and outbound traffic to and from countries with a high prevalence of FGM. It is both raising awareness about the crime and following up where leads are in place to ensure that people do not leave the country for that trafficking purpose.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I disagree with the previous questioner: the NHS data is extraordinarily helpful. It says that, of the known cases, less than 9% are adults and all the rest are children, but by the first time they are seen in the NHS, 98.9% are adults and aged over 18. What is the Home Office doing, along with the NHS, to ensure that word is out in the various communities—not just the Muslim community—that perpetrate FGM? It is important that those two services are joined up.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. One of the key things we need to do is ensure that those people who perpetrate FGM and encourage others to do so are held to account. That is why I again point to the prosecution figures and to the information collected by the National Health Service, because, again, someone only goes to the National Health Service when they have already been offended against. Those are both important issues, and the purpose of the policy study we are undertaking is to gather more information. Again, it is important that we have a proper definition of FGM and honour-based abuse. We are currently looking at that with other government departments to come to some conclusions in, I hope, the relatively near future.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, girls born in the UK in communities where FGM is commonplace face severe injury, long-term health complications and sometimes even death because of this abuse. As many have highlighted, it is almost impossible to detect because of the burden on victims to report it. I therefore ask the Minister: what specific steps have the Government taken to reach out to women in those communities where FGM is prevalent? How are Ministers working to safeguard women and girls and to effect a cultural change to ensure that this dangerous and illegal practice is stopped?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. First of all, this is a crime. As it is a crime, if it is reported it will be acted on, and if evidence is collected the CPS will prosecute. We need to ensure that we increase the level of prosecutions. The noble Lord asked about the help we are giving to people who may be involved. This is not a political point, because his Government supported it as well, but the Home Office has for many years funded Karma Nirvana’s national helpline. We have committed £215,000 for this current year, 2024-25; obviously, we continue to look at that support. It is important that people come forward and report FGM to the health service and the police. If they do so, we need to look at how we can improve those prosecution rates to make sure that offenders are brought to justice.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I will ask directly about the situation with the NHS and reconstructive surgery. At the moment, the NHS will offer labiaplasty to people so that they end up with a Barbie vagina, but women who have had FGM who come before the NHS and want that critical surgery end up having to go to France or Germany to have this done. I am a patron of the Vavengers, which has funded this. Could the Minister please clarify the NHS’s position on this life-changing surgery for women who have been victims of this vile practice?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that question. The specific responsibilities of the National Health Service are wider than my brief on the issues before us today, but it is important that we examine them. I will look at what the current policies are in discussion with Health Minister colleagues, and I will write to the noble Baroness in due course.
Cuba: Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woodley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ratify the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement with Cuba.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the United Kingdom-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement was signed in November 2023 under the previous Government. It is currently undergoing cross-government consultation and will be laid before Parliament for scrutiny in due course.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, of course I warmly welcome that Answer from my noble friend the Minister, but as he will appreciate, every day is a terrible delay in terms of the suffering that it leaves the Cuban people in. Can I therefore press him further on when he anticipates that this agreement will be ratified, bearing in mind that, as he said, the previous Government travelled to Havana to sign it? I urge my noble friend to consider provisional implementation beforehand, in line with what the EU is doing, as a vital means of breaking the isolation of this very peaceful Caribbean island.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear what my noble friend says, but we cannot commit to a specific timeline for ratification, as this is a matter for Parliament. However, initial steps to undertake the cross-government consultation are under way. We do not currently have plans for provisional implementation, but I point out to my noble friend that positive collaboration with Cuba is possible without it, as evidenced by the recent visit to Havana by United Kingdom climate experts.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I went to Cuba a few years ago, and we got to know a taxi driver who drove us around—he was a charming man. When he relaxed, I said to him, “Would you like to go to America?” He said, “Are you mad? Everybody I know wants to go to America”. The reason is that they were being oppressed by the ghastly Government on that “peaceful island”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord says. The embargo does negatively affect the living standards of the Cuban people but, more importantly, it impedes the economic and political development of the country. That is why this country, including the previous Government, supports this move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, unfortunately, I have not a chat with a Cuban taxi driver, but 18 months seems a little long for internal government consultation on an agreement signed by a Minister of the Crown. Part of the agreement, as Minister Rutley said when he signed it, was about the US embargo—and now we have seen the most recent restrictions by the Trump Administration. So, given that our Government want to be closer to both Beijing and Washington, will they actually bring into force the Cuban agreement that we have signed?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think I have already answered the noble Lord: we will put ratification of this agreement before Parliament, but it is a matter of parliamentary time. Since the election, we have started the cross-Whitehall consultation to ensure that we can properly implement it. But I repeat that positive collaboration with Cuba is possible without partial implementation of the PDCA, and that is really important to understand. Climate change is just one aspect, but other aspects of collaboration can happen without the full implementation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Human Rights Watch World Report 2024 paints a desperate picture of the rights situation on the “peaceful Caribbean island” of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. It reports, among other things:
“Cubans who criticize the government risk criminal prosecution. They are not guaranteed due process”,
and:
“Authorities routinely block access to many news websites within Cuba”.
When I visited, I did not speak to any taxi drivers but getting access to the internet at all was incredibly difficult and expensive. Therefore, how are the Government utilising the provisions under the PDCA to promote progress on human rights in Cuba?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I did not expect to have to explain this to the noble Lord, but the previous Government’s rationale for implementation was to promote economic and political development. Certainly, I will not defend the attacks on human rights—I am the Minister for Human Rights—but I welcome the fact that, on 14 January, 553 prisoners, including political prisoners, were liberated. We remain concerned about those continuing to serve time, and we have made representations about that. We certainly urge Cuba to ensure that all those prisoners have the right to a fair trial, without condition. But I repeat that the engagement that we have undertaken, and what the previous Government did, had a purpose: to see economic and political development. That is the way to make progress.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in welcoming what the Minister—in his capacity as the Minister for Human Rights, a task he carries out with great diligence —has just said about human rights violations in Cuba, I ask him: can he share with the House the current numbers of people who are imprisoned in Cuba because of their political views? Can he share the violations that have been carried out under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the right to believe, not to believe or to change belief—and the massive numbers of violations and imprisonments that occur in Cuba under that clause?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I shall not repeat the figures from the announcement about the recent release, but I reassure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom Government, as did the previous Government, have called for the immediate release of all political prisoners, without condition, and that will remain our position. We are absolutely determined to advance political development in Cuba, and we will focus on ensuring that human rights are respected.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, as our Government are on good terms with the President of America these days, will they ask the President of America for Americans to leave Guantanamo Bay, which is something that the Cuban Government have wanted them to do for the last 60 years—but they would not leave?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
That is a base that was agreed and remains a sovereign base for the US. I am certainly not going to make any commitments in that regard. Our purpose as a Government remains to have good relationships with all Governments, because the way to a peaceful world is to ensure that we maintain good relationships with all Governments—particularly with our longest-standing ally, the United States. They remain important in terms of keeping global peace.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I draw attention to the fact that during the last 62 years this embargo has actually failed to remove the Government of Cuba, which it was meant to do. It has been a complete failure, but it has made it more difficult for British business to intervene and get orders there. What steps is the Minister going to take to mitigate the challenges of the embargo, with things as they stand at the moment, to enable UK businesses to engage more with Cuba and sell more products to Cuba?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear the noble Lord. The United Kingdom, under all Governments, has opposed the US embargo against Cuba, which negatively affects living standards, as I said, and impedes economic and political development. Since 1996, the United Kingdom has consistently voted in support of the annual United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for an end to the embargo. Most recently, we did so on 29 October 2024.
The noble Lord is right. Titles III and IV of the US Helms-Burton Act prevent and restrict British companies, among others, from conducting legitimate and lawful business in Cuba. We have made representations in that regard, and we are absolutely concerned about the ongoing impact on the economic development of British companies and companies within Cuba.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, Cuba, a comparatively poor country, has 9.31 doctors per 1,000 people and exports medical professionals. The UK has 3.2 doctors per 1,000 people, well below the EU average, and struggles to produce doctors; it has imported 32% of its doctors. On the assumption that we can all learn from other countries, will the Government study Cuba’s health system and seek its help in addressing doctor shortages in the UK?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I reassure my noble friend that we are absolutely committed to learning from best practice. One thing I have learned as Minister for Africa is how we can learn from many African countries—because they have focused on primary healthcare and prevention. I think it is really important that we look at best practice everywhere and see how we can adopt it.
Strategic Priorities Statement: Defence
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jackson of Peterborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government why the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not specifically include the defence industry among the priority sectors in her Statement of Strategic Priorities to the National Wealth Fund, published on 19 March.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, consistent with the Government’s manifesto, the National Wealth Fund supports the growth and clean energy missions, prioritising investment in advanced manufacturing, digital technologies, clean energy and transport. Recognising the need to adapt to a rapidly changing world, the statement of strategic priorities set out that the National Wealth Fund will also invest in dual-use technologies which support the UK’s defence and security, and will support the wider industrial strategy, including in defence.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, the EU has apparently taken the decision to shut the UK out of its €150 billion defence fund unless we acquiesce on a new fishing agreement. Clearly, the Macron Administration and the EU seem to care more about fish than our collective defence. In addition, domestic pension funds like NEST and the People’s Pension have refused to invest in defence firms on so-called ethical grounds. Given these acute challenges, does the Minister agree that the Chancellor’s decision further weakens and undermines a crucial sector? Will he implore his ministerial colleagues to reconsider their priorities so that there is proper consistency in government?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, but I am not sure he listened to the first Answer I gave. I very clearly said that the statement of strategic priorities sets out how the National Wealth Fund will invest in defence. It says very clearly that it should invest in
“dual-use technologies and … support supply chain resilience across these priority sectors, to better support the UK’s defence and security”.
It also says that the National Wealth Fund
“should consider the role it can play in supporting the delivery of the wider Industrial Strategy, including in defence”.
That wider industrial strategy absolutely achieves many of the things the noble Lord is talking about. The strategic aim of the defence industrial strategy is to make sure that the imperatives of national security and a high-growth economy are fully aligned.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for bringing the attention of your Lordships’ House to this issue and once again encouraging me properly to research a subject. On 19 March, the Chancellor wrote to the CEO of the National Wealth Fund to communicate the Government’s strategic priorities for the fund. That latter document on three occasions explicitly identifies defence as a priority under Investment Principle 2. It also goes on to enjoin the CEO to refer, in assigning priorities, to the Government’s industrial strategy Green Paper, which in turn refers to the importance of the UK’s defence sector no fewer than 38 times. The former Conservative Business Secretary, Greg Clark, described that Green Paper as a serious and substantial document and applauded it for singling out eight sectors, including defence, as priorities. Does the Minister agree with me that it is reasonable to expect the CEO of the fund to read beyond the press release and to examine in depth the correspondence and references to which his attention has been drawn?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for his question. He far more eloquently than me set out what I was attempting to say in my previous answer. He draws attention to the importance of reading the documents that are in your Question before tabling your Question.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister seen the recent piece in the Financial Times setting out the challenges posed to defence companies by the high level of friction within Europe-wide supply chains? This is not just a Brexit issue. Brussels has criticised the overregulation of intra-EU transfer of defence-related products. Does the Minister agree that we and our European partners need to address this issue as a matter of urgency if our defence industry is to develop the high degree of efficiency that is so necessary in the light of the serious challenges we face?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I very much agree with the noble and gallant Lord. I hope those issues will be addressed through the Prime Minister’s work with the European Union on defence and security co-operation, and in the defence industrial strategy and the wider EU reset.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is clearly welcome that the strategy includes defence. What support are His Majesty’s Government planning to give to small and medium-sized enterprises working in dual-use technology? Are His Majesty’s Government thinking about letting contracts in the short to medium term, so that, as we build up our defence expenditure towards 2.5%, the companies have the certainty of knowing that there will be contracts?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. The issues she raises will be addressed exactly by the defence industrial strategy. One of its key objectives, for example, is procurement—increasing its pace and opening it up to small and medium-sized enterprises, as she said. I hope that there will be more for her to hear in tomorrow’s Spring Statement.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that any defence spending channelled through the National Wealth Fund will not be constrained by the Government’s fiscal rules, specifically the investment rule, as those investments will be scored as net financial assets under the new measure of debt introduced by the Chancellor?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I can absolutely confirm that all National Wealth Fund spending will be within the fiscal rules.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is the Minister perplexed, like me, by the negativity coming from the Benches opposite? As well as many tens of billions of pounds in the National Wealth Fund, our Government have given billions to infected blood compensation, and next month we will get the triple lock on pensions. Those are three tremendous steps forward. Can the Minister urge the Chancellor to be just a little more upbeat tomorrow?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I will absolutely pass that on to the Chancellor.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, defence is the single most important activity of the state, and it is therefore unfortunate that many ESG funds have excluded investment in defence stocks, hitting our innovative UK companies. Does the Minister agree that the rebranded National Wealth Fund must lead the way more clearly and work with private sector funds to spur significant investment in the UK defence sector, as well as in other priority areas?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do agree with that, because the noble Baroness described exactly what the National Wealth Fund is there to do: to work closely with the private sector to catalyse more private sector investment in industries that we consider to be priority sectors. As the rest of this Question has shown, defence is very much one of those priority sectors.2
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, for the National Wealth Fund to crowd in capital at the scale envisaged, it must be empowered to deploy capital against higher levels of risk appetite and against a wide range of products and financial investments. Moreover, it will need to operate at market pace. Whatever the strengths of the Treasury, historically it has not been renowned for its risk appetite or pace. What steps does the Treasury intend to take to ensure that the National Wealth Fund is empowered to act, not only with the appropriate risk appetite but with the necessary pace, to attract private sector investment?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I do not agree with her criticism of the Treasury, but I agree with what she said about risk appetite. That is exactly why, when the Chancellor wrote to the National Wealth Fund, she specifically said that the
“economic capital limit will … be increased from £4.5 billion to £7 billion, allowing”
the National Wealth Fund to “take on greater risk”, and giving greater “flexibility over its investments” to
“support more projects that struggle to access private finance”.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister welcome this Question from the Opposition? Does it not once again demonstrate the problems of Brexit? We hear every week about differences, and today they are complaining about access to aviation and defence. Is it not time that they changed their position and stopped asking questions that give us an advantage?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very happy to agree with my noble friend’s assessment of the damage that Brexit has done to our economy.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, many of our European partners, particularly Poland, are seeking to diversify satellite technology to overcome the reliance on certain technologies in the context of increased defence expenditure. Surely that would also be the United Kingdom’s ambition. Can the Minister confirm that, as we increase our defence expenditure—which I welcome—there is now the opportunity to work much closer with our European allies, rather than using part of that increased expenditure on Starlink, which is owned by Elon Musk?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very happy to say that, as the noble Lord knows, this Government plan increase defence expenditure to 2.5% by the end of the Parliament. However, it is not for me to set out today exactly how that will be spent.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The Minister referred in his first Answer to the role of Great British Energy in delivering clean energy. How will the Government achieve that if the budget for GB Energy is reduced in the forthcoming spending review?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness said “if”, and I do not in any way accept that. She should wait for the spending review to see what will happen.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, today, the Commons is considering the amendments made by the House last week to the non-domestic rating Bill. As ping-pong on that Bill will be quick, I thought it would be helpful to the House if I set out arrangements for the Bill tomorrow.
The Bill will return from the Commons this evening. Members can table Motions from the return of the Bill until 11 am tomorrow. Members who want to table amendments are strongly encouraged to speak to the clerks in the Public Bill Office as soon as possible, and well before the deadline. The House will consider the Bill tomorrow afternoon, once all necessary documents are ready. I will update the House tomorrow on the precise timings of ping-pong.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Tuesday 25th March 2025
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (21 Mar 2025)
Lord Inglewood
“Review: changes to the composition of the House of Lords in the future(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, review the impact of this Act and any subsequent legislation which alters the composition of the House of Lords on the process by which changes are made in the future to—(a) appointments to the House of Lords;(b) the composition of the House of Lords.(2) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament the report of the review within one year of the day on which this Act is passed.(3) Thereafter, the Secretary of State must initiate a review of the subject matter in subsection (1) within the six months after any future General Election and must lay before each House of Parliament the report of the review within one year of the day on which the General Election took place.”
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, this is a probing amendment. What I am suggesting is a stalking horse, so the detail is not important other than to engender discussion and debate. It is the reasons which lie behind it that matter. Dr Johnson, that quintessential Englishman, was clear when he said:
“Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully”.
And so I have been thinking.
Looking back to the last time the House considered the matters we are discussing now, some 25 years ago, I find that some things are similar but others are not. In particular, the wider political context is vastly changed. At that time, we were all basking in the glow of the collapse of the Berlin Wall and its political and emotional consequences. Now, sadly, it is all very different. Since those heady days, a great shadow has fallen across the globe. Democracy, freedom and the rule of law have lost at least some of their appeal and popularity, and with it some of their resonance and potency. They have been replaced all around the world by new personalities, new policies, and new political approaches and priorities which are greatly at variance with our national traditions and values. The concept of “good chaps” from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, then generally accepted across the political spectrum here in this country, is at best questioned and at worst dismissed in some quarters.
As I thought about the implications of the Bill in a wider context against this background, it became apparent to me how potentially fragile some of our constitutional arrangements might be. Members of the Committee should forget about the Salisbury/Addison convention and rather focus on the Parliament Acts. In raw political terms, an unscrupulous and determined Government with a big majority of seats in the House of Commons—which we know does not necessarily require as huge a number of votes in the country as one might expect, under the rules of our existing electoral system— could, in pretty short order, completely alter the entire composition of the second Chamber or even abolish it entirely, as happened under the Commonwealth.
I know from my time on the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the European Parliament that many countries deal with this kind of possibility through differential systems of voting, referenda and/or super- majorities as forms of checks and balances. We know that we do not do things quite like that here, but we have a provision in the Parliament Acts which excludes from their scope proposals to extend the life of Parliament. For the future, once this Bill will have become law, it seems sensible to me to envisage an amendment which would extend this rule to proposals to change the composition of the second Chamber and/or to abolish it. Under this approach, the House of Lords itself would become the check and balance of last resort.
I tried to table such an amendment, but it was ruled out of scope by the clerks, and this is the best I was allowed to table, the wording of which, on my own admission, is inadequate and is merely a peg upon which this wider important topic can be discussed. I hasten to add that I have done this for exactly the same reason that I insure my house against fire. It is not that I am expecting my house to burn down—on the contrary—but were it to do so, the consequences would be dire and very difficult to deal with without having taken out an insurance policy previously.
Finally, let us remember that the phrase “It just couldn’t happen here” is weasel words and is frequently the first step on the road to political disaster. I may well be accused of setting a hare running. I hope I have, and I hope it will run and run.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to three amendments in this group. Amendments 91 and 94, in my name, seek to address gender equality in hereditary peerages once Clause 2 of this Bill ends for ever your Lordships’ ancient jurisdiction to determine peerage claims. Amendment 97 considers whether the name “the House of Lords”, with its inherently gendered, privileged and feudal connotations, remains appropriate once the gendered, privileged and feudal hereditary Lords have left. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, who have added their names to Amendment 97.
Equality of succession to hereditary peerages is an issue I care about deeply. I had hoped we might change the law to remove this discriminatory patriarchal anomaly while I was here, but that now appears unlikely, given this Bill. The best we can do is require the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to which peerage claim jurisdiction now moves, to exercise its functions in a non-discriminatory manner and to consult on the challenges posed thereby.
Throughout the debate on the hereditary peerage, we have been assailed for our gender. Since the Countess of Mar departed, we have indeed all been male, and it is right that we should not reserve seats in Parliament for a predominately male cohort. However, the equitable solution is not to abolish us due to our gender but to change succession laws to alter our gender. It is discriminatory to critique us for a protected characteristic over which we have no control while refusing to allow us to change the law. These amendments are our last hope of dragging the hereditary peerage into modern times and establishing equality at the heart of British society. Once we leave your Lordships’ House, I think no one will care.
Here, I note my interest as the Earl of Devon. I am the 37th man to have held that title. There has been one woman, Countess Isabella, the last Queen of the Wight—an example of powerful feudal female leadership. The title was most recently restored in Tudor times, since when it passes exclusively to all heirs male. My grandfather, my father and I each grew up as the only brother among multiple sisters, poster boys for male primogeniture. The youngest of four, I was uncomfortable that my gender charted my life. That my mother “would have gone to any lengths” to have a son was a phrase that echoed somewhat awkwardly through my childhood, particularly given the prominence in our home of the portrait of the ninth Earl with his 13 sisters, painted in 1779. There are no male spares in the Courtenay family tree, which is so verdant with female branches. “Kind hearts and Coronets”, we are not.
It is not just the personal embarrassment of male preferment that motivates me but the earldom itself. It was granted to Baldwin in 1142 when he was the first Norman baron to raise his standard over Exeter Castle in support of the Empress Matilda’s claim to the Throne of England. She was usurped by her cousin Stephen on the death of her father, Henry I, because Stephen and others felt that Matilda, being female, could not rule. Baldwin disagreed. From inception, therefore, the earldom of Devon championed female leadership. Lost and recovered some five times during the Middle Ages, the earldom was most recently restored in 1553 by our second female sovereign, Queen Mary I, because once again the family championed her right as a woman to rule England upon the death of her father, Henry VIII. We had been beheaded for these radical views in 1538, but through Queen Mary’s good graces the family recovered and have since kept our heads sufficient for me to be here now to continue that fight—and perhaps risk a further beheading.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, there can be no doubt from the very witty speech by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that he is a hereditary Peer—but it is not always clear. Did we know when the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, spoke? Do we know when others speak? I would have thought that every hereditary Peer would be obliged to declare that interest at the beginning of their speech. If I was in the other place, I could ask the Speaker to rule on that, but that does not apply here. I hope the Leader of the House might indicate in her reply that it would be helpful not just for the House but for the public outside to know whether the Member speaking has a vested interest.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, that is an interesting concept, but I do not think there is a vested interest of mine in this set of amendments. I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said. I think this is a good direction to go down. Of course, I support the first two amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I was a supporter of Lord Diamond on those Benches in the days of John Major’s Government, when he tried twice to abolish the male exclusiveness of the hereditary peerage. I have promoted Bills to that effect, and it has never appealed to the Government of the day.
However, I rather like the noble Earl’s formulation, which puts a duty on the Privy Council to sort things out. I think leaving bits of sex discrimination lying around in prominent places matters. It is only a label, but I do not think it should be allowed to continue. It is not that hard to make a change, as the noble Earl shows, and I very much hope that the Government will feel inclined to consign one of the last bits of formal sex discrimination in our constitutional arrangements to the dustbin.
Amendment 62, like the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is a device to get my proposed new subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) discussed. My interest in participating in the Bill is to make sure that, if we can, we use it to make sure that, going forward, the House without us will be in a better place and able to function better than it does now.
The first barrier that needs to be removed is that the Government should not only let us but positively encourage us to innovate and improve. We ought to have that motivation too. Things stay the same and change only slowly in this place, but we need to do better. We are sure of the effectiveness of our scrutiny when it comes to legislation, but I have never seen it really examined. Where are the research reports and the independent investigations? Where are the committees looking into this and proposing how things might be done better? We ought to be in a condition of constant improvement.
To my mind, the same applies to our interface with the public. For a long time, we have been limited by the fact that it is only us and that there are no staff. What we can do is throttled by that and by the need to work in this Chamber, but artificial intelligence is in the process of changing that and making it possible for someone in our position to engage with a great deal more information and conversation than was ever possible in the past. It also makes it much easier for people outside this Chamber to have a connection with and understanding of us and what we are doing, in a way we can join in with, without overwhelming ourselves. We ought as a House to be determined to give the public the benefit of these technological changes.
I am not particularly attached to the mechanism in my proposed new clause. It will take some rethinking before Report to produce something that gives the House the initiative, but also the duty, to improve, that allows it to push forward and that encourages the Government to support that. Obviously, big changes need a Commons veto, but we can move so that most of this goes via Standing Orders, while the bits that cannot should go via secondary legislation. We would need the approval of the Commons but would not need to go through the rigmarole of a Bill. House of Lords Bills happen very occasionally, but our process of improvement ought to be constant.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am standing up to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, because he is very fluent and I do not want to embarrass myself by following him. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that I am not a hereditary Peer, but he knows that because I am a woman.
I wholeheartedly support Amendments 91 and 94 from the noble Earl, Lord Devon. They make absolute sense and it would be a good move for the Government to take them forward as soon as they can, even if it is not in this Bill. In a sense, this are trivial—it does not affect many people—but, at the same time, it is an indicator of a lack of balance and equality in our society.
On the noble Earl’s Amendment 97, I really could not care less what we are, what we call ourselves and how we look. This whole architecture is Victorian kitsch. It is falling to pieces and it is time that we renovated. It is time that we sat not two sword lengths apart but in a circle like a modern second chamber. But I very much support Amendments 91 and 94.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend on Amendments 91 and 94 and to extend them a bit. Titles are not trivial. I have been involved in this in a certain way, which I am coming to, for more than 10 years. Titles are property and they go back to feudal times. We cannot have two laws, one of total equality for people outside this House and another for those who are affected by the ability to sit and be addressed in this House. We all take a rather shallow course called Valuing Everyone; let us start, indeed, by valuing everyone.
This is what I want to move on to: I speak for hundreds of Dames who have husbands and dozens of noble Baronesses who have spouses. It is not a trivial matter that our spouses do not share our titles, whereas it works the other way around. I was in correspondence with Buckingham Palace about this a long time ago, having tried in this House. The Palace told me it was a matter of property and a very serious matter, and that only if Parliament willed it could titles be changed so there would be equality.
So, once more, I put in a plea. If someone is a Lord, of course their wife is a Lady, though I wonder why; it certainly ought to work the other way round if that is how it is. Likewise for Dames, because we cannot exempt ourselves from the equality that applies outside and not apply it in this House. Unfortunately, the last time I tried, I was undermined by the late, lamented Lady Trumpington, who told the House that, when she and her husband, whose name was Dr Barker, checked in to a hotel together, it gave them a frisson.
Baroness Deech (CB)
This brought the House down—as it has done again today—and I lost my point. But it is a serious one: if we are going to share titles, although I am not sure that we should, it should work both ways.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and, indeed, one half of our Green Party. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I have known each other since we met on the slopes of Mount Sinai nearly 40 years ago. She knows how fond I am of her—she supplies my family with her lovely homemade jam—but, as always, I completely disagree.
She cared very much about the gendered amendments but not about the name of the House; I am exactly the other way around. It seems to me utterly bizarre that the Government should have a view on succession to titles. I get the argument of republicanism and I get that it is an irrational thing to have younger brothers inheriting before older sisters. But it is equally irrational to have a prejudice in favour of first-born children rather than younger children. In fact, the whole thing is irrational and cannot be justified wholly on logical grounds. If you start pulling at that thread, you very quickly end up with a French Revolution-style abolition of the entire shebang. If we want to do that, fine, but the idea that you can keep the titles but apply a Guardian public sector equality test to them seems to me extremely strange.
I speak in support of Amendment 97, standing in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I think I said at Second Reading that even the architecture of this Chamber is a link back to the old House of Lords: that it was in the minds of Pugin and Barry to recreate the idea of a throne room and a monarch taking the counsel of his bishops and barons. There is, I think, a thread in the make-up of this House that connects us back, certainly to the earliest House of Lords in the reign of Edward III and probably to the Magnum Concilium of which the noble Earl spoke; or, before that, even to the pre-Conquest witans—I think a Saxon king taking the counsel of his thanes and aldermen would have been doing something not unrecognisable to a Chamber that contains a partly hereditary element.
That thread is being snapped; the link is being sundered. It is being sheared in two, as the Fates were said to do with the thread of a man’s life, and we are being cut off from a part of our history and our constitutional inheritance. I am Tory enough to regret that, but I am Whig enough to recognise that there is something irrational about having an inherited element of a legislature. I wish we were replacing it with something better, as was originally the deal promised in 1998, but we have lost that argument and it is an argument for a different time.
I come back to the bizarre anomaly of having a House of Lords that does not contain any “lords”—as the word would have been understood for the previous 1,000 years. That seems a case of having our cake and eating it. If there are no lords of the traditional, recognised, aristocratic variety then by what virtue and on what basis do we continue to appropriate the name?
This question has been faced before. During the Cromwellian interregnum, the Lord Protector was always trying to bring the old aristocracy back into government. He wanted to sustain the legitimacy of his rule by returning to bicameralism. His problem was that none of the lords would agree to serve. If memory serves, there was one—the sixth Baron Eure, who was a parliamentary soldier who inherited his title when the fifth Baron Eure, who was a distant cousin of his and a royalist soldier, was killed on the battlefield at Marston Moor. He was the only lord, in the old sense, to serve in what came to be known, with spectacular banality, as the “other House”—hence the convention of how the two Chambers refer to one another that we have to this day.
If you do not have any lords, in the Cromwellian sense, do you not face exactly the same dilemma? We can probably do better than “the other House” as a title—we could call ourselves a senate—but it seems utterly extraordinary that we should pretend to the authority and legitimacy that comes from this very old institution when we have deliberately, and in contravention of promises made at the ballot box, torn that thread in two.
I would like an answer to this when Ministers come to respond. Let us please hear their defence of titles.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I have resisted so far the temptation to participate in the debate on the Bill. I shall keep to that, in the sense that I will resist the temptation to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, on the byways of nomenclature for the House itself.
However, I urge the Government Front Bench to think seriously about and respond positively to two issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The first is the inappropriateness of this House in any way involving itself in the determination of peerage claims. This was an argument that I made, and lost, before the turn of the century, but I still agree with what I said then and I believe that it would be far better for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to take on that responsibility.
Secondly, we need to right the implicit wrong in the hereditary peerage: the sex discrimination against generations of women who should have inherited not only the title but the estate—which in many ways is much more important. I hope the Government will give us some hope that they will make progress on that.
I talked about inheriting the title. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, pointed out the other anomaly of the husbands and wives of baronesses and barons. We should not right that wrong by creating another anomaly of giving someone else a title because of their sexual relationship with another person who has a title. That does not seem to make a great deal of sense or to be progressive in any way. I would just stop anyone giving their partner a title because of something that they have inherited or achieved.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that while I am a hereditary Peer, I am not here to try to stay here; whatever happens, happens. The reason that I and the other 91—92 in all—stayed here was to ensure the further democratic and proper reform of the House of Lords. That was the promise given; not that we would be turfed out, 20 or 25 years later. The whole point is that the Government are trying to do one bit, and I bet we will not see more. That is why Amendment 55 is essential, to try to start putting a timetable on reform happening. Otherwise, after this, nothing will happen; we will end up with a House with no democratic legitimacy, and that will be a problem. I therefore very much support Amendment 55.
I am here because my mother was here before me. She was one of the first five Peeresses to sit here when they allowed Peeresses to sit; she was the Countess of Erroll, in her own right. It was quite amusing, as my mother and father used to have trouble getting tickets for the train. If they were travelling from Perth, where they were known, they could travel down in the same compartment as the Countess of Erroll and Captain Iain Moncreiffe, as he was when they were first married. If they booked from London, they had to go up as Mr and Mrs Moncreiffe, or otherwise that would not be allowed—they did not allow that sort of behaviour. In fact, Claridge’s would not give them a room on the night of their honeymoon for the same reason, so this has been a perpetual problem.
Interestingly, there was always that issue of equality. My mother was also Lord High Constable of Scotland, as that has been in the family since about 1314. As such, at the Coronation, when the Queen went up to receive the Honours of Scotland, my mother was not allowed to carry the sword, as it was not thought suitable for a woman to do that. The Earl of Home carried it as her deputy, but she stood next to the Queen as the Queen received the Honours of Scotland. She had to be there to supervise and to make sure that it was done properly. As a woman, there was no bar to her holding what was traditionally thought of as a male position, and there is no reason why there should be in the future.
I heavily support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Devon, which I think are very sensible. We have got to move forward. There comes a point when it gets too difficult.
I want to say a little about how things get taken over. My father always told me that the communists took over the colour red, not as the people’s blood but because the nobles in Russia, as everywhere, used red as their colour; it is the colour of nobility. What they were doing was usurping the nobles, and taking over their mantle and structure. That is why the communists wave a red flag.
Personally, I am looking forward to future reform of this House, to bring it forward into the 21st century and onwards, in a proper form, not just as a whole lot of people appointed by one person who may be so-called democratically elected but not necessarily by the majority of the country. It is wrong.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I declare two interests: first, as a hereditary Peer, and, secondly, as having three daughters and no son.
I promoted the Succession to Peerages and Baronetcies Bill, which said that daughters should be able to inherit the title when there were no sons. This upset the House; the mood was that the eldest child should be enabled to inherit titles regardless of sex, as per the Royal Family. My concerns are over existing expectations, as mentioned by the noble Earl, and matters such as long-established family trusts. I am not sure about children born to unmarried parents—this might lead to some title-hunters. But I like his amendment on this, which gives some flexibility.
As regards the name of the House, I feel it should perhaps be called the Senate, and that we should go with the Wakeham commission’s idea of LPs—lords or ladies of Parliament—or senators.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I shall make one point about the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Until the Law Lords were removed from the House, these peerage claims were decided by a committee on which the Law Lords sat. Members of the House who were not Lords were not allowed to vote in those committees, so he would in effect be restoring the position to what it always used to be.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 55 and 62 as the first modest steps to build in safeguards as to the future composition of this House. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, reminded me of the circumstances in which and the speed with which the Weimar Republic was replaced by a bullying minority Government. I say that not—and I really mean this—to cast aspersions on the party opposite or the present Government, but because we can take nothing for granted in constitutional matters. Who knows who will be in office in five or 10 years’ time, when there may be difficult economic circumstances and big residual problems from the waves of immigration we have had, and when the mood in the country may be much worse than it is now? Without safeguards, a populist Government—supported by, say, 34% of the electorate—in such difficult economic times and under such pressures might seek to pack this House and drive through dangerous legislation if there are no proper safeguards over its constitution and who is put here. Beware a House of nodding donkeys.
I commend these two amendments as a first step to securing our parliamentary democracy and the constitution that we love. Those who believe in a constitutional democracy and the rule of law must take nothing for granted.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I support Amendment 97, which I have signed, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The amendment invites consideration of the suitability of the name “House of Lords” after the removal of the hereditary Peers from Parliament. “Lords” is a word associated with aristocracy and a class-based society that stems from our feudal system. The name of this House and the use of titles bridges a further gap between citizens and Parliament.
If we are removing the rights of hereditary Peers to sit in the House—this Bill does that, and I support doing so—the name of the second Chamber should reflect that. When further reform takes place, the name of the second Chamber should also reflect the make-up and composition of that Chamber. As of March 2025, the Inter-Parliamentary Union database contained details of 187 active parliaments worldwide, 81 of them being bicameral. Names of second Chambers worldwide include “Senate”, “National Council”, “House of Councillors”, “National Council of Regions and Districts”—and then us, the “House of Lords”. “Senate” is the most popular, with 54 countries choosing that name for their second Chamber. The Labour Party’s own work in the past favoured the name “The Council of Regions and Nations”.
The name “House of Lords” is also discriminatory with regard to gender. Although the name does not reflect the make-up of the Chamber, with women being allowed to be Peers, it feeds into a narrative that places of power are reserved for men—specifically, men of important social status. This comes back to my other argument about achieving further reform that would give people from every kind of background and walk of life the opportunity to be seated in a second Chamber. While renaming alone would not address deeper concerns about democratic legitimacy and accountability, it could serve as a symbolic and meaningful step towards broader constitutional reform. That is why I urge the House to support Amendment 97.
Lord Wrottesley (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. I shall make a few comments in support of his amendment, and I am grateful to him for tabling it. I declare an interest: I am an excepted—or, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, calls us, elected—hereditary.
I shall build on the analysis that my noble friend Lord Blencathra presented earlier in Committee. As I mentioned at Second Reading, I feel that the issue of the composition of this House needs serious consideration. Few, I expect, would disagree, but what has always troubled me in our discussions is that far too often, measures in the Bill may have been drafted and defended based on partisan grounds, not principle.
I believe that this House deserves better. That is why I wholeheartedly support a review of the composition of the House of Lords. My understanding, based on what the Leader of the House has said during the passage of the Bill thus far, is that the Labour Party believes that, currently, it is not represented fairly in this House. I would like to look at the numbers to see whether the Labour Party’s claim about the House being weighted against it stands up to scrutiny. At Second Reading, I suggested that the House’s composition should be based on a weighted average of the composition of the parties in the other place over 25 years, which is the period I suggested as a term limit and is also in line with what is widely recognised as a generation. Perhaps a review, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggests, could consider this as a metric.
Some simple maths: since the Life Peerages Act 1958, the Conservatives have been in government for 42 years, and Labour for 24 years, which breaks down as 64% and 36% respectively. Over the same period, the parties appointed 924 and 745 Peers respectively—incidentally, 374 were appointed by Sir Tony Blair, after the hereditary principle was done away with—which breaks down as 55% and 45%. So in fact, Labour Governments have appointed far more Peers, proportionately, in their years in power.
Even if we use the current composition of the House, the Conservatives hold 34% of the seats, and when the hereditaries are expelled this will drop to 31%. Meanwhile, the proportion of seats held by Labour will rise from 25% to 28%. Some noble Lords opposite may consider many of the Cross-Benchers to be conservative with a small “c”, but the reality is that they are very much of an independent mind. You just have to ask the last Government, who rarely won votes when, more often than not, the Cross-Benchers were massed against them. Under these proposals the proportion of Cross-Benchers will also drop slightly, from 22% to 20%.
Through this analysis, which is pretty simple maths, really, under current plans the Labour Party is with one hand demanding balance and with the other tipping the scales. By expelling the hereditaries, this Labour Government will be redressing the balance—in their favour. But this does not seem like rebalancing; it seems more like gerrymandering, as we have heard before in Committee. By getting rid of 85 Peers who are in opposition to them—all the non-Labour hereditary Peers—they will once again skew the numbers even further in their direction, and who is to say they will not take other measures to achieve more? Far from modernising and improving our institution, this would seem little more than a way to consolidate power. It is the constitutional equivalent of bulldozing down one of the walls in our great Chamber and insisting that the roof will stay up. What wall, what group of Peers, will be demolished next under this Labour Government’s plans? That is the main issue here: no one really knows what is coming next. No one will tell us.
My noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment is a sound one: let us please carefully review who is here, who will remain here and whom they represent. We must be sure that this evolution—maybe the revolution the Labour Government speak of—in our House and our democracy does not descend, as I fear it might, into an erosion of our great House. We must protect this place from plans which I believe are designed deliberately to diminish this place, a place that has supported our democracy for centuries.
With all that is going on in the world today, we must not let any Government, now or in future, use the guise of constitutional reform or modernisation to remove dissenting voices. We know it is too late for all, or the majority, of us hereditary Peers—to paraphrase Lord Byron, I am not long for this House. But I believe that a proper review by those who understand this place could offer some protection against what seems to be the Labour Party’s modus operandi, which is— I hate to say this, having just paraphrased one of our greatest poets, but, to quote a Taylor Swift song—“Death By A Thousand Cuts”.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, these amendments relate to the review of appointments, the composition of the House, claims to peerages within it and, indeed, its very name. I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this debate.
At the heart of all these amendments lies a common impulse: a desire to reflect, scrutinise and reassess. That instinct is of course the defining virtue of this House. We are not a body that accepts institutions, policies or conventions unquestioningly. We test, examine and refine: that is our duty. But scrutiny should lead to improvement, not distraction. We should consider these amendments within the context of the broader debate about the future of your Lordships’ House.
First, I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, which calls for an impact assessment on appointments and the overall composition of the House. We acknowledge that the composition of the House is an ongoing topic of debate. It is after all crucial that the House reflects a range of voices and expertise to represent the diverse concerns of the nation. In this sense, we understand the desire for a more comprehensive review of the effectiveness and composition of the House.
However, it is also important not to fetter the right of political leaders to appoint those who demonstrate true merit in their opinions and expertise. The right of political leaders to appoint individuals based on their judgment remains a cornerstone of a functioning, flexible system. Ultimately, it is the diversity of thought and expertise, not just demographics, that should guide appointments.
I would be interested to hear from the noble and learned Lord, the Attorney-General, how the Government see the balance between reflecting these different perspectives and maintaining the autonomy of political leaders in making appointments.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made a valid point that the Prime Minister has great powers of patronage to determine the legislature, and that the removal of hereditary Peers will place even greater powers of patronage in the Prime Minister’s hands. At Second Reading—my noble friend Lord Wrottesley has just raised this—I made the point:
“Judged by legal status alone, none of us can be secure that our future in this place will not be cut short at the whim of the Executive”.—[Official Report, 11/12/24; col. 1858.]
I look forward to hearing the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on this subject.
The amendment from my noble friend Lord Lucas seeks a review of the overall composition of the House. Again, this is a fair question to pose. Should we not periodically take stock of who sits here, how they are appointed and what the right balance should be? It has commanded support from several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, to give added protection. But let us examine this more closely. If we were to conduct such a review, what would it be for? There are those who argue that this House is too large, but size alone does not determine effectiveness. If this House is to be judged, let it be judged on its ability to scrutinise legislation, revise policy and hold the Government to account. We should beware the temptation to equate numerical reduction with institutional improvement.
Others might argue that the party balance needs adjustment, but again we must be cautious about imposing artificial solutions. The strength of this House has always been that it evolves over time and reflects experience and judgment rather than crude arithmetic. A formal review risks turning the question of appointments into a matter of quotas: political engineering rather than political wisdom.
The reality is that this House’s composition is already subject to ongoing reflection by Prime Ministers, leaders of parties and the House itself. This is why we have argued throughout that it is critical that reform and review should be carried out through consensus and with full discussion.
Finally, Amendments 91 and 94 from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, as we have heard, raise the plight of gender equality for hereditary peerage claims. I listened with interest to the arguments and have considerable sympathy with points made on both sides of the debate. It is a difficult and delicate issue, with merit on both sides. But it is also a private and personal matter—as my noble friend Lord Hannan made clear, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also pointed out—on which there is unlikely to be agreement.
Amendment 97 invites review and consultation on the appropriateness of the name “House of Lords”, and this is an intriguing suggestion. Words have power and names shape perceptions. The title of this House evokes centuries of history and tradition and it is certainly reasonable to ask whether it still reflects the institution as it is today. But I would say that the reputation of this House—its credibility and authority—will never be determined by its name; it will be determined by its actions, the quality of its debates, the sharpness of its scrutiny and the seriousness of its deliberations.
In conclusion, I recognise the intent behind the amendments to improve and scrutinise the composition of the House, but more clarification is needed on the specific objectives of some of the proposals. While we certainly value the input of new voices and perspectives in our appointments and the overall composition of the House, it is equally important that we do not compromise on the merits and expertise of those appointed. If we are serious about the future of this House, let us focus on what really matters: scrutiny, legislation and the real business of holding the Government to account. That is what the public expect from us and that is where our credibility lies. We look forward to hearing the views of the House on these important matters.
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Amendments 55, 62 and 97, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, all seek, in different ways, to place a duty on the Government to review and report on the impact of legislation after it receives Royal Assent.
As a matter of principle, and when they are applied in the right case for the right reasons, obligations to review and assess the impact of legislation can serve a very valuable public function. For example, the scope or size of the subject matter of a Bill might give rise not just to a range of predictable outcomes but to a material risk of adverse impacts in the real world that cannot be adequately assessed at the time of the Bill’s passage. Those impacts could be wide-ranging: for example, they could be financial or environmental or could entrench any manner of inequality. While Parliament can always review the impact of legislation at any time of its choosing without an explicit statutory authority, on occasion, as I have said, a mandatory obligation can serve a proper and indeed important function. However, the Government’s view is that there is no adequate rationale for a review and reporting requirement here.
This Bill is very simple. The primary purpose it seeks to achieve is singular: to remove the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships’ House. We also know well what the impact will be: the loss of those Peers. I mean no disrespect to the great public service of those Peers to say that their loss will not give rise to unforeseen, significant adverse consequences that come anywhere close to the sort of justification we would want for the measures sought by these amendments.
We know from experience what the impact will be, because your Lordships’ House has already experienced a far more significant reduction of hereditary Peers following the 1999 Act—which, I note, itself had no post-legislative reporting requirements to scrutinise impact. There has been little suggestion that those reforms produced any profoundly detrimental impacts, let alone ones that would justify the steps proposed in these amendments. The House continued to function effectively then, and, as I say, while we truly value the work of hereditary Peers to date, the House will continue to function when this reform is completed. As the Leader of the House said at Second Reading, the Bill does not alter any core functions of your Lordships’ House.
I hope those points address the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I thank him for clarifying that his is a probing amendment, and for his thoughtful contribution and the important points he made about our constitutional framework. However, the noble Lord’s amendment is not confined simply to a review-and-report requirement: if agreed, it would continue in perpetuity to impact any subsequent legislation that alters the composition of your Lordships’ House. In other words, there would be a requirement to undertake reviews indefinitely after every general election until the end of time. With the greatest respect, I suggest that would be a disproportionate measure—but I hope the brevity of my response will not be mistaken for a lack of gratitude for his thoughtful contribution to the debate.
The noble Lord asked what insurance policy is in place. I hope that there are several, not least the Government making plain that this reform—completing the work, as we put it—is the beginning of steps for a further reform of your Lordships’ House, the next being close consultation across the House on the shape of further reform. I agree with very many of the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. As we go forward, it is important to ensure that we capture and protect the important role of the second Chamber in revising and reviewing legislation, ensuring that it has a degree of independence from the other place. The reassurance I give is that it is our intention to consult widely and collegiately on the steps ahead.
I turn briefly to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, whom I have known for a long time prior to coming into this House. As he knows, I greatly respect him and our friendship, but I am afraid I consider his remarks, drawing a comparison between the Bill and the risks faced in the Weimar Republic, quite misplaced. All of us in this House are no doubt acutely aware that this is a delicate moment for liberal democracies and your Lordships’ House no doubt has an important role to play at this delicate and important time, but the power of our contribution will be diluted if we reach too quickly for overstatement or—the more so—inappropriate overstatement. This is a manifesto commitment that is limited in scope, and we serve ourselves well to remember that and not to rhetorically overreach.
I turn to Amendment 97, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The House of Lords will continue to be called the House of Lords following the passage of the Bill. The removal of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this place does not change the fact that Members of this House, save for the Lords spiritual, will continue to consist of Peers of the realm. The answer to the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, as to why is simply a literal one. In answer to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about the dictionary definition of the “House of Lords”, I respectfully suggest that that version of the dictionary, like this House, requires some subtle updating.
Amendments 91 and 94 have joined this group to accommodate the noble Earl, who is, sadly, not available for the final day of Committee. I hope I accurately capture the amendments in saying that they address a narrow point about the power to refer disputes to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but also a wider point that seeks to address gender inequality in the succession to peerages. I will first address the narrow point about referrals to the Judicial Committee, which I will come to again substantively when we discuss the amendments to Clause 2 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, next week.
As your Lordships know, this House currently has a role in handling complex and disputed peerage claims under Standing Order 77. The aim of Clause 2 is to remove that role. The intention is that that role will be fulfilled by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whose jurisdiction to do so is already established by virtue of Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. The effect of the noble Earl’s amendment would be to place the issues arising out of inheritance and title, irrespective of complexity, on the Judicial Committee. The Government, and indeed the Privy Council, would perceive this to be an unacceptable burden on an already exceptionally busy body. It would, in short, amount to an unnecessary and disproportionate use of its resources and expertise. For those reasons, and given the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, we cannot accept the amendments.
Finally, and most importantly—
The Earl of Devon (CB)
The Minister may have misunderstood the purport of my amendment, which is merely to ensure that when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council exercises the functions that it will exercise following the passage of this Bill, it does so in a way that does not discriminate against claimants due to their gender. It is nothing more than that—I am not adding any work. I just wish that women could inherit hereditary titles.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I am very grateful for that, and I shall turn to that point now, but the actual wording of the noble Earl’s amendment would have the effect that all disputes, not just complicated and contentious disputes, would be referred to the Judicial Committee, so there is a very practical objection to it.
I turn to the wider point, which I know is the one of most interest to the noble Earl. I shall deal with both amendments in turn, starting with Amendment 91. In the Government’s view, the amendment unacceptably seeks to force on the Judicial Committee how it should exercise its jurisdiction with regard to gender equality and to impose an obligation on it to report on how that obligation has been discharged. With the greatest of respect, that misunderstands the appropriate constitutional role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is to apply the law. If the law distinguishes between the sexes, as the noble Earl is aware that it does currently in succession to hereditary titles, the Judicial Committee must apply it accordingly.
As I leave that aspect of Amendment 91 and turn to Amendment 94, I of course recognise the importance of the issue that the noble Earl seeks to raise through his good faith amendments. The Government very much share his unease at the inequality baked in to so many hereditary peerages. The fact that fewer than 90 hereditary peerages allow women to inherit titles is something that I know Members in both Houses and across this House are not comfortable with. The Government are committed to the principle of greater equality.
On careful reflection, not least through the engagement that the noble Earl has had with my noble friend the Leader of the House, we do not consider that the amendments have a place in this Bill. The law around succession is complex and the inequities are not confined to gender. The law around succession to hereditary titles also affects adopted children, those born to unmarried parents and children born via assisted conception, using donors. That is before we enter into the issue of whether any future reform should protect the expectation of living heirs or managed property rights. We consider that those are issues that should be considered, but they need to be carefully considered holistically and do not properly form part of this legislation, however aligned we are with the noble Earl on the rationale behind his amendments.
There is also an additional objection of a constitutional nature to Amendment 94, because it seeks to impose on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council an obligation to consult. Such a requirement to consult on how the law should be applied in the area of peerage claims very significantly cuts across the judicial independence of the Judicial Committee. I appreciate, of course, that that is not the noble Earl’s intention, but I fear that his amendment would critically undermine the independence of the committee. Either the committee independently and impartially applies the law or it takes views on social policy. It cannot do both. However, as I have said, nothing in my response to the amendments from the noble Earl should be taken as a suggestion that he is not raising very important points—he is—but they are not part of the policy aims outlined in our manifesto commitments or in this Bill.
I turn briefly to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. As the contrasting contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, demonstrated, there is no consensus on this point, and it underlined— I say with the greatest respect—that this Bill is not the place to determine that question. For those reasons, I respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his remarks about my amendment. He got the message I was trying to convey. All I would say, to use his phrase, is that we are living in delicate political times. It is incumbent on us to think about the worst possible eventualities that might emerge long after the passage of this Bill.
I, as a hereditary Peer, was trying to do something that lawyers say you cannot do: issue commands from beyond the grave. We should bear in mind extreme eventualities, because the one thing that is certain is that this reform is not the last reform. This is not a dialectical process, ending up in some nirvana. We must be alert.
As far as the wider debate is concerned, I thank those who participated. It seemed to me that it struck a divide between those thinking along the lines I described and those thinking rather more differently. I think the noble Earl, Lord Devon, got it right. He said in the future people will be concerned about titles and sex, because that was what a great deal of the discussion earlier this afternoon was in fact about.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on the Cross Bench, who is a personal friend, made me feel very inadequate. I may be a hereditary Peer, but my hereditary peerage did not exist at the time I was born. This is in very great contrast to the noble Earl. All I would say—I hope this gives pleasure to the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Grocott—is that I came into the world as citizen Vane, and I am quite happy to leave it under that epithet. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court(1) Omit subsection (3) of section 137 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (parliamentary disqualification for holders of disqualifying judicial offices).(2) On the day on which this Act is passed, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court be granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages).(3) When a person is appointed as President or Deputy President of the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that the person be granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court are granted life peerages.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 56, I will speak also to Amendment 57. Both seek to ensure that senior members of the judiciary are appointed as life Peers with the right to sit and vote in your Lordships’ House. I will declare an interest— and a non-interest.
First, the non-interest: I have no intention of becoming a judge. Indeed, when I became a Minister, I received advice from the propriety and ethics committee of the Cabinet Office that, having been a Minister, I had probably rendered myself unable to accept an appointment as a judge. I thought that was a little odd. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Gray of Tottenham, was involved in that decision or warning; we all know that the Cabinet Office at that time kept a very close eye on the impropriety of people moving from non-political posts into others in our constitution. The interest I have is as a lawyer; I want to make this House work as well as it possibly can.
The historical position is this: for over 600 years, from 1399 to October 2009, the House of Lords was the highest appeal court in the land. This House had a vital judicial function. Between 1876 and 2009, that function was served by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. From 2009, the Supreme Court of the UK assumed that jurisdiction; the then 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary —the Law Lords, as they were colloquially called—were the first Justices of the 12-member Supreme Court, and they were disqualified from sitting or voting in your Lordships’ House.
When they retired from the Supreme Court, they could return to the House of Lords as full Members, which they were, but—and this is the point—newly appointed Justices of the Supreme Court do not have seats in your Lordships’ House. From that point on, apart from the grandfather rights—if, in light of the debate on the previous group of amendments, I can use a sexist term—given to existing Lords of Appeal in Ordinary created under the 1876 Act, the long link between this House and the judiciary was severed. Indeed, the last Law Lord was created in 2009.
It is important to appreciate that the old system preserved a clear distinction between the Law Lords’ role as judges and as legislators. I will give a simple example of that. When Lord Lyndhurst, as Lord High Chancellor, considered himself bound in his judicial capacity to decide the famous Lady Hewley’s charity appeal—Attorney-General v Wilson 1848—it turned on the difference between trinitarianism and unitarianism for the purposes of charity law, a topic into which I fear to venture. While he held himself responsible to decide that point in accordance with legal orthodoxy, which he did, he then introduced, as Leader of the House of Lords, a Bill—which became the Nonconformists’ Chapels Act 1844—to remedy, and indeed to overturn, the perceived injustice consequential on his own judicial decision.
Why are we in this position? The great absence today is that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. His Constitutional Reform Act—I will have more to say about that Act in the next group—is, frankly, responsible for quite a lot of the constitutional mess that we now find ourselves in.
The basis for my amendment is this: your Lordships’ House has been deprived of the experience of many Supreme Court Justices who could and would contribute a great deal to the work of this House in the way—if I may say this without nominating myself for Private Eye’s “Order Of The Brown Nose”—that the current former judicial Members of this House play such an important part and lend their expertise.
When I sat on the Government Benches as a Minister, I was not worried about the barrage that I might receive from the Opposition Benches, and I certainly was not concerned about the occasional small-arms fire from the Liberal Democrat Benches; I was worried about the incoming missile from my right—from the judicial Members of the Cross Benches. Without this amendment, it will be unclear on what basis peerages will be awarded to those who reach those lofty judicial heights. What we must avoid at all costs is any impression that peerages are given or withheld by the Prime Minister of the day to senior judges, depending on how particular cases have been decided. The only way to avoid that is to have clear rules as to when a peerage will be awarded. That is why I have sought, in my amendments, to highlight the highest judicial offices and to attach a peerage to those offices.
I see that the impressive legal twin strike force of my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Murray of Blidworth has taken my amendment and added “all Supreme Court Justices”. I will listen carefully to what they have to say, but the principle underlying our amendments is the same.
Finally, the amendment also disapplies Section 137(3) of the Constitutional Reform Act, which disqualifies a holder of relevant judicial offices from sitting or voting in your Lordships’ House. We do not need that provision; we managed perfectly well under the old system. The problem we have now is that, although we have a wealth of judicial experience, it is not as current as it used to be when we had the Law Lords here. I know this may be shocking to many Members of your Lordships’ House, but even the law moves on and changes. The way law is done—and what the law is—is simply not the same now as it was five, 10 or 20 years ago. That is especially the case in areas such as family law.
I remember taking the Domestic Abuse Bill through this House—I pick a topic which was taken on a total cross-party basis. Family law in 2025 is radically different from family law in 2000, and certainly family law in 1980. So I suggest that this House would benefit from the presence of judges who either are sitting or who have very recently sat. My submission to this Committee is that these amendments will improve our debates and our membership, and I therefore beg to move.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 68, which, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson indicated, takes the premise of his Amendment 56 and rolls it out to all Supreme Court justices. I declare an interest as a practising King’s Counsel who fairly frequently appears before the Supreme Court, including in one appeal where judgment is still pending.
I supported the replacement of the Appellate Committee with the new UK Supreme Court, and I still believe that was the right decision. In a modern democracy, all courts, and in particular the final court of appeal, must not just be but be seen to be separate and independent from the other branches of the state.
However, a collateral and I think probably unintended effect of this, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson outlined, has been significantly to reduce the pool of Cross-Bench legal expertise in this House. By convention, certainly by the turn of the millennium, sitting Members on the Appellate Committee did not speak in debates and did not otherwise participate in relation to controversial matters, although they did sit in committees to some degree. However, upon their retirement they invariably would—and those who remain still do—make an invaluable contribution to the work of this House.
It is also the case that, prior to retirement and while in office as judges, by virtue of being Members of this House, those on the Appellate Committee would have a fuller and further first-hand understanding of the procedures of Parliament, which, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson indicated in his excellent lecture at Policy Exchange earlier this afternoon, may have assisted the judges in their consideration of the Prorogation issue in the second Miller litigation.
Now that the final court is outside this House, its members no longer need to receive a peerage upon being appointed and, contrary to what had been advocated in some quarters, no convention to that effect has been established. In recent years, among full-time Supreme Court justices, only the President has been by convention awarded a peerage—albeit that the Lord Chief Justice, who occasionally sits in that court, has also by convention been awarded a peerage.
The result of all this has been significantly to reduce the pipeline of top-tier judges able to contribute to the work of this House. Amendment 68 would rectify that by requiring all current and future Supreme Court justices to be awarded a peerage. I myself would envisage that, during their tenure on the court, they would follow the Appellate Committee’s former convention that sitting judges do not speak in debates and do not otherwise participate in controversial matters, but, upon retirement, they would be able fully to engage and thus continue the long-established and invaluable tradition of our most senior judges contributing to the work of this House on their retirement from the Bench.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 56, 57 and 68 in this group, to which I have added my name. I declare an interest as a member of the Bar. I also declare a special interest in that, across the corridor in my chambers is the room of Lord Dyson, who was the first member of the Supreme Court not to be the beneficiary of a peerage under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, and therefore the first person from these Benches that the House did not have the benefit of hearing from, which in my view was a great loss—and that applies to many members of the Supreme Court.
There is an element of confusion in the general public, and indeed even in the politically engaged general public. When they read of public pronouncements from the likes of Lord Dyson or Lord Sumption, they are under the impression that these people are Members of this House. When the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 came into force, there was a question about what title one gave to the Justices of the Supreme Court. So, when Sir John Dyson, as he then was, became a member of the Supreme Court, having formerly been the Master of the Rolls in the Court of Appeal, where he was Lord Justice Dyson, there was a need to differentiate him from the members of the Court of Appeal and to give a special title to members of the Supreme Court.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I am following my noble friend’s argument and I very much support him, but does he believe, as I do, that, after 2005, there was an understanding between the Labour Government and the Justices of the Supreme Court that they would all be made Members of the House of Lords—Peers in their own right—but would not sit in the House of Lords until after they had retired. If such an understanding had taken place, it would have solved a great number of problems. I hope the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General might give us an answer, if he knows, on whether there was such an understanding after the 2005 Act.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for his intervention, and I very much hope there was such an understanding—but I am afraid I cannot find a trace of that agreement.
Turning to the answer given to a question put to Jack Straw on this question in January 2009, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, asked him about the future of the justices of the Supreme Court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, noted that the Law Lords performed an important function in the legislative process and asked the then Lord Chancellor what the position would be once they had retired, along the lines outlined by my noble friend—thus suggesting that there was an informal agreement that this would be what would occur. The then Lord Chancellor’s answer was:
“Of course, that was one of the arguments against change and … I can see the case”.
He then said that
“it crucially depends on whether we continue with an all appointed House of Lords”.
So the answer was that they just parked the issue, saying that it was all dependent on what was going to happen in future to the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor goes on to say that
“if we go to a 20% appointed chamber”,
which was one of the things then being considered, the number of noble Lords would be “fewer”. That was why he refused to commit at that point in answer to that question.
The issue was raised again in July 2009 in a question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and it was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice. He said:
“My Lords, justices of the Supreme Court who are appointed after October 2009 will not automatically become Members of the second Chamber on retirement, but could be considered for appointment by the Appointments Commission. It is right to say that former Law Lords will be able to take up their places again … on retirement from the Supreme Court, and it is right that this House needs a lot of expertise, particularly in that field”.—[Official Report, 20/7/09; col. 1375.]
Of course, he was right in that respect. But the reality is that that has not happened. If one looks at the appointments that have been made by HOLAC, one sees that former justices of the Supreme Court have not numbered highly among the appointments. This has been a very significant omission and now is the moment, I suggest to your Lordships, to rectify that error.
At the very least, the Wolfson-Elie compromise of giving peerages to the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court should be strongly considered by the Government, but I would suggest it should go more widely than that: every member of the 12-member court should receive life peerages on appointment. That should be the convention. There would then be no need for these courtesy titles. When they retire, they would then hopefully become engaged and active Members of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I will make one brief contribution to this debate, which is likely to go on for some time. I enjoyed listening to the contributions entirely from lawyers except for the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. They had one thing clearly in common: none of them had any reference whatsoever to the subject of hereditary Peers being removed from this House. They are entitled to have made their amendments because of some ruling, which came from somewhere that I have not yet discovered, that under remote circumstances hereditary Peer membership could relate to other parts of the constitution. I accept that this might be the case in some remote circumstances. However, it is very difficult for me to understand, in any sensible conversation, what relevance adding, through these amendments, 25 protected places in the House of Lords has to the subject of this Bill.
I do not want to prolong it because I do not want to promote debate. However, with such a loose definition of what is included and what is not, on the same logic if you had a Bill to reduce class sizes in infant classes it would be entirely within the scope of the Bill to discuss university admissions processes—because, obviously, if you reduce class sizes, that gives an opportunity for children to develop more effectively and stand a better chance of getting into university. Lawyers can do that but, in the interests of common sense and as a general principle, if an amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the Bill, it would be a good idea to determine that it is out of order.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak to my Amendments 58A and 59B. I have a lot of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has just said. I tabled these amendments against a background of also aspiring to a wholly elected House, where appointments would not come into it.
What prompted my amendments was that Amendment 57 recommends that
“the Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls and Lord President of the Court of Session be granted a life peerage”.
In the interests of the union, we should not forget one part of the United Kingdom, and that is why I have sought to add the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. I do not know the present Lady Chief Justice, Dame Siobhan Keegan, but I know her predecessor, Sir Declan Morgan, who would make excellent contributions to your Lordships’ House—and may yet do so for all that I know. If we are passing legislation for some parts of the United Kingdom, there is no logic at all to why Northern Ireland should be omitted.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has said. Like him, I spotted the omission of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and note that we have not had a holder of that office since Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, who was the last person to receive a peerage under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, so I welcome the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.
My Amendments 58 and 59 are designed not to disagree with the proposition that senior lawyers are very important and useful people but simply to point out that useful and important people can be found in other walks of life as well. There is much sense in the amendments that my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie and my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Banner have tabled.
I agree with what my noble friend Lord Wolfson said: a lot of the mess that we are in stems from the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The fact that we are still, 20 years on, debating some of the questions that were left unanswered, perhaps even unopposed, at the time of the passage of that Act, answers the point that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, raised. It is important when embarking on constitutional reform to try to think of the implications, and that is why I welcome noble Lords scrutinising this Bill and its knock-on effects in many other areas. I know the noble Lord regrets that we are debating it at such length, but this is a very important Bill with serious consequences, and we do not want in 20 years’ time to find ourselves with the sorts of problems that were not properly addressed during the debates on the Constitutional Reform Act.
From my experience working in Downing Street under my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, I can say a little bit about a more recent chapter. Noble Lords know that, when he was Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, established a committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to look at the size of the House and propose non-legislative ways that it could be reduced. Not everyone agreed that the size of the House was a problem, but a clear majority did, including those who spoke in a well-attended debate held on the committee’s report on 19 December 2017. As Prime Minister at the time, it fell to my noble friend Lady May to respond to this initiative, which had been taken by your Lordships’ House to reduce its size. She wrote to Lord Fowler on 20 February 2018, responding to the report, as well as to the points that were made in the debate in December about it.
My noble friend Lady May acknowledged that, if noble Lords were to be persuaded to embrace retirement, an innovation which at that point had only recently been brought about through the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, they would need an assurance of restraint from the Prime Minister. In her letter to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, my noble friend gave that assurance, and she stuck to it: she and Gordon Brown are the only Prime Ministers in modern times under whom the size of the House of Lords has gone down rather than up. As part of her policy of restraint, my noble friend said that she would
“operate on the basis that there is no automatic entitlement to a peerage for any holder of high office in public life”.
That is the reason, in addition to the Parliamentary Answer that was highlighted by my noble friend Lord Murray a few moments ago, why senior judges have not, as they might have expected, come to your Lordships’ House automatically.
This has certainly been disappointing to them, and it has denied your Lordships’ House the valuable contributions that they would all undoubtedly have made. In his memoir, Lord Dyson records with very good grace his understandable disappointment at being the first Master of the Rolls for, I think, two centuries not to sit in your Lordships’ House; only death prevented others from doing so. His successor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has come here and plays a very valuable role indeed in the work of this House.
As my noble friend Lord Murray says, Lord Dyson was also the first Justice of the Supreme Court not to come to this House. The first cohort were, of course, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, so entitled to return to this House on their retirement. Unlike my noble friend Lord Banner, I am among those who regret their removal from your Lordships’ House. I tend to the view that cases like some of those that we saw in the Brexit years would have been less politicised had they been decided in this building, rather than pitting two institutions on opposite sides of Parliament Square against one another and asking them to settle the matter over the heads of protesting crowds standing between them.
But if all Justices of the Supreme Court were to come here on retirement, as my noble friends Lord Murray and Lord Banner suggest, we would be adding a tally of 20 new Cross-Benchers—nine former justices and 11 current ones—on current numbers alone. It would also seem to run counter to the argument that was made by those who supported the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 that the judiciary and Parliament should be more separate.
My noble friend Lord Wolfson and others, in their Amendment 56, suggest that there should be peerages ex officio only for the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court. Stepping aside from the debate on numbers, they crucially and sensibly suggest that the peerage should be granted on appointment and not at the end of their time on the judicial bench. As I said at Second Reading, there are dangers in allowing politicians to pick the judges on whom they wish to bestow favour; but that same danger relates to other key public servants, such as Chiefs of the Defence Staff, Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis, heads of the intelligence agencies, Cabinet Secretaries and many more.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, although I am also a lawyer, I will be brief because the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has a point. I am rather against rules that require people to be appointed to this House by virtue of offices that they have held. As a former holder of the least distinguished of the offices listed in the generous Amendments 58 and 59 of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I certainly did not feel entitled to such elevation, although the work I did in that office emboldened me to try my chances with HOLAC.
The glory of the Cross Benches—if that is not too strong a word—lies in the very diverse backgrounds of those who are here. I fear that a mandatory inflow of establishment figures, rigidly predefined and appointed irrespective of any scandals that may have attended their time in office, would tend to reduce that variety, in particular by inhibiting the appointment of people’s Peers, about which I have spoken in a previous debate.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I would make an exception for the very senior judges named in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for the reason that he gave: judges at that level often have impartially to determine cases to which the Government are, and sometimes even the Prime Minister is, party. That is what distinguishes them from Chiefs of the Defence Staff, Cabinet Secretaries and so on. They have to choose, in any case, on the basis of the law, whether they are on the Government’s side or not. That is why, between judges of equal rank, the state has to be scrupulously even-handed about conferring honours or preferment.
I am sure that every Government see the priceless benefit that former Supreme Court judges bring to our deliberations, but such judges should not be appointed to this House, any more than they should be given knighthoods or damehoods, simply because the Government of the day like the cut of their jib. Something less arbitrary is required. Either all should be appointed, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in Amendment 68—which would be my own preference, I hope not only because, like him, I am awaiting a judgment from the Supreme Court—or, if that is thought to be too rich a diet, the honour should be rationed, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on the basis of rank. I hope Ministers might agree; I hope they might even be prepared to say so.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am very attracted to what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has just said. I find what my noble friend Lord Banner had to say extremely attractive, and I hope that the Government will find it their—
Lord Garnier (Con)
Yes, wisdom—I was clutching for the word. I hope they will find it in their wisdom to reach a conclusion similar to that advanced by my noble friend.
Quickly, while the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is still in the Chamber—
Lord Garnier (Con)
He is never far absent from it. This series of amendments does not appeal to the noble Lord because it does not deal with the hereditary peerage, but of course, right in front of us—of me—is my noble friend Lord Hailsham, the third Viscount, whose grandfather and father were both Lords Chancellor and therefore senior members of the judiciary in their day. He demonstrates the agility of the British constitution, in that, although a hereditary Peer, he sits here as a life Peer.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Exactly; and we are all the better off for that. However, I think it very important to recognise that, although our constitution is odd, strange and, in many ways, not very neat, it does function all the better by having people from a variety of backgrounds in this place.
The fact that we do not any more regularly have the presence of what used to be called Law Lords, and now are justices of the Supreme Court, is a disbenefit to us. Also, I suspect that there was a time when the Law Lords gained advantage by, if not speaking and voting in the Chamber, at least being here and listening to or discerning the political mood of the moment. This is particularly so when they are dealing with cases involving public policy. I suspect that we have missed a trick by informing the Supreme Court and our being informed by it in our respective deliberations.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He will recall that, when we both became MPs a while back, we attended APPGs regularly. It was customary at those to see a number of sitting Law Lords in attendance—obviously, never making controversial points but adding a great deal of wisdom and knowledge to the work of the APPGs.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My noble friend was obviously a keener member of APPGs than I was, but I am sure he is entirely right.
None the less, I think it important that we in this House, and the Supreme Court, for its part, should mutually benefit from each other’s membership. I hope the Government will accede to my noble friend Lord Banner’s amendment, even if it does not go as far as my noble friend Lord Wolfson asked for in his.
I heard two particularly hurtful and outrageous suggestions this afternoon. One was from my noble friend Lord Wolfson: that he was not in the least bit bothered by the submissions from Members of his own Back Benches when he was a Minister.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
When I said, “the Opposition”, I meant the Opposition as then constituted; anything that came from our own side was obviously of the highest quality.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I was fishing for that compliment —and it does take a lot of effort. Anyhow, the other outrageous thing was my noble friend Lord Parkinson claiming that exceptionalism from lawyers was something to be criticised; I find that very distressing.
I will finish on this point. I cannot compete with my noble friends Lord Wolfson and Lord Banner, or indeed the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on the number of times I have appeared in the Supreme Court, and I am certainly not awaiting a judgment now, but the last time I appeared there was in 2019, when I had the joy and honour of being against my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. He was acting for the Government and I was not. I had the advantage of being able to describe his client, the Prime Minister, very frequently as “the defendant”.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will forgive me for intervening. I certainly do not wish to prolong these proceedings, and I agree with a great deal of what he said about their irrelevance to the Bill, but I should say a word because, as it happens, I am a former holder of two of the offices referred to in these amendments—first as Lord President of the Court of Session, later as a Law Lord, and later still as a Justice of the Supreme Court—so I can say a little bit about what these amendments might mean for them and for the House.
As far as the Lord President is concerned, I think the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Anderson, will be alarmed to know that I received a peerage not when I was appointed as Lord President but after I had been serving as Lord President for about five years. It came to me as an honour in the New Year Honours List, for which I was, of course, extremely grateful.
A few years later, I became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, but I was already a Peer, so I did not have to become another form of Law Lord—that is, a Law Lord Lord—as I was already a life Peer. I thought that would see me through until retirement, but in 2003, when I was travelling home to Edinburgh and was in the lounge at Heathrow Airport, I was greeted by an announcement on the television set that the body to which I belonged—the Law Lords—was being abolished and that a new Supreme Court was to be created. So it was that, when the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was enacted, I became disqualified as a result of Section 137. I never came here during that time, except possibly once to sit on the steps of the Throne to see what was going on. It was only after I retired that I was able to come back here because the disqualification was lifted.
I do not remember there being an agreement, as it were, that at some stage the Justices of the Supreme Court would be granted peerages. Certainly in 2003, when the whole issue blew up, there was very strong resistance to the judges being in the Lords at any time, whether serving or retired. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, knows where the bodies are buried, not I, but there certainly was that resistance. I do not recall any undertaking and nor was it buried under the sofa, because it was quite a strong feeling at the time. There it is—that is what the position was at that time.
So far as the amendments are concerned, I will say a word about the Lord President. The Lord President’s place of work is as a judge in Edinburgh. I found it an extremely demanding and time-consuming job. I came here to take the oath after I received my peerage and I came later on, for one day, to make my maiden speech, but I cannot remember coming at any other stage as Lord President. My predecessor, Lord Emsley, was in much the same position. He received a peerage after he had been serving as Lord President but he very rarely, if ever, came to speak.
Those were pre-devolution days. Now, the situation has changed markedly. The system over which the Lord President presides is devolved, and much of the law that he and his colleagues in the court look at is devolved, so the occasions for the Lord President feeling justified in taking time to come to London to sit and speak in the House of Lords will be very few and far between. The same would be true, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. It is a different matter after retirement, of course, but as serving judges their place here would be difficult to justify.
So far as the Supreme Court is concerned, of course, its place of work is not here—it is just across Parliament Square—but I can say, having worked there for four years, that it seems a very long way from this House. In the summer months you have to fight your way through the crowds to get here from there, and, of course, there are all the problems of finding a place and finding an occasion to speak. One thing we have lost, inevitably, is the connection with the House, which I felt very strongly as a serving Law Lord: I used to come here, not to take part very much but to listen to debates and understand what was going on. That connection and the wish to participate has been lost.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
It is appropriate that we hear from the Lib Dem Benches, as we have not heard from them yet.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I very strongly agree with much of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, particularly his last comment. As long as we have independent Cross-Bench Peers in your Lordships’ House, there is a very strong argument for having former senior judges and civil servants as part of their number. However, I have three reasons for disagreeing with these amendments. I realise that, as a mere Lib Dem, I will not at this point have the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, shaking in his shoes, but I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I have a go.
The first point is that I am opposed in principle to the idea that people should get a peerage just because of their formal title and position. The reason was explained in part by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope: although some people in that position will then come and play an active part in your Lordships’ House, others will treat it as an honour. We will not see them and they will not play a part. One thing that has gone through the debates on this Bill is a view that everybody who is a Member of your Lordships’ House in future should play a full part in its activity. I simply do not believe that these proposals to automatically grant people places would achieve that aim.
The second argument is the slippery slope argument. In a way, my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness’s amendment demonstrated this: there was a clear gap in what was already proposed, so he came up with another category that might justifiably form a part. In respect of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, once you start specifying a greater range of people it becomes a more difficult problem. I see the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, in his place; I certainly think that former Permanent Secretaries to the Treasury, as a general rule, have a greater claim to membership of your Lordships’ House than directors-general of the BBC.
Lord Newby (LD)
I say that much as I respect the noble Lord, Lord Birt. That just demonstrates the problem of specifying individual placeholders who should get a place in this Chamber.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made a valiant attempt to explain why he did not think the separation of powers mattered. The only thing I will say is that the separation of powers was legislated for by Gladstone in the Judicature Act 1873, a provision that was not implemented when Disraeli became Prime Minister the following year. As in many other things, I prefer Gladstone to Disraeli. This may or may not have been Liberal policy for 152 years—it actually beats our commitment to having a directly elected House of Lords as the longest commitment continuously held by a political party before it was implemented— and I see no reason why we should change from that position now.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the first life peerages were conferred under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, which remained in force until the impact of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It is perhaps notable that the first three appointments as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were Scottish lawyers. It is also notable that the next three appointments as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were Irish lawyers. However, 15 years later, a suitable English lawyer was identified and appointed.
Against that background, I turn first to Amendments 56 and 57, in the name of my noble friend Lord Wolfson, to which I have added my name. I must note two points. First, I express a degree of surprise about the advice he received from the Cabinet Office upon his appointment to the Government. There is a long and perhaps dishonourable tradition of Attorneys-General, Solicitors-General and Lord Advocates assuming high judicial office after their service in government. Indeed, in the case of the Lord Advocate, it was invariably the practice into the 1960s that he would appoint himself to the most senior judicial office available, there being no conflict of interest. However, there are very good reasons why it is of benefit to this House, as a political House, to have the benefit of those who have served in high judicial office, whether they do so following their retirement or at an earlier stage.
It was a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that, while Lords of Appeal in Ordinary sat in this House, they would do so with a self-denying ordinance. They would not engage in matters that were potentially controversial from the perspective of their judicial office; for example, you would not have seen them engage in debates with regard to the Human Rights Act and other similar matters. However, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, it gave those in high judicial office some impression of the political mood so far as legislation was concerned, and that would have an impact on them when they came, in due course, to address what were potentially politically controversial issues that were raised to a point of law. I suggest that there was always a significant benefit in having such qualified persons in this House, albeit that it may be appropriate that they should be here after the judicial retirement age of 75 and up to the Government’s intended retirement age of 80—I see some of the government Back-Benchers wincing at that, but I understand that that is the intention.
I support the points made by my noble friend Lord Wolfson. I do not go so far as the amendment proposed by my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Murray, and I do not take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that we are dealing here with protected places. We are dealing here with those who are not executive appointments to this House, of which a greater proportion are going to emerge as a result of this legislation.
In these circumstances, it appears to me that there are two elements. There is the element of an honour conferred on those who are granted high judicial office, and that is already reflected in the fact that the present President of the United Kingdom Supreme Court had a peerage conferred on him upon his appointment and the fact that the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, had such an honour bestowed upon him as well. Frankly, I would be confident that those who have held high judicial office and have been public servants for so long a part of their career will, as a matter of course, become engaged in the proceedings of this House if that opportunity is presented to them.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that there should be no link between the peerage and a distinguished office which has been held. I do not believe we have to go down a slippery slope. However, I acknowledge that the separation of powers has to be noted and acknowledged, albeit Montesquieu was talking about the United States’ system and not our own—and even there, there are changes afoot.
I invite the Government to consider very seriously Amendments 56 and 57, and to comment on the other attendant amendments which would bring those who have held high public office and been distinguished public servants into this House, almost invariably on to the Cross Benches.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, which in this group concern the appointment of specific public servants to your Lordships’ House. I will start, if I may, with the amendments that concern the conferral of peerages on serving members of the senior judiciary, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Banner, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness.
I start from a happy place of consensus, set out so eloquently by the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson, Lord Banner and Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Garnier and Lord Keen. There can be no doubt as to the enormous benefit that your Lordships’ House gains from the presence and participation of former members of the senior judiciary. That benefit is not limited to the contribution of judges. As all the noble Lords I have just listed demonstrate, the contribution of eminent practitioners in the law adds to your Lordships’ House. If I may say so, there was no finer reflection of the contribution made to your Lordships’ House and its importance than the contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
Before it is thought that I am in competition with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and others for a Private Eye award, there are three reasons why we cannot agree to these amendments. The first is that the Government’s intention is that this is and will remain a single-purpose Bill, to give effect to our manifesto commitment to remove hereditary Peers from participation in your Lordships’ House. I am not going to labour that point because it has been made in respect of so many amendments and was reiterated by the contribution from my noble friend Lord Grocott. We do not consider it appropriate or desirable to seek to piggyback quite separate proposals for reform on to the Bill.
That merges into my second reason. The future composition of your Lordships’ House beyond the proposal in this Bill is a matter best considered in the round. The Government have committed to consult on an alternative second Chamber—and before that, on further reforms—in due course. One can anticipate that it is highly likely that Prime Ministers of all parties will wish to continue to appoint retired senior judges to your Lordships’ House, but, before more comprehensive reform, we consider it appropriate that appointments remain for now at the discretion of the Prime Minister. Of course, if there are to be changes, we entirely accept the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, that logic dictates that, in respect of judges, it should be extended to Northern Ireland if it is extended to Scotland, England and Wales.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. The answer he proposes is that the Prime Minister retains the discretion to appoint retired members of the Supreme Court to this House. How does that answer the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that this appears to place a slightly invidious choice on the Prime Minister where he is conferring a favour on a judge? If it were automatically all judges, there could be no suggestion that decisions are made that might favour them in the list of peerages.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. I can well anticipate that, if this is an issue that arises on consultation, there may be a distinction—to my mind, it is potentially a constitutionally important distinction—between the appropriateness or otherwise of the appointment of senior judges on their appointment to judicial office, which gives rise to the constitutional tensions that I alluded to a moment ago, and appointment upon retirement. I hope that that answers his question, at least in part.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
The noble and learned Lord draws a distinction between appointment to the Lords on taking office and appointment at the end of office being served, but we have heard already that the current President of the Supreme Court was appointed to this House on assuming the office—of course, on the understanding that he would not participate in the debates of the House. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that that is unconstitutional?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
The constitutional tension is between judges who sit on cases that may often concern government legislation also sitting in the legislature. The distinction I seek to draw simply seeks to exemplify the merits and demerits of a debate that may well take place during consultation. It is not meant to reflect any firm view of the Government as to where that may ultimately land.
I make one final point on the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, drawing on the wider point that I made a moment ago about the merits of looking at this in the round. It is worth reflecting that, if this were to come into effect today, it would create a significant number of new Members of your Lordships’ House. Putting aside judicial Members, of that large number, only five would be women. It is also right to remind ourselves that, in the long history of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships’ House and then the creation of the Supreme Court in 2010, there have been only four women judges or members of that committee.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The point I was making with my amendment was not necessarily to make the case for all—I take the arguments that the Minister and others have made about a slippery slope—but to tease out the distinction between the constitutional point that the Minister identified, on the necessity of appointing judges on appointment, and maintaining the independence of action of senior public servants who might want to curry favour with Prime Ministers who have the power to put them in the House of Lords after they complete their jobs.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
The noble Lord’s intervention exemplifies the important conversations that lie ahead as we try to unpick those tensions.
As I have just alluded to, there are wider questions around the future composition of this House. The Government are committed to other reforms, not least the alternative second Chamber set out in our manifesto. There is no doubt that this House will continue to be blessed with legal expertise. There is also no doubt that, with any appointment to your Lordships’ House now or in future, the expertise offered by former members of the senior judiciary will be a blessing to your Lordships’ House. Although noble Lords have pressed an important point and this has been an important conversation, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, may I kindly ask him to comment on the claim by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that the amendments to the Bill in this group are too wide-ranging in scope? The clerks have been clear that amendments on the composition of your Lordships’ House are in scope on the basis that the removal of one group of Members is closely connected to, and has repercussive effects on, the wider membership. I believe it is against the practice of the House implicitly to criticise the clerks on the Floor of the House, which the noble and learned Lord appeared to do. Apparently, on 12 March the Government tabled amendments to change the scope and long title of the Employment Rights Bill. The Government have therefore done it on another Bill, so there is no need for the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on this Bill.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I thank the noble Lord for his question. Obviously, it is not appropriate for the Government Benches to respond. The clerks have been clear, and we are discussing all amendments as laid out. We are on the second group of 12 today, so I beg we move forward.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am going to move forward by thanking everybody who contributed to that very interesting and informative debate. I did not declare an interest as a practising barrister—although of course I am—because I do not have any outstanding cases from the Supreme Court. The reason for that is that I received judgment in my last case in the Supreme Court only last week. Full disclosure—I lost. I knew things were bad when I saw in the draft judgment that the court had been very kind about how well I had argued it. That is always fatal; when the court is nice about the way you argue a case, it is going to decide against you. It is an immutable rule of English jurisprudence.
I am grateful for all the support I received on these points from various parts of the House, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who brought his experience to bear. I listened extremely carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said about participation; that is a real issue. However, I was somewhat alarmed to hear that the first the Law Lords heard of the demise of that venerable institution was on the TV and that they had not been told in advance. I would have thought that a Labour Government would have wanted to tell people about any change in their—so to speak—employment status. Again, it is such a shame that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is not among us.
As far as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is concerned, the answer to the point he gave about individuals was precisely the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and that was made thereafter by my noble friend Lord Murray. I confess that whenever it comes to a bust-up between Gladstone and Disraeli, I will invariably be on the side of Disraeli.
I am grateful for the support from my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, both by way of him adding his name to my amendments and from his position on the Front Bench. I wonder whether the reason I received the advice that I would be effectively barred from becoming a judge—although the prospect of Wolfson J was always somewhat theoretical—was because I was becoming a Minister and not a law officer. I was a little surprised, but there we are.
I am extremely grateful to the Attorney-General for his response. He is right that there appears to be a consensus across the Committee that we need to find a way to have more judicial Members here, at the right time. I therefore look forward to continuing the conversation. I would make only one final point: my understanding is that so far as unamended Bills are concerned, in the previous Session only four Bills went through entirely without amendment. Two were money Bills, one was an emergency Bill and one was a Bill on animal welfare that had cross-party support. It is a somewhat worrying approach for a Government to say, ab initio, and before listening to the debate, that they will brook no amendments at all, even if they have cross-party support in principle, as this one has. With that caveat, I will withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I cannot call Amendments 58 to 59B, as they are amendments to Amendment 57.
Amendment 60
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“Lord ChancellorIn the case of any person who holds the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain who is not currently a member of the House of Lords, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that the person be granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the Lord Chancellor is a member of the House of Lords, as was the case for over two centuries leading up to the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 60 seeks to ensure that,
“any person who holds the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain who is not currently a member”
of your Lordships’ House must be recommended by the Prime Minister for a life peerage under the 1958 Act.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I sympathise with a very great deal of what my noble friend said. I speak with a certain family background, and I too regret the diminution of the role and status of the Lord Chancellor. That said, we are where we are and we cannot sensibly address this amendment without asking ourselves what the role of the Lord Chancellor is and should be. Since 2007, the Lord Chancellor has also been Secretary of State for Justice, sitting in the House of Commons. The Secretary of State for Justice has a very large number of responsibilities that touch on the constituency interests of Members of Parliament. I find it very difficult to believe that Members of Parliament would accept the Secretary of State for Justice sitting in the House of Lords.
That takes one directly to the role. Are we to separate the role of the Lord Chancellor from that of Secretary of State for Justice? That is certainly possible; it could be done. But what other departmental responsibility would the Lord Chancellor then have? I accept that there are some senior offices that can be represented in this House—if I may say so, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General does so with distinction. He has been preceded by other Attorneys-General in this House, and I regard that as perfectly proper because there are a relatively few constituency interests that would engage Members of the House of Commons.
That, to a lesser extent, was also true of the Foreign Secretary. My noble friend Lord Cameron occupied the role of Foreign Secretary with great distinction. It caused real problems in the House of Commons, as indeed did the role of Lord Carrington at the time of Lady Thatcher’s Government. In both cases, this had to be met by having a very effective deputy. But, again, the Foreign Secretary’s role, although hugely important, raised relatively few constituency interests.
My point is this: if the Lord Chancellor is to have a serious departmental responsibility, which has constituency interests engaged so far as Members of the House of Commons are concerned, that Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice or whatever, has to be in the House of Commons. If this Committee accepts that, one is then driven to ask: what, if any, departmental role would a new Lord Chancellor have? I find it very difficult to identify one. If that is the case, we are diminishing and not enhancing the role of the Lord Chancellor. So, while I agreed with an awful lot of the underlying sentiments expressed by my noble friend, I cannot back him on this one.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I have my name on Amendment 60. It seems to me that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in this regard—the Lord Chancellor having by law to be a Member of your Lordships’ House—is sensible. My noble friend Lord Hailsham’s point is easy to answer. Part of the constitutional pottage made by the Blair Government when they passed the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was the creation of the Ministry of Justice, with its Orwellian-sounding name. It has not been a happy experience melding the operation of the prison system with the court system, and I suggest that the answer is that that is broken up and the Prison Service returned to the Home Office. Accordingly, there would be no need for a separate Secretary of State for Justice, thus answering my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s point, and the Lord Chancellor could therefore return to this House and protect the interests of the judiciary in the Cabinet. He could indeed also return to being Speaker of this House, which would further guarantee his independence from the Government of the day. That, of course, is for another day, but, at the moment, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, with regard to the future position of the Lord Chancellor. Of course, that will not involve the Lord Chancellor sitting as a judge in the future, and I question whether it would involve him sitting as Speaker in this House. However, he clearly does have a role, but one that he can perform effectively only if, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, observed, the office is seen as one of the great offices of state, as it once was; if it is acknowledged as “a destination job”, as he described it, the final step in a distinguished political career. By that means, he could also be appointed Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, something that is sorely lacking at the present time. Because responsibility for the constitution is somewhat nebulous within government, and I acknowledge that that has been the case since 2005.
The responsibility is devolved to the Cabinet Office to some extent and to the Ministry of Justice in other respects, and there is a clear case for identifying someone who is in a position to discharge the role of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. A suitable person appointed to such an office would also resume the position that great Lord Chancellors occupied in the past. He would be not only the adviser to government on matters of constitutional nicety, but the moral conscience of the Government as well.
That role is difficult to define until it is absent, and it is a role that a suitable Lord Chancellor sitting in this House would be able to perform, with the strength to speak truth to power—something that has sometimes been absent in executive government in this country, as we have faced various constitutional challenges. I heartily endorse the amendment proposed by my noble friend.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and other noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. We do not accept Amendment 60 for three reasons, beyond the fact that it falls outside the intended scope of this single-issue Bill.
First, the amendment seeks to fetter the power of a Prime Minister to shape the Cabinet according to his or her own choosing. Under this amendment, if the Prime Minister wished to choose a sitting MP to be Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, as has been the case for every Lord Chancellor since 2007, that person would have to vacate their seat and trigger a by-election; or, if this amendment were to be accepted, the Prime Minister would be required to separate the roles of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. In the Government’s view, that would be a constitutionally inappropriate fettering of the Prime Minister’s discretion to pick a Cabinet of his or her own choosing.
Secondly, there is no constitutional or public policy rationale to justify taking us back to the position that we were in before 2005. One cannot, for the reasons set out by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, simply pick and choose without going wholesale back to the 2005 position—putting the Lord Chancellor back on the Woolsack and as the senior judge—because what else is left of the Lord Chancellor’s role? It cannot simply be a rationale driven by nothing more than to have a member of the Cabinet committed to upholding the rule of law. That should be a commitment consistent with the ministerial code for all members of the Cabinet but, if I may say so, I also see it quite properly as a role for an Attorney-General. As the House will be aware, with the Prime Minister’s and the monarch’s grateful permission, the oath of the Attorney-General was changed when I took it to include an express commitment—although it would always have been implicit—to the rule of law.
Thirdly, the amendments fail to address what we would respectfully say are the most important attributes for a Lord Chancellor in the post-2005 age. Those attributes were identified by the Constitution Committee, which considered the Lord Chancellor’s role in a report two years ago—and I acknowledge the committee’s current chair, who is not in his place, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. In its final analysis, the report said that
“character, intellect and a commitment to the rule of law are the most important attributes for a Lord Chancellor to possess”.
We agree, and we do not consider that the acid test of those attributes is the House in which a Lord Chancellor should sit.
My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor exemplifies the qualities of a great officeholder committed to the rule of law. More widely, as she has made clear, this entire Government see the rule of law as our lodestar. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister has appointed my right honourable friend in the confidence that the House in which she sits is no hindrance to her in discharging her vital constitutional responsibilities. For those three reasons, I respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions in this short but important debate. I make the point, although it really ought to go without saying—but I say it for the avoidance of doubt—that none of this is any reflection on the current occupant of the role, for whom I have the greatest personal respect. What we have to do when we consider constitutional matters is to move away from the personal and to the principled, and that is what my amendment is directed at.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has identified three reasons why this amendment cannot be accepted by the Government. First, he said, it would fetter the PM’s choice of who to have in the Cabinet, but it does not; the PM can still appoint anybody to the role of Lord Chancellor. In fact, the Prime Minister is able to appoint anybody and is not limited to Members of the House of Commons, because somebody could be parachuted in, as has happened on previous occasions. There is no fetter at all—that is a good red herring.
The second point is about what the Lord Chancellor would do. That was the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham—and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, gave the short answer. The Lord Chancellor would be there to oversee the really important parts of our constitution: constitutional affairs, devolution, human rights and international treaties. We should therefore go back to the Lord Chancellor being in charge of a Department for Constitutional Affairs.
As to the last point, that the current Attorney-General is the first one to add into the oath a commitment to the rule of law, of course I share that commitment to the rule of law with him—although I think that our interpretation of what it contains may sometimes differ, but that is not a matter for now. With regard to statute, the Lord Chancellor is in a sui generis position. I continue to think that we have lost something important in the 2005 Act, and I hope that this conversation may continue, but of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment this evening.
“Ministerial members(1) In each Parliament, a limited number of persons may be appointed as temporary ministerial members of the House of Lords.(2) Appointments are to be made by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.(3) A recommendation may be made only for the purpose of facilitating the performance by the recommended person of that person’s functions as a Minister of the Crown.(4) An appointment may be made only at a time when there are fewer than 8 ministerial members appointed to the Parliament by the current Prime Minister who are Ministers of the Crown.(5) Any person appointed as a ministerial member of the House of Lords ceases to be a member of the House of Lords when they stop serving as a Minister of the Crown.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to allow temporary appointments to the House of Lords for serving Ministers of the Crown.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, the amendment in my name on the Marshalled List, Amendment 67, regards the potential appointment of temporary ministerial Members of your Lordships’ House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for his support of this amendment and for having added his name to it.
In the very few months during which I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House, I have seen from the inside what outside observers cannot appreciate fully: that this is an institution that works. It is a House that does its duty efficiently and effectively. I hope that discussing Amendment 67 will give the House, and indeed the Government, an opportunity to consider how the House could work even more effectively.
It is vital that a significant number of Government Ministers should be Members of this House, and equally vital that a significant number of Members of this House should be Government Ministers. Our duty to hold the Government to account is accomplished in a variety of ways, as your Lordships are well aware, the most obvious of which is asking questions of a Minister at the Dispatch Box.
In recent years, 36 Ministers have been directly appointed to this House as Ministers. They have come in and made their maiden speeches at the Dispatch Box as Ministers of the Crown. I am not for a moment suggesting that there is anything wrong with that.
A Prime Minister is entitled to appoint the person he or she considers best for the job. It is in all our interests—indeed, in the interests of the country as a whole—to have Ministers carrying out the business of government who know their subject and know how to put policies into action.
It has long been an accepted practice that a Prime Minister can appoint a person who has not been elected to Parliament to become part of the Government. But surely we all accept—some of us more than others—that the ability to win votes at a general election is not the only attribute that makes a good Minister. A successful government department needs a mixture of talents. The aim of Amendment 67 is not to restrict the ability of a Prime Minister to appoint the right person to do a particular job. On the contrary, the effect of this amendment would be to make it easier for a Minister to be appointed.
At present, the only possible appointment to this House is as a Peer for life. I put it to the House that there should be an alternative: the Prime Minister should be able to appoint a person to be a Government Minister and they should be a Member of this House during their tenure of the ministerial appointment and only for that time. Of course I will give way to my noble friend.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. I just seek some clarification. She is making a very strong, cogent argument. When they leave their appointment as Ministers, will they keep their title or not?
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that very pertinent question. I think the answer is yes. A title is an honour—we have discussed this in various aspects of the Bill and in the changes that we are considering. There is no harm in a title. It is the presence of being in this House and having the ability to vote, et cetera, that is really the point at question. So, indeed, a title, once conferred, would be kept for ever. It is a great honour to be appointed to this House, but I ask noble Lords to consider that an appointment for life means something rather different to a person aged 30 and a person aged 60. None of us can predict what “for life” will mean, but if one is planning one’s career, it looks rather different from the point of view of having accomplished most of the things you are going to do, rather than from the point of view of having accomplished not very much yet.
There might be bright young things out there who could serve a few years as very effective members of a Government but who do not wish to undertake the duty of being a Member of this illustrious House for the rest of their lives. All recent Prime Ministers have vowed that they want to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House. Let us try to help the current Prime Minister to do that, by giving him the option to appoint Ministers on a temporary basis. It would be a modest step towards a 21st-century House if the Government were to consider adopting Amendment 67. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Laing of Elderslie proposes the creation of a new class of Members of your Lordships’ House, as ministerial members. It is not clear from her very eloquent speech whether such persons would be created Peers or not. She did suggest that they would be accorded titles, not only for the duration of their tenure in office but for life. This amendment does not address the problem of unpaid Ministers in your Lordships’ House. I am not so sure there would be many volunteers for such posts in the absence of a salary and a peerage. I hope my noble friend will clarify whether, on reflection, these temporary Ministers would be given a peerage or the right to sit after retirement from ministerial responsibilities.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. Just to clarify, it is set out in Amendment 67 that such a person would be created a Peer, but not a Peer for life. Although the title might continue, the right to sit in your Lordships’ House would not, once the ministerial appointment had ended.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her clarification, but I wonder about the creation of yet another type of Peer. I wonder how many people would be happy to be created that kind of Peer, if others appointed as Ministers were created proper Peers for life. It might be a bit difficult.
I will comment on Amendment 90C, which my noble friend Lord Brady is going to move. He seeks to abolish the Lords Ministers altogether. Who would speak for the Government in your Lordships’ House? My noble friend clearly has in mind a very different role for the House, and I look forward to his elucidation of that.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing my remarks so capably. I hate to disappoint him, but my intention is to speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Laing’s Amendment 67, not to move Amendment 90C in my name. I tabled it intending for it to sit with the earlier amendment that I proposed, which we debated at an earlier stage. My intention was to draw out a broader debate about the importance of a separation of powers. We heard earlier about the separation between the judiciary and the legislature, but we do not speak very often about the possible separation between the Executive and the legislature. That is the debate I was wishing to have, but it does not sit comfortably at this point in our proceedings.
I do, however, very strongly support my noble friend Lady Laing’s amendment, which serves quite an important purpose—and sits naturally with the avowed intention of the Bill. Most of us across the House recognise that the odd process of exempted hereditary Peers being chosen by by-election has become very difficult to justify. It has been widely said at previous stages that it had already really fallen into disuse and most people have been happy to see that there would not be future by-elections.
In dealing with what appeared to be an anomalous route for appointment to your Lordships’ House, it is very hard to see how the appointment of a Peer for life simply because they are being appointed to do a specific job for a specific period of time is not at least as anomalous.
I strongly support my noble friend in her intention. As she has said, it would increase the freedom of Prime Ministers to bring in people to act as Ministers from a much broader field or a much wider spectrum of life experience—and it would not have the unintended consequence of constantly swelling the ranks of your Lordships’ House.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I wish to make two brief points. First, with regard to what has just been said by the noble Baroness, I strongly support the idea of time-limited persons in this House, whether they are Ministers, appointed for a particular short term or—my own favoured proposal—for fixed terms of, say, 10 years, which addresses some of my noble friend’s point.
Amendment 90C, which my noble friend Lord Brady does not intend to move, would be seriously bad news. If this House is to perform its function as a revising Chamber by scrutinising legislation, it is essential that the Government of the day are represented by competent Ministers who can answer questions from the Opposition or their own Benches. If my noble friend’s amendment, which he does not intend to move, was ever to find favour, the role of this House would be hugely diminished.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I, too, support Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Laing of Elderslie, which I have signed.
As a stalwart participant in debates about the future of your Lordships’ House, in particular on the principle of its hereditary membership, it has been a source of constant frustration to me that the House has been unable since 2015 to make even minor and sensible reforms to our composition, until now. There are several sensible amendments to this Bill that go beyond removing the hereditary basis for membership, and I support the principle of this one.
I have looked at ministerial appointments made by way of creating a new peerage since 2015. There have been 29 in this period, of which nine—or approximately one-third—have lasted as Ministers for less than a year. Only seven of the 29 new Peers created in this way have lasted as Ministers for more than two years. Therefore, 76% of them have not lasted as Ministers for two years, but all of them have been granted lifetime membership of the House. I then looked at the record of those appointed Ministers in this way after they ceased to be Ministers. Of the 29, 11 have gone on to make fewer than 10 spoken contributions and only 12 have made more than 50. Fifteen did not serve on a committee, 17 took part in fewer than 50 Divisions and only eight took part in more than 100 Divisions. It is a great source of frustration to many in the House that we have seen so many ministerial appointments which involved the granting of a life peerage, with the newly appointed Ministers lasting only a very short period of time in office and then mostly disappearing without trace from our Chamber but without choosing to resign from it.
If ministerial appointments created in that way continue at the same rate over the next decade, we will add another 30 Members to the House. That would make the cull of the hereditary Members less justified, if it were simply about numbers. One ministerial Peer would be created for every three hereditary Peers removed, and the ministerial Peers are likely to be of less value to the House in the long run.
All the evidence suggests that peerages created to enable ministerial appointments inflate our size while not invariably providing Members who are very active beyond the term of their ministerial office. We need to end the practice of a peerage for life being granted simply to enable ministerial appointments to be made from outside the membership of the House of Commons. Almost everyone agrees that the House of Lords is too large and that it is not well served by having Members who inflate our numbers without properly participating in our work.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will look favourably at ending the link between a life peerage and ministerial office. They could, at the very least, expect any new Ministers appointed in this way, at the end of their term of ministerial office, either to remain as active in the House as expected by the standards of the House of Lords Appointments Commission or to resign immediately from membership of the House. A public statement from the Prime Minister that this will be the case would be a welcome step, pending more wide-ranging reforms of the House. It would make an amendment such as this less necessary and avoid further debate.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I hold my noble friends proposing these amendments in high regard, but I am sorry to say that they display a misunderstanding of the relationship between a Lords Minister and other Members of your Lordships’ House. I do not understand how the House would work if my noble friend Lord Brady’s amendment were to be accepted. What would be the point of being in the House of Lords if we were unable to influence a Minister on a Peer-to-Peer basis?
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
Had I intended to move my amendment, I would wonder whether it occurs to my noble friend that it would be possible to bring Ministers from another place to answer Questions here.
Earl Attlee (Con)
I could not resist having a pop at my noble friend.
My noble friend Lady Laing mentioned the 36th direct ministerial appointment, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in his important contribution, said more about that. The underlying cause of that is that Prime Ministers have been offering peerages, rather than attractive salaries, to fill ministerial vacancies in your Lordships’ House.
My noble friend Lady Laing’s amendment would have a very serious and adverse effect on the culture of the House. In all my time in your Lordships’ House, I have looked decades ahead. I will give an example. In the 2001 Parliament, we had a perfectly decent, hard-working and effective Minister for Defence Procurement as our Lords Defence Minister. At the time, we were militarily overcommitted, and at Question Time I asked for how many years we had operated outside the defence planning assumptions. He misled the House by saying, “My Lords, none”, and sat down. Unfortunately, that was the wrong answer. I could have wickedly arranged for him to come to the Dispatch Box, immediately after Prayers, to apologise to the House for misleading it—but I did no such thing. Instead, I located the crestfallen Minister and said, “Don’t worry, Willy, just put a Ministerial Statement in the back of Hansard and it will be fine”. Nine years later, when I accidentally cut a £1.7 billion railway electrification scheme, it was my pals in the Labour Party, including the noble Lord on the Woolsack, who said, “Don’t worry, John, you have another Question tomorrow and you can clarify the situation then”.
In the past, I have worked very closely with parachuted-in Ministers, and I am doing so now. I am working very closely with the noble Lord, Lord Timpson —who is a parachuted-in Minister—on prison reform. This is the House of Lords, and our role is to revise legislation and to be an additional check on the Executive and a source of expertise. We cannot perform this role unless other Members of the House and Ministers work together collegiately, with mutual trust and in accordance with the Nolan principles.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lady Laing’s amendment.
I begin by pointing out two problems with her proposal before I give her my unwavering support. I call the first the “Wolfson problem”, or perhaps the “Timpson problem”, whereby we appoint extremely experienced and able people to fill a ministerial role and then discover, when they leave that ministerial role, that they will be extremely distinguished and able Members of our House for the rest of their lives.
I gave three cheers when my noble friend Lord Wolfson came into this House, and I gave three cheers for the three excellent Ministers appointed by the new Government to the Front Bench, each with huge expertise in their areas. I invidiously agree with my noble friend Lord Attlee that one of them is the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. I have absolutely no doubt that they will continue to make extremely distinguished contributions to the House long after they have left their ministerial posts. The “Wolfson problem” is easily solved by converting those temporary Ministers into full-time life Peers at the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day.
The second issue is the element of—
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The only problem with that is that I left my ministerial office because I resigned from it. The prospect of the Prime Minister of the day thereafter appointing me as a life Peer might be regarded as somewhat remote.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
As somebody who left the Whip because of the capriciousness of the then Prime Minister, and then managed to get the Whip restored and to be put into this House, I know that there are ways around the problem, particularly with extremely clever arguments put forward on one’s own behalf. But I digress.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I thank my honourable—I am sorry, he is not my honourable friend; he has stopped being honourable. I thank my noble friend for giving way. I was trying to be brief in my initial remarks, so I did not go into great detail. This amendment would not apply to all Ministers; it would simply give the Prime Minister the ability to appoint some Ministers on a temporary basis. It would not oblige the Prime Minister to make all ministerial appointments to this House on a temporary basis. I hope that reassures my noble friend.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
The noble Baroness was effectively my first employer, when I was 21 years old, and we have this telepathic understanding: she has seamlessly introduced the main point I wish to make.
I want to turn this round and pick up precisely on what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was saying. Moving to a system where the Government of the day could appoint temporary Ministers to this place would give the Prime Minister and the Government a huge amount of flexibility to fill government posts with genuine experts with, effectively, executive ministerial power to carry out their functions. There must be a small, niggling doubt when a Prime Minister is filling positions. Even with the very distinguished people appointed in recent months, he—and it is “he” in this case—must be thinking, “Am I appointing too many people to fill these Benches; people who are going be here for the rest of their lives?” If he had the freedom, for example, to appoint 12 or 13 experts in the field to fill specific ministerial roles, knowing that at the end of those roles they will leave this House, that would sit better with public opinion and give him more freedom. It would serve the country better if he were able to appoint such experts to carry out these functions—by definition, almost certainly as junior Ministers—and help the Government of the day. That is a very powerful argument.
As I say, there would be discretion to convert those Ministers into life peers at the end. In fact, I had not considered the question of whether they should have a peerage when they enter this House. My conclusion is that they should not. They should be called MILs—Ministers in the Lords—and then they can aspire, based on their service as Ministers and their contribution to the House, to a peerage after they have served as Ministers here.
Finally, I turn to the question, raised by one of my noble friends, of how many people would be attracted to the unpaid role of a Minister in the Lords. First, it does not necessarily need to be unpaid. It is a matter for the Government of the day as to whether they have the courage to face down public opinion and expand the number of paid ministerial positions. But this House should certainly seriously consider giving the Prime Minister and the Government of the day the freedom to appoint temporary MILs to help service its business.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Laing of Elderslie and Lord Brady of Altrincham for their amendments. My noble friend Lord Brady seems to have pulled off the ingenious feat of engineering a debate on an amendment he did not want to move or speak about himself. So I will not say very much about his Amendment 90C, other than to note that the answers that noble Lords get to their questions would be far less satisfactory if the people responding had less authority to seek or determine the answers, and that our scrutiny of legislation would be diminished if the Ministers responding did not have the authority to make changes and compromises based on the arguments they have heard. We live in hope that we might be able to persuade Ministers of the need for some changes to and compromises on the Bill before the Committee.
I will focus on my noble friend Lady Laing’s Amendment 67, which has far more going for it. It is certainly valuable to be able to bring people into government who might not have had the inclination or the opportunity to stand for election. The present Government have made good use of that. Mention has already been made, rightly, of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, who had a distinguished career in business but also helped those who had been in the penal system. More pertinent examples are people such as the noble Lords, Lord Vallance of Balham and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who were distinguished public servants in their fields before they dipped their toes into more political waters. Similarly, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General stepped away from a successful career at the Bar to provide counsel and public service in government. Governments of all colours have been able to persuade distinguished people from all sorts of walks of life to pause or sometimes abandon their careers in order to serve the country. What my noble friend says is right: they could perhaps persuade more if it were not accompanied by a life sentence in the legislature.
Although some noble Lords who have given service in government remain active members of your Lordships’ House, drawing on the expertise they have added in office, others do not. I was struck by the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, quoted on the rate of continuing participation of former Ministers. Indeed, when I look down the list of those who served in the Conservative-led Governments of the previous 14 years, I am struck by the number who have chosen no longer to sit on these Benches. I remember one difficult conversation with a noble Lord, who will remain nameless, who was anxious to step down as a Minister, having already served for longer than the late Lord Heywood of Whitehall had promised them they would have to in return for their life peerage.
So, although I am firmly of the view that Ministers of the Crown should be represented in both Houses of our bicameral system, my noble friend Lady Laing’s suggestion that temporary service in government should be separated from perpetual service here in the legislature is worthy of consideration. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
This has been a really interesting debate. I will not address the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, because he has not moved it, which makes life a bit easier. However, he supported Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, which seeks to allow individuals to be appointed as temporary Peers so that they can serve as Ministers, after which they would depart this House.
Although the Government see the reasoning behind this amendment, we do not think it is the best way of achieving our objective of a smaller, more active Chamber. Ministers are appointed to the Government because of the experience and expertise they bring to this House, and the House benefits hugely from that. Some Ministers appointed to this House who were Members of Parliament bring both an intrinsic understanding of the other place and valuable experience of particular government departments. I have said before that in my view, both Houses work most effectively when we understand each other’s day-to-day workings. That is a really important point.
Others have been appointed as Ministers in recognition of the value of their experience outside of government, in the private sector and in other areas of public service. As noble Lords have said, we are lucky enough to have a number of such experts on the Benches with us. My noble and learned friend Lord Hermer and my noble friend Lord Timpson were recently appointed to this House to serve as Ministers, as was the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in the last Parliament.
Whatever the precise reasons for their appointment, I think noble Lords would agree that these individuals proved valuable to the House long after they ceased to be Ministers. This amendment risks depriving the House of often considerable experience.
I understand the sentiment of this amendment. New Peers, whether appointed as Ministers or not, increase the size of this House, because appointments are for life, and the House has become too big. What the House has found frustrating is that, often, when Ministers are appointed and come into this House, they leave their ministerial posts quite quickly and make no further contribution. That is not the case for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and certainly not for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. All three of them resigned from government on a matter of principle, but they have continued to participate.
We would not have had the benefit of the noble Lord in the debate today if he had been subject to the noble Baroness’s amendment. This is an important point to make. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, has continued to contribute. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has been contributing to today’s debate. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, says, but I suspect that they do not have his unique skills in persuading the Prime Minister to keep them in.
The noble Baroness’s amendment is not the way to address the problem of the size of our House. Our objective is to create a smaller, more active Chamber that represents the country it serves. As we have said throughout Committee, the Government believe that a mandatory retirement age is the most effective way to do this. It is right that we take time, as a House, to continue the dialogue on how best we can implement these manifesto commitments, and this amendment would pre-empt that dialogue.
I have heard what the noble Baroness has to say, but the evidence is here before us. It is not for the first time that I have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on his participation, and it would be terrible if we did not have him here in today’s debate. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, would the Minister consider raising with the Prime Minister the suggestion that I made of a statement along the lines I indicated in my speech, which would enable a Prime Minister to make Ministers by way of creating a peerage, but for such Peers to continue in the role only if they undertook regular participation in the House in future, and, if they did not, that they should therefore resign their membership of the House?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, we are going to look at participation generally. That means that we have to engage in proper dialogue and consultation, so I do not accept the noble Lord’s point. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assessment of the amendment that I have put before the Committee. It had not been my intention to have any argument ad hominem. I was not looking backwards in my tabling of this amendment in order to eject from the House any particular former Minister—and certainly not any sitting here.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I just make it clear, as far as I am concerned, that a copy of today’s Hansard is going directly to my mother, and I am very grateful for what my noble friend said.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
In consideration of the feelings of the noble Lord’s mother, let me make it absolutely clear that I share the Minister’s admiration for recent Ministers on both sides of the House, and, indeed, those who are now shadow Ministers and those who were previously shadow Ministers. The quality of the personnel who take charge of this House is exemplary and magnificent. Does the noble Lord think that that will be enough for his mother?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“Retirement from the House of LordsIn section 1(2)(b) of the House of Lords Act 2014, after “peer”, insert “or a person holding a lasting power of attorney for that peer”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows for a person holding a lasting power of attorney for a peer to sign on their behalf when notifying the Clerk of the Parliaments of the peer’s retirement.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in 1934, Percy Shaw patented the cat’s eye, the ubiquitous reflective road stud that we all recognise. It is one of the most perfect inventions and recognised as one of the top 10 British design icons, along with, among other things, the Spitfire, the telephone box and the world wide web. It is simple, effective, self-cleaning and, most importantly, was wholly beneficial to everyone. It had no downsides.
I am not claiming that my Amendment 69 is quite in the same league, but it is non-political and non-partisan; it applies to all noble Lords, whether elected hereditaries or life Peers; and—the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will like this—it helps address the view of the Labour manifesto that
“the second chamber of Parliament has become too big”.
The problem it addresses is to do with the composition of the House, which is why it is relevant to this Bill, and one that faces all party leaders, Chief Whips and the Convener of the Cross Benches. They often have conversations with Peers about retirement, and sometimes those conversations are quite difficult. That is understandable, because it is a sensitive subject, and particularly so when it occurs because the Peer feels that he or she might be losing the mental capacity required to be a Member of the legislature. It is, as I say, a sensitive subject, and I pay tribute to those Peers who have made the difficult and brave decision to retire for that reason. But mental capacity is not a cut and dried issue, and it can vary from day to day or week to week, and it can often reduce over time. When you are over the hill, as they say, you begin to pick up speed.
The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 allows a Peer to retire if he or she signs a letter which is witnessed and addressed to the Clerk of the Parliaments. The Catch-22 situation is that the Peer has to have, in the opinion of the Clerk of the Parliaments, the mental capacity to be able legitimately to sign the retirement letter. Even if there is a lasting power of attorney in place, the attorney cannot sign a retirement letter on behalf of a Peer who has lost mental capacity. So we have the perverse situation that an attorney can sell a Peer’s house or use his or her money to pay for long-term care, but has to leave that same Peer able to vote and speak in Parliament, even if their mental capacity continues to reduce steadily. I think everyone would agree that this is not good for the reputation of the House and potentially unkind to the Peer who may still attend the House when, frankly, they should not.
Not all Peers will have a lasting power of attorney, even though we should all at least consider it. However, if they have thought it through and decided to establish a lasting power of attorney while they still have mental capacity, this amendment would remove all doubt and allow the Clerk of the Parliaments to accept the attorney’s signature on the resignation letter. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, what feels like many years ago when we had the first day in Committee on this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord True, moved a completely unnecessary amendment to restate the purpose of the Bill as already expressed in the short title. That focused on the content of the Bill, which is about hereditary Peers.
The problem with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, which has a great deal to be said for it in terms of substance, is that it is not relevant to the Bill. It focuses on another matter, a matter which needs to be resolved—for the future of this House and for the reputation of this House—but it is not a matter for this discussion in this Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have taken a certain interest in this issue because a Peer who was extremely kind to my wife and me when we were young academics, and was himself then a senior diplomat, was the case in point.
This is something which needs sorting. It can be sorted by either a change in Standing Orders or an Order in Council. If that is not allowed, it needs legislation. We have just passed a short Bill through this House, the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill, which covered one extremely small element that was forgotten or not allowed by the Church of Scotland in the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. If we can do that, then we can add, if necessary, a short amendment to this Bill to have that effect.
As I walked through the Lobby the other day, another Peer, who happens to be a relative of the Peer in question, said to me, “This is not just a single case. Until we have agreed a retirement age, we are likely to be facing this again and again with others”. We all know that there have been cases of Peers who have continued to come here as they begin to lose their mental capacity.
I have another reason for intervening on this. I recall my mother, aged 93, trying to sign a power of attorney for me to act on her behalf. Her paralysis had reached a point where she was unable to sign and thus not able to confer the power of attorney, despite being completely in her right mind.
This can be done. We are entitled to ask the Government that, by Report, we have clear advice on whether it has to be done by legislation or can be done by an Order in Council or a change in Standing Orders. I know that there is conflicting advice on this, because I have taken some interest in the case.
I know that the Government’s preferred outcome is that there should be no amendments to this Bill. However, this is a Bill about some further reform of the Lords, and we are unlikely to see another one for some time. Therefore, this House is entitled to say, as it goes through, that we are interested in some further reforms and that some further limited reforms might appropriately be attached to this Bill. That is what we are now discussing.
I look forward to the Government making an announcement at the start of Report on what further changes in the structures, Standing Orders and procedures of this House they propose, what further consultation on legislative changes they have in mind and when they propose to complete them, so as to help the passage of this Bill through the House. I strongly support this amendment. I do not mind whether the changes are made in one form or another, but they are simple to make, and it should be done.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, as a signatory of the amendment, perhaps I may make one or two points in support of my noble friend Lord Ashton.
A lasting power of attorney gives the attorney a power to make decisions about two sets of things—health and welfare, and property and financial affairs. Under health and welfare, the attorney can deal with your daily routine—washing, dressing and eating. They can make arrangements for your medical care, for moving into a care home and for life-sustaining treatment. They can make use of that power when you are unable to make your own decisions.
A property and financial affairs lasting power of attorney can be used as soon as it is registered and with your permission. That allows the attorney to manage a bank or building society account to pay bills, to collect benefits or a pension, and, as my noble friend Lord Ashton mentioned, to sell your home. These are big decisions in both types of power of attorney. However, as he pointed out, what they cannot do is enable you to retire from this House when you have lost your faculties.
I am particularly interested in this amendment because, having been on the Conduct Committee for the last three years—I came off it in January—it appeared to me and perhaps to other members of the committee that loss of mental capacity is something that this House will have to deal with in a humane but none the less determined fashion. Had the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, been making that point about this being out of scope of this Bill in a court, I would have said it was a mere pleading point and, “Shall we just get to the substance?” The substance is that this is an issue—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was right to address it—that has to be dealt with, if not within this Bill then in some other way by the House, because we are facing a growing and difficult problem of people who are beginning to fail to understand that they should no longer be here. It may be cruel to expel people, but if they could make up their own mind, they would do so. We need to cater for those who have lost the ability and the capacity to make that decision.
I urge the House, if it does not accept the amendment in its current terms, to understand that this is a problem that faces us, and we must deal with it as a House.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
Perhaps I may say a few words as the predecessor of my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde as Chief Whip for the Government in this House. When I was serving under the noble Baroness, Lady May, she was very keen to make sure that the numbers in this House did not increase exponentially. We have the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his place today, to thank for a very good report on not increasing the numbers in this place.
I spent a lot of time, along with my noble friend, trying to urge people to retire when they could no longer participate in this House or do anything to add to our deliberations in any way. I felt that we needed to do something about this. So when this amendment was pointed out to me, I did not take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, although I totally agree with his analysis that it is not covered by the Short Title of the Bill, except for the reference to “hereditary Peers”. This should apply to all Members of the House, and I urge the Government, when they come across this issue on Report, to propose their own amendment to address it on behalf of the whole House, or to suggest ways in which we can do so with the support of all Benches. The need to achieve this objective has been very well explained.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I simply want to make two points, one on procedure and the other on substance. On procedure and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, he will know, as a long-standing Member of this House, that if my noble friend’s amendment were not in scope, it could not have been tabled. Also, as much as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House may pray in aid her manifesto and the promise of more legislation, we know that, despite the standard argument of Ministers that a particular piece of legislation is not an appropriate vehicle and another one will be along shortly, it very often does not happen.
That leads me to my point concerning substance, which I am sure the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will acknowledge. As my noble friend has already said, this sensitive issue is one that all of us who have had the privilege to serve as Leader or Chief Whip of our respective groups have faced, and we cannot leave it unanswered or unaddressed. I urge the noble Baroness please to take this seriously, and I hope that the Government’s desire not to amend the Bill will not be advanced as an excuse in response to this debate.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to my noble friend’s amendment. My noble friend, as a former Chief Whip; my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, as a former Chief Whip; my noble friend, who is a former Leader; and I as a former Leader: we all know that there is a serious issue of law and principle that needs to be addressed here. I agree with the very wise words and advice to the House from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, took exception to a speech I made at the outset of these debates. In part of that speech, I said that there are several parties to this legislation. One is the Government’s desire, which we accept, to stop the inflow of hereditary Peers; the other is the views of other parties in the House; but there is an overriding interest of the House. This is a House of Parliament, and there is a Bill before us which directly affects your Lordships’ House. It is absolutely reasonable, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, submitted, that this House of Lords should put forward propositions for sensible and limited amendments to legislation that will improve, potentially, the reputation of the House. I believe that this proposal fits squarely into that. I assert the simple principle that those who cannot conduct their own affairs should not conduct the affairs of Parliament. If this is not addressed, it risks one day bringing disrepute on this House.
The clear intention of the House at the time of the 2014 Act that brought in retirement was exactly that those life Peers who no longer wished to take part in the House, or who perhaps felt that their powers to do so effectively were declining, might retire permanently from the House. That was a sensible and useful reform, but, as has been described in the debate, a potential problem has arisen. In the 2014 Act, it is clear that a Peer must personally sign a witness document stating that he or she is wanting to retire. That was the clear advice I received from the House authorities when I was Leader: that where a Peer has ceded control of his or her affairs by means of a lasting power of attorney, as explained to us by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, doubts have been expressed as to whether the Clerk of the Parliaments could accept the letter of a duly appointed attorney as conclusive in relation to retirement. Thus, as my noble and learned friend said, in extremis an attorney might be able to sell the property of an individual, move their bank account contents anywhere or put them into a retirement home, but they could not effect a request for that Peer to retire from the House. That is a quite extraordinary position.
In the worst imaginable case, an attorney might know that a Peer is wholly incapable of managing his or her own affairs but could not prevent that Peer coming to the House to take part in directing the nation’s affairs because no valid document of retirement could be presented to the Clerk of the Parliaments. Such circumstances should never arise, and they would never be accepted in any House of Parliament in most other countries of the world. I simply disagree with the view expressed that an amendment cannot be considered or accepted because it was not part of the original intention of the Government in presenting a piece of legislation. I have presented many pieces of legislation to your Lordships’ House on behalf of the Government and found that the House did not agree with the purpose I had in mind for the Bill, but that it thought that the Bill might be a useful vehicle for making changes to the betterment of the public weal.
If there is before us a vehicle that could enable us to do something swiftly and easily that would be useful for this House and for Parliament, I believe we should take that opportunity. This is not a question of prevarication or wanting to cause difficulties. It is the easiest and simplest thing to do and would involve a 15-minute debate on Report if we get agreement on a way forward, if that is necessary. This Bill provides an obvious opportunity to put the law beyond doubt. It is under doubt and it is conflicting advice, and we have a vehicle through which we could make it clear. The issue has no relevance to politics or to the other contentious issues in the Bill. In my submission, it is simply common sense. Frankly, it is an amendment to the law that no one in the other place could conceivably take any exception to.
I trust very much that your Lordships will support my noble friend and take advantage of this opportunity to set this small but important matter beyond doubt, if it is indeed necessary to do so. I know that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House takes this matter very seriously—we have had the opportunity to discuss it and other matters in our normal conversations—and that she will give full consideration to the arguments of my noble friend. But it is my submission that the Bill should not leave this House without this difficult and sensitive matter having been solved swiftly, clearly and permanently, and with the utmost, crystalline clarity.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, for raising this issue, as he knows from the brief conversation we had about it. We have heard from two former Chief Whips and two former Leaders of the House how serious an issue this is. For me, it is a matter of the dignity of the Member. Where Members are not able to participate in the role of this House, particularly Members who have—I hesitate to say “career”—given distinguished service to your Lordships’ House, they should be able to leave with dignity.
I am slightly ahead of noble Lords. One of the first things I did as Leader of the House, knowing there had been problems in the past, was to seek further legal advice on this matter. I am still seeking advice, and I think there is a way forward, but there is not much more I can say at this stage. It is an issue that needs careful consideration.
I am sorry that the debate has been a little “It must be in the Bill”; I think that the best way forward is to give effect to it quickly, and I do not really care what the vehicle is. We may be able do it more quickly or we may have to wait to pass legislation, but what I can say is that it is more legally complex. It may be that a change in the law is not the best way and is not what is required; it may be that we can do it from the House itself. Those are issues that I am looking at at the moment. I am happy to talk to the noble Lord about it, but I am looking at ways to give effect to this.
I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment and give him the assurance that we will return to this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said about our conversations, it is one of the first things that I raised with him very early on, soon after I became Leader, as I feel that it has been around for far too long and it needs resolution as quickly as possible. This engages a number of issues, but I assure your Lordships that I will take this away and bring something back to your Lordships’ House in one form or another. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, but I give him my assurance that this is not something I will let drop: I have already been working to get a resolution as quickly as possible.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who added their names to this amendment. I particularly thank the Leader of the House for her encouraging words.
I was a bit disappointed by the point from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which was, to a certain extent, a political point—that there should be no amendments to the Bill and that, even if we have a perfect vehicle to achieve the solution to a problem, we should not use it. The Leader of the House has said that there may be other ways and that the most important thing is to address the problem, which we all agree exists. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who explained better than I can why the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was in error, but he may not agree.
On the basis of what the noble Baroness said, for which I am grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I think we can address this before Report and deal with it then.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
“Timeline for the next stage of reform of the House of LordsThe Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, set out a timetable outlining additional reforms to the composition of the House of Lords during the Parliament in which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to promptly publish the next stages of reform to the House of Lords.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, although I welcomed during Second Reading His Majesty’s Government starting efforts to reform the composition of this House, I am still perplexed as to why they have still not seized this opportunity to go much further. My Amendment 71, supported by my noble friend Lord Wigley, aims to address that.
Most of your Lordships will be aware of Plaid Cymru’s long-held position that this place should be abolished and replaced with a democratic alternative—a view that I thought the Prime Minister shared. It was certainly the position of his party prior to the 2024 general election. This Government can and should go so much further, but we remain with a very thin Bill and no firm commitment to further reform in this term. This thin Bill is utilising so much parliamentary time for not that much change, and I am not alone in this view; even some on the Labour Benches have expressed it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, was reported in the Guardian on 3 March as saying that
“time was of the essence for any possible further changes”.
He said:
“I think if you don’t do it in your first term then are you ever going to do it?”
We have far to go.
Amendment 71 seeks to ensure that momentum is not lost and that there is a firm continuance in reforming this place and ensuring that that mission is not dropped. My amendment is very simple: it requires the Secretary of State to publish the next stages of reform for this place within six months of the day on which the Act is passed. What is there to disagree with?
It is imperative that we see commitment from His Majesty’s Government for further reforms in the future. We need certainty and action. Further reform must stem from consultation with citizens—those whose lives are shaped by the decisions that we make in this place. How can we possibly know what serves them best without asking them? Citizens’ assemblies could be a way of doing this.
Following the 2024 general election, a Modernisation Committee was established in the other place, driven by a new generation of MPs determined to bring their working practices into the modern age. Its purpose is to review procedures, standards and working practices. In the implementation of Amendment 71, perhaps there is a strong case to be made for the establishment of a similar committee in this place. However, that has not been defined in the amendment and would be up to the Government. It would be a modest but very meaningful step towards a second Chamber that would be more accessible for a broader range of people in our society.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for being absent from the Chamber earlier, when I was attending the European Affairs Select Committee. At Second Reading, I said that I thought the Bill should be allowed to pass largely unamended, and I said that with great sadness. However, since Second Reading, many noble Lords from all sides of the House have told me that, in their opinion, it is unlikely that the Government will take Lords reform any further. That is regrettable. There is considerable support for further reforms from throughout the House, and I think it would be sensible for the Government to introduce further reforms.
Of course, other reforms were also in the Labour Party manifesto. Matters such as minimum participation were mentioned in the manifesto. I realise that a retirement age has become controversial, but the handling of misconduct by Members was also in the manifesto.
The sole purpose of my Amendment 81, which I hope the Government will at least consider, is to require the Government to go to the next stage of reform within 24 months. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has put six months, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has put 18 months, but I have put 24 months to give the Government more time. I have purposely not specified what reforms should be in the next piece of legislation because I well understand that the Leader— I am so pleased that she is in her place—wishes to consult extensively on these matters.
We have discussed at some length in Committee possible further reforms and, as I said earlier, the manifesto included certain specific further reforms. It is right that these matters should be considered, probably outside this Chamber, by wise heads and at a sensible pace, but it would not be correct for Ministers to say to the country that by removing the hereditary Peers they have completed reform of the House of Lords. They should be more ambitious and find a way to bring here men and women prepared to undertake public service in this House and—this is the important point—who would be unlikely to be nominated by party-political leaders.
I ask the Government to consider Amendment 81. I do not believe that the other place would necessarily object to it. Although I am sure that it will reject many other amendments that may or may not be passed on Report, this amendment could find favour in the other place. I hope Ministers will consider it.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 85 is in my name. I will be extremely brief. I had originally written down that I agreed with some of what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, had to say. Having listened to her, I am not sure that that fully explains my position; I found myself in sympathy less and less with what she had to say in her proposals, but there we are. I am much more in sympathy with what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said, because he put the case extremely well. It is always a great privilege to follow him, and it is very good for my reputation with my children that I can at last say, “I was supporting the Duke of Wellington in the House of Lords last night”. Even more, I support the provisions that he puts forward.
It was right of the Government to set out what they wanted to do, and what they are doing is the proper course to take. My only concern is the time that this three-line Bill is spending on the Floor of the House of Lords. A number of very important points have been followed, and I pay tribute to the definition from the noble Lord, Lord True, of what can and should be amended, but I think he concedes that not everything in the Bill can be added to and amended. That really is my point—it is not really a point, in a sense, for this Bill, but it is certainly for the handling of it.
I take the view that the whole value of this House is not just as a revising Chamber but because we have acknowledged experts here. In areas such as defence, for example, they can give their advice, and that advice goes not just to us but to the country. That is a very important function that the House of Lords has.
My advice is that we should have as much debate as we can, which will enable people to say why the House of Lords should listen but also why the public should. Yet we know that it is extremely difficult to get debates on the Floor of this House issues other than this Bill—I mean debates with speeches, and with proper time for those speeches, rather than Parliamentary Questions. We know very well indeed what problems that creates. Yet it seems that, at this point in our history—this time of unbelievable tension in the world—there is a particular need for the House of Lords to try to act as a funnel for the concerns being put forward, where the House and the experts within it can make their contribution. Yet I fear we are going to spend four or five sessions talking about just the House of Lords. That is a pity, and it is excessive considering the other issues. That means that we will not have long debates about the situation in Palestine, the position in Syria, or the 101 other issues that there are.
My proposal is basically this: we should deal as expeditiously and as generously as we can, in the way the Leader of the House suggests, with the issues that can be contained in this Bill, but we should recognise that not all of them can be. My amendment says that the Government, within 18 months of the day on which the Bill passes, should put before Parliament a draft Bill that seeks to limit the size of the House of Lords. That seems, frankly, non-controversial at the moment, but it is the most important thing, as my noble friend behind me knows. If we know what the numbers are we can make sensible policies. We need legislative proposals to introduce a retirement age for Members of the House of Lords—I perhaps speak with more authority than most on age and the rest, as far as this is concerned. Then, even if Ministers do not agree, there should also be proposals about electing a proportion of the membership of the House of Lords, which I know some parties hold very dear.
My proposal, therefore, is that we should first support the Government’s Bill. We should then add those rather different concerns to it in the future. Once this Bill is out of the way, we should go in for serious consideration of the other issues. I agree entirely with what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said: we cannot stop here. We have come a certain way in reform but it is not enough. To say that we will simply abolish the hereditary Peers—goodness knows that that has been on the books now since 1997—is insufficient and inadequate. We should address the other issues as well. That, I fear, means the Government making proposals on the issues that I have set out. I think that the House would approve of that, and so would the public.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, all the amendments in this group seek to bind the Government to undertake some further reform of your Lordships’ House. They variously cover some of the other manifesto commitments the Labour Party made before the general election. As one of those who sit here as
“the sand in the shoe”,—[Official Report, 22/6/1999; col. 791.]
as we were described, to ensure that the House does indeed move in the direction of accepting more democracy at the expense of prime ministerial power, I welcome all three amendments.
The Bill without any such amendment seeks to achieve the reverse. None of these three amendments by itself guarantees real democratic reform. Amendment 71 is non-specific as to what changes to the composition would be proposed, although Amendment 70, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on 10 March, did contain proposals for an entirely elected House on a proportional representation model. During that debate, the noble Baroness stated that among bicameral legislatures, the only entirely appointed upper chambers are your Lordships’ House and the Parliament of Lesotho. She forgot to mention Canada.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, allows the Government a full two years to lay a Bill before Parliament, and his Amendment 81 would not bind them to enact any substantive changes, such as were envisaged in 1999. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, allows the Government 18 months to produce proposals covering three areas: size of the House, retirement age and the election of a proportion of Members. All these areas were referred to in the Labour Party manifesto, including the retirement age provision, which was included in the first paragraph containing matters that the Government would address first.
I am not sure that the models proposed in any of these amendments contain the best way forward, but I am certain that it is a mistake to change the composition of the House before deciding the direction in which we should move. It is also arguable that the public should be invited to endorse the final recommendations in a referendum.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, whether or not one agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that many of the issues we have been debating should not have been debated—I think with every passing hour, his arguments will gain more support among your Lordships—the one thing they have done that should help the Government is tease out the views of the House on the whole raft of issues the Government say in their manifesto they plan to legislate for later in the Parliament.
The Government are in a much better-informed position of what your Lordships’ House thinks on issues such as retirement age and what is acceptable behaviour than they were at the start. So we should all be—at one level, in theory—extremely relaxed, because the Government have a manifesto commitment to do all these things, on which we broadly agree, during the lifetime of this Parliament.
The problem is that a number of noises have emanated from the Government—not in your Lordships’ House—that perhaps they will not actually do it and that this might be the endpoint. That is why people are getting nervous, because the other things the Government are committed to—on which there is consensus, virtually, in your Lordships’ House—may not actually happen. That is why these amendments have been tabled and I completely support the principles behind them.
I am not sure that having an amendment that says that within a certain time the Government should come forward with unspecified things gets you desperately far. My problem with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, even though the third component of it mirrors our own amendment on an elected House in some respects, is of a different order. There clearly is no consensus in your Lordships’ House about an elected House, however much we would like it. That has to be dealt with separately from all the other issues where there is agreement and on which we need to make progress during this Parliament.
I hope that, if not tonight—I hope it will be tonight—then certainly on Report, we have a much clearer idea from the Government what their timetable is for getting to the next stage, because if we had that, it would ease a lot of the current debates, behind which lies a fear that the issues on which we are agreed may not be progressed in a timely manner. I look forward to hearing the Leader of the House’s response to this common plea from the House to keep at it and let us know the pace the Government intend to adopt in doing so.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments, especially Amendment 81 from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I refer to my interest in the register: I am a hereditary Peer.
As stated on many occasions in Committee by the Minister on the Front Bench, this is a simple Bill with one simple action: to remove the right of hereditaries to sit in this House. Other than the first day in Committee, when your Lordships spoke on amendments to Clause 1, the remaining days have been spent mainly on reform of the House of Lords, with many different proposals being suggested, such as the length of a term a Peer should serve, a possible retirement age, a participation requirement for Peers, and a longer-term view of an elected Chamber or a partially elected Chamber, with regional participation.
The Labour manifesto mentioned the immediate removal of the hereditary Peers, which we are debating and which will most likely go through. I support this, although with disappointment, bearing in mind the good work that hereditary Peers have done in this House. The manifesto sets out more options for future reform, such as a retirement age and a participation requirement, with a long-term vision of a second Chamber to replace this esteemed House.
By the end of Committee, we will have spent nearly 20 hours discussing Lords reform. That is why I support these amendments: they require the Government to come back at some point in the future to say when the next Lords reform will take place—therefore, not wasting the time spent in this Session of Parliament discussing Lords reform. The track record of this House in agreeing some form of reform is not good. Hereditary Peers have remained here for 25 years.
Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, which I support wholeheartedly, is simple—a bit like the Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for reform of the House of Lords within two years. It does not set out any detail about what should be in the proposed legislation; all it does is force the Government to take forward the next stage of reform, which, it appears from Committee, most Peers agree needs to happen.
The Leader of the House has encouraged us all to engage with her on the future of the House. I thank her for the time she has spent with Peers. These amendments may add to her workload because they put a deadline on making decisions with regard to reform, but some proposals have already been set out in the manifesto. They set a deadline for things to happen; without deadlines on difficult and indecisive issues, things just continue on and on. That is why a date would help to take reforms forward—it is important.
The reforms may not be perfect despite the length of time we have debated the issue. The legislation will not be a perfect solution and not everybody will agree, but reform is wanted from outside the House and therefore a deadline to force something through is appropriate at this stage. That is why I support these amendments to continue Lords reform after the removal of hereditary Peers.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, all these amendments are unnecessary as, in my opinion, there will be no next stage of reform at any time soon—certainly not in this Parliament. The drivers for this Bill are class-based and a need to reduce overall numbers, thanks—wait for it—to the mismanagement of various Conservative Prime Ministers. The only one of them who seemed to grasp the need for restraint was my noble friend Lady May.
The evidence for my statement is that Sir Tony Blair had two successive, clear election victories after the 1999 Act, as well as the benefit of the very carefully thought-out royal commission report chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. He did nothing; I suspect that was because he could not be sure that any further reform would result in a better arrangement than what we already have. My question for the Minister is: why not just implement the Wakeham reforms?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will respond from these Benches to these three amendments, which all seek to hold the Government to their manifesto commitment to deliver “immediate”—that was the word used—reform of the House of Lords. I mentioned that commitment in my Second Reading speech on this Bill.
I can be brief this evening as the essential points have been made by, in particular, the three noble Lords who tabled these amendments. We have heard much of the Government’s plans, and there has been much talk in these debates of the importance of punctuation in the Government’s manifesto, but the central point on these amendments is this: the Government ought to give the Committee reassurance that the wider reform will come and, importantly, that it will come soon.
When the House of Lords Reform Act 1999 was passed, the Government claimed that the compromise as to some hereditary Peers remaining in your Lordships’ House would act as an encouragement to the Government to complete their reform of the House. However, we are now more than two decades on and still the Government have not brought forward to this House—as opposed to a few sentences in a manifesto—anything approaching proper reform. The obvious question is: why?
The Government often say that, if we seek to change everything, we run the risk of changing nothing, but the truth is, as we all know, that legislative time is precious. In SW1, the most valuable commodity is parliamentary time on the Floor of a House. We have seen Governments fail to deliver second-stage reform before, so why would it be different this time? As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, rightly pointed out, the noises off—if we can call them that—are not encouraging at all.
Therefore, I completely understand the concerns of the noble Baroness and noble Lords who have brought these amendments. We should reasonably expect the Government to give the Committee a much clearer sense of when, in their already busy legislative timetable, they intend to bring forward the next stage of reform. This House, on this issue, is very much once bitten, twice shy. I look forward to hearing from the Leader of the House on this important issue. I hope that she can be more definite than saying, “At some time in this Parliament”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I smiled at the point where the noble Lord said that “the party opposite” had done nothing for two decades. I just have to remind him that, for 14 years of those two decades, he was in government and we were not, which did hamper our ability to take action.
I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for their amendments. What seems clear—and I welcome this—is that there is a bit of momentum about change, which has been lacking for a very long time. I seem to remember that the only proposal the party opposite came forward with about the House of Lords in its time in government was to move this House to York while the rest of Parliament stayed in London, which was not a particularly helpful or constructive suggestion. We seem to be moving now towards a much more collegiate way of doing things and seeing some way forward. I am grateful for that; it is very helpful.
Several times in the debate, noble Lords have raised the question: why this particular proposal first? I have explained that this is the first stage, and the reason that this is the first stage of reform is that it is the one described as “immediate” in the manifesto, but it also completes the start of something that started 25 years ago. The principle of removing the hereditary Peers was established 25 years ago. It seemed very straight- forward, even though we have had very long debates about other issues around it. I am not criticising that; it is just a matter of fact. That principle was established, and this completes that principle.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has not spoken during this debate, apart from in a sedentary position. He sits and mutters, “Ain’t going to happen”. My, such cynicism in one so young.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I feel deeply flattered by the noble Baroness. I always thought she was younger than me, but there we are.
In her introductory remarks, she accused the Conservative Government of the last 14 years of not having done any reform. She has forgotten the 2012 Bill that was introduced in the House of Commons and passed its Second Reading with flying colours but then, because of the lack of support from the Labour Party on a timetable Motion, did not go any further at all. Surely the noble Baroness should show some humility. The Labour Party, which promised further reform in 1997 and again on the passage of the 1999 Act, has done no thinking whatever since then.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord’s memory may need a bit of jogging. We are talking about a time when there was a majority; had the Conservative Government wanted to push that through, they would have been able to do so.
The proposal from Michael Gove to move the House of Lords to York—which was really a nonsense and did not help the reputation of this House or of the Government—fundamentally misunderstood how this House operates. We are trying to look at how the House operates. We are fulfilling a manifesto commitment but we are also fulfilling what started 25 years ago. The noble Lord is critical that we did not do it sooner, but it is here now, and I have made clear that further proposals for the next stages will come forward, so he can park his cynicism for now. We will come back to this and see who gets it right.
I thank the noble Baroness and both noble Lords for tabling these helpful amendments. I am grateful to them, and I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am at one with the noble Baroness the Leader about Mr Gove and York, but can she explain why she cannot blow the dust off the royal commission report—the Wakeham report—and just implement that?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The Wakeham report was some time ago, but I am always happy to look at it as we go forward to further our considerations. But the House today should come to the view on what the House today would like to do.
The noble Earl gave a list of his Government’s failures on the House of Lords. I suggest that another of them was not accepting the Grocott Bill.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the proposal that was brought forward. I will not be able to refer to each point made, but I will try to respond briefly.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, noted that there is a consensus around the House for further reform inside and outside the House. That is an important point to note and something that we should push forward. Although the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, may disagree with my reasoning, at least we agree on the outcome: we cannot stop here.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, rightly pointed out that my Amendment 71 does not provide a specific model. My Amendment 70, previously debated on another day, does so, but this was on purpose and Amendment 71 was more of a probing amendment. I hope the Government bring forward a clear timetable on the next stage before Report. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, pointed out that if the Government published a plan, there would be far fewer amendments on Report, so I hope we see a plan.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for his support for the group of amendments. He noted that some reform is wanted outside the House. There was a good consensus from around the House. The Leader of the House welcomes the momentum for change, and I hope she will join and lead that momentum.
While I welcome the Government’s commitment to removing hereditary Peers, this reform cannot and must not be the end of the journey. We must push for a fully democratic second Chamber, one that is chosen by the people it serves and not by birthright or privilege. The momentum for change must continue, and we cannot afford to let it falter.
Amendment 71 would ensure that the Government were held accountable on their long-held calls for abolishing the Lords and would require them to outline the next steps for reform within six months. I hope that the Government further consider publishing the next steps for reform before the Bill completes its stages in the House. I welcome the Leader of the House’s words today, particularly looking at how we engage with the public on what the second Chamber looks like. For those around the Committee who agree that this is a sensible ask, I would welcome them getting in touch with me.
I will withdraw my amendment today, but I retain my right to reintroduce it on Report if a plan is not published. Not only do I hope that His Majesty’s Government reflect on this debate today but I encourage them to be bold in delivering further reform and to follow through on the Prime Minister’s own desire to see this place replaced with an alternative second Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Disruption at Heathrow
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for advance sight of the Statement made yesterday.
The remarkable thing about this event is what it was not. It was not a hostile terrorist attack, but in the first few moments no one could have known that. Indeed, the natural suspicion would have been that it was. That circumstance can only enhance our admiration for, and our thanks to, the firefighters in particular, and other responders who rushed to the scene not knowing what would await them. We are all very grateful to them and all the others who pulled Heathrow back from this incident for what they did.
It is worth also saying a word of thanks to the staff of Heathrow Airport, and I would like to do so. It may seem a fairly simple thing to switch an airport off and then, a while later, just to switch it back on again. There are rare occasions when this happens. I am thinking of the example of Bangkok airport in 2008, when an occupation by protesters for a week caused the airport to be shut down deliberately. On that occasion, once it was safe to do so, it took a full five days to restart the airport safely. The fact that the staff at Heathrow were able to respond so well and so effectively to the changes—I cannot describe or imagine them—in electrical work required to operate the airport, and to do so quickly and safely, shows their skill and abilities, and is something that we should be grateful for and acknowledge.
Once it was clear that this was not a terrorist incident, everyone could relax. The chief executive of Heathrow was so relaxed that he went back to bed. But of course, the people who could not relax were the passengers affected by this event. Across the world, it is estimated that nearly 300,000 people were affected by this incident, spread out over 1,350 flights. Does the Minister think that they have received an adequate apology? Many of them will be receiving financial compensation, depending on their carrier and the jurisdiction that they live under, but is financial compensation simply enough? Is it too easy for us to think, “Oh, they’ve got their compensation and their refund—we don’t actually need to apologise”? I have not seen a great deal of apologising going on to people who were very seriously affected and disrupted in their lives and in their plans.
Turning to the specifics of the incident, it raises significant questions about Heathrow’s resilience and the safeguarding of critical infrastructure. The fact that the airport was reliant on this electrical substation which proved so vulnerable is concerning and the outage serves as a stark reminder that energy security is about not only affordability but ensuring the physical safety and reliability of our infrastructure. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that reliability and security.
I will say immediately that I recognise that it is not always the right answer to build in huge amounts of redundancy in the light of an event that may happen only very occasionally. These are difficult judgments to make. All that redundancy costs a lot of money. I know that the Government and Heathrow have to make difficult judgments about it. I would like, however, at least to hear in what direction the Government are going in making those judgments: whether they think they have got the balance right and what should be done. Given the essential role of airports to our economy, what discussions has the Minister had with the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero regarding the security of energy supplies to our major airports? Can the Minister tell us what the timeline is for the Kelly review being undertaken on behalf of Heathrow Airport? Does he expect its findings to be fully publicly accessible?
Finally, will the Government assess the incident in the broader context of Heathrow’s expansion? I am not referring exclusively to plans for a third runway. Heathrow has significant expansion plans that fall short of a third runway that it is progressing with securing approval for at the moment. Does the Minister believe that the current infrastructure challenges at Heathrow raise wider concerns about the viability and resilience of that expansion? What steps will be taken to ensure that any future expansion does not exacerbate the vulnerabilities exposed by this recent disruption? What steps will be taken to ensure that any future expansion does not increase the airport’s vulnerability to this sort of event?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and join him in paying tribute to the firefighters, all the emergency services and everyone who worked to extinguish a significant fire and return services to normal. This incident not only affected Heathrow but cut power to 63,000 homes, and 100 residents were evacuated.
The Minister is correct that this is an unprecedented incident. I welcome the intention to learn all and any lessons that arise from it and from the Heathrow internal inquiry and the NESO six-week initial investigation that have been announced. A single incident should not have been able to shut an airport. The mere fact that the cascade was not prevented offers us wider opportunities to ask serious questions about our preparedness, the resilience of our energy infrastructure and the urgent need to make new risk assessments with fresh minds.
The fire was the result of 25,000 litres of an oil-based cooling system overheating and catching fire at North Hyde substation. The significant fire required 70 fire- fighters to get it under control and resulted in a series of events that ultimately meant that more than 1,300 flights were cancelled, a further 670 flights impacted, and some 200,000 passengers suffered. We need to understand, at the point of ignition, what caused the fire. Are there flaws in substation design? Was this substation being overused, causing it to overheat? Why does it appear that there was no prior knowledge of the overheating while it was taking place? Could it be that something as simple as a few pounds spent on a remote temperature sensor could have alerted system operations to the problem and perhaps prevented the fire?
I welcome the involvement of the counterterrorism police, who have the skills to make rapid assessments of the causes. I note that in the last few hours the Metropolitan Police has confirmed that this incident is no longer being treated as a “potentially criminal matter”.
There is some confusion over the interpretation of events, and that concerns me. The Government and NESO say that while one of the main substations went offline, two alternatives remained available to provide the power required and additional reserve generation capacity at the airport gave some further limited capacity. Heathrow meanwhile argues that energy supply was insufficient to ensure the safe and secure ongoing operations and proceeded
“to reconfigure its internal electricity network”.
This meant, in effect, that every computer and safety system had to be turned off and on again. It is this act that caused the impacts. I ask the Minister: did Heathrow game plan and stress test the falling offline of the whole of this substation and, if so, what were the predicted impacts and consequences. If not, why not? When is the Heathrow inquiry expected to give initial findings? Will the NESO inquiry work with and have some access to the findings of the Heathrow inquiry? How will fundamental disagreements between the findings of the two inquiries, if they exist, be addressed? When will the Government respond to the National Infrastructure Commission’s report Developing Resilience Standards in UK Infrastructure?
To conclude, wider systemic and broader national risks to our national grid and critical energy infrastructure must be considered. Considering known terrorism-related attacks on other western countries’ energy infrastructure, including undersea cables, I call on the Government to undertake a full review, with the inclusion of the National Security Adviser, of our critical energy infrastructure—its susceptibility, resilience and levels of redundancy—including vital transport services and other services such as hospitals, key computer systems and telecommunications.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I share the sentiments expressed by the noble Lords who have just spoken about the firefighters and other emergency responders who went to the site of the substation fire when it first broke out and brought it under control. They are undoubtedly very brave and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that when they arrived it was not clear what they were facing, so they were all the braver for tackling it directly. I also share the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to the many workers at Heathrow Airport and, indeed, those who work for airlines, who not only had to work hard to get the airport back online but have dealt with the further disruption caused to flights, not only in Heathrow but across the globe.
I must express great sympathy for all those whose flights were delayed as a consequence of this incident. They are the passengers—the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to them—and many people’s personal and business activities will have been delayed and disrupted due to this very extraordinary outage. I am happy to express sympathy for those people. I hope that, now, as Heathrow is returning to normal, their travels have resumed.
Both noble Lords referred to the two inquiries. My noble friend Lord Hunt, who is sitting beside me, is the Minister of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. He has commissioned the National Energy System Operator to investigate the power outage. That will deal with understanding wider lessons from the power outage. Noble Lords will know that Heathrow Airport Ltd, which owns and operates the airport, has asked Ruth Kelly, former Secretary of State for Transport and an independent member of its board, to undertake a review of its internal resilience. That review will analyse the robustness and execution of Heathrow’s crisis management plans, the airport’s response and how it recovered the operation. The first report, from NESO, will be made to the Energy Secretary, and the Secretary of State for Transport has asked to see a copy of the second report. Heathrow has agreed to that, and we will report back to the House in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked whether I thought compensation was adequate and whether passengers needed an apology. They certainly need an apology. Everybody’s reasons for flying are different, but all of them expect to fly at the time on their ticket. Clearly, they deserve an apology, even though this was an extraordinary event. Do I think the compensation is adequate? The compensation for airline delays is set out, and it depends, in part, on which airline it is. Not only are people legally entitled to a choice between a refund within seven days or to be rerouted to their destination, including on flights operated by another airline, but they are entitled to care and support, such as refreshment or, if necessary, overnight accommodation, while waiting for a delayed or rerouted flight.
The questions about the reliability of the supply, security and the judgments that have to be made by the airport operator will undoubtedly be addressed by the two reviews that have been spoken about. Both noble Lords asked about timelines. We do not yet know what they are, but it would be better for both reviews to be thorough than it would for them to be quick. I know from some experience of this in different transport modes that, very often, you have to dig deeply to find out the root causes and understand what can be done. There is no doubt that the number of systems in a modern airport is huge, and they are very sophisticated. It will take some time to discover whether or not you can get them restarted any better.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked about the expansion plans for Heathrow—not merely the projected third runway but the expansion of terminals. There will of course be a relationship with this. We would expect Heathrow Airport Ltd to have resilience plans, which will scale up to whatever capacity the airport has. I would expect the Kelly review to look at how any expansion would be dealt with and whether or not expansion might make it easier to invest in such systems and resilience in order to obviate such a thing happening again.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is absolutely right to refer to the 63,000 people affected by the power outage. Many of them were not affected for long, but, nevertheless, even in the middle of the night there will be people who need power for various reasons, including medical reasons. Our sympathy goes to them as well.
On the confusion about capacity and the airport’s ability to recover, and the downtime when the power supply was cut off, we are expecting the two reviews to interact on this to a degree where there is no gap between them. There should be no question about whether they are comprehensive. I am sure that the Heathrow review will undoubtedly look at whether there was a game plan at Heathrow and at how much it has stress-tested its systems. I do not have anything further to say until the reviews have reported.
The noble Earl was completely right that the Metropolitan Police has recently reported that it does not believe this was a criminal act and is not pursuing that line of inquiry. I am sure that is a relief. I will look further at the government response to the National Infrastructure Commission report, and if I have anything to say I will write to the noble Earl about it.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.
I understand that the Daily Telegraph knows what happened. The headline today said:
“Blame Heathrow’s faceless foreign owners for airport’s meltdown”.
That may be a rather simplistic analysis, but it does strike me that there is an issue—this is a point the noble Earl raised—with the extent to which the contingency plans within the airport had been thought through and stress-tested. You cannot create it overnight, but had Heathrow considered, for example, as part of its risk analysis and appetite, whether it was possible to run part of the airport and keep some of the functions going? Had it considered its ability to switch from one source of power to another without having to switch off all the systems?
When it is known the extent to which Heathrow had contingency plans and stress-tested them, could my noble friend the Minister say whether his department has any powers to say to those who own airports that their risk appetite should be different? The economic consequences of disruption at Heathrow will always be enormous and the reputational impact for the country as a whole is enormous. Does the Minister have the power, if necessary, to tell the owners to take a different risk appetite?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that contribution. I also respect the National Preparedness Commission and know how useful it is because I was, fairly briefly, a not particularly active member of it. It is interesting that somebody in the media already thinks they know who is responsible. One should wait for the in-depth and comprehensive review from Heathrow Airport itself and the National Energy System Operator to find that out. In particular, they must between them look at whether complete closure was the only option, or whether some partial closure could have been achieved with less disruption.
The direct answer to whether the department has powers to change the risk appetite of an airport operator rests with the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the economic and safety regulator for airports. The Secretary of State has, of course, been in touch with the CAA, which will look closely at the work to be done by Heathrow Airport in the Kelly review. When the CAA receives that report it will then be able to take a view on the appropriate level of risk appetite and the amount of money that needs to be spent to assuage that risk. The CAA is the authority that should, in due course, take a view, and I am sure that it will.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I should probably declare an interest as one of the tens of thousands of people who, in the small hours of Friday morning, had his flight turned round in mid-air and returned to the point of departure. In my case, the flight departed from the Caribbean where, I stress, I was working, not relaxing. Just at the point where the flight had roughly reached the Bermuda Triangle, we were told by the pilot that Heathrow Airport was closed and that we were turning back.
This was obviously a very substantial incident, but not one that was inconceivable. Does the Minister accept that a key part of any disaster management plan has to be clear, consistent and timely communication? First, we were told that this substation was the only source of power for the whole of Heathrow Airport—an absolutely critical piece of transport and, therefore, economic infrastructure. Then we were told—as was reported—that Heathrow apparently said all its back-up plans had worked perfectly, which was not particularly mollifying for those of us whose plans were in tatters. Then we had a rather unedifying public spat between National Grid and Heathrow about whose fault it was. Clear communication is absolutely essential. Does the Minister accept that vetting these kinds of disaster recovery plans, which must exist for something as clear a risk as this was, has to be the duty of the CAA as both the safety and economic regulator?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that contribution. It is, of course, hugely inconvenient to have your flight turned around in mid-air. I absolutely agree that clear communication is necessary. The first duty is to communicate with those directly affected—which is very timely for flights in mid-air—and with all affected ticket holders to stop them going to an airport where they cannot take off. I would like to think, from what we have seen, that that combined communication effort from the airport itself and the airlines was pretty good. I know that other transport modes helped too, because there were clear notices at tube and railway stations saying, “Do not go to Heathrow because there are no flights”.
However, I accept entirely that clear and timely communication with those affected is the essence of what is needed in these circumstances. Communication about what has occurred and the background inevitably comes out over time, because the first job should be to communicate with those affected. If literally hundreds of thousands of air passengers are affected then it is they who deserve this clear information. I do not think anybody finds the prospect of chief executives of organisations apparently contradicting each other in public particularly helpful. That is why there are two inquiries: to get to the bottom of what really happened, how much planning there should have been, what was in those plans, and what could feasibly have been done to a place of such public and economic importance.
The CAA has a duty to execute its duty of economic and safety regulation properly. I have no doubt at all that it will look very carefully at the outcome of the Kelly review and draw the appropriate conclusions for the future regulation of not only this airport but others as well.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. As someone who travels weekly from Belfast to London, periodically using Heathrow Airport, I sympathise with all those whose flights were cancelled or redirected in mid-air, because that is quite a frightening experience. What steps are being taken to ensure that the aviation sector, including Heathrow, remains on track to reach its net-zero targets, including through the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, given the recently announced expansion of Heathrow, where congestion levels are very high?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are committed to reaching net zero by 2050, as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. The Government will set out details on plans for meeting legislated carbon budgets later this year. We have been very clear that any airport expansion proposals need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, can be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments, and meet strict environmental requirements on air quality and noise pollution. The Government are supporting the aviation sector to decarbonise through our sustainable aviation fuel policies, including the introduction of a mandate to generate a sustainable aviation fuel—SAF—demand, plans to legislate for a sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty mechanism to spur investment in UK production, and providing a further £63 million of funding for the advanced fuels fund. We are also committed to airspace modernisation and supporting the development of more efficient and zero-emission aircraft technology, through nearly £1 billion of additional funding to the Aerospace Technology Institute programme.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
It is the turn of the Lib Dems.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, Heathrow is an important hub airport, yet this incident has led to its complete closure, causing so much disruption. Will the Government now focus on the infrastructure in and around Heathrow, and indeed other airports, to improve resilience—which we have been discussing—security and the passenger experience, rather than simply advocating expanding Heathrow and other airports?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Provided that a suitable proposition comes forward for the expansion of Heathrow, it is inevitable that all the things that the noble Baroness mentions will have to be considered in the round in that. I am sure that she also includes surface access to the airport and a good passenger experience. She will know that we await a proposition from Heathrow and/or any other interested parties in the expansion of Heathrow, but I have no doubt that, when that is received, consideration will be given to all the things that she talked about.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, obviously, the impact of the closure of Heathrow is massive and has reputational and other consequences for this country. But travellers and business depend so much on other airports throughout the United Kingdom—such as Belfast, which has been mentioned, given the lack of alternatives, for obvious reasons. Does the Minister know what work is going on at present in airports in Northern Ireland, and throughout the United Kingdom, to examine resilience and the threats to those airports?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord may know that I am tolerably familiar with the essential nature of flights from Northern Ireland to mainland England, Wales and Scotland because of the Union Connectivity Review. In particular, I had to answer a question quite recently about the reliability of the first flight on Monday mornings, which clearly contains quite a large proportion of Members of both Houses. I repeat that I strongly recommend to the operator that, come what may, it operates that flight if it operates nothing else. I do not know currently what is going on in other airports in Britain to look at resilience, but I have no doubt that the outcome of the Kelly review and the—I will make sure I get the right initials—NESO review will be closely studied by all those airports because that is undoubtedly the case. Noble Lords can be reassured that the transport community as a whole takes a close interest in what happens in one place.
Incidentally, I have seen—noble Lords might have expected me to—a review that Network Rail started on Saturday morning about the resilience of its power supplies, because in these circumstances you would start those sorts of reviews before you knew even what the cause was. That is a perfectly rational thing to do. So I have little doubt that that is going on in respect of other UK airports currently; I do not know that it is, but whether or not it is, I have absolutely no doubt that they will study very closely the results of the Kelly review and the NESO review—I would rather not use the initials, but it is too easy to do—to make sure that they are all as resilient as they can be.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I shall try once more. I am rather tired because I, too, was very badly directly affected by this incident.
The incident itself was deeply unfortunate, but one key issue is the lack of rigour in customer support from our principal carrier for terminal 5. There is clearly a problem with rigour in the contracts between the carriers and Heathrow Airport Holdings. There must be because, first, the systems and processes for security and for processing customers at Heathrow are so antiquated. I have had the luck in the past few weeks of going through a number of airports that make Heathrow look an embarrassment by comparison in its support for customers and in making the life of customers through the airport a pleasant experience.
In the Statement, the Government say that they are
“acutely aware of the need to ensure that passengers are well looked after”.
Will the Minister impress on the Secretary of State the importance of using this seriously important opportunity to demand the possibility of looking at the contracts between the carriers and Heathrow Airport Holdings? Each time there is an issue—and this is not a peculiar issue of lack of customer support but a daily problem at Heathrow—British Airways constantly abrogates responsibility and blames Heathrow Airport Holdings for problems.
This is a chance for the Government to say that we need to understand who is responsible for what and to look at customer support. My noble friend referenced the need for communications, but it is not only about communications in the middle of a crisis. British Airways passengers were left high and dry, with a phone line that is available only from 9 am to 5 pm and a lack of support at various airports, while looking at planes that were sitting in the middle of the runway and doing nothing when Heathrow was already back and open.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am willing to have great sympathy with the noble Baroness and her experiences. People’s travel is important to them, whether it is personal, recreational or for business. The Government recognise that it is very important for the British economy for the major airport in Britain to run smoothly—there is no doubt about that. There is also no doubt that it is a challenge to deal with so many customers who are disrupted at one time. It is not just one plane-load of passengers; it is a huge number. Well over 1,000 flights were cancelled and delayed on the Friday that the airport was closed.
That is a challenge that both Heathrow Airport Ltd and the carriers, including British Airways, ought to be able to rise to. They are two commercial companies, and there is a limit to what the Government can do between them. I have seen some passing comment in the media in the past couple of days about what compensation is due between the two parties. I hope that is reflected in what trickles down to the customers of the carriers, because otherwise it looks like rather an unseemly debate from various commercial organisations.
There is a limit to what the Government can do, but they want people to move smoothly through Heathrow in particular, because it is so important to the British economy. I think that both parties to which the noble Baroness refers would say that one issue with Heathrow is that it is very full of planes and people. Therefore, it will not be a surprise when Heathrow comes forward with an expansion plan, simply because it is much harder to deal with very large quantities of passengers when there is virtually no expansion space left—and I have some sympathy with that. We must rely on both companies to do their jobs properly and seamlessly. Passengers should not feel that, somehow, they are at odds with each other, given that a successful aeroplane flight depends on both doing their jobs properly. They will know that anyway, but we will see what the reports say, and we will see what the carriers do in respect of customers who, in some cases, have been very badly delayed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement refers to the ownership structure of Heathrow, which was also referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It was of course bought by the Spanish firm Ferrovial in 2006 with a huge pile of debt and was finally sold in 2025 to a French asset manager and to wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Singapore and China. The similarities to our water company ownership, and all the failures associated with that, are very obvious. It is also worth noting that the ownership vehicle company has seen 21 changes in director since May last year, and it announced just a month ago that it would pay its first dividend in five years.
In that context, does the Minister think it adequate that, while there is a government inquiry into the energy side of this issue, this inquiry has been commissioned by Heathrow itself, which has been left with the entire responsibility for seeing what has gone wrong? Where is the inquiry into the Civil Aviation Authority to see whether its approach to Heathrow has been sufficiently resilient, given that it has resulted in actions like this?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The British public are entitled to expect the airport to run properly, no matter who owns it. We are also entitled to expect that, as a major piece of public utility, it is capable of examining its own systems and recommending whether or not they were adequate. The CAA will look at the report. I do not currently see a reason why the Civil Aviation Authority itself needs to be examined. If we are not careful, we will examine everything, in circumstances where it is pretty clear that the airport was responsible for its own systems and there was an outside power issue. The two inquiries will look at both those things. The Civil Aviation Authority will draw some conclusions from the Kelly inquiry. It is responsible for economic regulation and safety; it is not responsible for running the airport itself. We have to expect Heathrow Airport Ltd to be able to do this itself, and we will see where that goes.
The Secretary of State and I have no doubt that it will examine this with rigour. It is an exceptional experience. It is not the case that the airport regularly falls over in this respect. It is entitled to look at this itself, and we are entitled to look at the results and see to what extent improvements can be made, and what its risk appetite is to do so. We will wait for the outcome of these reports to make that judgment.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Tuesday 25th March 2025
(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (21 Mar 2025)
The Earl of Dundee
“Future composition of the House of Lords (statutory appointments commission)Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for—(a) conferring power on the House of Lords Appointments Commission to recommend the appointment, as crossbench peers, of one third of the membership of the House of Lords other than the Lords Spiritual, and(b) conferring a duty on the House of Lords Appointments Commission to consult with—(i) the Leader of the House of Lords,(ii) the Shadow Leader of the House of Lords,(iii) the leader of the third largest party-political group in the House of Lords, and(iv) the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers,on an ongoing basis, when discharging their power under paragraph (a).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is connected with others in the name of the Earl of Dundee which provide for further reform of the House. It would require a draft Bill providing for an Appointments Commission appointing crossbench peers as one third of the temporal members of the House.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this group of amendments is, within a reformed House, not to diminish but instead to preserve and improve the high standard of function of the present House. This is our successful ability of legislative scrutiny and holding the Government of the day properly to account.
It is proposed that the House is capped at 620, with 600 temporal Peers and 20 Lords spiritual. As indicated in subsection (a) of the new clause in Amendment 74, a Lords appointments commission would recommend 200 temporal Peers, or one-third of the total of 600, as non-political Cross-Benchers; subsection (b) of the new clause also confers a duty on the commissioners to consult on an ongoing basis with the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, with the leader of the third-largest party-political group in the House and the Convenor of the Cross Benches.
An electoral college, representative of all parts of the UK, indirectly elects 400 temporal Peers, or two-thirds of the 600, as political Members, the government and opposition parties having exactly the same number at 150 each, or 37.5% each out of 400, as stated in subsection (3) of the new clause in Amendment 75, while the other political parties, chiefly comprising the Liberal Democrats, have 100, or 25% of 400. This means that, at 200, the non-political Cross-Benchers have 50 more members than the Government or the opposition parties, at 150 each. That in turn ensures a far better standard of legislative scrutiny than otherwise obtaining if, within a reformed House, either the government or opposition political parties had a majority instead.
For two reasons, indirect elections of 400 political Members are much preferable to direct elections of 400 political Members. First, direct elections would lead to conflict with the House of Commons, whereas indirect elections avoid that. As a result, and secondly, arising from direct elections, such competition with another place would also distract and undermine the democratic value and quality function of a reformed House as an effective revising Chamber.
Regarding the procedures and ratios of indirect elections, subsection (1)(b) of the new clause in Amendment 75 puts a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the indirect elections are conducted with integrity, fairness and transparency. Out of 400 places for political Members, and given that 2023 statistics indicate a total UK population of 68,265,000, England—which represents 84.5% of that figure—would be allocated 338 places; Scotland, which represents 8%, would be allocated 32 places; Wales, at 4.5%, would be allocated 18 places; and Northen Ireland, at 3%, would be allocated 12 places.
As detailed by subsection (2) of the new clause in Amendment 75, the electoral college comprises selected participants who become the electors. These would include: some Westminster House of Commons parliamentarians; some from each of the three regional Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and, as electors of English Members to a reformed House, some English local government representatives.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, the previous Labour Government commissioned a royal commission, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, which looked very carefully at all these matters about a well thought-out solution for Lords reform. It is extremely unlikely that an individual noble Lord, on his own or with a little help, could do as good a job as the Wakeham commission did.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Attlee’s remarks about the Wakeham commission report, which deserves examination.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Dundee on his set of amendments. He has clearly thought extremely carefully about his approach and I fully agree that, as we go forward, we should primarily be guided by the functions of the House and their effective performance. How we should be constituted should flow primarily from that.
My noble friend has set out an ingenious and comprehensive scheme for reform and a mode of transition towards it. He proposes indirect elections. I fear it may be a personal fault in me to believe that, should there ever be an elected element in the upper House, it should be directly elected by the people, although I well understand the considerations that have led my noble friend to the conclusion he reached.
As my noble friend acknowledged, a number of the themes in his amendments have been discussed under their specific heads in other groups on the Bill. He will therefore forgive me if I do not pursue them again now. However, although I welcome his view that a strong independent element should remain in the House, the figure he suggests of over 30%—a third larger than the number of Peers allowed to the Government under his scheme—is surely too high.
If we were ever to have a written constitution— I venture to hope we should not—I am sure that the framers would wish to consult my noble friend on the details of his proposals for the House of Lords, given his careful consideration of the matter. In the interim, I thank him for his thoughtful and considered reflections. I am certain that they will be studied carefully by those in the future genuinely contemplating reform.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I admire the ingenuity and ambition of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in tabling these amendments, in addition to the careful consideration he has given in presenting a package of reforms. He poses a range of questions about the future composition of your Lordships’ House. However, the noble Earl will understand that we cannot accept them, as we are currently engaging in wider discussions with noble Lords from across the House about the way forward.
The noble Earl will be aware of the Government’s long-term ambition for more fundamental reform by establishing an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. The Government’s manifesto makes a commitment to consult on proposals to provide an opportunity for the public to contribute their views on how to ensure that this alternative Chamber best serves them. As an aside, I note that the noble Earl’s Amendment 79 does not include the public in the list of people whom the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult.
The Government are open to differing views on what an alternative second Chamber could look like. Nothing on this matter is settled and it is right that we continue the debate, including with the public at large.
With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, his amendments would put the cart before the horse and bring forward a comprehensive package of reform, not only before the public have had the chance to have their say but with a pre-empted outcome. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Earl withdraws his amendment.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the kind remarks from both Front Benches. I very much take on board the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, about how the public should be consulted. On Report, perhaps one of the first things that it might be constructive to do is to bring back a revised amendment that incorporates that consideration.
If we agree that what should come first and foremost is the quality of legislative scrutiny and other high-standards benefits of this House, to which membership composition is secondary and subservient, then in the light of that prescription and within this grouping, your Lordships may agree that three aspects should perhaps be brought back on Report: first, the proportions and numbers indicated for different Benches in a reformed House; secondly, the role of the Appointments Commission; thirdly, that of the electoral college.
Fortunately, in the present House, the quality of legislative scrutiny is able to be as good as it is in spite of the political patronage system that appoints numbers here indiscriminately.
However, that system of indiscriminate appointments of numbers would, surely, undermine a reformed House, within which good-quality results are likely to be sustained all the same, provided that respective numbers are established in the first place, such as the proposed 200 non-political Cross-Benchers, having 50 more Members than the two main political parties, with 150 each. Having said that, I appreciate the comments of my noble friend Lord True, who takes the view that that might not work, while my view is that it could probably be made to work.
Although HOLAC or a statutory appointments commission is the way to increase as necessary the numbers of non-political Members in a reformed House, nevertheless, on Report a further amendment is needed to safeguard the reputation of the commission and its usual procedures of appointments against judicial challenge.
Equally, for the reasons already outlined, although an electoral college indirectly electing 400 political Members protects United Kingdom democracy better than direct elections of 400 political Members would, Amendments 75 and 79 should still both be revisited on Report, in connection with further evidence supporting, in comparison with direct elections for a reformed House of 600 temporal Members, the greater usefulness, authenticity and public benefit of the formula proposed, which consists of indirect elections for 400 political Members combined with commission appointments for 200 non-political Members.
Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 74 and will not press my other amendments in this group.
The Duke of Wellington
“Further reform of the composition of the House of LordsWithin two years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for further reform of the composition of the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to lay before Parliament a further bill to reform the House of Lords after the removal of hereditary peers.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I say to the Leader that I should like to reserve the right to table the amendment again on Report.
Lord Burns
“Restriction on nominating new life peers (1) During any period in which the membership of the House of Lords exceeds the membership of the House of Commons, the number of recommendations made to His Majesty for the granting of new life peerages under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) must not exceed one new peer for every two who leave the House through retirement or death.(2) Once the membership of the House of Lords is equal to or less than the membership of the House of Commons, recommendations made to His Majesty for the granting of new life peerages under section 1 of that Act must not be such that they would cause the membership of the House of Lords to exceed the membership of the House of Commons.”
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, we have spent many hours examining individual proposals for reform, including term limits, age limits, participation limits and the strengthening of HOLAC. I will bring together these threads and argue that none can be entirely effective in the long run unless we can establish a ceiling on the size of the House of Lords. For me, this is the keystone around which we can build the other elements of reform we have discussed. Without it, it will be difficult to stabilise the number of Members, and we will likely encounter the problem of increasing size again. I am less committed to the precise number for this ceiling and more to the principle of a ceiling.
My amendment proposes a limit on the size of the House of Lords, specifying that it shall not exceed the size of the House of Commons. Until we reach this limit, there would be only one appointment for every two leavers. I emphasise that this amendment is not intended to delay the passage of the Bill, which I support. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for joining in this seminar on the future reform of the House—possibly the longest seminar I have ever participated in.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 110 in this group. The report of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House was published in 2017. As most noble Lords sitting here before then know, the Lord Speaker tasked the committee with exploring methods for reducing the size of the House. From the start, it took the view that any reduction in the number of Members must not be undone by reversion to the persistent historical tendency of the House to increase in size. The committee and the report designed a system intended to keep a reduced membership within a fixed cap for as long as the House remains an appointed Chamber, while allowing it to be refreshed and rebalanced in line with general election results over time. It has been strongly supported by the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber.
At the time, the Lord Speaker’s report proposed a system that could be implemented without legislation. It required a working agreement between the parties and a willingness by existing Members voluntarily to take the steps needed to achieve the target reduction in the size of the House. It did not propose time limits or compulsory retirement for existing Members. The report proposed setting the cap on the size of the House at 600—a reduction in existing membership of more than a quarter, making it smaller than that of the House of Commons.
The committee report proposed, as per the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that until the target of 600—which the noble Lord’s amendment would increase to 650—was reached, there should be a guiding principle of “two out, one in”, whereby one half of all departures, retirements and deaths from the House as a whole would be earmarked for reducing its size and the other half allocated to new appointments, distributed between the groups on a fair basis. Once a target had been reached, all vacancies would be allocated to new appointments: a “one out, one in” system.
To meet the aim of reducing the size of the House in a reasonable timeframe, the committee believed that it would be necessary to agree the rate of departures from the House. The extent to which the rate was to be increased—a matter for the House to decide—would determine how long it would take to reach the target of 600 under the “two out, one in” system. In deciding the rate, the committee believed it would be necessary to agree the basis on which future Members should be appointed, so that the current and new systems could be interwoven in a way that worked effectively.
Two other key areas in the report, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, were, first, fixed terms of 15 years for new Members, to generate sufficient turnover, and, secondly, fair allocation of appointments to reflect the result of the most recent general election.
The fifth report of the committee, published in July 2023, detailed progress since 2017. Initially, then Prime Minister Theresa May responded positively to the report and, in the first two years of the scheme, good progress was made in reducing the size of the House. Prime Minister Boris Johnson showed no interest in the issue of the size of the House. While the number of departures from the House continued to be in line with the committee’s benchmark, the number of appointments far exceeded departures, and were granted predominantly to members of our party.
There was concern that, as the Conservatives now had so many more Members than Labour, the next Labour Prime Minister would appoint a large number of new Peers in order to get the Government’s business through the House. Of course, this has come to pass, with Keir Starmer having created, I believe, 45 new peerages.
The committee summarised the lessons learned over the previous six years. It now accepted that its original timetable for a transition to a House of 600 was too slow and vulnerable to political events. However, it felt that one of the lessons of the previous six years was that there is little point in going through a difficult period of reducing the size of the House if the progress is undone by excessive new appointments subsequently, particularly if those appointments are not fairly balanced between the parties in the way proposed by the committee.
Instead, it believed that it would be effective to seek to secure a limit on the size of the House and a fair way of allocating appointments before endeavouring to reduce the size of the House or introduce term limits for appointments. Ideally, the committee emphasised, this should be achieved through legislation. As the committee felt that this would not be a government priority, there could be a formal agreement between the main party leaders for the time being. This would ensure that retirements would not be cancelled out through excess future appointments, thus encouraging more Members to take retirement with confidence.
The committee focused on the process for appointing the Cross-Bench Peers, stating that the system was now “a muddle”. The regime introduced by Tony Blair involved the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, appointing most of the Cross-Bench Peers, and the Prime Minister making up to 10 non-HOLAC Cross-Bench appointments per Parliament.
By 2023, this was no longer being observed. Instead, there have been a great number of prime ministerial appointments of Cross-Bench and unaffiliated Peers, while HOLAC has been limited to a maximum of two or three appointments per year, with none at all in five out of the last 10 years. While HOLAC appointed 59 Peers in its first 11 years, it has been granted only 15 appointments in the subsequent 11 years.
HOLAC’s aim is to appoint individuals who will add to the breadth of experience and expertise that already exists within the House of Lords, and to help to ensure that the House fully represents diversity within our country. It puts considerable effort into selecting and vetting the people who can best meet the needs of the House and show a willingness to participate regularly. HOLAC’s vital task cannot be achieved with the small number of appointments made over the last 11 years. The Prime Minister should revert to a maximum of 10 non-HOLAC Cross-Bench appointments per Parliament and increase the number of Members that HOLAC is allowed to appoint.
In summary, the amendment seeks to follow three key elements of the fifth report of 2023. First, there should be a cap on the size of the House, although 600 could be optimistic in the short term. Secondly, there should be term limits of 15 or 20 years to allow refreshment and rebalancing of the House. Thirdly, there should be a fair allocation of new party appointments. Fourthly, there should be a mandatory retirement age, which is not in the Burns report but was emphasised earlier by the Government as per their manifesto, although they are rowing back on this as the largest number of political Peers over 80 are Labour. Also, they have appointed several Labour Peers over the age of 80. I believe the combination of all four would bring the House size down to the level required, and a draft Bill should be published to implement these proposals before the end of this Session.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to add to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and certainly not to the excellent case made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—that is why I put my name to his amendment—except to say that we cannot continue as we are. We are over 800 strong and we keep ballooning, and that has to stop. The size of the House is too great. I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to reassure the House that she will take this seriously and consider the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Incidentally, that report—I remember the debate; I took part in it—was supported by every party. The noble Lord’s all-party committee was not pushing against a great wall of opposition; it was supported by everyone, and we ought to do something about it. Will my noble friend consider doing so after the Bill is passed? We want this Bill passed as quickly as possible, but then we must return to this issue because it cannot be left on another shelf for ever.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, the House will not want to be delayed. I just want to make one point in support of my noble friend’s amendment. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that I had the honour of serving on the Wakeham commission and I think we did a pretty good job, but the committee under my noble friend Lord Burns did a better one.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 82 only. I spoke in November in our debate on House of Lords reform and, in December, at the Second Reading of this Bill. I said I felt that there were three unfairnesses in the make-up of our House: the hereditary Peers, the Bishops and—the biggest one—the prerogative powers of the Prime Minister to make unlimited appointments to a legislature in a western liberal democracy. That is a very big power without precedent in any other western liberal democracy.
I am not going to repeat anything that has been said already, but for me Amendment 82 does two things. It patrols the size of the House—that is important, although I know there are people who have other views—and, most importantly, it puts a cap on the prerogative powers of the Prime Minister. I fully admit that our current Government are fully and transparently democratic, but that will not necessarily be the case for ever more. Future Governments may not have that make-up, so I feel this is a safety mechanism as well.
As we go forward from here, I feel strongly—here I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Hain—that the thrust of this amendment is important, and I commend the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Hain, for bringing it forward.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in this amendment. The key point is that his report was based on a situation where there was unlikely to be any legislation possible in the foreseeable future. There is now the possibility of legislation, because we are debating it. I think it is agreed on in all parts of the House that a limit is necessary.
I was very struck by the noble Lord’s comments that the principle is more important than the number, and his move from 600 to 650 simply to get the principle in. It seems to me that there are a few things in our debate on which we agree which could be accepted by the Government, while there are a vast number of things which are completely out of scope and require a full debate on the future of the House. In this respect, this is something that the House would do well to listen to and I hope the Government, when it comes to Report, will look favourably on whatever the noble Lord might bring forward at that point.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, we strongly agree with the central thrust of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which is that the House is too big and should be reduced in size. It is interesting to consider that if all parties and the Government had accepted the Burns report and we had legislated for the Grocott Bill when they were first proposed, we would not now be faced with a House of this size.
One of the elegant things about the original Burns report was that it was a way of dealing with the size of the House without legislation at a time when no legislation was likely to be forthcoming. This is obviously not the case now that we have this Bill, but we are also looking at having a retirement age and a bar for participation, both of which, even if retirement age is phased in, will have a very significant impact on the size of your Lordships’ House.
Although the noble Lord makes the case that his amendment sort of dovetails with those, one could equally argue that they drive a coach and horses through it. Not that I wish to disagree even in the interim with the principle of it, but the one thing it does not deal with, and is an extraordinarily difficult problem with or without the Burns approach, is what the balance of the composition of the House should be.
We are in a five-party political system at the moment, leaving aside the nationalists in Scotland and Wales, and this House conspicuously fails to reflect that. The position that my party has found itself in is that over a decade we have had three new Peers, all three of them within the last year. I have been, as it were, commanding a slowly shrinking iceberg floating south with no prospect of new Members.
On what basis does the Prime Minister determine how many Liberal Democrats there should be in the House? It is a whim, truth be told. You can have a principle that says that there should be parity between the two largest parties, but beyond that no principle has ever been adumbrated while I have been in your Lordships’ House as to how you deal with all the other parties.
This is a real problem and under the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, there is not even a hint of how you deal with this conundrum of balance. Under it, the Prime Minister could, if he wished, replace every two departing Peers with a new Labour Peer—he could do any variety of mixture—and that seems to me a real problem. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that we favour having an elected House because we do not believe that there is a logical or defensible way around the conundrum of the prime ministerial whim deciding on the composition of a second Chamber in a mature democracy.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, with Amendment 82, proposes an immediate restriction on appointments—a two-out, one-in policy— until this House reaches 650 Members, at which point it would transition to a one-out, one-in model. Your Lordships are no strangers to this proposal. It echoes the recommendations of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House, known to us all as the Burns report. Once again, the noble Lord makes a compelling case with his usual eloquence and my noble friend Lord Northbrook pursues a similar objective by different means. He would require the Government to publish a draft Bill implementing the Burns report before the provisions of the current legislation can take effect. Reflecting on both these amendments, I venture this: it is not size that matters, but the perception of it.
Baroness Finn (Con)
Before I turn to the substance of the amendments, I will interrogate the premise that this House is too large and should be made smaller. Time and again in this debate, noble Lords have invoked the total number of Members, drawing unfavourable comparisons with other second Chambers around the world. But before we lose ourselves in the arithmetic of armchairs, let us consider a few rather more revealing figures.
Since 1999, the average daily attendance has never exceeded 497 Members. Last year the figure was just 397 Peers—barely 51% of the total membership. Even in our most heavily attended vote, on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, just 634 Members took part. These are not the numbers of a bloated, overbearing assembly; they are the numbers of a House that flexes with the rhythm of expertise and interest—that breathes in and out according to the demands of scrutiny.
We are not and were never meant to be a full-time House. It is neither expected nor desirable that every Peer attends every day. Many noble Lords bring with them outstanding commitments rooted in their industries and fields of expertise. This is not a weakness; it is our strength. It is the very foundation of our ability to scrutinise, revise and improve legislation. Some of us are generalists and able to contribute widely. Others are specialists, drawn in when their knowledge is most needed. That blend is not accidental; it is essential.
To fix an arbitrary cap on our numbers, particularly one tied to the size of the House of Commons, would not enhance our function; it would potentially diminish it. It would risk leaving gaps in our collective knowledge, stifling the very expertise on which this House depends. Without a mandatory retirement age to generate vacancies, restrictions on appointments could become a blunt instrument, blocking the arrival of fresh insight while leaving the door shut to renewal.
Although I maintain that, in itself, size does not matter, I can see that the perception of size is an issue. Public confidence and trust in this House matter, and I do not blame the public for misunderstanding what we do—how could they when so much of our work is invisible, unbroadcast and uncelebrated? We all bear the responsibility for explaining it better, proving our value and showing that the presence of hundreds of Members does not mean hundreds of voices speaking at once but is rather a reservoir of wisdom summoned when needed.
I look forward with great interest to the Lord Privy Seal’s reply to this debate, but I will close with a question: do the Government believe that it is the size of the House that matters, or is it merely a convenient fig leaf to cover a more political ambition—the removal of over 80 hereditary Peers, the vast majority of whom do not take the Government Whip?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, this was a short but interesting debate. I thank the noble Baroness for injecting some humour into it. It seemed that the female Members of the House found it funnier than—if I dare say it—the male Members of the House. Perhaps I will pass over that quite quickly and move on.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
You need a fig leaf.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It continues.
There have been some interesting discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, used his amendment to refer back to the Lord Speaker’s Committee, when he looked at the size of the House and how related issues might be addressed. His amendment focuses on the idea of two out, one in, although he spoke more widely on the report, which was very helpful. I will come to that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, wants to delay the commencement of the Bill, which is why he tabled his amendment. He seemed to think we should have a draft Bill first to implement the Burns committee’s report. I looked into his interest in the Burns committee, and I was surprised, given that he thought it so important to delay this Bill until there is a draft Bill on the Burns committee, that he did not speak on the Burns committee when it was debated in your Lordships’ House. I think he referred to it in debate on my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill. It is an interesting point but not one that we would be able to accept, because it would just delay this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, raised some interesting issues. When we debated the Burns committee report there was widespread support around the House for it. Looking back, I was not sure during the debate that every Member was fully signed up to every part of the report, but there was a real view that something had to be done and that this was going in the right direction of how we might address the issue.
The noble Baroness made a point about size and how we are not a full-time House. We are very much a full-time House. We sit longer and later than the other place, but we do not expect every Member of your Lordships’ House to be full-time. Members have outside interests, and we do not expect everybody to be here all day, every day—and neither should we. It would be unhelpful to the House if every Member was always here and we were all full-time politicians. We bring different experiences and different issues to the House.
I think we agree that the size of the House should come down. This is a bit about perception. We regularly read about the size and the bloat of the House, and how we are the second-largest assembly in the world, but we are not. If we look at the active membership—Members who attend reasonably regularly—then the House is not that size; it is much smaller. The two measures we are looking at, on retirement and participation, go a long way towards addressing some of the criticisms that are made. That is why I am so keen—and I have said that I will come back to the House on this—to have a mechanism that Members can input into so that we can see if the House can reach agreement on what that might look like in practice. We have had some discussions about that already.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made some points about allocation. We discussed this before on the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, which suggested that 20% of the House should be Cross-Benchers. Although that is a pretty fair figure for the Cross-Benchers, having a mechanism within your Lordships’ House that, in effect, determines what the size of one group should be does nothing about the relative size of other groups. One of the things I have looked at with some dismay over the years is how the government party has grown and grown. The noble Lord said his party had had only three new Members, most of them very recently. To come back to an earlier debate, at one point I think more new Ministers were appointed—in some cases for very short terms in office—to this side of the House than we had appointments in the whole of that time in opposition. We therefore need to get a better balance between the two parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, is absolutely right. The House does some of its best work when we do not play the numbers game and say, “We’ve got more than you, we can win a vote”. We got into bad habits during some of the coalition years, when there was an automatic majority. We saw large numbers come in under Boris Johnson in particular: when the Government lost votes, their answer was to appoint more Peers. That did not have the effect that the Government wanted it to have. The House does its best work when there are roughly equal numbers between the Government and opposition parties, and when we are more deliberative in our approach rather than thinking that everything has to be resolved by voting. The House was designed to take that sort of approach. But the House is larger than it needs to be and it does not reflect the work we do or how we operate.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, did the House a great service with his report; he focused minds. These are issues that we will return to, but he established an important principle that the House should look at dealing with some of these issues. It is very important that we do, because our views on how we should operate matter. This goes back to earlier debates about the skills and experience required, and about the make-up of the House that we want to see. We will have that debate in a moment, I am sure, on the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. This has been an important debate and I am grateful to both noble Lords for their amendments, but I would respectfully urge them not to press them.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful for all the comments that have been made about the Lord Speaker’s Committee’s report and in response to the amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who been supportive throughout this process; that has been important to ensure that we did really have cross-party support.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised the allocation of places. I thought I mentioned this in my remarks, and it was certainly set out in some detail in the Lords Speaker’s Committee’s report. New appointments should be allocated according to the proportion of the votes in the previous general election. That would certainly be reflected in the number of Liberal Democrats. I appreciate there would be a problem if there was suddenly a very big shift in the voting behaviour in the country—for example, if a new party emerged. Then, of course, there would be some issues about balance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, emphasised the whole question of whether it really matters what size the House is—it needs to come and go according to the rhythm of the place. But the reality is that without a ceiling on the House, the numbers have gone up and up over the whole period since there have been life peerages. There is no control mechanism with these arrangements. Whatever we do in the short term to bring down the numbers, if we do not have a commitment on what we want the size of the House to be and a mechanism for keeping it there, I can see nothing other than that the numbers will continue to rise.
Lord Blencathra
“Peers from chartered professional bodies(1) The Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that one member from each chartered professional body be granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) in accordance with this section.(2) The peerage granted under section 1 must entitle a peer from a chartered professional body to sit in the House of Lords for five years only (a “temporary peerage”), at which point the Prime Minister must propose a new peer from the chartered professional body.(3) The Prime Minister must only recommend the individual proposed by each chartered professional body.(4) Each chartered professional body may determine the individual they propose for a temporary peerage by the method it considers appropriate. (5) A chartered professional body under subsection (1) means any professional body granted a royal charter after the day on which this Act is passed and any professional body below—(a) Association of Chartered Certified Accountants;(b) Association of Corporate Treasurers;(c) Association for Project Management;(d) Association for Science Education;(e) British Computer Society;(f) British Psychological Society;(g) British Society of Gastroenterology;(h) Chartered Institute of Management Accountants;(i) Chartered Association of Building Engineers;(j) Chartered Institute for Archaeologists;(k) Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment;(l) Chartered Institute of Arbitrators;(m) Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists;(n) Chartered Banker Institute;(o) Chartered Institute of Brewers & Distillers;(p) Chartered Institute of Building;(q) Chartered Institute of Credit Management;(r) Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management;(s) Chartered Institute of Environmental Health;(t) Chartered Institute of Fundraising;(u) Chartered Institute of Horticulture;(v) Chartered Institute of Housing;(w) Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors;(x) Chartered Institute of Journalists;(y) Chartered Institute of Legal Executives;(z) Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals;(z1) Chartered Institute of Linguists;(z2) Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport;(z3) Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters;(z4) Chartered Institute of Marketing;(z5) Chartered Institute for the Management of Sport and Physical Activity;(z6) Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys;(z7) Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals;(z8) Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development;(z9) Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering;(z10) Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply;(z11) Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy;(z12) Chartered Institute of Public Relations;(z13) Chartered Institution of Railway Operators;(z14) Chartered Institute of Taxation;(z15) Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys;(z16) Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers;(z17) Chartered Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors;(z18) Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation;(z19) Chartered Institution of Wastes Management;(z20) Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management;(z21) Chartered Insurance Institute;(z22) Chartered Management Institute;(z23) Chartered Quality Institute;(z24) Chartered Society of Designers; (z25) Chartered Society of Physiotherapy;(z26) Chartered Trading Standards Institute;(z27) College of Optometrists;(z28) College of Paramedics;(z29) The Chartered College of Teaching;(z30) Energy Institute;(z31) English Association;(z32) Geological Society of London;(z33) Institute and Faculty of Actuaries;(z34) Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales;(z35) Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;(z36) Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;(z37) Institute of Chartered Foresters;(z38) Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators;(z39) Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers;(z40) Institute of Conservation;(z41) Institute of Directors;(z42) Institute of Health and Social Care Management;(z43) Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology;(z44) Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining;(z45) Institute of Mathematics and its Applications;(z46) Institute of Maxillofacial Prosthetists & Technologists;(z47) Institute of Measurement and Control;(z48) Institute of Physics;(z49) Institute of Practitioners in Advertising;(z50) Institute of Refrigeration;(z51) Institution of Chemical Engineers;(z52) Institution of Civil Engineers;(z53) Institution of Engineering and Technology;(z54) Institution of Engineering Designers;(z55) Institution of Mechanical Engineers;(z56) Institution of Occupational Safety and Health;(z57) Institution of Royal Engineers;(z58) Institution of Structural Engineers;(z59) Landscape Institute;(z60) The Law Society;(z61) Law Society of Northern Ireland;(z62) Linnean Society of London;(z63) Royal Aeronautical Society;(z64) Royal Agricultural Society of England;(z65) Royal Anthropological Institute;(z66) Royal Asiatic Society;(z67) Royal Astronomical Society;(z68) Royal College of Anaesthetists;(z69) Royal College of General Practitioners;(z70) Royal College of Nursing;(z71) Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists;(z72) Royal College of Organists;(z73) Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health;(z74) Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow;(z75) Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh;(z76) Royal College of Physicians of London;(z77) Royal College of Psychiatrists;(z78) Royal College of Radiologists;(z79) Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists; (z80) Royal College of Surgeons of England;(z81) Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh;(z82) Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons;(z83) Royal Economic Society;(z84) Royal Geographical Society;(z85) Royal Historical Society;(z86) Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland;(z87) Royal Institute of British Architects;(z88) Royal Institute of Navigation;(z89) Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors;(z90) Royal Institution of Naval Architects;(z91) Royal Meteorological Society;(z92) Royal Microscopical Society;(z93) Royal Pharmaceutical Society;(z94) Royal Photographic Society;(z95) Royal Society for Public Health;(z96) Royal Society of Biology;(z97) Royal Society of Chemistry;(z98) Royal Society of Medicine;(z99) Royal Statistical Society;(z100) Royal Town Planning Institute;(z101) Society for Radiological Protection;(z102) Society of Dyers and Colourists;(z103) The Textile Institute.”
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 83 is in my name. At first glance, it may scare your Lordships if 129 of these suggested new Peers descend on us in one fell swoop, in addition to our current 850 Members—but that is not my intention. Let me explain where I am coming from on this. First, I am working on the assumption that we will reduce the numbers in this House by possibly 250 by the end of this Parliament—those retiring, those who fail to turn up and those who fail to participate. I am old enough and cynical enough to say with absolute certainty that I am afraid that no Prime Minister will ever implement the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, so we need to reduce numbers some other way.
We boast that we are a House of experts, which is true in comparison with the House of Commons. We have lawyers, doctors, farmers, financial experts, a Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Peer, veterinarians and some other specialists. But we do not have the full range of specialists we could use. I asked the Public Bill Office to add the names of these 129 professional chartered institutes and royal colleges so that noble Lords could see the wide range and just what we could be missing.
At first glance, noble Lords will say, “Goodness me, we can’t have all these people here. What would they bring?” But I challenge any noble Lord to say that the presidents or vice-presidents of any of these royal colleges or chartered institutes would have nothing valuable to contribute to some of our expert debates. Of course, we will all have our personal views and biases on which ones are more important and prestigious than others, and we may have some snobbish put-downs about some. I am reminded of the time when John Major allowed technical colleges to become universities and I heard some commentators call them “hairdressing degree universities”.
I agree that some of the experts from the royal colleges of medicine may have more to contribute to a debate about assisted dying than, say, the institute of waste management—well, probably, although it may have a view as well. However, in seeking, for example, a better-designed Holocaust memorial than the monstrosity Adjaye wants to inflict on us, I would prefer to hear from the institute of designers than any distinguished royal colleges. It is horses for courses, and in the House of Lords we have an awful lot of courses.
When our expert Select Committees embark on a new inquiry and need to interview experts and collect evidence, it is to many of these organisations on my list that they will turn. Look at the lists of evidence submitted, for example, and you will see the names of many of these organisations. When the Government go out to consultation, every one of these organisations will be on their distribution list as a stakeholder for the relevant subject or area.
I suggest that if the Government consult these organisations as knowledgeable stakeholders, we should have one of their number in here on a short-term peerage. We have some very able accountants and financiers, but every day this House and its committees would benefit from having Peers from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, the Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Chartered Institute of Taxation—and I may be so politically rude as to suggest that maybe the Chancellor too could benefit from some of their advice at the moment.
We have the long-running problem that after 17 years we still cannot get on with restoring this building. Perhaps if we had Peers from the Association for Project Management, the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists, the Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering, the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and others, perhaps the place would be rebuilt by now. We do not have enough experts in this House who design and build things. I also think we need experts from trading standards and environmental health.
On the environment, we have some experts here already, but we could do with more, such as from the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, the Chartered Institute of Horticulture, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, the Institute of Chartered Foresters, the Landscape Institute, the Royal Agricultural Society of England and the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management.
Last week in Grand Committee we had the digital markets regulations and the immigration biometric information regulations. Today in Grand Committee we debated—although I did not debate it as I could not understand any of it—the Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025, which is on the tip of all your Lordships’ tongues, to be followed by the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025. I accept that I may be the only Peer in this House who would not have a clue what these regulations seek to do, but perhaps if we had experts from the Institution of Engineering and Technology, the Institute of Physics, the Energy Institute and the British Computer Society, we would have a much more informed debate.
If noble Lords look down the list in Amendment 83, they can see experts in some of the Government’s central priorities for education needs in this country—and, if we are to have growth, institutes for housing, science education and a whole range of mathematical and science disciplines, as well as logistics and transport. Noble Lords may say, “It’s all right; we can get some of them already if they are nominated through HOLAC”. Yes, but it is very hit and miss, requiring someone to nominate someone who may or may not be an up-to-date, current expert in any of the 129 disciplines listed in my amendment—and that person, like the rest of us, will serve until death or retirement, whereas my amendment would ensure a new expert from the institute every five years.
The key point of my amendment is that these Peers nominated by their respective institutes would serve for five years. That would ensure that we were getting a constant flow of experts who were up to date with their areas of expertise. What I did not put in the amendment is the logistics of doing this. I suggest that we could bring in up to 26 per annum over a period of five years so that they did not all arrive in one fell swoop and all depart at the same time. Their order of introduction could be done by ballot.
My amendment states that the Prime Minister cannot substitute his own preference, but I neglected to say that HOLAC would still have the final say on propriety and, if HOLAC rejected a nomination, the institute would have to propose someone else who satisfied the propriety test. They would all be Cross-Benchers and be instructed that they were not spokespersons for their institute but individuals giving us their personal expertise based on the professional expertise for which the institute nominated them in the first place.
In our debate on an elected House a few nights ago, a few noble Lords made the point that we can widen the franchise, so to speak, and be more democratic without requiring direct elections. If we adopted the system that I propose, we would be introducing an indirectly elected element that would be more democratic, I suggest, than just the Prime Minister making appointments. I would also hope that we would not need individual nominations through HOLAC or the Prime Minister because they wanted a Peer with experience in taxation, ecology, archaeology or any of the 129 disciplines in my amendment.
Of course, the Prime Minister will still make political appointments, but my system in this amendment would guarantee that, in five years’ time, the House had 129 experts from these professional bodies, constantly renewing their expertise in addition to any other noble Lords who have been appointed. I also suggest that this would give us a more regional spread, since it is likely that some of the appointees will be from countries of our United Kingdom other than England—and, indeed, seven of the institutions listed here are not English.
In conclusion, this suggestion is not as frightening as it first appears when one looks at the Marshalled List with these 129 organisations. These experts, introduced to the House at a rate of up to 26 per annum and changing every five years, would give us a whole new cadre of experts and at least 100 professionals that we do not have in here at the moment. If noble Lords worry that that is too many at one time, then I would remind the House that the Prime Minister has introduced 45 new Peers in his first 250 days as Prime Minister, and we can expect another large batch of politicians and aides in the last Prime Minister’s resignation honours.
Naturally, of course, my amendment will not be acceptable—possibly by all sides of the House—but I suggest quite humbly that I think I have got a germ of an idea here which, with refinement, could give us more independent experts, widen the franchise, be more democratic and not allow the Prime Minister to be solely in charge of Lords appointments. I say we need more experts; if we boast that we are a House of experts, then let us prove it by accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I put on a tie this morning which represents the royal agricultural societies of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Where are they on this list? I learnt something about this—and the former Leader of the House my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and the then Cabinet Office Minister my noble friend Lord Maude will know about this—in the Public Bodies Bill. Schedule 7 to that Bill listed the public bodies that we were going to abolish, and we ended up having to revoke that whole schedule. Lists are an abomination in legislation. I advise the Committee that my noble friend is wrong, and I disagree with him totally on this idea.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, with due respect to my noble friend, I want to say something on this proposal. The House can normally rely on the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for good sense, but this is a seriously bad idea and I can rely on my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal to explain in detail why.
I just want to make the point, speaking as a member of the professional body listed at subsection (5)(z33) of the proposed new clause, that the idea that we come here to provide expertise, professional advice or technical advice is seriously wrong. If we want such expertise, we should pay for people to come and tell us rather than expect individual Members to provide it on the fly. It is the wrong form of representation within this House. I say to the Committee that, as a jobbing actuary, my hourly rate is significantly more than the daily allowance, so I do not want members of my profession or other professions to be taken advantage of.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, agreeing with the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Davies, that we are here for judgment, not experience, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra: what has he got against the hospitality industry, which is not on his list? I speak as the president of the Institute of Hospitality.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the thrust of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment. Indeed, a number of the professions that he has suggested would, ironically, replace the gifted amateurs—those we may be about to lose—the hereditary Peers.
I scribbled down, in the past few minutes, the number of hereditary Peers with valuable experience in finance, banking and investment, foreign exchange, accountancy and insurance. On top of that, we have engineers, vets and property managers, as well as those representing the agriculture and forestry industry, transportation and logistics, the law, human resources and public relations. Indeed, we even have an ex-diplomat. Of those 90 hereditary Peers, I am pretty certain that 89 have come from the private sector, and nearly all have valuable experience of wealth creation. I will stop there, but I must ask what we are being replaced by.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am very touched by the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to hear from me. I am very happy to act as a performing seal to keep the noble Lord happy for hours on end, if he wishes, but that has never been the intention of the party on this side. If he looks carefully in Hansard, he will see me having said, from this Dispatch Box, that there was no question of our Front Bench dividing this House at any stage in Committee, and I hope that that message has been relayed to Members opposite.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra raised an interesting issue in his typically creative way. Like others, I flinched when I saw the long list of bodies in his amendment, although it underlines the depth and range of skills that there are still in this great country. Having listened to his arguments, I realise that he has put forward a probing—or perhaps more a scattergun—amendment. My noble friend is right that it is vital that we have a wide range of expertise to be called on as and when it is needed. That expertise, or the ability to analyse and deploy it, is one reason why your Lordships’ House has the authority that it has. It is why—although this is not germane to this amendment—I am rather more sympathetic to the occasional expert contributors we have among us than some who measure participation by quantity only.
The ingenious proposal from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, which does not seem to have found favour, is that temporary peerages be granted for representatives from each chartered professional body. We also heard another interesting proposal earlier from my noble friend Lady Laing on temporary Ministers, which I found fascinating. One might even moderate those proposals to consider: if we are a modern Chamber, and if we wish to be modern and we speak about reform, can we not think of doing things in different ways from all the other boring assemblies around the world? We are an interesting place. That area near the Throne is where the judges come at State Opening, on writs of assistance, to be present in the Chamber; it is not technically part of the Chamber. Could we not moderate the kind of proposal that my noble friend Lord Blencathra has put forward, so that if we are discussing something highly technical, we occasionally have people come here to advise and respond in our Chamber to inform our proceedings? It is just an idea.
If we are thinking of the future, let us be open without necessarily having to call people here for a long period with permanent peerages, as my noble friend said. Certainly, if we were ever to consider anything along my noble friend’s lines, he is surely right in proposing that any such appointment be temporary, to keep people at their most relevant and to allow a degree of flexibility within each sector to propose their representatives.
I admire my noble friend’s ingenuity in asking us to reflect on the expertise that we have, the expertise that we need and the expertise that we stand to lose, as my noble friend Lord Leicester said, if the proposal to exclude all hereditary Peers and all Peers over 80 were to go forward. We should have in mind the expertise we might lose as we consider any proposals for change and transition. However, my noble friend and the Committee will not be surprised when I say that, despite my great respect for his intentions and ingenuity, I am afraid that we on this Front Bench cannot support his specific proposals.
Appointing representatives from all chartered professional bodies in this way would make our House a bit too corporatist for my liking, and my noble friend leaves out other great institutions of the land. That said, we should reflect on whether there are other ways in which we could have witnesses occasionally to advise us on technical matters when we are considering important legislation. If we are to have this great modernisation, let us also consider innovative ways in which we might draw on the great wisdom of the British people.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, and there has not been very much support for the noble Lord’s proposal. One thing that impressed me—he may have gained a record, at least so far on this Bill—was that he managed to produce an amendment longer than the Bill itself. I do not recall that happening before.
It is clear that the different backgrounds, experiences and knowledge of noble Lords from around the House are really valuable in our deliberations. There are indeed past presidents of societies sitting in the House at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, has been president of the Royal Astronomical Society. The noble Baronesses, Lady Rafferty and Lady Finlay, have been presidents of the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal Society of Medicine respectively, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, was president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. They have enhanced the debates—the noble Baroness, Lady Rafferty, has not been here very long but we look forward to more contributions from her; she has proved herself already—and these appointments are always welcome to your Lordships’ House. I think the noble Lord gets that.
Where I struggle with the noble Lord’s amendment is with regard to all the other organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, got it absolutely right: once you get a list, you look at the things you are excluding, and I do not think the chartered institutes and royal societies are the only groups that can provide such expertise. I also note that, had all the appointments been made that the noble Lord speaks of, they would make up about 30% of the House as Cross-Benchers. I think the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said that the Cross Benches should make up around 20%, which is roughly what most people were talking about, and this amendment would take it well over that. They would probably be larger than either of the two parties of government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made the point that I would have made, but he got there first—obviously, it is a very good point to make, because it was what I was thinking. Why are we here? We are here for our experience, our knowledge and the contributions we make, but basically, we are here for our judgment. We listen to people who are experts and those who are not experts, and we listen to the public. We take on board all those things, and ultimately, we all have to act on our honour and make a judgment on the information before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, pointed out how much the expertise that Members bring to this House would cost if it came from outside this place. But I do not really want a House just of experts, and I do not know where the noble Lord got that from. We are not a House of experts; we are a House that comes together to reach an expert opinion. We have experts among us, but not all of us have an expertise. Many do, but others are here, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, to exercise judgment. We want Members to speak not just on one issue in which they have expertise; we expect them to look at a range of issues while they are here.
I am also uncomfortable with the idea of temporary membership of the House, which the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, raised earlier as well. We want all Members to be equal and to have equal status here; we do not want some Members who are temporary and some who are not.
I am sure that the noble Lord tabled his amendment with the best of intentions, but I ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, my political antenna detects that my suggestion has not received universal acclaim. I say to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who was my superb Chief Whip, that I am sorry if I missed out the royal agricultural societies of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That would put my list up to 130, from 129. He does not like lists, but the Bill is nothing but a list of 88 people to chuck out, so I suggest that it is a list as well.
The esteemed organisation of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is not a chartered institute or a royal society. I say to the Leader of the House that one has to create a cut-off somewhere. There are lots of other able organisations, but I wanted to pick those that were officially chartered institutes and royal societies, and which had therefore reached a certain level of acknowledged expertise, possibly among their peers. I note the points made by my noble friend Lord Leicester, and I largely concur.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, was quite strongly against my amendment. He did not want these experts in here; he would prefer to pay them to speak to us. Suppose that, over the next few years, HOLAC had nominated each of these individuals. Why would it nominate them? It would nominate them because they were experts in their field. We would say, “Jolly good, welcome here; we need your expertise”. Of course this House needs experts and expertise. I say to the Leader of the House that I am not suggesting having 650 technical experts; I am suggesting 129 experts, plus any others we may have, which would leave another 400 or 500 Peers to exercise our judgment. I agree with my noble friend Lord True that we need to look at innovative ways. I said that I had the germ of an idea here. Most people think that this germ should be disinfected and done away with immediately, I suspect, but there is a possibility here to do things differently. He said that my plans were too corporatist. I thought that he said that they were too corpulent, which the House rather is at the moment; it is too large.
I am clearly not going to succeed. I do not intend to bring this back on Report. I was floating an idea and in five years’ time, say, the House may wish to look at it. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. In view of the attitude tonight, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Former Members of the House of Commons and special advisersThe Prime Minister must not make a recommendation to His Majesty for the granting of a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) to any former Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, or to special advisers to the Government of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, or the Northern Irish Executive, until at least two years have passed since the end of their service.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to delay the appointment of former MPs and special advisers to the House of Lords until at least two years have passed.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 87 I will also speak to my Amendments 88 and 89. These amendments have elicited a lot of attention from my noble friends since I tabled them. My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean singled them out during our debate on Amendment 1, when he promised that he would not speak on them. It is good to see him in his place to fulfil that promise this evening.
I make it clear from the outset that I have nothing against Members of Parliament. Some of my best friends are Members of Parliament. For a long time, I wanted to be a Member of Parliament, and I tried—with conspicuous lack of success. However, the role of a Member of your Lordships’ House is different. This House is calmer, quieter and more consensual than the other place. It respects the primacy of the elected House and recognises that with nobody in the majority here, the way to get things done is by constructive debate and compromise.
Some of the best advice that I received when I took my place in your Lordships’ House was to hold off making a maiden speech and to spend some time in the Chamber learning not only the rules of the House but its ways and its tone. It is very easy for those who have watched too many of the proceedings of the House of Commons to assume that that is how we behave here as well, but it is not. We are less partisan, less pointed and less pugnacious, although it is very easy to slip into those habits. I have done so myself on too many occasions. Those habits are even harder to give up for noble Lords who have served for many years with distinction in another place, as are the more innocuous but still alien habits such as repeatedly intervening on each other, thanking the Lord Speaker for calling us or referring to “honourable Members” rather than “noble Lords”.
We are a self-regulating House. Our ways and procedures are set and policed by how we choose to behave. Even in my short time here, I have seen those ways evolving. A great deal was lost during the challenging months of the pandemic, when we had to do things differently. Some, but not all, of that has been clawed back. We are in a constant state of flux, with new Members arriving all the time, bringing new perspectives and new ways of doing things. As a self-regulating House, it falls to all of us to protect those courtesies and conventions that we think important. That is why I lament the way that this Bill will expel so many long-standing Members who know how important those conventions are, and many more recent arrivals who learned by watching them as apprentices before they were elected.
I overlapped here only briefly with the Countess of Mar, but it was long enough to know how valuable a role she played, keeping us all on the straight and narrow. Lady Mar was a Deputy Speaker of your Lordships’ House for many years, and of the two dozen Deputy Speakers we have today, five are hereditary Peers drawn from the Labour, Tory and Cross Benches. Many others have served on the Woolsack previously. If they are to go, as this Bill proposes, we will have to work even harder to hold on to some of those subtle traditions that make this House such a pleasant and productive place to legislate.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the general thrust of these amendments. When I came to your Lordships’ House in 1992, to get from the House of Commons to the House of Lords you had to have been a Cabinet Minister, preferably for two tours, Mr Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, or an MP of stratospheric reputation. Being a junior Minister was nowhere near enough.
We would have to be careful with the drafting of Amendment 89, because a very good candidate could have either been a spad a very long time ago or had a high-profile career in industry and then been a spad. That is just a drafting issue.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I start by making it clear that we value the contributions of all noble Lords in this House, regardless of whether they have served as Members in the other place or as special advisers in government. I say this with a smidgen of self-interest, as a former special adviser myself, and in full awareness that my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay served as special adviser to my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, who, of course, is not only a former Member of Parliament but a former Prime Minister. Your Lordships’ House benefits a great deal from their service, as it does from many others who have come from the other place or through government.
None the less, these amendments raise the interesting question of what this House is for. It is reasonable to consider the broader experience that we need to fulfil our responsibilities. It is important that this House remains a distinct second Chamber and that we do not blur the lines between the two Houses.
Your Lordships’ House benefits from a large membership with broad experience and expertise, whether from former Members of Parliament or otherwise. The House of Lords Library has produced useful research in this area, which tells us that 21% of noble Lords have previously served as MPs in the House of Commons; that is 181 former MPs. Unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately—the House of Lords Library does not readily provide information on the number of former special advisers, but, as we know, there are at least three of us in the Chamber this evening. I understand why some noble Lords might consider a cap on the number or proportion of ex-MPs and special advisers, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay’s amendments, to be beneficial and to ensure a balance of perspective and experience in your Lordships’ House.
The expulsion of our hereditary colleagues would deprive us of a huge amount of private sector experience, which cannot easily be replaced. The Bill stands to exclude chartered accountants and surveyors, the former president of the Heavy Transport Association and a former managing director of Paperchase. They are among many more examples of businessmen, entrepreneurs and industry titans whose perspectives we will greatly miss. We should not take their experience and expertise for granted; it is vital for the scrutiny of legislation that affects businesses, markets, industry, workers and employers alike, and our wider economy, that our private sector is properly represented by those who know and understand its operation.
Of course, having a background in politics does not preclude one from having other types of experience. Indeed, it is valuable experience in itself. Some of our most effective Members are those who have been here the longest and who have learned over the years how to get things done within Parliament and across government—critical skills in a legislative Chamber.
The other suggestion that we have discussed is what I consider a cooling-off period, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s Amendment 87. It is an interesting suggestion that might alleviate an external perception of political patronage and perhaps lighten the pressure on Prime Ministers to confer such patronage. However, I do not believe that it would be right for this House to limit the ability of a democratically elected Prime Minister to make the appointments that they wish.
As my noble friend pointed out, these amendments cause us to consider the House of Lords as our second Chamber. We fulfil a role that is very different from that of the other place. We have the time and ability to scrutinise and revise legislation in a way that the House of Commons does not, while respecting the will of the elected House. This House is one of the highest-quality revising Chambers in any democracy, and it is a role that the House rightly takes very seriously.
Your Lordships’ House has a constructive, consensual way of doing things. It should desist from becoming more party political and more like Punch and Judy than noble Lords are used to. We should be wary of any such trends. Your Lordships’ House works best when we treat each other with respect, making revisions and posing questions constructively. One of the many negative effects of losing our hereditary Peers is that we will lose a great number of those who act as the custodians of the conventions and manners of this House.
To conclude, I do not support the literal interpretation of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, but I understand and sympathise with the intention with which they were tabled. We welcome the contributions and experience of all noble Lords, but it is right that we should reflect on what we will lose with the removal of our hereditary colleagues. It is also right that we reflect on the unique role that your Lordships’ House has in our parliamentary democracy and the need for us to uphold our distinct customs and conventions to continue that role. I thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to reflect on and debate these thoughtful proposals.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this is an intriguing set of amendments, particularly given the professional experience of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I declare my interest as a former Member of Parliament myself. I hope, as far as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is concerned, that it would be my stratospheric reputation that earned my place here—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
—although I may be slightly too young for the retirement home for ex-Members that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to.
Since I joined your Lordships’ House, I have had an unusual aspiration: to get “chutzpah” into Hansard—I look forward to seeing its spelling. I believe that the noble Lord’s amendments have given me such an opportunity. We are very lucky in your Lordships’ House to draw on a range of expertise from across public life, law, science, academia and the arts and cultural sector. We have former Permanent Secretaries of government departments, former or current vice-chancellors of universities, news editors and a number of former presidents of esteemed institutions, as outlined in the last group, and we even have BAFTA winners among us.
It is true that a significant proportion in this Chamber are former Members of Parliament: at the last count, it was 21%. We also have a number of former special advisers in this place—some are sitting on the Benches opposite me. I should declare at this point that I have many friends who are current and former special and political advisers. I do not think that is such a bad thing. Your Lordships’ House is predominantly a political house. The Prime Minister invites party leaders to nominate individuals to this place, and party leaders choose who should best represent them. It is likely that many of the people they nominate have a political background as special advisers or former Members of Parliament, Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Both Houses work most effectively when we understand the day-to-day workings of the other. As a former MP, I have certainly found the experience of the other place very useful as we consider how this House can work best—and how much more effective we can be than some of my former colleagues in the other place. In addition, a number of noble Lords who have been Members of Parliament have also been Ministers. They have a deep understanding of departments and how the work we do here affects government and the delivery of public services.
Former special advisers, recent or otherwise, too have valuable experience to bring to your Lordships’ House. For some Peers, their time as a special adviser or political adviser was one role among many that have led to their appointment to your Lordships’ House and is not necessarily the reason they were appointed. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is an obvious example. He was a special adviser before he became an MP, but I do not believe that that is the reason he was appointed to your Lordships’ House. The same could be said on my Benches for my noble friend Lord Reid, who was also an adviser but held many posts in government.
There are many other former special advisers from across the House who bring valuable insights to our work, both from their days as special advisers but also often from outside this experience. Such perspectives are incredibly valuable in this place. They deepen and enrich our ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account. As someone who regularly signs off a significant number of Written Parliamentary Questions, I often reflect—to my genuine concern—on the insight held by former Ministers and special advisers about the mechanisms of government. They bring a genuine level of scrutiny and insight.
It is, of course, important that we maintain a non-party political element to the House of Lords. The Cross-Benchers especially provide specialist expertise and insights that we would not always find on the political Benches. As the Government have said repeatedly during these debates, it is just as much about what Peers bring to this House and their willingness to contribute to proceedings as about their experiences and achievements before they came to this place. After all, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is truly proving his worth with his extensive contributions throughout Committee.
It is up to party leaders, including the Prime Minister, to decide who best represents their political parties in the House of Lords. It is right that they are able to choose who is most suitable. Restricting party leaders’ ability to choose knowledgeable, experienced figures to sit in this House just because they have a political background would be a disservice to us all. I respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and for the most generous defence of special advisers that I have heard outside of the Thursday evening drinks we used to have at the Two Chairmen pub when I was in government, when the special advisers used to get together for a chinwag. I accept all the points she made, not just about special advisers but about Members of Parliament and the great contribution they bring, as I acknowledged in my speech. I see that as well.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I note that I did not hear an answer to my question about the Government’s view on the ideal number of former special advisers and Members of Parliament. As we pass this Bill, which gives such unbridled powers to the Prime Minister to appoint whomever he wishes to your Lordships’ House, we should be mindful of the growing and accelerating trend to put former Members of Parliament and special advisers here. With that, and with thanks to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Unsalaried MinistersNo one who is a Minister of the Crown shall be eligible for membership of the House of Lords unless they are in receipt of, or have been offered, a salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that unpaid Ministers would not be eligible for membership of the House.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, after what I acknowledge was not a popular measure, I hope that this one will find more support on both principal Benches of your Lordships’ House.
My Amendment 90 seeks to address the long-running problem we all acknowledge of the number of Ministers serving in this House who are not salaried. When I had the privilege of being a Minister in the previous Conservative Government, I was lucky enough to be in receipt of a salary that was important, principally, for the pension contributions and the national insurance contributions it allowed me to pay. But some 40% of my colleagues on the Front Bench in the previous Conservative Government were unsalaried. That meant that not only were they not taking home a salary cheque at the end of the month, they were also not paying into their pension, their national insurance contributions were not being made and, in some cases, because of this and because of their age, they were not in receipt of severance pay when the general election put an end to their time as Ministers.
This is a problem that affects both the major parties when they are in government. It dates from the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act of 1975, which was written with a noble aim to ensure that the Executive does not grow too large by comparison to the legislature and that the cost to the public purse should be limited, but it was drawn in an age when Ministers in the House of Lords were assumed to be drawn from the landed gentry. We are not anymore, and, in the absence of baronial lands in Whitley Bay being granted to me, I was very grateful for the salary that allowed me to carry out my work as a Minister.
This is a problem that my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and many others have raised in previous Parliaments and in this one. I know that it is one that draws the attention of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. I hope that, much as in the debate on power of attorney, this may be an opportunity for us to solve a long-running problem that causes problems for Governments’ ability to find Front-Benchers and to draw people from all walks of life, from modest backgrounds, to serve their country in government. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend, who is absolutely right. If I have got my figures correct this time, this Labour Government are abusing only four Lords Ministers, while the last Conservative Government, disgracefully, abused 11 Lords Ministers, by not paying them. That is simply not right.
Part of the problem is that Prime Ministers like to stuff their departments full of paid MPs and, of course, they have their PPSs as well to help them. The larger the payroll of MPs in the Commons, the less likely there is to be a rebellion. So it pays for any Government to have as many paid Members of Parliament as possible, and their PPSs.
About 35 years ago, as a junior Whip, I encountered a colleague who was very concerned that that he was not fully involved in policy development in his department. He said to his Secretary of State that he would like to be more fully involved. The Secretary of state told him, “You’re just a PUS. Your job is to reply to all the letters from people whingeing about not getting their bypass”. That rather put him in his place.
My noble friend is right: there has been a large expansion of the roles of PUSs and others. I personally think that that is wrong. There is also a view that Peers can afford to do it for free: “Let’s have as many paid MPs as we can within the ceiling of the allowance, and then get Peers to do it for free”. That is utterly wrong. Many of them cannot do it for free. Noble Lords in this House who have been doing it for free have been doing it out of a sense of duty, not because they can afford it.
On that note, I see my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie in his place. He and my noble friend Earl Howe were Ministers for 30 or 40 years between them. I doubt if they got paid for two or three years of that. There were those who did job after job unpaid. It is not right that any Government, whether Conservative or Labour, should abuse Peers in that way.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, public service in the old days used to be quite a different thing. My forebear, Admiral Robert Barlow, used to be the superintendent of the Chatham Shipyards. He ran the shipyards through his personal account and took quite a lot of the Government’s money to build large houses for himself and his family. But we are now in the 21st century, and we should be doing things in a different way. We should not be relying on public servants to pocket cash. We should have a modern, meritocratic form of government. It is therefore completely and utterly wrong that we expect Ministers to work hard for no pay at all.
I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Hanson of Flint, Lord Timpson, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, all of whom are on the ministerial list with the word “unpaid” underneath their names. I was one of those Ministers. I had my name on the ministerial list with the word “unpaid” underneath it, and it was a complete humiliation. I found it completely undermining that it was thought in government that I was someone who was not worth the salary that others were paid. I was not worth the £81,000 that a Minister of State got; I was not worth the £71,000 that a PUS got. It hit me that I was not taken seriously in my department in that respect.
This is an old-fashioned system that we need to end. The 1975 Act was well-intentioned, but it is out of date. We should be supporting a meritocracy. I have seen in my own Government some of our finest people walk out of government because they could not afford to hold down the job. Instead, the people who could afford the job got the place. In this day and age, this is quite wrong. I know that the Leader is very keen not to amend the Bill, but this is such a ripe opportunity to undo a serious injustice in the way we do government. I beg the Leader to take this opportunity and accept this amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I declare a personal interest, in that my son-in-law, my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, acted as an unpaid Minister of State in the previous Government. I am grateful that he did not look to his father-in-law to subsidise him, and that he managed to survive without doing so. But the fact is that it is all to do with the number of paid jobs there are in any Government and the reluctance of government to extend that number of jobs. It is a hard decision, I accept, but one that I have always been assured government is prepared to take.
The sooner the Government get on with it, the better. As has been pointed out by my noble friends, it is a complete iniquity that people should be asked to serve for nothing. As has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Bethell, people often give up the job that they are very good at doing, and somebody less adequate takes over because they are prepared to do it for nothing. This is all completely wrong, and we should change it as soon as possible.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Parkinson, in his ever-ingenious way, has found a route to raise the question of ministerial salaries in the House of Lords. Having heard the strong feelings expressed, I think it is a matter that needs to be dealt with. There are a number of issues involved—as some touched on, there are matters in relation to pension and severance pay as well—but my noble friend’s amendment relates to salaries.
This is one of a number of issues—power of attorney, which we discussed earlier, being another—that the existence of the Bill has brought to the surface, and which go beyond the vexed and divisive issues of composition that are raised in the Bill and indeed in the Government’s manifesto. Surely if we can address any of these issues, for the good of the House, the Government or the country, we should find a way to do so.
Of course, Government Ministers in the House of Lords, whatever party is in office, should be paid. I give particular thought, although he is not here in his place, to people such as my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, a truly outstanding servant of this House and of his country who, because he was not able to attend the House in the conduct of his normal duties, lost out doubly as being unpaid and unable to claim an allowance.
Frankly, when I had the honour to be Leader of this House, I was deeply troubled by the fact that I had colleagues who were asked to work without pay. No one in any workplace would tolerate that as a decent way to carry on. The problem, as we have been told, arises from the interrelation between two 50 year-old statutes—we are often told that old law should be re-examined. Those are the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which limits the total number of paid Ministers to 109, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which limits the number of Ministers in the House of Commons to 95. If the Commons takes up its allocation of 95 then the effective limit for paid Ministers in your Lordships’ House under the limit of 109 is just 14. That is clearly not enough. Between 1979 and 2019 the total number of Lords Ministers and Whips fluctuated between 21 and 27. There are further complications arising from overall limits on the numbers of Ministers of State.
The system needs review. When I was Leader of this House, I had discussions in the usual channels with other parties on this, and it was clear then that there was broad agreement that the injustice should be attended to—that it surely could not be right in the 21st century that you should need private means in order to serve as a Minister of the Crown. In saying that, I take nothing away from the high sense of public duty that led many noble Lords under successive Governments—including, I thought, some under this one—to undertake public service without reward.
When a number was given, the noble Baroness indicated that it was not true, but I had thought that there were some in this Government who were unpaid. Whether or not that is true, under any Government the self-sacrifice and public sense of duty of those people should be honoured, respected and remembered. However, it need not be for ever replicated, Government after Government. In the context of a reasonable settlement for the future of this House, as we go forward from this Bill, this matter might again be usefully discussed across party lines.
In March 2024, towards the end of the last Government, there were 14 Ministers and Whips in your Lordships’ House who were working unpaid. They included all six Ministers of State in this House, as the House of Commons wanted all paid posts then as Ministers of State for MPs. If that is not happening today under this Government, it will happen in due course as the demands on patronage grow. The unpaid Ministers included my noble friends Lord Howe, Lord Minto, Lord Camrose and Lord Roborough, whose public service now is to be requited by the current Bill as drafted by being expelled from Parliament. As we have heard, others had previously performed for nothing.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for raising this issue. It has been raised in your Lordships’ House previously, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Official Opposition has raised some of the legal issues around the legislation that causes part of the problem.
I have to say—and I think the noble Lord would say the same—that I am immensely proud of the work that my ministerial colleagues do. If you look across Parliament, you find that there are few Ministers who work as hard as Lords Ministers. Partly that it is because Lords Ministers—as I look at the team, I think, “What a team!”—have to cover a range of issues, including for their colleagues. They will answer any issue raised across their department. I have enormous respect for the work they do.
The problem lies with legislation that is 50 years old that limits the number of Ministers overall: it limits the number in the House of Commons and then it limits the number of different categories of Minister. As the noble Lord says, it has been the case for a number of years that there have been a small number of unpaid Ministers. I am pleased to say we have made some progress. We have five paid Ministers of State in your Lordships’ House now and significantly fewer unpaid Ministers. However, I take the point; I do not think that any Minister should be unpaid. It is not just the issue of pay; it is the respect that we gain in doing the role.
The noble Lord refers to arrangements that he tried to come to with his Government and failed to do so, and how he and I spoke. I have to say that the reason we did not reach agreement was that the arrangements did not address all the issues that I think need to be addressed. I considered that it was a stopgap measure that would get us through a short period, but I did not think it was a long-term solution. This is something that is very much on my agenda, and my colleagues know it is on my agenda. It is a good old trade union principle that people should get paid for the job they do, and that should be the case.
I have to say, though, that it is not related to this Bill. It is quite a stretch to get it in the Bill, and I admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity. However, the effect of his amendment if it were to pass would either be immediately to reduce the number of Ministers in the Commons or to lose Ministers from this place. The third option would be to change the legislation, which is probably a bit above my pay grade for now. I can say that these matters are under discussion, and I will do what I can with my colleagues to ensure that all of them get the proper support that they should get when doing their jobs. For now, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Surely it would be possible, if the noble Baroness is not prepared to accept my noble friend’s amendment, to have a one-clause Bill which simply alters the number and is agreed between the usual channels, which could pass through both Houses. It is very hard to understand why this could not be done. The noble Baroness may say, “When you were in government you did not do it”, but the former Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord True, made perfectly clear the effort that was put in. I would have thought a Labour Government would stand for the principle that everyone should receive equal pay for equal labour.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: if there was agreement across both Houses—if he could persuade the leader of the Opposition to support this in the other place as well—I would certainly talk to the Prime Minister. But this is something that has to be done cross-party and not with party-political capital made out of it. We also need to say a bit more about the work that our Lords Ministers do. There is nobody in this House who does not hold Lords Ministers in the highest regard. Perhaps we ought to be saying that to our colleagues in the other place as well.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the final words of the Leader of the House and what she says about Ministers. I see how hard-working her team of Lords Ministers are. When they go into their departments tomorrow bleary-eyed after these long debates, they will have diaries full of meetings and boxes full of papers—prepared without the expectation that they should have been here at nearly 11 pm the evening before, so I very much agree with her.
I particularly welcome the noble Baroness’s willingness to look at this issue on a cross-party basis. I know that there is never a good time to legislate to pay politicians more, but this is a problem that has been kicked down the path for half a century. It is causing problems to the social composition and the sense of fairness about Governments. I hope we might be able to act on it. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord True for his candour about the efforts that he made as Leader of your Lordships’ House, and the sense of shame and frustration he feels that he was not able to persuade our colleagues in government to do it.
With this Bill there is an opportunity to right this wrong. I hope the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord True will take this away and continue those discussions. If not, I see there is an employment Bill coming down the line and we will be able to assert our trade union rights in the future. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Strathclyde
“Election of temporal members of the House of Lords(1) In section 1(2)(b) of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages), after first “and” insert “, if elected in accordance with section (Election of temporal members of the House of Lords) of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 for a particular Parliament, to”.(2) In section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exclusion of hereditary peers), at end insert “unless they were in receipt of a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in the Parliament in which the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 came into force”. (3) Within three months of the day on which this Act comes into force, 600 peers who were in receipt of a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in the Parliament in which this Act was passed must be elected to sit and vote in the House of Lords for the rest of that Parliament by elections conducted in accordance with standing orders of the House of Lords and the rest of this section.(4) Elections to choose 600 members of the House of Lords must be held on the first meeting of each new Parliament and those eligible to vote and stand in any such election shall be—(a) any peer who was eligible for election in the election conducted under subsection (3), and(b) any peer who has received a writ of summons under section 1(2)(b) of the Life Peerages Act 1958 since the day on which this Act comes into effect.(5) Any peer who was eligible to stand in, but was not elected in, the elections specified in subsections (3) and (4) shall be excluded from membership of the House of Lords for the rest of that Parliament, although they may be included in accordance with subsection (7) and are eligible to vote in elections and stand for election to sit in subsequent Parliaments.(6) Nothing in this section shall enable any person to attend the House of Lords, or to sit and vote in that House, at any time when disqualified under any other enactment.(7) In the event of the death, exclusion or retirement of any peer elected to sit in the elections specified in subsections (3) and (4), their place will be filled for the rest of that Parliament by the peer in their party group or, in the case of crossbench and non-affiliated peers, their group as defined under subsection (10) of this Act, who was not elected who received the highest number of votes in any list or lists of candidates for election produced by the Clerk of the Parliaments for the purpose of these elections.(8) The standing orders referred to in subsection (3) shall make provision for 480 members who are members of political parties to be elected by members of their party group in the elections mandated by this section.(9) The number of members under subsection (8) allocated for each party group must be determined by the mean share of total votes cast for each party in the previous three general elections.(10) The standing orders referred to in subsection (3) shall make provision for 120 members who are not a member of any political party (“crossbench and non-affiliated members”) to be elected by all peers described in subsection (4) of this section.(11) Should the leader of any party indicate that their party does not wish to have members in the House of Lords then the vote share of that party shall not count in the allocation provided for under subsection (9).(12) If under subsection (9) any party is entitled to a number of seats in the House of Lords which is greater than the current number of peers eligible to stand for election who are affiliated to that party, then new peerages may be created under the Life Peerages Act 1958 to provide for those places to be filled.(13) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of Lords Spiritual to attend the House of Lords, and they are not eligible to participate in the elections under this section.”
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, the night is young and there is still plenty of time, so it is a real delight to move Amendment 90A in front of an audience of the Labour Party on its Benches. I have to tell noble Lords opposite that their own Front Bench has been working valiantly during the days we have spent on this Bill with near-deserted Back Benches. It has been rather depressing, in just the last few minutes, to see the Government Chief Whip going around tapping the odd folk on the shoulder and sending them home just as I was about to get to my feet and get into my stride. But that will not put me off.
This amendment is not a probing amendment; it is a helpful amendment, designed at a problem that has been haunting the House of Lords for many years. My noble friend Lord Fowler, and the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Butler, have referred to it this evening in looking for imaginative ways of dealing with the issue of the numbers in the House.
At a stroke, this amendment finds the solution to that, and it does so in several ways. This is an amendment that is already in statute law in the House of Lords Act 1999. It is therefore extremely well precedented; we have demonstrated that it can work. Perhaps noble Lords who were around 25 years ago will remember that the then Convenor of the Cross Benches, Lord Weatherill, moved an amendment—which became known as the Weatherill amendment—to reduce the number of hereditary Peers to the 92 that exist at the moment. This amendment seeks to reduce the size of the whole House to some 600-odd people—the Bishops, incidentally, are supernumerary to that. It would do so by election—a well-tested method of reducing the size of the House that worked extremely well in 1999.
Tonight, I offer it up to the Committee, not just as one amendment but as three in one. It is a solution to a problem, it is already in law, and it is already well precedented. I know that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will find the amendment very difficult to accept, but perhaps she will indicate that she finds real attraction in finding an electoral way of reducing the size of the House without relying on the kinds of formula that so many noble Lords tried to introduce in the past. I offer it to the Committee, and I very much hope that it might be brought forward in a future Bill in due course. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on tabling his very sensible Amendment 90A. It should find favour on all Benches because, as my noble friend said, it ticks so many boxes. It would ensure that the hereditary Peers who have sat in your Lordships’ House these 25 years have not sat in vain. We were allowed to continue to sit on the basis that stage 2 would provide some substantive reform and move the House’s composition in the direction of a popular basis, as stated in the Parliament Act 1911.
The amendment would introduce some democratic legitimacy by allocating seats according to party blocs based on the average of the number of votes cast in the last three general elections. That provision would ensure that the composition of the House provides a balance to major shifts in public opinion that result in wide disparity of seats in the House of Commons, which is elected on a first past the post basis. It would give a nod to PR, since the voting strengths are determined on the basis of the number of votes cast, ensure that your Lordships’ House provides stability, and help to avoid dramatic shifts in policy supported by the public only ephemerally.
The amendment should be supported by those of your Lordships who agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that the House should be reduced to 600 people. It should also be supported by those noble Lords who believe that the Bill as drafted is discriminatory, in that it treats some members of the body of Lords temporal differently from others although, for all practical purposes, there is no difference between life and hereditary Peers in terms of rights and privileges in this House. We are appointed to serve on committees or on the Front Bench without any consideration of the route by which we entered your Lordships’ House.
The amendment treats all holders of a Writ of Summons to this Parliament equally. It would result in the House enjoying greater democratic legitimacy but retain the service of those noble Lords who are more independent, and election by party groups would give preference to those who work harder and make a greater contribution. It is an excellent amendment, and I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to consider it seriously.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for this ingenious proposal. The aim of getting down to 600 Members would be achieved by having a retirement age and sensible participation limits. That would probably get us well below 600. But I really rise just to ask the noble Lord whether, when he replies to this debate, he could confirm that his support for this amendment has not undermined the principled stance he took on my amendment, which calls for a wholly elected House.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to delay anything, and I do not actually want the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to respond to my thoughts. But there is the matter of the Lord Speaker and the Senior Deputy Speaker: they are both Members of the House, so would they have to stand? There are also a number of judges whom the Convenor of the Cross Benches has to produce for particularly contested private Bills and other things. So, although I was very interested to hear the noble Lord’s introduction of the idea, it has quite a few legs that would require to be sorted out.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is unfortunate, in a way, that my noble friend’s carefully thought-out amendment has come forward at this hour and at this time. It draws on existing practice, as was done in 1999; it provides a way to get towards a number that the House of Lords might be content with; and it addresses issues of party balance—I take what the convenor has just said about the specific interests and concerns of the Cross Benches.
We are not going to have a serious or thoughtful examination of this significant amendment at this hour on this particular day. What it does do, however, is remind us that there is a lot in the Bill about a finality and an alleged completion of unfinished business. There are differences about what bit of business is being finished or left unfinished, but what is absolutely clear—as I said at the start of our debate—is that the future of the House remains a fog. We have to bend our thoughts and consideration to the future; considerations were put forward for us by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and others in earlier amendments. We cannot have ease or security in this House without the kind of arrangements and patterns of governance and composition—the kind of things that are addressed in my noble friend’s amendment. By the way, I always thought he was a passionate advocate of an elected House, and he may well still be under the surface; I do not know. But we really have to find a way.
The noble Baroness was talking earlier about consultation, and no specific timescale was given in response to any of the amendments—from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, or the noble Duke—for when we might see some of the fog about our future lifted. There has to be some model or mechanism; it might be close to what we have now or something nearer to what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde suggests. We cannot have closure unless we have an opening to the future—a better one than we have heard in our debates on the Bill so far.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, again, this is an ingenious amendment, and I congratulate the noble Lord. I am not sure whether he or the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, wins the prize tonight, but both amendments are longer than the Bill, which is something of an achievement when drafting amendments to legislation.
On the point that the noble Lord opposite has just made, I will say something I have reiterated several times: there is a three-stage process from the manifesto. The first stage is this, which is the completion of the reform started in 1999 around hereditary Peers. The second is the issues we have debated tonight and voted on many times—they are not for this Bill but for moving forward—on issues like participation and retirement. There is not an exact timetable, but we will get clearer to that in the process as we get to Report. Then there is a longer-term objective for consultation with the wider public on an alternative second Chamber. It is not rocket science; I have been quite clear around that.
This amendment would create a House of 600 Members—and I am not sure that that figure has been raised before by the noble Lord, but I am happy to be corrected on that—we would have self-perpetuating elections by Members of this House at the beginning of each Parliament, and the only people who could vote would be Members of this House. It would also completely undermine the purpose of this Bill, because hereditary Peers would be able to take part in those elections, stand for them and vote.
The noble Lord’s proposals for future composition are interesting, but I take into account the points made by the noble Earl the Convenor. It does not address the wider issues of the House, but I know the issues that he is trying to get to. We will continue that dialogue and formalise that in due course around other issues that have been raised, and I gave a commitment to that earlier on tonight. But this amendment would undermine that dialogue and engagement, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that I have not given up on the idea of an elected House, but I am a realist, and I do not think that there is much thirst for it in this House—and I am not entirely convinced that there is very much thirst for it in another place either. The fact that it did not appear in the manifesto of the Labour Party rather indicates that view. We are still relying on the preamble to the 1911 Act. I join the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in trying to encourage a long-term solution around that.
The noble Lord, Lord True, is right. At some stage we need to find a real solution. Of course, there are age limits and all sorts of other things that you can bring in, but none of those is popular either. The idea of an election works; it has been tried and tested, and I hope that, on reflection, the Leader of the House will feel that there is some purpose in this kind of amendment, which would change the whole debate about the size and numbers in the House, and keep people in who have the support of other Peers to remain in the House for the rest of their lives.
Having heard what everybody has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.