House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
We expect all women to be shown the utmost care and respect when receiving maternity and neonatal care. This year’s planning guidance requires integrated care boards and providers to deliver the key actions in this final year of NHS England’s three-year delivery plan. It is clear from listening to the harrowing stories of bereaved and harmed families, however, that we must do more. The Secretary of State is urgently considering the significant action needed to ensure that all women and babies receive the care they deserve.
Jack Rankin
Last year’s birth trauma inquiry report exposed that maternity services in this country are woefully underfunded, and now the Health Secretary intends to cut the budget for maternity improvement from £95 million to just £2 million, equating to less than £4 per child born in this country each year. What kind of change is that? What message will that send to mothers across the country? Does the Secretary of State plan to implement any of the recommendations from the birth trauma inquiry report, many of which were committed to by the previous Government?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman is not correct: maternity funding is not ringfenced at the same level—I think that is what he is referring to. It has, however, absolutely been committed to as far as ICB allocations are concerned. Local leaders will decide how best to allocate that money. We will continue to work with Donna Ockenden and the families who have been affected by previous incidents and ensure that the recommendations of her report and the maternity review are fully implemented.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
As colleagues will be aware, there is a consistent failure in maternity units to listen to women and put their experiences—and quite often their pain during childbirth—at the heart of driving improvements. What assurances can the Minister give us that women’s experiences and voices will be at the heart of any maternity improvement strategy that the Government focus on?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that point, which has been found in all the reviews that have been undertaken. It is completely unacceptable. That is why the Secretary of State has continued to meet families and hear their experiences to ensure that we learn from them, continue to support the implementation of those recommendations and, crucially, ensure that women’s voices are taken forward as part of our 10-year plan.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I fear that many will have found the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) disappointing. He highlighted that the previous Government committed to the headline recommendation of the cross-party birth trauma inquiry led by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and the former Member for Stafford, Theo Clarke, who has recently written about her experiences in a book, and in the Daily Mail called for a national maternity improvement strategy. No equivalent commitment has been made by this Government. Let us try again: will the Minister commit without any equivocation to implementing the inquiry’s recommendation to produce a national maternity improvement strategy?
Karin Smyth
To be clear for the shadow Secretary of State, the Secretary of State is continuing to look at all those recommendations and consider how best to respond.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Too many families in Shropshire have suffered the agonising loss of a baby following the scandal at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust. The Care Quality Commission rates 65% of trusts as inadequate or requiring improvement for maternity safety, and the taxpayer forked out a staggering £1.15 billion in compensation for maternity failings last year. With the £100 million put aside to deal with unsafe staffing no longer ringfenced, can the Minister reassure us that those safe staffing levels will remain on our maternity wards?
Karin Smyth
I know the Liberal Democrat spokesperson follows this issue very closely in her own local community. As she knows, we are committed to ensuring that the recommendations of the reviews are fully implemented as part of that three-year plan, but I gently say to her that the Liberal Democrat party has consistently opposed the extra £26 billion that this Government raised to support the wider health service. Without that extra funding and the decisions that the Chancellor has made, we would not be able to make the progress that we are now starting to see.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Despite my best efforts, may I welcome the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) to her place? Being a Member of Parliament is a privilege, and I know how special it is to sit on these Benches having been sent here by constituents. Regardless of our political differences, I wish her well personally.
As part of our 10-year plan for health, we want to deliver a real shift in the centre of gravity in the NHS, so that people get more care closer to home and, indeed, in their home, too. The NHS is as much a neighbourhood health service as a national health service. We have already made progress in shifting care to the community: providing more than £889 million in funding for GPs; agreeing the GP contract for the first time since the pandemic; and recruiting more than 1,500 GPs on to the frontline. Our 10-year plan will set out how we will continue to transform the NHS into a neighbourhood health service.
Jessica Toale
I am deeply concerned about the quality of healthcare for people experiencing homelessness in my constituency of Bournemouth West. HealthBus, a local charity, is doing great work in getting out into the community to treat people where they are and to prevent them from having to go into hospital, but it is not getting the funding that it needs and has discovered serious discrepancies in the way that the local integrated care board commissions services, particularly in relation to health inequalities. Can the Secretary of State tell me how this Government are prioritising health outcomes for people experiencing homelessness, and will he meet me and HealthBus to discuss how we can support its important work?
Wes Streeting
The founding mission of the NHS was to be there for people whenever they fall ill, so that they never have to worry about the bill. Unfortunately, thanks to the disaster and the failures of 14 years of Conservative Government, too many people in our country today experience the fear that Nye Bevan sought to eradicate. As my hon. Friend would expect, tackling health inequalities for homeless people and other vulnerable groups is central to the values of this Labour Government. Those values will be reflected in our 10-year plan for health. I would be delighted to hear from her further on what we can do to improve services in her area.
Jo Platt
I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement this morning regarding GP services. One way that pressure is eased in our GP services is through charities such as Compassion in Action, which provides non-clinical, whole-person care in my constituency. It receives GP referrals from across Leigh and aligns with the Government’s aim to shift care from hospitals to communities. Will the Minister join me in thanking the staff and the founder, Pam Gilligan, and agree to come for a tour of the facilities and to see at first hand the impact that they have?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly join my hon. Friend in thanking Pam and everyone at Compassion in Action for the work that they do. At the heart of our approach to health is a recognition that Government action is essential for improving health outcomes in the country, and that Government acting alone will not be sufficient. That is why working with the voluntary sector, employers, trade unions, community groups and all of us as individual citizens is vital for tackling health inequalities and improving care in our country. I would be delighted to ensure that one of the team pays a visit to the charity as soon as possible.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
Community hospitals can reduce pressure on major hospitals, especially in rural communities such as mine. Will the Secretary of State lay out his plans to support community hospitals in South Shropshire?
Wes Streeting
At the heart of this Government’s approach is investment in, and reform of, the NHS to ensure that we deliver better outcomes for patients. That means the biggest devolution of power in the history of the NHS with more decisions taken closer to patients and to their communities, and more power in the hands of patients, too. Community hospitals have a vital role to play, and thanks to this Government’s decision to deliver £26 billion more into our NHS—opposed by the Conservative party—we will no doubt be able to make further and faster progress.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
In my constituency there is an ageing population in need of local healthcare services. Will the Secretary of State meet his Scottish counterpart to discuss the need for increased access to community healthcare, and specifically the need for a new health and care centre within my constituency?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member will be delighted to know that only last week I met with my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to talk about how we can work together to improve health and care throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She will know that health is devolved, but thanks to the decisions taken by this Labour Government, the Scottish Government have just been delivered the biggest financial settlement since devolution began. That might mean that they finally make some progress on their waiting lists in Scotland, where one in six Scots are on a waiting list and the SNP is on its fifth NHS reform plan in four years.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we have recruited over 1,500 additional GPs since October through an investment of £82 million, helping to fix the front door to the NHS. Today we have announced £100 million to unlock new capacity and more appointments in GP surgeries. We have also launched a red tape challenge and scrapped unnecessary targets in our new GP contract to cut down on bureaucracy and free up time to spend with patients.
Alex Ballinger
My constituents in Halesowen have written to me time and again complaining that they are calling their GP surgeries at 8 am, as instructed, but are still unable to get a same-day appointment. Can the Minister set out how the £100 million investment in GP surgeries, consulting rooms and other facilities will finally put an end to the frustrating 8 am scramble?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely share the frustrations of my hon. Friend and his constituents. The investment made today was in response to GPs telling us that they needed more space; the investment will lead to more capacity and better access and outcomes for his constituents. Today’s announcement was only possible thanks to the decisions made in the October Budget, which were opposed by every party opposite. The choice is clear: investment in our NHS with Labour, or cuts with the Tories and Reform.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
My constituent Dr Toby Nelson, an NHS consultant dermatologist, has started a business that seeks to address the heavy demand on primary care for skin health screening. His business Map My Mole sends an image capture kit to patients to attach to their smartphones. The patients then send a high-resolution image remotely to be reviewed by a specialist consultant, bypassing the need for a GP appointment and freeing up time and resources for both doctor and patient. It has already resulted in a significant drop in skin cancer referrals in pilot GP surgeries. Will the Minister agree to meet Dr Nelson and me to discuss this revolutionary proposal?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Lady raises what sounds like an extremely interesting scheme. She will know that we have a strong commitment in our 10-year plan to shift from hospital to community, and indeed from analogue to digital. The digital aspects of that scheme sound very interesting, so I would be more than happy to take further representations from her.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
My hon. Friend is an outstanding campaigner on this issue, as I am sure everybody across the House is aware. She will know that the NHS England accelerator pilots have shown how improved IT connectivity and a single point of access can speed up eye care referrals and allow more patients to be managed in the community. That is a great example of the shift we want to make from analogue to digital. We are developing the 10-year health plan with input from the public, our partners and health staff, and that of course includes the eye care sector.
Marsha De Cordova
I thank the Minister for his response, and I welcome all the work that he and the Secretary of State are doing in rebuilding our NHS. However, we know that there is a capacity crisis within eye healthcare. NHS ophthalmology continues to be the busiest and largest outpatient service. That is essentially what is leading to many people not getting seen soon enough, which is resulting in many of them losing their sight unnecessarily. What we need is a joined-up healthcare plan. Will the Minister ensure that eye healthcare will be part of the Government’s wider 10-year health plan?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right that early intervention is crucial, and the interface between the high street and secondary care is a vital part of that. That means having a joined-up eye health strategy. The 10-year plan will have that joined-up strategy at its heart. She will be pleased to know that, since July, ophthalmology waiting lists have dropped by 24,000, so change has begun. There is still a long way to go to dig us out of the mess left by the Conservative party, but it is thanks to the decisions that the Government have made, opposed by Opposition parties, that we are beginning to see that change gaining traction.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Another part of the 10-year health plan is the use of digital technology. Auto-contouring with artificial intelligence reduces waiting times and frees up capacity for radiotherapists, which is why £15.5 million was allocated to it under the Conservative Government; money that has been cut under the Minister’s Government. Why?
Stephen Kinnock
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the single point of access digital technology, which is game changing in terms of improving the interface between high street and secondary care. It is probably worth reminding him that the question is about eye care. We are absolutely committed to single point of access technology, which we believe can be game-changing technology and is a vital part of our shift from analogue to digital.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The president of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists has stated that the widespread outsourcing of NHS cataract surgery to private, for-profit providers risks the integrity of hospital eye surgery departments meaning that there will be few services to treat patients with preventable blindness. How can we reassure the public that such services will be maintained?
Stephen Kinnock
Although the independent sector clearly has an important role to play in tackling waiting lists and backlogs, we will not tolerate any overpriced or sub-par care, and we will not tolerate any distortion of patient choice. The recently published partnership agreement between NHS England and the Independent Healthcare Provider Network commits to ending incentives that can lead to that, and to supporting equal access and genuine choice for all patients. We are working together to deliver on that.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
NHS Sussex ICB is one of only five in England not to commission a minor eye conditions service—known as MECS—in community optometry settings. That means that patients in Chichester with urgent or minor eye issues have to either join the 8 am queue for a GP appointment or go to their hospital rather than being seen quickly on the high street. Given that 99.9% of MECS patients elsewhere in England are seen within 24 hours, will the Minister set out what action he is taking to ensure that those services are commissioned consistently across all ICBs within the 10-year health plan?
Stephen Kinnock
ICBs are responsible for the commissioning of these services, which are clearly extremely important, and the early intervention side of eye care is particularly important. I would be more than happy to look into that issue with the hon. Lady’s ICB if she wrote to me and made further representations.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Our mission-driven approach to this issue means that we are working with all Departments to deliver an NHS fit for the future. We expect integrated care boards to work closely with their mayors to maximise public health and contribute to the Government’s health and growth missions.
Blake Stephenson
Funding and delivery of a GP surgery for Wixams in my constituency continues to fall between the cracks of developers, local councils and the local ICB. Does the Minister agree that to break those deadlocks and build the infrastructure that our communities require, new mayors should have the power to direct ICBs, making locally elected politicians responsible rather than unelected quangos?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Member tempts me slightly on local accountability, on which he has been a strong campaigner. As he knows from meeting me, I agree that it is important that such local bodies respond properly so that where there are expansions of housing, which we want to see, they are supported by local infrastructure. I am happy to come back to him with any further detail.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Norfolk and Waveney integrated care board is consulting once again on closing Norwich’s walk-in centre. It asked the same question two years ago and the city and Norfolk said, “No, we want to save our walk-in centre.” Does the Minister agree on the importance of walk-in centres, and in the context of devolution, how will we ensure that ICBs heed what residents say?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is right to campaign on behalf of her constituents to make sure that more services are delivered in communities. We want to see services brought out of hospital and into local communities. It is up to the ICB to decide how those are commissioned, but we will certainly make sure that, as part of our commitments under our 10-year plan, we see more of those sorts of services working together in neighbourhoods.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
People deserve the very best health and care. Our plan for change is already bringing waiting lists down. Our 10-year plan for health will set out how we improve access and make the three shifts that I described earlier, so that the NHS is fit for the future. At the same time, we are rebuilding adult social care now and for the future. Baroness Casey’s independent commission has launched, and it will set out through its work how we will create a national care service. All that is made possible thanks to the investment decisions taken by the Chancellor in her Budget. That investment was opposed by the Conservative party, which shows that only Labour can be trusted to invest in and modernise our NHS.
Natasha Irons
Last week, the Centre for Young Lives published a report on the state of mental health support for children and young people across England. It outlines that despite an ongoing crisis in mental health among young people,
“There remains a 55% treatment gap”
between adult and children’s mental health, and that
“fewer than 10%...of ICBs have a dedicated strategy”
for supporting children’s mental health. Will the Secretary of State consider strengthening statutory guidance for ICBs to ensure they assess the local need of children and young people, publish treatment gap data on an ongoing basis, and create joined-up, community-based mental health support for our young people?
Wes Streeting
Young people’s mental health is a priority for this Government. That is why we set out in our manifesto our commitment to making sure that mental health support is available in every primary and secondary school in the country. We have walk-in mental health services in every community, and we invest in the mental health workforce, so that we can cut waiting times. I am also working closely with the Secretary of State for Education to make sure that our education and health services work together, so that children get the very best start in life, and so that we look after mind, body, soul, aspiration and futures.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Chancellor increased the cost of employing people in social care by raising national insurance contributions for social care employers, and then exempted NHS employers from those increased costs. When will this Government properly support social care and relieve the sector from pressures caused by the Chancellor under this Government?
Wes Streeting
Thanks to the decisions taken by this Chancellor, we are putting £26 billion more into health and social care. Thanks to the decisions taken by this Chancellor, the spending power of local authorities has risen. Thanks to the decisions taken by this Chancellor, we have delivered the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance since the 1970s. Thanks to the decisions taken by this Chancellor, we have significantly increased the disabled facilities grant, not just last year but this year. That is the investment delivered by a Labour Government, and opposed by the Conservatives and Reform, and it shows that only Labour can be trusted with our NHS.
Mr Speaker
You will have another chance in a minute! I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
This Government have been in power for 10 months. Two months ago, Labour postponed the cross-party talks on social care. When will they be rescheduled?
Wes Streeting
As I have announced to the House, Baroness Casey’s independent commission is up and running. She is making contact with parties across the House as part of the work of her commission, and it is for her to decide the basis on which she engages with parties. I look forward to working with parties at the conclusion of the process.
Dr Evans
I thank the Secretary of State for that change, making the process no longer cross-party. The Government have said that the changes will not be implemented fully until 2036. Only this week, the Health and Social Care Committee released its new report on social care and the huge cost of inaction. The report called for new actions that could be taken now, such as the publishing of annual assessments of unmet care needs for adults, and annual estimates of how much delayed discharges cost the NHS. Will the Secretary of State commit to those two today?
Wes Streeting
I take the Select Committee seriously, and I will look carefully at its report, but the shadow Minister has some brass neck. He mentions this Government having been in office for 10 months, but the Conservatives had more than 10 years in office, and we are picking up the pieces from the mess they left behind. That is why they were kicked out of government, and why they are being kicked out of opposition. Looking at this lot, I think: this must be how the islanders felt, looking at the dodo.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
We are already rolling out our manifesto commitment of 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments per year. These appointments are available across the country for those experiencing painful dental issues such as infections, abscesses or cracked or broken teeth. We are committed to reforming the dental contract and making NHS dentistry fit for the future.
Manuela Perteghella
The dental contract imposed in 2006 is widely recognised as a key factor driving dentists out of the NHS. In my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, there are no NHS dentists currently taking on new patients, and existing NHS patients are being actively pressured to go private or seek care out of county. Will the Minister commit to urgent reform of NHS dentistry, and set out a timeline for negotiations, so that I can reassure my constituents?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member is right to say that the dental contract is fundamentally flawed and needs reform. I met representatives of the British Dental Association on 8 April, and had a productive discussion with them about dental contract reform. Officials from the Department of Health and Social Care are working hard with the BDA and other stakeholders to develop a dental contract that works for patients, for dental professionals and for the public purse. I will of course keep her and the House updated. I know this issue is of huge importance to the country, and to every Member of this House.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a year today since I was sworn into this House, and every single week, someone has raised with me the issue of getting access to an NHS dentist in Blackpool. Nowhere is taking on adults, and nowhere is looking after pregnant women. This has to change, so can the Minister outline to my constituents when they will be able to get access to an NHS dentist under this Labour Government?
Stephen Kinnock
There is no perfect payment system. We have to look at the issue around units of dental activity, and at options around capitation and sessional payments, and come to a conclusion about what works and about how to ensure that everything that we commit to NHS dentistry is spent on NHS dentistry. We are in a mad situation in which, although demand for NHS dentistry is going through the roof, we have an underspend every year on the contract. We have to fix that. It will take some time to work that out with the British Dental Association and other key stakeholders. What is tragic about this situation is that the Conservatives had 14 years to fix the situation and left it in a terrible mess.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I commend my hon. Friend for her work on such an important topic; I know it is very personal to her. Specialist perinatal and maternity mental health services are available across England, providing vital support to parents before, during and after pregnancy, including increased access to evidence-based psychological therapies. We are training thousands more midwives to better support women throughout pregnancy, with mother and baby units and community services providing postnatal support.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
Tomorrow is World Maternal Mental Health Day, recognising the particular challenges that some mums face from pregnancy to birth, and after birth. I commend the Secretary of State and his team for their rapid work to get the NHS delivering better for patients again. As they develop the 10-year plan for the NHS, what measures will be taken to ensure that all women facing perinatal mental health challenges can access the right psychological support, and that there is no postcode lottery?
Karin Smyth
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in recognising the importance of supporting women’s health throughout pregnancy and into parenthood on Maternal Mental Health Day. We are committed to improving the support available, and it will form an important part of our 10-year plan. We are investing £126 million in family hubs and Start for Life services, to support parents from pregnancy to their child’s early childhood, and we will continue to work with her on this.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) for her question and the Minister for her answer. I am delighted to be forming the all-party parliamentary group for fatherhood. Will the Minister outline the steps that she will take to improve perinatal mental health for fathers?
Karin Smyth
I congratulate the hon. Member on taking forward that work. The Minister responsible will be happy to continue to work with him in any way possible to support that work on this important aspect of parenthood.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
We are already using technology to improve preventive healthcare and to transform the NHS. We have invested £11 million in artificial intelligence to trial breast cancer screening mammogram interpretation. We are piloting the NHS health check online to tackle cardiovascular disease, and our NHS Better Health digital products, including the award-winning Couch to 5K app, were used by millions of people last year to tackle preventable conditions. More will be included in the 10-year health plan.
Katie White
Leeds is leading the way in health tech, with Leeds teaching hospitals, the city council, NHS Digital and firms like EMIS, headquartered in Rawdon in my constituency, driving real innovation. How will the Secretary of State and his team ensure that Leeds is at the heart of the NHS 10-year plan, so that we can shift to prevention and spread the benefits to every corner of the UK?
Ashley Dalton
I commend the work that my hon. Friend refers to. The new HealthTech innovation hub—a flagship project of the West Yorkshire investment zone—brings together West Yorkshire combined authority, organisations like the HealthTech Leeds partnership, academics, clinicians, policymakers and more than 250 health tech firms headquartered in the region. They are already driving forward health innovation together. As we have said before, we must learn about the best of the NHS and take it to the rest of the NHS. The 10-year plan will shift us to a model in which the NHS focuses on prevention, with more services delivered in local communities through new technologies.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
A piece of technology that already exists that can prevent hydrocephalus is the humble tape measure. The Secretary of State said that he would ask the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to conduct a review of the frequency with which infants’ heads should be measured to allow us to detect hydrocephalus early. The charity Harry’s HAT—Hydrocephalus Awareness Trust—based in my constituency says that this review is not necessary, and that the evidence is already there. Will the Minister meet me and the charity to discuss this further, so that more infants’ lives can be saved?
Ashley Dalton
And he has just sold me on what a wonderful charity it is. I would be more than happy to make sure that the relevant Minister meets the hon. Member to discuss the matter.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
As the Prime Minister and I announced, NHS England will be brought back into the Department to put an end to the duplication, waste and inefficiency resulting from two organisations doing the same job. That is the final nail in the coffin of the disastrous 2012 reorganisation, which led to the longest waiting times, lowest patient satisfaction and most expensive NHS reorganisation in history. Since the announcement, we have set up a joint board, assessed resources and responsibilities across existing organisations, developed proposals about the role, functions and structure of the new centre, and started detailed operational and legislative planning.
Gregory Stafford
The Secretary of State claims to support change, yet delays to NHS reorganisation, including to the promised abolition of NHS England, suggest otherwise. Is it not the truth, as he outlined in his Guardian article, that he is bogging the system down in a slow, top-heavy restructuring, while resorting to tax rises, instead of delivering the decentralised, locally delivered, value-for-money healthcare that our constituents deserve?
Wes Streeting
A lot of words and not a lot of sense. We are reforming the NHS and, as a result of these changes, redirecting hundreds of millions of pounds to the frontline. What was the Conservative party’s response to the abolition? The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), said it could be a “great thing”, but it
“could be a total disaster”.
Will they let us know when they have made their mind up?
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Lansley reforms were implemented top down by the Conservatives. The idea that the NHS could ever be truly independent, when it is there to serve us—the taxpayer and the general public! Does the Secretary of State agree that it is absolutely the right decision to move funding away from the centre to the frontline to prioritise patients in the NHS’s work?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend has huge experience in this area, and she is absolutely right. What we saw under the Conservatives was bloated bureaucracy—layer upon layer of checkers, when we need more doers. That is why frontline staff, patients and provider leaders all welcome the changes that we are making, so that we can invest more into our frontline.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
The Health Service Journal reports that officials have acknowledged that the first draft of a high-level plan for merging NHS England and DHSC has been delayed. When we ask any written question about the merger, the standard answer seems to be:
“Ministers and senior Department officials will work with the new transformation team at the top of NHS England, led by Sir Jim Mackey, to determine the structure and requirements needed to support the creation of a new centre for health and care.”
Even when we ask a question specifically about the size of the transformation team, the answer is virtually identical. The Government either wilfully decide not to answer, or simply do not know. As with so many things, the Government go for the headline-grabbing announcement and talk the talk on reform, without having done the actual work to deliver it. My question to the Secretary of State is simple: when will that first high-level plan for the merger, with a full assessment of costs and savings, be published?
Wes Streeting
Honestly, the right hon. Member had his chance—he was the Minister who took forward the last reform Act, under the Conservative Government. He failed in that task, and now he turns up without a shred of remorse or a shred of humility, attacking this Government for cleaning up the mess that the Conservatives left behind. They are not a party of government—they are not even a party of opposition any more. They are a total irrelevance.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
We are committed to fixing the front door of the NHS, including by delivering the primary care infrastructure required to enable a neighbourhood health service. We have already taken steps to improve primary care infrastructure, including by providing £100 million of capital funding to upgrade GP buildings. We will set out how we will move to a neighbourhood health service in our upcoming 10-year plan, following the spending review.
Josh MacAlister
I thank the Minister for her answer. Workington suffers from some really poor health outcomes and has an incredibly fragmented health system. I have worked with local leaders in my constituency to pull together a plan for a new neighbourhood health centre called the Workington health zone, based around multidisciplinary teams, clear goals, less bureaucracy and much greater access for patients. Does the Minister agree that this is exactly the kind of reform that we need to enable through the forthcoming 10-year plan?
Ashley Dalton
I do agree, and I would be delighted to work with my hon. Friend on the Government’s commitment to delivering a neighbourhood health service that reinforces integrated working for the NHS, local government, social care and wider partners as the norm.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Knutsford desperately needs a modern medical centre. The local GPs and the community are united in feeling that current provision is no longer fit for purpose. With the population growing, it cannot meet everybody’s needs. In the light of the Government’s announcement of £102 million to modernise GP surgeries, so that it is easier for them to see more patients, will the Minister meet me to discuss a new modern medical centre for Knutsford?
Ashley Dalton
I thank the right hon. Member for recognising the significant investment announced today in GP services and buildings, and I would be delighted to ensure that the relevant Minister meets her.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Driving down waiting times is one of this Government’s top priorities, and my colleagues at NHS England continue to keep in regular contact with ICBs on improving waiting times and delivering the ambitions set out in our elective reform plan. Since July, we have cut waiting lists by more than 219,000 across England, and by 6,000 for University Hospitals of North Midlands, and have delivered 3 million more appointments.
Gareth Snell
I thank the Minister for her answer, and recognise the Herculean effort the Department is making to reduce waiting times, particularly in Stoke-on-Trent, but one cancer patient who is having treatment at the Royal Stoke hospital in my constituency has shared her story with me. From the initial operation, it took six weeks for her to be told that she may have cancerous cells in her lymph node. There was a delay in getting the CT scan, and after the scan, she was told that it would be 10 weeks before she could meet an oncologist to discuss the results. Will the Minister say a bit more about how the Department, while reducing waiting times to access services, will make sure that treatment is given in a timely fashion once someone has a treatment plan?
Karin Smyth
I am sorry for the experience that my hon. Friend’s constituent has had, and he highlights a really important aspect of the patient journey through the system. I want him and the House to be assured that we are looking at the entire patient journey, both into hospital and between hospitals. We are determined to improve patient experience and quality of care, and to get back the patient satisfaction that was squandered by the last Government.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Reducing hospital backlogs is a key priority in this Government’s plan for change, as the 18-week standard for elective care has not been met for almost a decade. Our elective reform plan sets out how we will return to that standard by the end of this Parliament, through a combination of investment and reform. Since July, the waiting list has reduced by over 219,000 and we have delivered an extra 3 million appointments, exceeding our manifesto pledge and doing it earlier than planned.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer and for the progress made, but there is still more to do. My constituent in Newcastle-under-Lyme has recently been recovering from brain surgery at the Royal Stoke university hospital. However, she has faced multiple setbacks due to failures in the duty of care, including scalding injuries and a severely mishandled admission process. She is now receiving the correct care, but she had to wait many months to be admitted to the correct ward, and has been given limited time for rehabilitative treatment. Does the Secretary of State agree that to tackle backlogs, our hospitals must have the resources they need to provide the right care the first time round, so that patients are given the time and support to fully and effectively recover?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and horrified to hear about his constituent’s experience. This Government will never brush problems under the carpet or pretend that things are better than they are, and I know that for all the progress we have made in the past 10 months, there is still so much more to do. When we publish our 10-year plan for health, we must ensure that quality and safety are at the heart of every patient interaction. My hon. Friend is right about the need for investment. That is why we are investing £26 billion in the NHS and social care, and why it is so disappointing that the Opposition parties voted against it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
On a recent visit to the breast unit of the Royal United hospital in Bath, specialists told me about a red flag system that could help to speed up care. If someone has a red flag symptom, such as a lump or a bleeding nipple, the triage team can book them straight into the breast clinic, rather than waiting to see a GP. Does the Secretary of State support such an approach?
Wes Streeting
I thank the hon. Member for her extremely constructive contribution. That is exactly why at the heart of our plans for reform and modernisation, we are placing such an emphasis on digital and technological transformation. We have such rich data about the experiences of our patients, but we are not using it effectively enough. If we use the information more effectively and efficiently, we can spot and identify risk much more proactively, and ensure that people get timely access to urgent care and treatment when they need it.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the work that he and his team have done to reduce NHS waiting times month on month for the last six months. However, the backlog that grew under the last Conservative Government is still impacting on my constituents. I have listened to countless constituents who have told me about the upsetting impact of long waiting times for an ADHD diagnosis for children. That is having a detrimental knock-on impact on access to support, including child and adolescent mental health services and shared care agreements, and there is a lack of support for adopted children. I welcome the news that waiting lists have gone down, but will the Secretary of State set out how his work will be targeted at bringing down waiting lists for ADHD diagnoses in my constituency, to ensure consistency in diagnosis rates across trusts?
Wes Streeting
I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, who is leading cross-Government work in that area. We have a taskforce that is specifically looking at the issues that my hon. Friend raises, and together we are looking to ensure that our education and health services are better joined up to meet the needs of young people. I am working with my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) and drawing on his experience to look at how we can improve the health and care of care-experienced young people and young adults. I hope we will have lots of progress to report on those issues.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
One way to reduce the backlogs is to reduce or put an end to health tourism in this country, whereby people come to this country, get their treatment, and then nip back to where they come from. Does the Secretary of State think it is a good idea that people entering this country should provide evidence of health insurance or be refused entry?
Wes Streeting
When any of us travel abroad, we expect to take out travel insurance and pay for our healthcare needs overseas, and that is the standard that we expect for visitors to our country. We have lots more to do to improve on that front. I deplore the comments made by the hon. Gentleman’s party leader, who said that he does not support a taxpayer-funded NHS for the British people. He might want that debate, and the Leader of the so-called Opposition says that she wants that debate, but as far as Labour is concerned, we are clear about where we stand. Under Labour, the NHS will always be a national health service, publicly funded and free at the point of use.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
This Government are taking a hard-headed approach to cutting waiting times. We are investing an extra £26 billion in our NHS, and where the independent sector has spare capacity, we will pay to get NHS patients treated faster and free at the point of use. So far, our approach to investment and reform has cut waiting lists by more than 200,000. Perhaps the hon. Member will tell us how it is going in Scotland.
Seamus Logan
The Secretary of State claimed this morning on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme—a most excellent programme—that Labour is the only party that can be trusted with the national health service. Can he confirm that no aspect of the NHS whatsoever, whether it is ownership of the estate, the provision of specialist services or any other form of privatisation, will be included in the much-promised trade deal between the UK and the United States? No more excuses, Secretary of State: just give a direct answer to a direct question.
Wes Streeting
I have said it before, and I will say it again: the NHS will be privatised over my dead body. This party founded the NHS as a publicly funded public service, free at the point of use. We use the independent sector to cut waiting lists, and guess what? The SNP-led Government in Scotland do the same thing. We have made it clear that the NHS is not up for sale in any trade deal. That is clear and unequivocal. The hon. Gentleman can sling mud as much as he likes, but he cannot run from the SNP’s abysmal record on the NHS over 18 long, poor years.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
GPs are at the front door to our NHS. Today, I can announce that we are supporting more than 1,000 surgeries across the country to modernise their buildings, backed by more than £102 million—the biggest public investment in GP facilities for five years. Following years of neglect, this vital funding will create additional space to see more patients, boost productivity, improve patient care and enable 8 million more family doctor appointments each year.
Yuan Yang
I very much welcome today’s announcement on refurbishing 1,000 GP surgeries across the country, because I have made it my priority to meet with as many GPs as possible in my constituency. Our local GPs have told me that our health centres need more physical space in order to accommodate growing local needs and facilitate the expansion of healthcare into the community. Is the Secretary of State willing to meet me and my local GPs to discuss how we can better improve the physical space needed for care to be brought closer to people’s homes?
Wes Streeting
I would be delighted to do so. Since we came into government, we have made this announcement today, put £889 million into general practice and agreed a contract with GPs, including reform for patient access and services. We are fixing the front door to the NHS, but of course that will take time. We recruited 1,500 more GPs by the end of March, but day by day, week by week, month by month and year by year, people should see improvements in their GP services thanks to Labour.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Taking medicines on time is important, especially for those with conditions such as diabetes and epilepsy. Dr Acheson, an A&E consultant who has time-critical medicines for his own Parkinson’s disease, understands that well. He has been running a quality improvement programme to ensure that time-critical medicines are given on time in A&E. Will the Secretary of State lend that project his support and commit to reviewing how time-critical medicines are delivered on wards?
Wes Streeting
I thank the shadow Minister for her constructive question. I would be delighted to hear more about that initiative. She is absolutely right about timely access to medicines, and through a combination of service reform and the modernisation of technology, we can assist clinicians and patients to help them to manage their medication and ensure that people get timely access to medicines.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it further.
Unfortunately, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Government capitulated to union demands with nothing in return. It is therefore of no surprise to anyone that within months, they are back in dispute with resident doctors and the British Medical Association has announced a ballot for strike action. What will the Secretary of State do to protect patients and taxpayers?
Wes Streeting
I will tell the hon. Lady what we are not going to do: we are not going to see £1.7 billion wasted on strikes by resident doctors or 1.5 million cancelled operations and appointments, which is exactly what happened on the Conservatives’ watch. Within three weeks, we ended the strike by resident doctors and we have cut waiting lists by 200,000 as a result. As I have said to resident doctors, their pay offer will be fair and neither staff nor patients want to go back to the bad old days of strikes under the Tories. They had an unwilling and incalcitrant Government under the Conservatives, who were unwilling to work with resident doctors, but we want to work with them to deliver better care for patients.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I add my heartfelt condolences to Arlo’s family. In September, we launched a new series of funding opportunities designed to improve brain cancer research for both adults and children. We are committed to furthering our investment and support for high-quality brain tumour research, ensuring that funding is used in the most meaningful and impactful way. Hon. Members will note that there is a debate on Thursday on brain tumours, and I will be attending the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours next week.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
In his statement to the House just after Christmas, the Secretary of State acknowledged that cross-party consensus is essential to delivering meaningful social care reform. The Liberal Democrats support him in that endeavour, but we still do not have a date for those cross-party meetings, so will he give us one now?
Wes Streeting
Dates for meetings with the commission are now a matter for the independent commission.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
The Government have launched a scheme to provide 700,000 urgent dental appointments. There are 57,500 allocated to my hon. Friend’s integrated care board. He will know that ICBs are responsible for commissioning primary care services based on the needs of the population, but I know that he is a strong campaigner for his constituents. I understand that his dialogue with his ICB on this matter has been positive and constructive, and I am sure that he will continue to fly the flag.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Wes Streeting
The funding is still there, but as many people have urged me, including the right hon. Gentleman, we are taking the decision to give more freedom and flexibility to independent care boards, systems and providers to determine how they can best spend NHS resources on services to improve patient care, safety and outcomes. Everyone will know that maternity safety is understandably a priority for this Government. We expect the NHS to deliver on maternity safety standards and will hold it to account on that.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend will know that we have hired 1,500 more GPs, which will help with access. We have also renegotiated the contract, so there will be online booking systems in every practice in the country, and we have changed the contract to incentivise continuity of care in order to bring back the family doctor. There is a suite of reforms coupled with investment, which I hope will deliver for my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Wes Streeting
We are absolutely convinced that better use of digital tools will enable us to reduce the number of missed appointments significantly and factor in the likelihood of no-shows, so that we can reduce waste and eliminate inefficiency. I understand the case for penalties that the hon. Gentleman is making, but that is not a route we want to go down until we have made those improvements and judged how effective they have been.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. I think Ministers have got the message. If they have not by this stage, I would be surprised. Who is answering?
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is exactly the sort of thing that is being rolled out across the country, and that we are committed to delivering care closer to where his residents live.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Wes Streeting
Thanks to the investment that the Chancellor committed to, we are investing in the NHS estate, which is in a sorry state. I am afraid that that is an investment that the hon. Gentleman did not vote for, and his constituents will be fuming when they find out who was responsible.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I recently heard from Chelsea, a constituent of mine, who raised concerns about her grandmother Anna’s care. After a delayed discharge, she was released with the wrong equipment, which sadly resulted in her falling out of bed and sustaining a further injury. Ensuring that patients are discharged in a safe and timely manner is key to continuing the Department’s significant progress in cutting waiting lists for treatment, so what steps is the Secretary of State taking to promote integrated working between services to support discharge into the community for patients?
Wes Streeting
I am extremely sorry to hear about that particular case. It is really important that we support and facilitate better discharge, which is why we are reforming the better care fund and looking to better integrate health and social care services through our 10-year plan. I would be delighted to hear further from my hon. Friend about what we can do to improve in his area.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Stephen Kinnock
As the hon. Lady knows, we now have a commitment to providing 700,000 more urgent dental appointments. Those who do not have an NHS dentist can call 111 and will be prioritised. We are very clear that every integrated care board has a target within those 700,000 appointments, and if they are not hitting that target, we will want to know why.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
As someone with ADHD, it is disappointing to hear from many of my constituents about difficulties in accessing diagnosis, medication and other therapeutic inputs for ADHD, and the impact on their lives and livelihoods as a result. Whether for children or adults, waits of two, five or seven years are becoming the norm. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that individuals can exercise their right to choose?
Stephen Kinnock
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for improving support for ADHD and recognise the valuable perspective that she brings through her lived experience. This Government inherited a broken NHS, with too many people facing long waits for an assessment. NHS England’s ADHD taskforce is looking at how support for people with ADHD can be improved. I look forward to reading its report, and I recently had a very productive meeting with the director of that taskforce.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Stephen Kinnock
I give the hon. Member that assurance. We have been clear that every ICB has a target, and that was transparently published, and we will be monitoring it. I am holding regular meetings with officials to check that every single ICB is on track to hit those targets. If ICBs are not on track to hit those targets, we will want to know why.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Earlier this year, I met the Cockermouth and Maryport primary care network, which told me about the increasing challenge of supporting my constituents with their mental health. Has the Secretary of State considered relaxing the additional roles reimbursement scheme funding rules to allow mental health nurses to be employed wholly by a PCN, and not need to be under the employment of a local mental health trust? That flexibility could help GP practices to intervene earlier and reduce referrals to secondary care quickly.
Stephen Kinnock
We have, in fact, relaxed the rules on ARRS so that a mental health worker can be employed by the PCN. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that is an important part of stepping from hospital to community, but there is more we can do on that. We continue to do whatever we can to ensure that mental health and GP surgeries are actively integrating.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Getting It Right First Time is a clinician-led programme that leads on improvement and transformation. Can the Secretary State give reassurance that in any restructuring of NHS England, that programme will not just be continued, but expanded and still available to the devolved Administrations?
Karin Smyth
I am absolutely willing to give the hon. Member that commitment, and I know he worked on this programme in his previous role in Northern Ireland. It is delivering results, and we want to see results. We want to take the best to the rest of the NHS, and we absolutely want to work together across the United Kingdom to make sure that all our residents benefit from the programme.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Lung cancer causes more deaths in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK. In England, early detection programmes are under way, and by 2028 every patient is likely to gain access to screening. In Scotland, doctors tell me that that programme is a distant dream. Does my hon. Friend agree that the SNP is failing Scottish patients and Scottish healthcare professionals? This UK Government are getting on with the task of fighting this deadly cancer.
Ashley Dalton
I agree with my hon. Friend. We are making great strides in developing our cancer plans. We will be launching a national cancer plan later this year, and the targeted lung cancer screening programme has been particularly effective. The SNP has had a record settlement for Holyrood, and we expect the Scottish Government to deliver. If they cannot, I am sure that Anas Sarwar and Jackie Baillie would be willing to take over.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Yesterday’s report from the Health and Social Care Committee is explicit that we cannot build an NHS fit for the future without effectively reforming social care. Back in January, the Secretary of State promised cross-party talks as well as Baroness Casey’s commission. He cannot outsource political leadership to Baroness Casey. Political will is the sticking point with the reform of social care. Will he show that leadership and bring the parties together to find the solutions to unblock this crisis?
Wes Streeting
Since we came into government, we have already taken action on social care with the investment we have put in—the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance and the funding for home adaptations through the disabled facilities grant. Now that the commission is up and running, there will be cross-party engagement, but it is an independent commission and for Baroness Casey to decide how to engage.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Last week, this Labour Government announced the freezing of prescription charges, putting pounds back in the pockets of people in Derby. I have visited pharmacies, including the Littleover pharmacy, which provide essential care and support for their communities. The Conservatives underfunded pharmacies and more than 750 closed across England between 2021 and 2024. What is the Minister doing to support community pharmacies so that we do not lose these vital local services?
Stephen Kinnock
After years of neglect, this Government have agreed with the sector a record uplift to £3.1 billion for 2025-26 for this vitally important front door to our NHS. We are also supporting pharmacies to operate more efficiently, including enabling hub and spoke dispensing between all pharmacies later this year. I am pleased to say that the legislation for that has been laid. What a contrast that is with the previous 14 years. I am also pleased to see that the National Pharmacy Association has withdrawn its view on taking collective action. We are moving in the right direction, but there is still a lot more to do.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I welcome today’s announcement of new money for GPs’ surgeries, but GPs in my constituency tell me that they cannot get capital out of the integrated care board and that the Valuation Office Agency consistently undervalues the cost of rents, making future building impossible. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me, and GPs from my constituency, in order to understand the problem better?
Wes Streeting
Thanks to the investment that we have announced, those practices will be upgraded. I advise the hon. Gentleman to engage with his local ICB. We are happy to receive representations if we can help, but let me gently point out that the investment is only possible thanks to the decisions made by the Chancellor, which he opposed.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Ladies Walk NHS health centre in Sedgley is a vital hub for my constituents, providing essential services such as phlebotomy and diabetic foot care, but owing to the inaction of the Conservative council this much-needed community asset faces closure in 2026, leaving residents without access to critical care. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss urgent steps to safeguard the future of the centre and ensure that Sedgley residents continue to receive the NHS services on which they rely?
Stephen Kinnock
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a qualified physiotherapist, and who is right to refer to the value of community care. I would be happy to meet her to discuss the important issue that she has raised.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What steps will be taken to support more community pharmacies that can offer a broad range of services to people in rural areas, to ensure that those who are most isolated from busy towns still have access to those important services?
Stephen Kinnock
As I said earlier, we are giving pharmacies a record 19% uplift to £3.1 billion, and I am pleased to confirm that of all the sectors in the NHS they received the best uplift in the 2025-26 settlement. We have also maintained the pharmacy access scheme, which provides £19 million to support pharmacies in areas where there are fewer of them, including the rural areas that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
Pharmacies play a key role in communities in rural areas such as mine, but it is deeply frustrating when the supply chain breaks down and a pharmacy cannot deliver its medicine. Can the Minister tell me where we are now with the supply chain? Will she also thank all the heroic workers up and down the country who are doing their very best to deliver medicines, and will she thank in particular the 400 Superdrug workers in my constituency who are trying to make the supply chain work?
Karin Smyth
I am pleased to congratulate the pharmacies that are on the frontline on their hard work, and also to congratulate all those in the Department and elsewhere who ensure that our supply chain is as resilient as possible. I know that this issue concerns many Members and many of our constituents, and we hope to arrange a parliamentary event to ensure that Members have more information. Those people do a great deal of work; we know that the issue is important, and I will update the House on other measures that we intend to take to ensure that Members and their constituents are better informed.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Last month I began to receive concerning emails from employees of the NHS trusts in my constituency, saying that the trusts were seeking to create a subsidiary company and move staff into it. They are really worried about their future rights. I know how important it is to the Secretary of State that people have good employment rights. What steps is he taking to ensure that there is full consultation with staff before the creation of subsidiaries, and to prevent the creation of two-tier employment practices in the NHS with no continuity of service?
Wes Streeting
While I understand the desirability of such arrangements for NHS trusts, this Government are absolutely clear that staff must be in receipt of good NHS terms and conditions, and must feel part of the NHS workforce and the NHS family. I would be happy to receive further representations from the hon. Lady.
Counter Terrorism Policing: Arrests
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the series of national security-related arrests that took place on Saturday 3 May. Protecting our national security is the first duty of Government, and it is a testament to our world-leading law enforcement and intelligence services that, through their tireless commitment, so many plots against the UK have been thwarted. I pay tribute to them again today for the work that they have done not just this weekend, but in recent weeks and months, on these important operations.
The two operations that took place across multiple locations this weekend were significant and complex. They were some of the largest counter-state threats and counter-terrorism actions that we have seen in recent times, and I am sure the whole House will want to join me in thanking the police, the security services and other partner agencies across the country, who showed their professionalism and expertise in carrying out these operations to keep our country safe.
Right hon. and hon. Members will understand that these are complex investigations. The police and the security services need time and space to be able to pursue their investigations, and our first priority must be to protect the integrity of that work so that we do not cut across those investigations and operations at a crucial time. However, these are serious matters, and the House will rightly want to remain informed. I will therefore outline as much detail as I am able, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand that there is a strict limit to what I can say at this stage, given that investigations are now ongoing.
I will first outline the facts around the events on Saturday 3 May. Throughout the day, counter-terrorism police undertook a series of arrests relating to two separate investigations. In total, eight men were arrested by the Metropolitan police’s Counter Terrorism Command. Five men were arrested on suspicion of preparation of a terrorist act, contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, as part of a proactive investigation in the areas of west London, Swindon, Rochdale, Stockport and Manchester. All five men are Iranian nationals. While four of the individuals remain in police custody, the fifth has now been bailed with strict conditions.
As part of the investigation, police officers carried out searches at a number of addresses in the Greater Manchester, London and Swindon areas. Investigations continue, with searches and activity still under way at multiple addresses across the country. The investigation relates to a suspected plot to target specific premises. Police officers have been in contact with the affected site’s representatives to make them aware and provide relevant security advice and support. However, the police have also been clear that for reasons of operational security and public safety, they are not—and I am not—able to provide further information on the target at this time, and I urge Members not to speculate about the site.
In a separate police investigation, two men were arrested at two different addresses in north-west London, and one man was arrested at an address in west London. All three were arrested under the National Security Act 2023. These three men are also Iranian nationals, and remain in police custody. I can confirm to the House that these are the first Iranian nationals arrested under the National Security Act.
The operations to execute these eight arrests under both counter-terror and counter-state threat powers—in different parts of the country, and in the space of 24 hours—were intensive. They involved a range of different organisations, including different police forces, counter-terror police, the National Crime Agency, and our security and intelligence services. These operations were co-ordinated through the world-leading Counter Terrorism Operations Centre, which brings together and co-ordinates the UK’s agencies, alongside the agencies of our Five Eyes partners, to detect and tackle national security threats. I welcome the work of the previous Government to establish CTOC in 2021, and this Government have continued to support it and invest in it since taking office.
The significant point about both counter-terrorism and counter-state threats powers is that they allow the police to intervene early to prevent and disrupt threats, not just respond after events have taken place. This is crucial for public safety, but it also makes the investigations more complex, and that is why the police need the time and space to pursue them now, so we will not be providing a running commentary on the work that they are doing. However, what now follows is an incredibly complex set of investigations, involving hundreds more officers carrying out forensic searches, collecting vital evidence across different sites across the country and securing witness statements, backed up by the continued efforts of our security and intelligence agencies. This is careful, painstaking work.
At this stage in the operations and investigations, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on or comment further on the details of these two cases and the motivations behind any of the threats that were posed. However, the House will be aware that these operations come against a backdrop of complex, interconnected threats to the UK, where state threats and counter-terrorism as well as serious and organised crime are intertwined together.
For 20 years, the greatest focus of our national security work was on terrorism—primarily from Islamist terrorism, with additional threats from Northern Ireland-related terrorism and other areas—and those threats have not gone away. Fifteen terrorist attacks have taken place since 2017, and there have been 43 late-stage disruptions of terrorism plots, but alongside that we have seen a serious, growing and complex challenge from state threats. Last year, Sir Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5, said that MI5 state threat investigations had increased by 48% in the previous 12 months. He added that, since January 2022, the police and MI5 had responded to 20 Iran-backed plots presenting potentially lethal threats.
In March, I told Parliament that the UK is facing a growing and evolving threat from malign activity carried out by a number of states. My statement in March outlined the Government’s response to the unacceptable threat that we face from the Iranian state, and the steps we are taking to ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to disrupt and degrade Iran’s malign activity on UK soil. We have delivered on the commitments made. I announced that the whole of the Iranian state, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, would be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. I laid the regulations to make this happen in the House on 1 April and committed to bring the scheme into force on 1 July. I trust that all Members will vote in favour when those regulations are debated shortly.
Let me be clear: anyone in the UK who works for the Iranian state must declare it or they will be committing a serious criminal offence. We will also go after the criminal networks and enablers that Iran uses to carry out its work. Last month, the Government sanctioned the Foxtrot network—a network involved in violence against Jewish and Israeli targets in Europe on behalf of the Iranian regime. Training and guidance on state threats activity is now being offered by Counter Terrorism Policing to all 45 territorial police forces across the UK.
The independent reviewer of terrorism and state threats legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, was asked by the Home Secretary to review the parts of our counter-terrorism framework that could be applied to modern-day state threats such as those from Iran. The Home Secretary specifically asked the reviewer to look at a state threats proscription tool, so we are not held back by limitations in applying counter-terrorism legislation to state threats. Jonathan Hall has now completed his review and will publish it shortly, and the Government will not hesitate to take action in response to Mr Hall’s advice.
As we continue to support the police and the security services in their investigations, I can also tell the House that the Home Secretary has instigated a series of security assessments that are being done or refreshed in the light of the cases this weekend and the further information surrounding them, which will ensure that the Government can respond robustly and comprehensively to any wider national security issues raised by these cases.
Working alongside our international allies to counter state threats is central to our success. The Foreign Office is engaging with our closest allies to outline the disruptive action that has taken place and will be considering potential future response options as the investigation progresses. The Home Secretary remains in close contact with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is committed to doing everything necessary to protect the country from these threats and to bring to bear all the diplomatic tools at our disposal.
The Home Secretary and Ministers will provide an update on the national security position when we are able to do so, following both these operations and investigations and the wider security assessments that are under way. The Government will not hesitate to act robustly to respond to these plots at the appropriate time, but first, we must allow the investigations to continue. Our police, security and intelligence agencies are the best in the world and stand ready at all times to take action to keep our country safe. I am sure they will have the support of the whole House as they continue this vital work. I commend this statement to the House.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank the Minister for providing advance sight of his statement on this critical issue. People will have read the deeply concerning report suggesting that an attack may have been just hours away, and this will understandably be worrying to people across the country.
This statement reminds us of the tragic incidents that have plagued our country in the past. This month marks 12 years since the death of Lee Rigby on our streets, as well as eight years since the horrific Manchester Arena bombing. Later this year, we will also mark the 20th anniversary of the 7/7 attacks, which brought to London a level of destruction that many of us never thought we would see in our lifetimes. These acts of terror, along with other cowardly acts, caused untold hurt to victims and their families.
As we discuss the arrests over the past weekend, we must remember the importance of keeping the British public safe from those who seek to terrorise us, and I therefore pay tribute to the hard-working members of the police and intelligence services for their bravery in disrupting terrorist activities. In October, the head of MI5 said that the police and MI5 had together disrupted 43 late-stage attack plots since the Manchester bombing. We must remember that each of these cases is not merely a statistic, but represents someone’s life and someone’s future.
I commend the Minister for recognising the work of the previous Government and for acknowledging the measures that were used effectively in this incident. In turn, we will support measures that enact the National Security Act and give the Government the powers needed to act against malign influences on our country.
Turning to the incidents at hand, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify certain points. While I am thankful for today’s statement, I hope the Government will be as transparent as possible about the details to avoid the vacuum of information we have previously discussed in this place. While I appreciate that the Government do not want to provide a running commentary, like many other Members I would be grateful if the Government could be as open as possible, given the seriousness of the arrests.
As the Minister has outlined, there were two separate arrests of Iranian nationals in relation to terror offences, which has raised serious questions about how their networks were formed and what their intentions were. Can the Minister provide any further information about the suspects? For example, while we know they were Iranian nationals, what is their immigration status? Was the state aware that these individuals were in the UK, and was there any prior indication of the risk they might pose?
On the broader issue of Iran, while I understand that the Minister may not be able to comment on proscription directly, the Home Secretary did address this while in opposition.
In July 2023, she told the Royal United Services Institute that
“instead of trying and failing to use counter-terror legislation to proscribe organisations like Wagner or IRGC, we will introduce a bespoke proscribing mechanism to address state-sponsored threats.”
She also said at the Dispatch Box in April 2024 that Labour wanted
“appropriately targeted proscription-style restrictions on the operations of state-linked organisations such as the IRGC.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 19.]
However, it was only in March of this year that the Minister for Security announced the review by Jonathan Hall. Does he share my concerns that these mixed signals and the delay suggest a lack of prioritisation by the Government? Ultimately, we must all work together to ensure that the UK adopts the strongest possible stance on national security. As cross-party co-operation is essential, I urge the Government to take every possible step to prevent these cowardly acts of terror.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the shadow Minister for the sensible, reasonable and constructive tone of his response. He is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to the tragic death of Lee Rigby, the tragic bombing in Manchester and, of course, the 20th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings that we will be commemorating in a couple of months’ time.
Let me join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to all those who work tirelessly to keep our country safe. It is one of the greatest privileges of this particular role that we have the opportunity to serve in government, as Conservative Members will also have done, and to work closely alongside those incredibly committed members of the police and the intelligence services; we owe them a debt of gratitude.
I am also grateful for the opportunity that the shadow Minister has afforded me to offer our thanks for the work that was done by the previous Government, both in introducing the National Security Act 2023, which has proved to be an incredibly valuable tool, and in creating CTOC, which is delivering very significant operational value. I can absolutely give an assurance that this Government, like the previous one, will continue to invest in that institution.
The shadow Minister made an important point about transparency, and I can give him the reassurances that he seeks. He and the House will understand that we are just a couple of days on from those arrests that took place on Saturday. The Home Secretary will provide a further update as soon as we are operationally able to do so. I give the shadow Minister a commitment that we will be as transparent as possible while of course ensuring that we do not cut across live counter-terrorism operations.
The shadow Minister mentioned proscription, and I understand why. I know that he will acknowledge—or at least I hope that he will—that on 4 March I announced a very strong suite of measures designed to most effectively address the nature of the threat that we face from Iran. Contained within those measures was a request from the Home Secretary for Jonathan Hall, who I know is held in very high regard because of the experience and credibility that he has in this area, to look very carefully at the legislative framework that might enable us to more effectively proscribe state-based entities. I can confirm that Mr Hall has completed his report and that the Home Secretary and I are considering it very carefully. It will be published shortly. I assure the shadow Minister that we will not hesitate to act if there is a requirement to bring forward further measures.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that a number of Iranian citizens in this country still have relatives in Iran, and it is not beyond the wit of the Iranian Government to use that pressure on them. In requiring the citizens of Iran in this country to report to our Government if they are in any way connected to the Iranian Government, has he taken measures to protect them from exposing their family to the pressure that the Iranian Government may put on them?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I can give him the assurances he seeks. The Government have been very carefully considering the matter of transnational repression. The Home Secretary and I will have more to say in the near future, but I can give him absolute assurance that we have been thinking carefully about these matters and take them incredibly seriously.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Minister for updating the House and for advance sight of his statement. I also add my thanks to the security services and the police for all their work to keep us safe.
Over recent years Members have been called to this Chamber to discuss plots to commit acts of terror on Britain’s streets at the hands of the Iranian regime—but consecutive Governments are yet to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. In opposition, the now Foreign Secretary said:
“The IRGC is behaving like a terrorist organisation and must now be proscribed as such.”
Earlier this year I asked the Minister precisely this question: does he not agree that now is surely the time? In his earlier remarks, he mentioned the review that has concluded. If now is not the time for proscription, when should the House expect a further update?
The Liberal Democrats have welcomed previous sanctions against those linked to the Iranian regime. However, I urge the Government to go a step further and look closely at whether those individuals and others with links to the regime have assets here in the UK. Will the Minister commit to carrying out an audit, so that we know where those assets are, enabling the Government to freeze them as appropriate? The Minister is right to reference the long-standing pattern by the Iranian intelligence service of targeting people of the Jewish faith and of Israeli nationality. Could he update the House on any conversations he has had with the UK Jewish community leadership, specifically the Community Security Trust, about threats here in the UK?
Dan Jarvis
I thank the hon. Lady for, as is always the case, the very sensible and reasonable way in which she has phrased her questions. I am always available to discuss these matters in more detail should she wish to do so. To her question on proscription, I hope she will acknowledge the response I gave to the shadow Minister a few moments ago.
We take these matters incredibly seriously. The Home Secretary and I looked at them very closely in opposition, and that is precisely why the Home Secretary commissioned Jonathan Hall. He is the right person to look carefully at our legislative framework and make recommendations about whether we can toughen and strengthen our laws in this particular area. Mr Hall has now concluded his report; we are looking very closely at it, and it will be published shortly. As I said to the shadow Minister, we will not hesitate to bring forward further measures as required.
The hon. Lady made an important and helpful point about sanctions and assets, and I know it will have been heard by the Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), with whom we work incredibly closely. We work hard to ensure that our response is always as joined up across Government as it can be. The Home Secretary works very closely with the Foreign Secretary, and I work very closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln on these matters, and we will consider whether further measures need to be taken.
The hon. Lady’s final point about the Jewish community is a very important one. I give her and the whole House an absolute commitment that we will work tirelessly to ensure the safety of the Jewish community in our country. The Home Secretary and I, and other Ministers, are in regular contact with members of that community, including the CST, which she referenced and which does an excellent job. I will be meeting them in the very near future, and the hon. Lady can be reassured that we will work very closely with them to ensure that they get the protection that they need and deserve, and the assurances that they rightly want.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the bravery and professionalism of the counter-terrorist specialist firearms officers who took part in the arrest of an Iranian national in Rochdale over the weekend. It was a reminder of not only the constant threat that we face, but the intelligence and police services’ daily work to keep us all safe. Does the Minister agree that in this week of the 80th anniversary of VE Day, it is a reminder too that Britain is at war with a modern enemy: the fascism of Islamist extremism and state-sponsored terrorism? The message should go out loud and clear that my town, our country and this House will never surrender to such terrorism or to its ideology.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. He is absolutely right that the Government will never drop their guard to the threats that we undoubtedly face in countering terrorism, whether the specific threat around Islamist extremism or state threats. We take these matters incredibly seriously, and we will work to ensure that all our security services and police forces have the resources and tools they need to address the threats we face.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. No one in the House should be in any doubt about the threat that Iran poses to us and our national security. How confident is he that its designation in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme will be effective? Is he looking to go further?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the work she does as Chair of the Select Committee. FIRS is an important measure, which we inherited from the previous Government, from the National Security and Investment Act 2021. I think it is the right approach and that it will deliver significant operational benefit, but we must also look at these matters in the round, so that it does not sit in isolation; it has to be accompanied by a range of other measures, not least those that I announced on 4 March. The Government will remain flexible and agile, and if we think that there is a need for further action, we will not hesitate to take it.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, is currently undertaking an inquiry on transnational repression. We have reams of evidence of Iran oppressing and taking action against people of Iranian heritage here in the UK. I heard what the Minister said about proscription, and I have asked many times for proscription of the IRGC, as it is certainly one of the bodies in Iran that is responsible for transnational repression. Will he outline what will happen after the publication of Jonathan Hall’s review? What will the timetable be? We are keen to see swift action in this area.
Dan Jarvis
I am looking forward—if that is the right way to describe it—to giving evidence to my hon. Friend’s Committee in the near future. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), I confirm that the Government have done a lot of work looking at the serious but complicated issue of transnational repression. The Government will have more to say about this in the near future. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) that we take these matters incredibly seriously. We have progressed at pace the work that we inherited from the previous Government. These are not simple matters; they require a whole-system approach, and we are working carefully on them across Government through the defending democracy taskforce. I assure the House that the Home Secretary and I will have more to say in the near future.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Do we know whether these men entered the country illegally or legally? Obviously, people who enter the country legally are subject to extraordinarily sophisticated surveillance at our airports and ports, but for people who enter illegally there is no surveillance at all. It is madness that thousands are entering our country with no checks at all. Is this not a good opportunity to seek a derogation from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and say that, because of our national security, we should have the right to detain these people, arrest them and rapidly deport them?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the long-standing experience he brings to the House. He will understand, for the reasons that I have outlined, that there are strict limitations on what Ministers can say at this point, because it would be unforgivable to cut across a live counter-terrorism investigation. The police have set out the Iranian nationality of those arrested, and at this moment they need the time to pursue various lines of inquiry and investigation.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will understand that, as a consequence, it would be wrong for Ministers to provide a running commentary on individuals’ details at this stage. As Members would expect, a wide range of security assessments are under way. The Home Secretary will set out further details in due course.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and join him in thanking our security services and police for their incredible work and dedication.
This is a sobering reminder of the threat posed by the Iranian regime here in the UK and reinforces the need to proscribe Iran’s terror army, the IRGC. We continue to hear disturbing reports of charities in the UK being used as vehicles for the funding and organisation of terrorism. Will the Minister set out what steps are being taken to stop that organisation, and will he meet me to further discuss those concerns?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work in this area. He is absolutely right to make the point about the grave threat. I hope that he will have seen the suite of new measures that the Government brought forward on 4 March, which will make a significant difference and give us additional resources and capabilities to address the threat. I can assure him that we take these matters incredibly seriously. As I mentioned, a series of security assessments are under way. The Home Secretary will report back to the House on those in due course, but I will be happy to meet him to discuss those matters further.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I thank the Minister for what he said about the work of the previous Government and join him in commending the work of our security services and police in keeping us safe.
Recent events are a reminder of the destabilising role that Iran plays, with 20 Iran-backed plots foiled in the UK in just the past few years. This state sponsor of terrorism cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. On that topic, may I urge the Government to push our European allies to jointly trigger snapback sanctions this year as part of a comprehensive strategy to put maximum pressure on the Iranian regime?
Dan Jarvis
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and for the work he did as Prime Minister? He knows better than most the extraordinary capabilities that the men and women who serve in our intelligence and police forces have and the commitment that they make to our country.
He made important points. He is completely right about the number of state-sponsored plots. That is totally unacceptable, and this Government, as was the case with the previous Government, are absolutely clear that we will do everything that we can to stand against them. He made an important point about working closely with our colleagues and partners in Europe and internationally. He is right; that is the approach that we will adopt and colleagues in the Foreign Office are thinking carefully about what more we can do in that area.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
May I thank the Minister for his statement and join him in paying tribute to the security services that keep us all safe? As he knows, the UK is under constant cyber-attack from states, including Iran. Will he update the House on what work the Home Office is doing to protect the UK from ransomware attacks?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he raises an important point about cyber-attacks, which we face, along with countries around the world. I hope he knows that the Home Office has recently concluded a consultation on new, world-leading measures against ransomware, which we believe will make a material difference to the nature of the threat we face. Essentially, we want to smash the business models of those cyber-criminals, many of whom operate out of Russia, targeting UK businesses. The measures would be good for both our national security and our economic prosperity. I assure my hon. Friend that we are progressing them at pace.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I was alarmed to hear that one of the incidents took place in my constituency of Cheadle. It is chilling to think that a regime with such a shocking record of international aggression could have connections into our neighbourhoods.
It just so happens that I met the Jewish community in Cheadle this weekend to talk through their issues and concerns. At the meeting, I heard how fearful they are of the threat of violence and terrorism from the Iranian regime, so will the Minister commit to providing a timeline for producing the report on the IRGC and for when we will finally proscribe that organisation?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member is right about the chilling effect of these arrests, which also underline the nature of the threat not being specific to any one part of the country. He presses me on the point I made earlier about proscription. Jonathan Hall is, as I have said previously from the Dispatch Box, someone of great credibility and authority. He was asked by the Home Secretary to look carefully at our legislative framework and to assess whether we need stronger powers in order to proscribe state-backed threats. Mr Hall has worked at pace and has now submitted his report to the Home Secretary and me. The report will be published shortly and, as I have said, the Government will respond in due course. I know that the Home Secretary will update the House at the earliest available moment.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Security Minister will know that whenever there are reports of hostile acts by an Iranian national in this country, the Jewish community in Britain have reason to be fearful, so can he update the House on the steps the Government are taking to guarantee the safety of Jewish people throughout the UK?
Dan Jarvis
I can give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance that this Government will work incredibly closely with the Jewish community, as did the previous Government, to provide them with the assurances that they rightly want and deserve. It is completely unacceptable that any sector of our community could be threatened, whether by terrorism or by a state-based threat. The Home Secretary and I, and other Ministers, are in regular contact with the Community Security Trust and a range of other organisations from the Jewish community, and we work tirelessly to ensure that they not only are safe but feel safe.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In the fullness of time, it will undoubtedly be revealed what the targets of these terrorist plots were going to be. If it turns out that one of them was again the broadcaster Iran International, which had to relocate to Washington temporarily in 2023, will the Minister undertake to speak with his Foreign Office colleagues about the importance of impressing on the Trump Administration that these repressive regimes fear free broadcasting agencies, and that that is why the Trump Administration should not be closing down Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty or indeed Voice of America itself?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman makes a sage point, as he always does, and he is absolutely right. The UK has an incredibly important relationship with the United States, and it is a relationship that we invest significantly in. That is not only in our national interest but in the national interest of the United States and other Five Eyes partners. I can give him an assurance that the question he has just raised will be heard by colleagues.
Dan Jarvis
I see the Foreign Office Minister nodding. I am keen to work closely with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and draw on his experience in this area, and I agree with the thrust of the points he has made.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for coming here with this statement. May I also put on record my thanks and the thanks of the people of Harlow to the police and security services for the work they do keeping us all safe? In his statement the Minister made reference to working with allies. Does he agree that the conversations he has with our allies, both in Europe and America, are key to tackling this problem proactively and ensuring that lives are saved?
Dan Jarvis
First, I thank my hon. Friend for his point about our police forces, who do a very difficult job. They do it incredibly well and it was deeply impressive to see their work over the course of the weekend. He also makes an important point about international co-operation. The Home Secretary and I, and other Ministers across Government, completely understand the importance of investing in these relationships with our international allies. These are matters that we are not going to solve unilaterally on our own. We need to co-operate and collaborate with a range of international partners in Europe, in North America and further afield, and I assure him that that will be the approach of this Government.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I, too, pay tribute to the brilliance of our security forces. The Minister has paid tribute to the quality of advice from Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism, and said that he will indeed listen to that advice. Well, that same Jonathan Hall KC last autumn advised that in serious incidents involving terror such as these, it would be better to put out more information sooner in order to prevent misinformation. In order to prevent misinformation, surely the Minister should tell us—and the British people, who want to know—how long these Iranian nationals have been in this country and what their immigration status is.
Dan Jarvis
That is precisely why I made the point to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), about the importance of transparency. It is precisely why the Government have proactively brought forward a statement to the House to give Members the opportunity to ask questions, and why I gave a commitment earlier that the Home Secretary will update the House when we are operationally able to do so. I know the hon. Member understands the importance of not cutting across a live police terrorism operation. I hope he will acknowledge that we take these matters incredibly seriously and that we brought forward a range of measures in March that go a long way to addressing the nature of the threat we face. I hope he acknowledges the serious way we always take these matters, but I am happy to discuss them with him outside the Chamber should he wish to do so.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I also pay tribute to our security and intelligence services in foiling what appears to be a highly co-ordinated plot. The involvement of Iranian nationals points to a potential state-backed threat. Can the Minister assure me and my constituents that our intelligence and legal frameworks are keeping pace with the growing sophistication of hostile activity on British soil?
Dan Jarvis
I can assure my hon. Friend that our intelligence and legal frameworks have the necessary resource to ensure that we are best prepared to face the nature of the threat that we undoubtably face. I also say to him that the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and Ministers across Government will not hesitate to act should there be a requirement to bring forward further measures. That is precisely why the Home Secretary asked Mr Hall to look at the legislative framework and why we are carefully considering his recommendations. But I absolutely give him the assurance that should there be a need to bring forward further powers, we will not hesitate to do so.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is clear that the issues we see from Iran and its proxies are shared across many European countries. The Minister raised the recent Government sanctions on the Foxtrot network. However, the EU has just rejected the PM’s bid to access the bloc’s crime and migration database. Does the Minister see that as an issue that would stop us thwarting future threats from Iran and its proxies?
Dan Jarvis
Let me respond to the hon. Member in this way: as I have said previously, while there are certain measures we could put in place in this country, and of course we will, it is imperative that we co-operate closely with our allies. The nature of the relationship that we have with our allies in Europe is fundamentally important in this regard. I can give him an assurance that Foreign Office Ministers—the Foreign Secretary and the Minister—will be looking closely at what has happened over previous days, talking to our allies and taking every opportunity to ensure we organise collectively to ensure that those states who think they can behave in an aggressive way towards this and other countries understand that there will be very severe consequences for their actions.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that part of the problem with the joint comprehensive plan of action that the US withdrew from in 2018 was that it was not comprehensive enough in that it completely ignored the actions of Iran through proxy groups and terror cells? When he and his colleagues are discussing the way forward with the US Administration, particularly in relation to the Witkoff talks, will he ensure that terrorism is covered as part of any agreement that is patched?
Dan Jarvis
That is an important point that the Minister and I will consider further, but I can give the right hon. Member an assurance about our understanding, and about the priority that we attach to the international dynamic in all this. He will understand, as a former Minister and as someone who has been around a long time, that international relations require us to work as collaboratively as we can with our partners. We are investing heavily in ensuring that our special relationship continues to deliver for our country and for other Five Eyes partners. His points are well made; we have heard them, and will consider them further. I assure him that we take these matters very seriously, and will work across Government to address the issues that he raises.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I join the Minister in paying tribute to our security services and their endeavours to keep us all safe. Does he agree that the issue of how these suspects get into the United Kingdom in the first place is crucial? Has he addressed with the Irish Republic’s Government the issue of people who come here not directly, but under the radar, via Dublin, and who then go into Northern Ireland and to mainland GB?
Dan Jarvis
The Prime Minister has said that border security is national security, so the hon. Member makes an important point. That is precisely why I confirmed earlier that, as a consequence of recent events, the Home Secretary is looking very carefully, along with other Home Office Ministers, at a number of areas. At the earliest available opportunity, she will come back to the House to provide an update.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Five weeks ago, I visited Iran International at its London location. It told me that its journalists face daily threats from Iran, as do those who work for the BBC Persian service. Given that it is just three days after World Press Freedom Day, will the Minister reiterate this Government’s determination to defend media freedom at home as well as abroad, and will he consider accepting an invitation to visit Iran International, to reinforce that message?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a long-standing champion of journalism and journalists; he makes some very important points. I know that the Minister has recently met BBC Persian journalists, and between us, we will look carefully at the invitation that the right hon. Gentleman has extended. Let me be crystal clear that the threats we have seen in recent times to Iran International are completely unacceptable. This Government, like the previous Government, will do everything to ensure that free speech in this country is not materially affected by those outwith the country who wish to silence others. We take these matters incredibly seriously. In response to an earlier question, I said that the Government will have more to say about transnational repression in due course, and that very much includes such matters as the right hon. Gentleman raised.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I am going to try again, because although I appreciate that the Security Minister has to be very careful about specific aspects of this case, the House and the country need to know whether the Iranian nationals came into the UK illegally or on a legal migration route.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady is a very experienced Member, so I hope she can understand why it would be wrong of me, as the Security Minister, to cut across a live police terrorism investigation. Ministers should not get in front or in the way of ongoing proceedings. I hope she will acknowledge the point I made about the complexity of the ongoing investigations. There are still properties around the country being searched by police officers. I have come here to give a statement and update the House with precisely the information that it is appropriate to provide. I have also given a very clear commitment that at the earliest available opportunity when it is operationally appropriate to do so, the Home Secretary will come to this place and give more details.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister said in his statement that these were
“some of the largest counter-state threats and counter-terrorism actions that we have seen in recent times”.
If that is the case, I wonder why the Iranian ambassador has not been summoned to the Foreign Office; the Minister mentioned liaising with the Foreign Secretary. The issue of immigration status is not a police or counter-terrorism operational matter; it is a visa issue. Were any of these Iranian nationals dual nationals? Were they here on work or student visas, and were those visas issued at post, or somewhere else around the world, through another embassy or consulate? We have had incidents in this country in which there has been a vacuum of information, and when the Government have not been prepared to fill that vacuum with truth and facts, others who want to stir up trouble in our nation have filled it instead.
Dan Jarvis
I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the experience that he brings on these important matters. He is right to say that this was a significant operation that required considerable co-ordination across the weekend, and as I have explained, it is ongoing. It is very important that I do not in any way prejudice the inquiries, but I understand why he has made his point in the way that he has. There has been very close contact between the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary on these matters, and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Falconer), who is sitting on the Front Bench, will meet the Iranian ambassador to discuss these matters.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Prime Minister says that border security is national security, but how can there be national security if there are no border checks on illegal immigrants at the international frontier between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland? How do we get security if we refuse to carry out those fundamental checks?
Dan Jarvis
That is precisely why I referenced the Prime Minister’s comments about the importance of border security, and border security being national security, and why I said that the Home Secretary and the immigration Minister were looking carefully at what happened over the weekend, as well as at other incidents. We will not hesitate to act where there is a requirement to do so, and as I have said, the Home Secretary will update the House further on these matters.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House with his statement today. I do not want to probe the “out of bounds” box that he has rightly placed around a live investigation, so I have chosen the words of this question carefully: does he know the immigration status of the Iranian nationals who were arrested?
Dan Jarvis
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for his service in our armed forces before coming to this House. I hope that, in part because of that background, he will understand that the one thing I am not going to do is make things more difficult for those who serve in and out of uniform, and do a very difficult job. The Home Secretary and I know what we need to know, but we will not get into giving a running commentary. I have made a very clear commitment that the Home Secretary will come back at the earliest available opportunity and respond to the questions that hon. Members wish to put to her. We are not going to cut across a live police operation—Conservative Members and those from around the House would rightly never forgive us for doing so—but we are committed to providing as much information as we can at a point when that does not compromise ongoing operations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his wise, strong, confident words—words that I think all Members of the House wish to hear in relation to this investigation. In all my time in this Chamber, which is coming up to 15 years, I have been a supporter of the Iranian diaspora in the United Kingdom—those people who fled Iran because of threats to their life. Some got out by the skin of their teeth. They have genuine fears and concerns about what is happening, and those concerns have been expressed by members of the Iranian diaspora who have been under attack in France—Paris is one example—and in Sweden. During the last election, the Iranian diaspora kindly offered support to me for my election campaign, which I took advantage of, as others did. Members of that diaspora in Northern Ireland feel threatened, just like those on the mainland. Offering the support and protection that they need will involve partnership with the Garda Síochána in the Republic of Ireland, as the threat could come from beyond Northern Ireland; it could potentially come from the Republic of Ireland. Will the Minister give a commitment on that to me, my constituents, and those who are committed to a change of regime in Iran but cannot return, because the regime there is so decadent, violent and evil?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as always. He has a long track record of standing up for those who have been persecuted because of their ethnicity or religion, and he raises a very important point about the Iranian diaspora in this country. That is precisely why this Government have progressed an important piece of work on transnational repression. We will work together closely through the defending democracy taskforce to ensure that all the necessary protections are in place for those individuals or communities who feel threatened.
My advice to anybody who feels threatened is to report that to the police. I recently wrote to all chief constables to ensure that the training available for frontline officers is taken up by police forces right around the country. It is very important that officers on the beat have the necessary understanding of the nature of the threat that many diaspora communities may face. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for championing not only his constituency but the Iranian diaspora, and I give him the same commitment that I have given to other right hon. and hon. Members: this Government will work tirelessly to ensure that the diaspora is protected.
Trade Negotiations
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the Minister to make his statement, can I say how disappointing it was to see details of the India trade deal released to the media a few hours ago, before the Minister came to this House?
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I wish to make a statement on the progress that this Government have made towards a UK-India trade deal. I am delighted to inform the House that we have now concluded negotiations on a comprehensive, modern agreement with the fastest-growing economy in the G20.
Hon. Members will no doubt be aware that India is expected to be the third-largest economy in the world by 2028. By the end of this decade, it will be home to an estimated 60 million middle-class consumers, and with trade between the United Kingdom and India already standing at north of £43 billion, we know that this powerhouse economy is and will remain a hugely important market for British businesses. While past Governments have failed to negotiate a deal with India, this Government have today succeeded. We have brokered the most generous trade deal ever agreed by India in its history.
From day one of this deal coming into force, it will make trade between our countries cheaper, easier and quicker. UK exporters will benefit from much lower tariffs across a whole host of sectors, including those that we are prioritising in our industrial strategy. It means simplified customs processes for businesses in advanced manufacturing and aerospace, in the food and beverage sector, and in the creative sector, which will benefit from improved copyright protection.
For our world-leading financial and professional services companies, this deal locks in access to India’s fast-growing market. It will ensure that UK banks and finance companies are placed on an equal footing with Indian suppliers, and it encourages the recognition of professional qualifications, so that UK and Indian firms can access the right talent at the right time, whether they are in Mumbai or Manchester. This deal will unlock new opportunities for businesses in every part of the United Kingdom, including our advanced manufacturing companies in the north-east, our iconic Scottish whisky brands and our car plants in the west midlands. In all, we will have secured over £400 million in tariff reductions in the first year alone, doubling to around £900 million after just 10 years.
Crucially, the deal we have negotiated will provide bespoke support for small and medium-sized enterprises to enter the Indian market, alongside a firm commitment from India to address the trade barriers that those businesses face. Since taking office, we have committed to hardwiring the views and interests of small businesses into everything we do, and the deal we have negotiated is evidence of that. For the very first time, British businesses will have guaranteed access to India’s vast procurement market, covering goods, services and construction. They will be able to bid for approximately 40,000 tenders worth at least £38 billion a year.
The deal that we have just got over the line is further proof that this Government are using the power of international trade and investment to raise living standards here at home. Indeed, experts predict that it will boost our bilateral trade by some £25.5 billion. It is also projected to increase UK wages by £2.2 billion each year, while adding nearly £5 billion to our GDP over the long run.
We have done all that while defending stoutly the UK’s national interest. We have brokered a deal that protects our NHS and upholds our high food standards. It ensures that our points-based immigration system remains unaffected. The deal demonstrates our commitment to both workers and businesses, staying true to our Labour values while contributing to our primary mission of economic growth.
I recognise that this House will need time to scrutinise the deal before the ratification process. My Department will follow the process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 in sharing the finalised treaty text with hon. Members. The House will, of course, have the opportunity to scrutinise any legislation associated with its implementation.
This deal sends a powerful message about the UK and India’s shared commitment to free, fair and open trade. The UK-India relationship has deep, enduring roots, exemplified by the living bridge of 1.9 million people of Indian heritage living in the United Kingdom. While I do not personally lament that the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) is no longer the UK’s Prime Minister, it would be wholly wrong of me not to acknowledge his significant achievement as the first British-Indian Prime Minister, which is a testament not just to his own ability but to the close bonds that unite our two nations.
The Government are proud to back open markets and free trade. We recognise that Britain has always been an open, outward-looking trading nation, and we believe that open markets and free trade are fundamental building blocks with which the UK can secure its opportunities and prosperity at home and abroad. Through our upcoming trade strategy, we will set out our ambitions to engage with more industrial giants, like India, to ramp up trade and investment over the coming months and years.
Today, though, as close trading partners and as friends, I am proud that we have secured this deal with India. It is a deal that affords UK businesses certainty and stability during a time of global uncertainty and instability, and a deal that will give British businesses access to one of our biggest markets abroad, while raising wages and driving growth here at home. That is what this deal delivers, and I commend this statement to the House.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. This deal marks a landmark moment for the UK and its global trading relationships because it is the largest trade deal secured by this country. I was therefore shocked that the Minister did not acknowledge that progression of the deal was possible only thanks to our Brexit freedoms. After all, the European Union does not have a free trade agreement with India—something the Minister must bear in mind as he follows the orders of the Prime Minister on the EU reset.
We have not seen the minutiae of the detail in the agreement that the Government are announcing today, so we will reserve our full judgment on the deal until we have had the opportunity to scrutinise it at length. However, I will take this opportunity to highlight some questions. First, what concessions did the Government make that their predecessors were not willing to make to get the deal over the line?
Secondly, I was shocked that a very significant piece of information was left out of the Minister’s statement today—one that we only found out from the Indian Government’s statement. Why did Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi make a point of announcing the agreement of a double contribution convention between India and the UK, while the Minister has not even made a passing reference to it today in his statement or his press release? A double contribution convention will come at a significant cost to the British taxpayer and British businesses. Workers who enter the UK under such conventions are eligible to only pay national insurance contributions in their home country—in this case, India.
Again, we only know from the Indian Government’s press release that the exemption for national insurance contributions for Indian workers will be for three years. Does that mean that Indian workers currently in Britain will get a refund from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or does it mean that new Indian workers will not pay any contributions in the first place? Did the Exchequer effectively give away a massive subsidy to get this trade deal over the line? Will it really be 20% cheaper for businesses in the UK to hire Indian workers than British workers? Will the convention apply only to seconded employees of Indian companies, or will it apply more broadly to all Indian workers in the UK, and if so, from when? How many additional work visas will be issued to Indian workers under this agreement? Will the convention really mean that, for example, an Indian-owned restaurant chain in the UK could pay no national insurance here for its chef, while the British pub next door pays full national insurance for its curry chef?
Will this deal reduce the incentive for the Indian millionaires who are currently fleeing the UK for tax reasons—a subset of the many millionaires who are doing the same—to do so? Can the Minister outline what the cost of this agreement is to the Treasury? How many British nationals do the Government anticipate will make use of the reciprocal rights in India? I fear that when it comes to British workers, we have gone from two-tier Keir to two-tier-taxes Keir. This Government are literally putting up taxes for British workers while cutting them for Indian workers.
I am aware that India has expressed concerns about the UK becoming a rule-taker to the EU, so will the Minister confirm what commitments and assurances he made on that matter during the negotiations? While Conservative Members will never talk down the benefits of free trade, agreements such as this one have to be made on fair terms for both parties. As it stands, this deal looks like it is subsidising Indian labour while undercutting British workers. Will the Government back our domestic market by scrapping their jobs tax?
I look forward to hearing from the Minister a reply that actually answers these questions. If he chooses—as he sometimes does—to bat away genuine questions from the Dispatch Box, could he follow up in writing?
Mr Alexander
I thank the hon. Lady for her recognition that this is a landmark deal, although I have to say that it was not her most generous welcome of a deal that the previous Government worked for many months to try to secure—it is right to recognise that, albeit they did not manage to close the most difficult remaining issues. I seem to remember that it was a former leader of the Conservative party, the former Member for Witney, who promised that his party would stop “banging on about Europe”. Alas, that advice does not seem to have been taken in the Conservatives’ approach to today’s landmark agreement with India.
The hon. Lady inquired how we got the deal done when our predecessors failed to do so. Respectfully, I would say that it was through a process of patient, pragmatic and painstaking work—a very different approach from the kind of Instagram diplomacy that all too often characterised the approach of past Trade Secretaries and Trade Ministers. That allowed us, with the political leadership shown by the Secretary of State, to close significant chapters on goods and services. It allowed us to then reach a considered judgment that meant that, with stability of political leadership and clarity of ministerial direction, we could secure concessions from the Indians and conclude the agreement in a way that eluded our predecessors.
The hon. Lady asked specifically about the double contribution convention. I can assure her that that reciprocal agreement will benefit UK workers and their employers as the opportunity within India expands. India will have one of the world’s largest middle classes in the coming decades. The agreement will cover only a specific and limited group of Indian businesspeople for a period of three years. It is worth recognising that the Indians have other arrangements in place that extend longer than that. The workers will be required to pay their immigration health surcharge to the national health service, so the convention does not affect NHS funding.
The DCC that we have agreed is reciprocal and will benefit UK workers in India as well. India is home to the fastest growth rate in the G20, so the opportunity here for the United Kingdom is only likely to grow over time. The agreement was made in the context of the wider deal, which will bring billions into the UK economy. I can assure the hon. Lady that the United Kingdom already has social security agreements in place with a range of countries and trading blocs, including the European Union and the United States.
On the broader immigration issue that the hon. Lady raised, I can assure her that the deal does not affect the points-based system. The points-based system is not affected by the agreement that we struck today. The deal only covers business mobility, which is different from immigration, as it is about travel for specific and temporary business purposes. As a result, UK businesses will benefit from additional business mobility routes supporting them as they expand into India. Student visas remained off the table.
I hope that that gives some clarity to the hon. Lady. I am grateful for her recognition that it is a landmark deal. It is right to recognise that the Conservatives sought to secure this deal, and I hope that in the course of the conversations that we will have across this Dispatch Box today, we will be able to recognise that this represents a very significant win for the United Kingdom in very challenging times for trade.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
The conclusion of the negotiations on this free trade agreement is a major win for Scotland’s economy and for my Livingston constituency in particular, given that we bottle Glenmorangie whisky and bake Paterson’s shortbread. We also have a strong and growing digital services sector, particularly with small and medium-sized enterprises. Can the Minister say a bit more about how this deal will help those businesses, too?
Mr Alexander
I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Scottish Member of Parliament. One of the commitments that we made when we were both elected—in my case, re-elected—to the House back in July was that we would seek to ensure a Labour Government delivering for Scotland. The cut that we have secured in whisky tariffs for the huge and significant market in India is a clear and tangible example of the difference we are making. He does not need to take my word for it. These are the words of Mark Kent, the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association:
“The UK-India free trade agreement is a once in a generation deal and a landmark moment for Scotch Whisky exports to the world’s largest whisky market. It shows that the UK government is making significant progress towards achieving its growth mission, and the Scotch Whisky industry looks forward to working with the UK and Indian governments in the months ahead to implement the deal”.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. At a time when Donald Trump is fuelling global instability through protectionism, international co-operation is more important than ever. A UK-India trade deal is a positive step, and we look forward to seeing the detail of the deal. Parliament must be able to scrutinise the details carefully, especially the proposed changes to national insurance contributions. When Labour was in opposition, it agreed with the Liberal Democrats that there should be a vote on trade deals. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and I have made the Lib Dem position clear: there should be proper scrutiny and a vote on a trade deal.
The Government’s own export Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), said that the current ratification process is “not fit for purpose”, and he is right. Does the Minister of State agree that denying a vote not only contradicts Labour party policy, but sets a dangerous precedent, especially ahead of any future US deal? Can he explain the Government’s massive U-turn since entering government? Finally, will the Government push for a new UK-EU customs union—the fastest way to boost our economy—at this month’s political summit?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman has referred to our attempt to reset our trading relationship with Europe. The red lines that were set out in our manifesto are very clear, but within those red lines we are endeavouring to broaden and deepen an important trading relationship that represents about 46% of the UK’s trade. As for the hon. Gentleman’s broader observation that the agreement we have reached today is, as it were, a pretty bright-shining light in what is a somewhat dark sky for international trade, I agree with him. It is, hopefully, a sign of further deals to come and of a commitment to taking forward deals that are mutually beneficial, in this case for the Indians and also for the United Kingdom.
When it comes to the wider question of how the deal will be scrutinised, the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that today’s telephone conversation with Prime Minister Modi was just the start of the process. A press release has been published, along with a list of the top benefits, but we hope to publish a paper today setting out in more detail what has been agreed—the conclusion summary paper—and there will then be a process moving towards signature and a legal scrub of the text. However, as the Prime Minister made clear a few days ago, we will follow the process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Last week I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry when they came here with my old friend Piyush Goyal. I congratulate the Minister and his officials, as well as FICCI and the India Global Forum—under the leadership of Manoj Ladwa—and, indeed, everyone who has spent so many years laying the groundwork for this agreement.
The Minister recognised the doubling of India’s service and IT exports over the last decade and the benefits that we can gain from engagement and co-operation in respect of the service and knowledge economy, but I think it important for him to outline further what the benefits of the double contribution convention on national insurance will be, and how they will facilitate that engagement and co-operation for our workers in India.
Mr Alexander
I thank my hon. Friend for his generous words of congratulation. I know that the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and India has been a constant feature of his long service in the House, and a particular focus of his parliamentary work. He is right to recognise, in the context of both digital services and the services sector more widely, the huge potential mutual benefits for the United Kingdom and for India working together, and he is right to recognise the broad and deep relationship between our two countries—as I have said, 1.9 million people with Indian heritage live in the United Kingdom—but, as his question suggested, it is also right to recognise quite how dynamic the Indian economy is today. It has the highest growth rate in the G20, which is expected to remain above 6% over at least the next five years. Given that ours is a largely services-based economy, notwithstanding our excellence in advanced manufacturing, the opportunities for UK service exporters are huge and growing.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I welcome the Indian trade deal, but will the Minister now switch his attention to the other side of the Atlantic, and ask Lord Mandelson to explain to the United States Administration that tariffs on films are unworkable and impossible to implement, and would do real damage to the film industry not just in the UK but in the United States?
Mr Alexander
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s long-standing interest in matters relating to culture, media and sport and to the creative industries more generally. We are grateful for the expertise and experience that he brings to the House on these issues.
It would be one of the first occasions on which I told Lord Mandelson to do anything in many decades of our working together, but I will ensure that that is duly registered, not only in the record of this House but directly to our distinguished ambassador in Washington. It should also be placed on record that the film sector is a key part of the UK’s world-class creative industries—and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that those sectors continue to thrive and create good jobs—and that the UK has a strong and balanced trading relationship with the United States, worth £315 billion.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his challenge to me to reach out directly to Lord Mandelson in respect of what we have read in the newspapers in the last couple of days, and I give him my word that I will ensure that Lord Mandelson is fully aware of the issue.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Amid much fanfare as usual, the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, announced that he would have a UK-India trade deal signed “by Diwali”—but very cunningly, he never mentioned which Diwali, so we were left waiting for years. Other Conservative Prime Ministers made similarly empty promises, which is why I particularly commend the Minister, the Business and Trade Secretary, their officials and the Labour Government for having finally concluded this free trade agreement. I look forward to this mutually beneficial agreement being formally signed. Can the Minister confirm that this landmark UK-India FTA will increase bilateral trade by £26 billion, increase UK GDP by £4.8 billion, boost wages by £2 billion year in, year out, and lead to many jobs in my Slough constituency and for people across both nations?
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend seems to know my brief better than I do. In all seriousness, it is right to place on record our gratitude to the Prime Minister for his sterling work in getting this deal over the line. I also pay generous tribute to the Business and Trade Secretary, who has done an immense amount of work and whose visit to India in February with Minister Goyal unlocked a number of key issues that had proved to be sticking points for the previous Administration, and to officials at the Department for Business and Trade—both in London and, indeed, in India—who have worked tirelessly to secure this deal.
On its economic significance, I concur with the point that India is a huge and dynamic economy, but it is also right to recognise that we signed the right deal for the United Kingdom. This is the best deal that India has ever agreed to. It is expected to increase bilateral trade by about £25.5 billion and raise UK GDP, but we have managed to secure a deal more timeously than was anticipated and, frankly, we got a better deal than many expected.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Indian Government have said that this deal will mean that
“immense opportunities for talented and skilled Indian youth will open up in the UK.”
Will the Minister please confirm that we have not signed a youth mobility scheme with India before his Government have agreed to one with the EU? He said that we have contribution agreements with the EU and the USA, but my understanding is that we have signed double contribution conventions with only Chile, Japan and South Korea. Could he please clarify that?
Mr Alexander
What I said was that we have social security agreements with a range of countries, including the USA and with the EU. The hon. Lady asks whether a new points-based system is being introduced, and I can assure her that that is not the case. The deal covers only business mobility, and the UK has not given away visas or created new routes. Existing business mobility routes have been expanded for highly skilled and experienced professionals to cover additional sectors, but to qualify for these routes professionals must demonstrate that they meet the strict criteria for professional experience and qualifications.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that by securing the best deal that India has ever agreed, the Government have put UK businesses in an incredible position to take advantage of the rapidly growing economy?
Mr Alexander
India is quite simply the fastest growing economy in the G20, and is expected to be the third largest economy in the world by 2028. If we were choosing countries that we would wish to do deals with, India would be pretty high up the list. By 2030, India will be home to an estimated 60 million middle-class consumers, whose numbers are projected to grow to a quarter of a billion by 2050, and the demand for imports is on course to top £1.4 trillion by 2035.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
For those of us who have Scotch whisky industry interests in our constituency, it is very welcome news that apparently globalisation is not dead after all. The Minister speaks about this being a deal that opens doors, but what assistance will be given to British companies, especially SMEs, to ensure that they are able to maximise the benefits they can derive from trading in this very important market?
Mr Alexander
As my statement sought to make clear, there will be specific provision for SMEs as part of this deal, because we recognise that the huge Indian market can often be a challenge for businesses that do not have the capabilities of larger businesses.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous words about the Scotch whisky industry. From the quotes that we are receiving this afternoon from Diageo, Chivas and the Scotch Whisky Association, he is very much on all fours with the industry in recognising that this is a quite extraordinary deal for Scotch whisky.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on securing the UK’s largest trade deal with the G20’s fastest growing economy. The Indian high commission recently appointed Newcastle’s very first honorary consul general, and we will have much to discuss when we meet, because there is so much in this deal to look at and scrutinise. I thank the Minister for specifically mentioning advanced manufacturing in the north-east as well as small and medium-sized businesses everywhere. Could he say a little more about how small businesses in the north-east can secure and access the opportunities brought forward by this deal? I am thinking particularly of our fantastic digital sector and our great health sector.
Mr Alexander
For both the digital sector and the healthcare sector, the deal offers significant opportunities in a huge and expanding market in India. It will deliver a degree of certainty as well as significant tariff reductions across a range of sectors, and it also affords us the opportunity to think long-term. We want to support the advanced manufacturers with which my hon. Friend is very familiar in the north-east of England to be able to make strategic investments in exporting to the Indian market. They will be investing in exporting not just to a large but to a growing market, and one that holds significant commercial opportunities for the decades ahead.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Just a few weeks ago, the Business and Trade Secretary said that he would
“stand up for British workers”,
so it is quite astonishing that the Minister has come to the House today to announce tax breaks for immigration. This will undercut workers in Scotland and across the UK, and it comes just weeks after Labour introduced its own tax on UK workers. It leaves us all wondering: do this Labour Government ever back British workers?
Mr Alexander
Let me name some Scottish workers who are absolutely delighted by today’s announcement. Let me quote directly what Chivas has said:
“The announcement of a free trade agreement in principle between the UK and India is a welcome boost for Chivas Brothers during an uncertain global economic environment. India is the world’s biggest whisky market by volume and greater access will be a game changer for the export of our Scotch whisky brands, such as Chivas Regal and Ballantine’s.”
Whether it is Chivas Regal, Ballantine’s or other Scottish brands, which are the product of a huge number of workers in Scotland, there is much to celebrate today.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and I congratulate him, this Labour Government and officials on negotiating the trade deal, particularly given the Conservative party’s abject failure in this regard. When it comes to our business communities in the UK, we have strong values in relation to workers’ rights, human rights, consumer protections and environmental sustainability, so can the Minister outline how this deal will respect and enhance those values?
Mr Alexander
I can indeed. I said that this is a modern, forward-looking agreement, and that is why there is a recognition in the deal of exactly the values my hon. Friend mentions. That represents a first for India in many cases, it reflects the fact that we were determined to secure that as part of the negotiations, and it is one of the many reasons we are proud of the agreement announced today.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Today’s trade deal announcement will be welcomed by many in Scotland, not least those in the whisky industry. In the face of volatile US tariffs, this is undoubtedly good news. However, there has been increasing pressure in the UK—even from the former Prime Minister Tony Blair—for the Government to abandon their net zero ambitions. I understand that carbon mechanisms were crucial in these trade negotiations with India. Given that the SNP Government have today reaffirmed their fullest commitment to net zero and sustainable industries, can the Minister give his reassurance that the UK Government’s climate ambitions have not been sacrificed to secure this deal?
Mr Alexander
I can give the House that assurance. I thought we were going to have an uncharacteristically warm endorsement from the hon. Gentleman until he got to the word “however”. I have to say, we have been so busy negotiating a trade deal with India that we have not had the chance to read the First Minister’s “Programme for Government” today. In the spirit of generosity, he pays tribute to the work that has been done on whisky, and I will read out the statement by Debra Crew, the Diageo chief executive, who said:
“The UK-India Free Trade Agreement is a huge achievement by Prime Ministers Modi and Starmer and Ministers Goyal and Reynolds, and all of us at Diageo toast their success. It will be transformational for Scotch and Scotland, while powering jobs and investment in both India and the UK.”
I could not have put it better myself.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
As has already been said, negotiating a trade deal on beneficial terms is hugely significant, particularly with regard to the recent trade war initiated by Trump. However, I have come to this House countless times to raise the issue of human rights violations and abuses against the Kashmiris by the Indian Government, and I will do so again today. Can the Minister tell me whether the persecution of Kashmiri journalists and human rights activists has been raised at any point during these negotiations, and whether he will return to this House, before he signs on the dotted line in a few months, with a full response detailing exactly how the UK Government are upholding their international human rights obligations, and not undermining efforts to defend Kashmiri human rights?
Mr Alexander
The United Kingdom is a leading advocate for human rights around the world, and we remain committed to the promotion of universal human rights. When we have concerns, they are raised directly with partner Governments, including at ministerial level. The horrific recent terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir was utterly devastating, and my thoughts remain with the victims, their loved ones and the people of India. It is, however, for India and Pakistan to find a lasting solution and resolution to the Kashmir dispute, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Today’s news of a free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and India is wonderful—some of us have argued for greater free trade arrangements with Commonwealth countries for many years. Mr Modi, the Prime Minister of India, should be commended for adopting a free-market system that has brought wealth and prosperity to India, eliminating poverty and enabling India to work with countries like the United Kingdom. Will the Minister accept that none of this would have been possible had we not been sovereign and able to negotiate our own free trade agreements following our departure from the European Union? Was Brexit not the right thing to do?
Mr Alexander
First, it is right to recognise that the hon. Gentleman has form on arguing for the importance of the Commonwealth; I seem to recollect answering parliamentary questions in recent weeks on exactly the opportunity for doing effective economic work together that is provided by the Commonwealth and the fellowship of friendship that it presents us. On that, we are on all fours, and I certainly agree that we should look to strengthen and broaden our trading ties where we can. His point about Europe is a well-ploughed field in this House and elsewhere, and it seems to me that we should be looking forward and looking for new markets rather than engaging in old arguments.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I warmly welcome today’s important announcement, and in particular the benefits it will bring to the UK economy, with the billions of pounds of extra growth it will generate in both the food and drink and advanced manufacturing sectors, as well as in many other parts of our economy. Will the Minister elaborate a little on the benefits to the UK tech sector, and in particular to start-ups, such as the many in my constituency, and to the young entrepreneurs setting up their own small businesses?
Mr Alexander
Given the significant progress we have made on goods, it is right to recognise that there are also huge opportunities on services. I pay tribute to the tech sector in the United Kingdom and to the extraordinary work that is being done not just in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but more broadly. The City of London, I am glad to say, has become a significant global tech hub, not least for fintech. Chris Hayward, policy chairman of the City of London Corporation, said today that
“India is a key strategic partner, and this deal reflects our shared ambition to deepen trade ties, boost investment, and build lasting collaboration.”
Whether in technology, fintech or financial services, there are huge opportunities as a result of this deal.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Steel tariffs were reportedly a major sticking point in these trade negotiations with India. That is of particular concern to communities across south Wales, especially following Tata’s decision to shut down its blast furnaces in Wales and across Europe while simultaneously investing in new capacity in India. Can the Minister assure the House that British steelworkers have not been sacrificed in order to secure this deal, and can he confirm what tariff rate Indian steel imports will face when the agreement comes into effect?
Mr Alexander
It was this Government who recently stepped in to save British Steel in order to save thousands of jobs and avoid a sudden collapse in our primary steelmaking capacity. Thanks to this Government’s swift intervention, we were able to secure the raw materials that kept the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe alight. British Steel has also cancelled the redundancy consultation that would otherwise have put 2,700 jobs at risk. Frankly, UK industry depends on the UK steel industry and thanks to our plan for change, demand is set to increase, as we build the 1.5 million homes, the railways, the schools and the hospitals that we need to usher in a decade of national renewal. That is the context in which we have taken forward today’s announcement.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I welcome the conclusion of negotiations on what is the best deal that India has offered any country when it comes to free trade. Many of my constituents are part of the living bridge of 1.9 million people of Indian heritage living in and contributing to this country. Can the Minister, at a time of global volatility, set out how Labour’s free trade deal gives the world-renowned clothing and food businesses in Southall the confidence to grow and expand, thereby boosting our local economy?
Mr Alexander
It is right to recognise that both producers and consumers stand to benefit in relation not just to whisky, but on a range of consumer goods. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituents in Southall and the extraordinary contribution that they have made as part of that living bridge over many decades here in the United Kingdom. The commercial opportunities in both directions are significant, which is why, I think, we were able to secure the deal today.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I welcome this trade deal with a global titan that will be in place for the decades ahead. It has been made possible by Brexit and by the hard work of the previous Government. However, the Minister will be aware that this country runs a very substantial trade deficit with India. Is the deal that he has negotiated likely to narrow or widen that deficit, because all we know about the tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers and trade-offs that are implicit in the deal is what we read about in the press or are told about by the Indian Government?
Mr Alexander
It is for the Indian Government to account for this trade deal in the terms that they so choose. We will follow the established constitutional process of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 whereby not only are we sharing a statement with the House at the earliest opportunity, but the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise the details of every aspect of this agreement.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
As somebody who represents a constituency with a proud community of people of Indian heritage, with world-beating firms, a skilled workforce, and a catapult centre at the Manufacturing Technology Centre, I would like to ask the Minister to expand on how this deal will help deliver growth, economic development and innovation right across the country, and opportunities for businesses, small medium and large?
Mr Alexander
We have spoken today of the importance of the Indian market, but it is also right to recognise that the Indian market presently sits behind some of the world’s highest barriers to trade, notwithstanding the fact that it was the UK’s 12th largest trading partner. The fact that we are tearing down so many of those tariff levels as part of this agreement will be a very practical and pragmatic offering for the kind of excellence in manufacturing that he has in his constituency and that is represented across our country.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
How can the Government make a trade deal for the whole of the United Kingdom if they do not control the trade laws for the whole of the United Kingdom? Northern Ireland is still under the control of EU trade laws. To give a practical illustration of the problem, under the UK-India trade deal any imports to Northern Ireland from India—I speak of imports, not exports—will be subject not to any agreed UK tariff but to whatever prevailing EU tariff there is on those goods, and the EU does not have a trade deal with India. Is this not another illustration of how Northern Ireland has been left behind by a protocol that has left us still in the EU?
Mr Alexander
The Northern Ireland’s trading relationships and its status within the United Kingdom are not altered as a consequence of the Indian free trade agreement that was reached today. The established position is exactly as the right hon. Member describes and recognises the distinctive history and significance of the Good Friday agreement—not just in the protocol but the Windsor framework. A huge amount of work has been put in by both sides of the House to try to maintain a hard-won peace in Northern Ireland, and that is not compromised by today’s agreement.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
As other Scottish MPs have mentioned, this deal is good news for the whisky industry. It means, “Uisge beatha gu leòr”—whisky galore. It is also good for food producers, such as crofters in the Western Isles, whose exports of lamb products now face zero tariffs, and the salmon farming industry, which supports 420 jobs in my constituency and accounts for £187 million of trade. It is good news overall. I guess the only question is whether the Minister will be toasting this deal with a single malt Hearach from the Isle of Harris Distillery or one from Uist, Benbecula or Barra—a chain of new distilleries that now have a new export market thanks to this deal.
Mr Alexander
I think it was Tip O’Neill, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, who said “All politics is local”, so if I am going to be toasting tonight’s deal, it will be with the finest Glenkinchie whisky from the East Lothian part of Scotland, not, alas, with an Islay malt or a malt from the outer isles. I pay generous tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a doughty, tireless and fearless defender of the interests of not just the Harris tweed industry or whisky producers but Scottish salmon farmers, who are a significant contributor to UK exports, never mind Scottish exports. In sector after sector of the Scottish economy, there will be significant material benefits as a consequence of this deal. We promised that we would have a Labour Government delivering for Scotland. Today we are seeing what that promise looks like delivered.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Minister just admitted that this agreement means the expansion of some visa schemes. The Indian Government say that the agreement “eases mobility for professionals” such as intra-corporate transferees and their dependants and independent professionals like chefs. It also says that the new double contribution convention creates a three-year exemption from national insurance contributions for Indians working here. Can the Minister confirm that this agreement will make Indian migrant workers in Britain cheaper to employ, relative to British workers, than they are today—yes or no?
Mr Alexander
The points-based immigration system is not affected. The UK has not given away visas or created new routes as part of this deal. It is existing business mobility routes that have been expanded for highly skilled and experienced professionals to cover additional sectors.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on securing this vital trade deal. The automotive sector in the west midlands has been worried about increasing tariffs in the US, so a trade deal with India—a country where UK brands are highly respected—is extremely welcome. Can the Minister tell my constituents in Halesowen who work in the automotive sector how this deal will benefit them?
Mr Alexander
I hope I can give my hon. Friend exactly that assurance, and I am conscious that there was an additional point I should have made earlier in relation to steel. As part of this agreement, we have included a bilateral safeguard mechanism, which allows us to temporarily suspend or increase tariffs if an industry is suffering or there is a threat of serious injury as a result of reduced duties.
To my hon. Friend’s question, automotive companies will now benefit from selling to India with tariffs under a quota reduced from over 100% to 10%. We have agreed quotas to limit the volume of duty-free imports permitted to enter our markets. That will open opportunities for the sector, giving them a competitive edge in the Indian market and increased access to India’s rapidly growing middle class. As the sector transitions to electric vehicles, so will the market access we have secured as part of this deal. It will give British businesses the opportunity to scale up their exports as production ramps up. Both the UK and India have growing EV markets and production, so we want to protect these industries while ensure that consumers have choice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. He will be aware of the tremendous filming potential in Northern Ireland, and of the increasing number of Hollywood films shot there. The Northern Ireland film and TV industry has made a significant contribution to the regional economy, boosting it by some £330 million since 2018, and 4,000 jobs are tied to it. It is essential that we outline the importance of trade deals to the regions, and the film sector must be part of that. Solutions must be found to enable global film makers to film in picturesque, skilled, cost-efficient Northern Ireland.
Mr Alexander
Picturesque and skilled—I cannot remember the other word that the hon. Member used, but I agreed with every one of them. As I recollect, significant parts of “The Crown” were filmed in Northern Ireland. There is a huge and burgeoning economic opportunity for the film industry in Northern Ireland; as he rightly recognised, that is a tribute not solely to Northern Ireland’s extraordinary scenery, but to the extraordinary skills and capabilities of its workforce. The film sector is and will remain a key part of our creative industries, which employ millions of people, not just in Northern Ireland but across the whole UK. On his point about the US, I assure him that officials and Ministers are in regular communication with our US counterparts. I will not get into the detail of those discussions, but the point he made has been well taken.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
May I add my congratulations to the Minister and everybody involved in getting this significant trade deal with what will soon be the biggest economy in the world over the line? In Welwyn Hatfield, we have a vibrant Indian diaspora, including my friend Councillor Pankit Shah, who, just over 20 years after moving to the UK, became our first ever British-Indian mayor of Welwyn Hatfield. He has served with distinction. Our close connection is principally due to the University of Hertfordshire in Hatfield, where thousands of students from India have studied, and continue to do so. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while today is a fantastic moment for trade, it is vital that we continue to have visa schemes that encourage Indian students to come and study in our country?
Mr Alexander
Let me echo my hon. Friend’s generous tribute to Councillor Pankit Shah, and many like him who have made an immense contribution to the United Kingdom, making us what we are today. That reflects the human bridge formed by 1.9 million people, and the human dynamic here, and students play a significant, valued role in that.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
AG Barr, which has iconic brands such as Irn-Bru and Rubicon, is based in my Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch constituency. What will the trade deal mean for soft drinks companies such as Barr?
Mr Alexander
I hesitate to say, “What’s it called? Cumbernauld!” Whether for Scottish salmon, Scottish whisky or perhaps the most iconic Scottish product of all, Irn-Bru, this India-UK trade deal is good news. When I was being briefed by officials shortly before coming to the House, I asked for examples of the sectors in which we would see the biggest benefits, and my hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that Irn-Bru featured prominently in the description given.
Middle East Update
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the middle east. Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the Israeli Security Cabinet has approved a plan to expand and intensify Israel’s military operations in Gaza. He said that the Israel Defence Forces operations will extend across more of Gaza. Tactics will no longer involve short raids, with the implication that Israel will hold the ground it takes. Reports suggest that the plans could include full military occupation of the Gaza strip. Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Gaza’s population will be moved “for its protection”. Tens of thousands of reservists are being called up. In parallel, the Security Cabinet reportedly approved a plan to deliver aid through private companies.
This comes at a time when the scale of civilian suffering and humanitarian need is already intolerable. More than 52,000 people have now been killed in Gaza. Israel has fully blocked the entry of humanitarian aid for over two months. The World Food Programme says its food stockpile has been exhausted. The announcements from the Israeli Government have rightly sparked grave concern that this conflict, which has already wrought so much bloodshed and suffering, may enter a dangerous new phase. I know that concern will be felt right across the House.
Let me make the Government position crystal clear: we strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s operations. Any attempt to annex land in Gaza would be unacceptable. Palestinian territory must not be reduced or subjected to any demographic change. We want this war to end. We want an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, the urgent provision of humanitarian aid and a pathway to a political solution.
We all recognise that Hamas continue to hold hostages in the cruellest fashion. Their actions show their complete disregard for the interests of the Palestinian people. Hamas must not divert aid for their own financial gain or use civilian infrastructure for military purposes. We repeat our demand for the immediate release of the hostages, but an expansion of this conflict is not the route to achieve their safe return. That is why it is so strongly opposed by so many hostages’ families. Negotiations offer the best hope of ending the agony of those waiting for loved ones who are held captive, alleviating the suffering of civilians, and ending Hamas’s control of Gaza. It is evident that Hamas cannot be defeated through military means alone. An expansion of military operations will result in the deaths of more innocent civilians and put the hostages at yet greater risk. The fighting must stop.
The Government have said since day one in office that the only way to ensure a path towards long-term peace and stability is an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, better protection of civilians and significantly more aid entering Gaza. Diplomacy is how we ensure security for Israelis and Palestinians, not more bloodshed. All the people of this region deserve to live in peace, prosperity and security. We urge all parties urgently to return to talks, implement the ceasefire agreement in full and work towards a permanent peace. We continue to use our full diplomatic weight to bring about a ceasefire and end the suffering.
After more than two months of aid into Gaza being blocked, Palestinians continue to face immense suffering. Essential supplies of food and medicine are either no longer available or quickly running out. As the United Nations has already said, it is hard to see how, if implemented, the new Israeli plan to deliver aid through private companies would be consistent with humanitarian principles and meet the scale of the need. We need urgent clarity from the Israeli Government on their intentions.
We must remember what is at stake. These humanitarian principles matter for every conflict around the world. They should be applied consistently in every war zone. As we have said repeatedly, humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool, and Israel is bound under international law to allow the unhindered passage of humanitarian aid. I repeat my call for Israel to engage with partners to allow for a rapid and unhindered resurgence in the flow of aid into Gaza.
We reiterate our outrage at recent strikes by Israeli forces on humanitarian workers, infrastructure and healthcare facilities. Israel must do far more to protect the civilian population and humanitarian workers, and hold to account those who are responsible. Over a year since the appalling attack on the World Central Kitchen, in which three British nationals were tragically killed, we continue to press for a conclusion to the Israeli investigation and a decision as to whether criminal proceedings will be brought. The UN and humanitarian partners must be able to carry out their work in safety, in accordance with their principles.
Last week, we welcomed Prime Minister Mustafa of the Palestinian Authority to the United Kingdom. We signed a landmark memorandum of understanding and confirmed a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We will continue to support the Palestinian Authority as the only legitimate governing entity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including in Gaza. During that visit, we reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a two-state solution. Only a political horizon of moving towards a two-state solution can ensure the long-term peace and security of both Palestinians and Israelis. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Foreign Minister, Dame Priti Patel.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Today is day 578 since the atrocities of 7 October and the capture of the hostages. Fifty-nine innocent hostages continue to be held in cruel captivity by Hamas, and those who are still alive have no access to aid or communication with their family. Does the Minister agree that Iran and Hamas are to blame for events since 7 October, and that the immediate return of hostages would aid efforts to secure the ceasefire? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had in recent days with the US, and with middle eastern and other partners who have brokered previous agreements on efforts to secure the release of the hostages? What exactly is Britain contributing to these efforts? Is the UK’s convening power being used effectively, and what international pressure is the UK trying to bring to bear on Hamas to release the hostages and to ensure their removal from power?
The Minister stated that Hamas cannot be defeated through military means. On what basis has he reached that assertion, and what is his alternative to get Hamas to lay down their arms? On aid, he mentioned the Israeli Government’s fears about aid diversion. If the current situation on aid access is to be unblocked, the Government must seriously engage with Israel to address the many concerns, and the broader situation, that have led to the breakdown of the ceasefire. How much UK-funded aid is waiting to enter Gaza, where is it being held, and what is the Minister doing to engage with his Israeli counterparts, so as to find practical solutions to this issue? What engagement has taken place between the Foreign Secretary and his Israeli counterparts on the decision of the Israeli Security Cabinet to undertake this new operation in Gaza, including on its objectives?
We all want to see a sustainable end to the conflict, the return of the hostages, the alleviation of this awful crisis and, eventually, a two-state solution, with the region free of Hamas and of threats from Iran. The Government talk about wanting to achieve these things, but clearly they need to convince us all that there is a plan for achieving them. Let us be clear: the root cause of so much bloodshed and misery in the middle east is the regime in Iran, and if this Government are serious about achieving a sustainable peace in the middle east, they must have a strategy to deter Iran and undermine its regime and its awful approach, which is to sow destruction and export repression around the world, including to the UK; we heard about that in a statement earlier. When will the Government come out with a clear strategy for dealing with this malign threat to peace and stability, both in the middle east and elsewhere?
For months we have been asking questions of this Government; in fact, I asked the Minister the same question just last week. As we saw on 27 March, the Intelligence and Security Committee sent a report on Iran to the Prime Minister. How many more militants and terrorists will be bankrolled by Iran, threatening lives, before the Government have a clear strategy in place? What engagement is taking place with the US to tackle Iran’s destructive influence and ensure that it never becomes a nuclear state?
While the Minister is at the Dispatch Box, can he update us on other matters in the middle east? On Sunday, the Iranian-backed Houthis recklessly fired a missile at Israel, which landed near the main terminal of Ben Gurion airport and injured six people. Let alone the risk to aviation, many more could have been injured or killed on the ground; that, no doubt, must have been the desired outcome of the Houthis. Do the Government have a plan to deal with the ongoing threats of the Houthis, including the threat they pose to stability and security and to our own interests?
On Syria, the Government announced to the media on 24 April that they were lifting 24 more sanctions, but it took six days before they informed the House through a written ministerial statement that they would be doing so. Will the Minister explain why the House was given that discourtesy and why the matter was not brought to the House earlier? We still have no clarity about the criteria being used to lift the sanctions, the entities identified or the impact. The Government are also not applying any conditions. The US is imposing conditions on Syria when it comes to easing sanctions, including destroying chemical weapons and co-operating on counter-terrorism.
Will the Government explain why they have taken a different route from our allies when we have consistently worked in concert with our international partners? Why are we now working in isolation and in such an unco-ordinated way? The last Conservative Government led a co-ordinated approach when it came to Syria, and this Government are now behind the curve. We have to be cautious when it comes to lifting sanctions. The situation in Syria is fragile, particularly when we saw the appalling clashes between the pro-Government and Druze communities. Are the Government pressing Hayat Tahrir al-Sham into action?
Finally, will the Minister update the House on the situation in Lebanon? What is his assessment of the current situation, including the adherence to the ceasefire, the terms of UN Security Council resolution 1701 and the broader political stability?
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Lady for her important questions. I take the opportunity to respond to her important questions about the attack on Ben Gurion airport. I absolutely condemn the Houthis’ continued missile attacks, including the attack on Ben Gurion airport over the weekend. Israel has extensive experience of the dangers of civil aviation attacks of this kind, and we reiterate our support for its right to self-defence in the face of Houthi attacks. The House heard from the Defence Secretary last week some of the efforts we are taking in the collective self-defence of our allies in the Red sea.
The right hon. Lady raised a number of other important points. I can update the House that we are in regular contact with those pressing for a ceasefire in the region—most obviously, of course, the President of the United States’ special envoy, Mr Witkoff, who I believe is in the region now. Of course, the Foreign Secretary has been in touch with his counterpart in Israel, as well as with many others. He has been in Oman and Qatar recently, and as the right hon. Lady would expect, I have been in regular contact with all those with an interest.
The right hon. Lady asks for an update on sanctions. I was not aware of any discourtesy in the sequence of how we announced the Syria sanctions, but I am happy to take that point away. If there was any discourtesy, I can assure her that it was accidental. We took the steps that we did in relation to sanctions because we want the new Syrian Government to succeed. Britain’s interests—indeed, Israel’s interests—are in a stable and secure Syria. The new Syrian Government have taken welcome steps. As the right hon. Lady points out, there are still areas of major concern, but the judgment that I took alongside the Foreign Secretary was that we should lift sanctions that clearly no longer targeted entities controlled by the Assad regime—given that it is clearly no longer in power in Syria—and maintain sanctions where assets held by the Assad family were still relevant. We took a series of principled steps to try to ensure that the new Syria has the best possible chance of being the success that would be in Britain’s national interest. We maintained those sanctions on the Assad family, and we did so in close co-operation with our allies.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I agree with the Minister’s comments and condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza. The problem is that I have agreed with him every time he has made these condemnations of Israel, and the whole House generally has joined him in that, but the reality is that Israel is taking absolutely no notice of the Government’s position. Its actions now in Gaza—the starving of the population and the threats of wholesale movement of that population away—are completely unacceptable. Will the Minister consider a rapid recognition of a Palestinian state, hopefully together with France and other allies, and will he seriously consider sanctions against Israel if it pursues the wholesale removal of Palestinians from their homes?
Mr Falconer
I know the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend and of so many Members on the Benches behind me and, indeed, across the House. It is obviously a source of great anguish to me and all in the Government that we continue, this far into our government, to not have the ceasefire in place that we have long called for. We are working with our allies to try to persuade Israel to change course. As he will know, I will not comment on sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but we have been as clear as we can on our position in relation to the many areas we have discussed in the House week after week, month after month where there has been a failure to see improvement, whether that is the protection of civilians or aid into Gaza. We will, of course, continue to discuss all other matters in relation to this fraught and tragic situation with our close partners, as he would expect.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Israeli Government’s decision to approve plans for an expanded offensive, summarised by officials as the “conquest” of Gaza, is disgraceful. It will wreak more devastation and displacement on Palestinians after months of bombardment. It will also narrow the path back to a ceasefire, while severely harming the chances of getting the remaining hostages in Hamas’s captivity back to Israel alive. Does the Minister agree that if the Israeli Government carried out their threat to seize and hold Gaza, that would constitute a further flagrant breach of international law? In that instance, what would this Government’s response be?
The latest aid blockade of Gaza has now lasted for more than 60 days. The UN has described it as a “growing humanitarian catastrophe”. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s latest proposal to deliver aid through private companies at military hubs appears to contravene basic principles of international humanitarian law, including the neutrality of aid, and has been criticised by aid organisations as dangerous and unworkable.
The Israeli Government’s refusal to reopen aid routes is utterly unacceptable and contravenes their obligations as an occupying power. We welcomed the Government’s pledge of a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, without more action to secure the reopening of aid pathways, this new package will provide limited relief for Palestinians suffering in the strip. Can the Minister provide details on how the Government are working with international partners to pressure the Israeli Government to allow their aid to reach Gaza? Can he update the House on whether contingency measures are being considered to ensure that aid reaches those suffering in Gaza, even if the Israeli Government continue to block the direct supply of aid into the strip?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Lady asks a series of important questions. I sought in my statement to focus very clearly on what has been announced by the Israeli Government, including by Prime Minister Netanyahu on Sunday. I do not wish to be drawn into speculation about the various reports of how this operation may be conducted; I wish to stick only to the public announcements.
We have been clear all the way along in our commitment to a ceasefire and our desire to return to the framework of the ceasefire that was negotiated with such relief. We are in regular touch with Special Envoy Witkoff. We hope that through his efforts, he will be able to secure a return to a ceasefire. That would be far preferable on all the axes that the hon. Lady describes, whether that is the safe return of hostages, the desperate need for humanitarian aid to return to Gaza or, in our view, Israel’s security. She asks important questions about the role of an occupying power in the provision of aid. My officials set out our view on the legal position on Friday at the International Court of Justice.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Israeli Government’s plan to expand their military operation in Gaza and displace its population speaks volumes about the effects of their impunity—impunity to break international law, to cut off food and medical supplies, to starve a population and to kill tens of thousands of civilians. What will the Minister do to end the impunity with which Israel is acting? When will he finally sanction those Israeli Ministers, apply a full arms embargo, ban all settlement goods and, most importantly, recognise Palestine?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her important questions. I have set out at the Dispatch Box the steps we have taken, whether it is in relation to sanctions, arms or goods, and I will not rehearse them here; I can see that many Members want to contribute. As she would expect, I will not comment on further sanctions.
My hon. Friend asks the question that I know is on the lips of so many in this House, about recognition. What we see in Gaza and the announcements over the weekend are a very significant, immediate and practical threat to the viability of Palestinian life, and we are taking every practical step we can, alongside our allies, to try to focus on the ceasefire. That must be our most immediate priority, given the threats that hang over such a significant civilian population as we speak.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In his statement, the Minister said that the UK Government
“reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to recognising a Palestinian state”.
Up to now, the excuse has been that we have to wait until negotiations are complete. There are no negotiations—all we have is extremist settlers trying to force out Palestinian people from their villages in the west bank, which I have seen with my own eyes. In the name of God, why can we not give the Palestinian people some hope? Why can we not give them the same right to self-determination and recognise a Palestinian state now?
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and my constituency neighbour for his commitment to these issues. The problems the Palestinian people face at this moment are acute, immediate and practical. As I have set out, we stand by our commitments. We want to make a contribution to practically improving the lives of the Palestinian people, and we will view recognition in that light.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
No one can deny any longer that Israel is committing war crime after war crime, with over 50,000 Palestinians killed, millions forcibly displaced, the complete blockade of Gaza for the last two months and now plans to annex the entirety of the Gaza strip. Just what will it take for the Government to properly act over Netanyahu’s breaking of every single international norm and rule? I say to the Minister that simply opposing the expansion of military operations from the Dispatch Box is not securing peace or helping the Palestinian people. The Government have rightly imposed widespread sanctions on Russia. Why do they refuse to impose widespread sanctions on Israel?
Mr Falconer
I recognise the passion in my hon. Friend’s voice, and as he knows, it is not just at this Dispatch Box that we have set out our views. He asks for widespread sanctions. Of course, as the House knows, we have imposed sanctions on violent settlers, and we have suspended arms licences, according to a careful process and having looked at the risks to international humanitarian law. We will continue to take action across the full range of our diplomatic options, and not just at this Dispatch Box, as he would expect.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
What dialogue is ongoing with Egypt at this time? There are concerns about the pressure on Egypt, not just from the situation in Gaza and its obvious interest in the Rafah crossing, but in the south from the conflict in Sudan. Egypt remains an important party in getting to a resolution. What is the Government’s current dialogue with and support for Egypt?
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his important question. Of course the conflict affects not just Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories but many of its neighbours, including Egypt. I confirm that the Government have been in regular dialogue with their Egyptian counterparts, and I have an upcoming exchange with one of my Egyptian counterparts on exactly these questions.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The people of Gaza are being starved deliberately, and they need full, immediate, unimpeded delivery of adequate aid. Will the UK Government insist that Israel ensures that aid is distributed not by private military contractors, but by the UN and international agencies, according to the UN’s recognised humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, independence and impartiality?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend rightly highlights the importance of the humanitarian principles she outlines. Those are important principles not just in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but right across the world. It is a proud part of British history that we have been such forceful advocates for those principles, and we will continue to be so with Israel and any others who seek to undermine them.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The hon. Member will forgive me, but there are few things more infuriating in this House than listening to Ministers—whether they are of the blue persuasion, or of the red persuasion, as now—fail to call out collective punishment for what it is, fail to call out war crimes for what they are, continue to justify the sale of arms to Israel, and find every excuse possible not to recognise the state of Palestine. Perhaps he will be the one who surprises me, gets to his feet, and says that the plan as laid out by Benjamin Netanyahu is tantamount to ethnic cleansing. Will he do that, yes or no?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps unsurprisingly, goes for rhetoric, and he wants me to opine on questions of law and make determinations that Ministers, for a long time, have rightly chosen to treat as questions for the courts. He asked me to take action. As a Government, the Labour party has taken action. It has taken action on arms, and on sanctions—we have a record that we can defend; we are not simply here for rhetoric.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
Not a week goes by without more worrying news coming out of the middle east, and my thoughts are with the innocent people in Gaza who are worried about a new offensive, with the hostage families who are worried about their loved ones, and with Israel following the Houthi attack. Will the Minister join me in condemning the Houthi attack, and in calling for negotiations to continue that will see aid get into Gaza and hostages returned home?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question—I know of his long personal commitment to those so badly affected by this conflict. I join him in condemnation of the Houthi attack. The House should be under no illusions about the nature of the Houthis. They are no friend to the Palestinians, and their repeated strikes against international shipping—indeed, against practically any flagged vessel that crosses through the Red sea—are a threat to global peace and security, and to international trade. Their actions targeting civilian aviation do nothing for the Palestinian people.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
After 18 months of the diplomacy that the Minister referred to, it is clear that Israel has not significantly complied once. After watching children being shot in the streets, medics and hospitals consistently targeted, British citizens and rescue workers murdered and their bodies concealed, red lines such as Rafah reduced to rubble, and the hostages still in captivity, we now learn from an Israeli Government Minister that Gaza is to be “entirely destroyed”. We are watching the livestreamed starvation of an entire people. The Minister talked about his anguish, which I know is genuine, but can he not see what the majority of the House can see, which is that he is facing a catastrophic failure of Government policy, for which the Palestinians, the Israelis and the rest of us may well pay a heavy price for many years to come? He is an intelligent man. Can he not see the moral and tactical case for a change in strategy that might bring about peace?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman talks powerfully, and the scenes in Gaza are visible to us all. He asks questions about tactics and strategy, and the right strategy must be over the next two weeks for Special Envoy Witkoff’s efforts to see success. We need to see a ceasefire restored. Those who are advocating for that political process need our full support, and that is where the efforts of the Government are focused.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Israeli Government Minister Smotrich said today that Gaza is to be “entirely destroyed”, and its people are to “leave in great numbers to third countries”.
That latest threat is on top of the deliberate blockage of aid into Gaza, on top of the ongoing displacement of the past 19 months, and on top of 50,000 deaths. There are clearly breaches of international humanitarian law. The Minister has been clear in his condemnation, and clear that this is not the way to bring the hostages home. If the Israeli Government are not listening to his words, and surely they are not, will he consider what meaningful action the Government can take? Will he consider further sanctions against Israeli Ministers, and against goods that are made in illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian land?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. Clearly the rhetoric of some Israeli Government Ministers has crossed a threshold after which we would all condemn them—the Foreign Secretary has condemned a series of statements. I was not familiar with that statement, but it looks as if it would fall very much in the same category. As she would expect, I will not comment on further sanctions. As I have made clear, we have taken action and we will keep further action under review.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister has made the Government’s position crystal clear that the Israeli plan is unacceptable. How will British Government policy towards Israel change as that plan is implemented?
Mr Falconer
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we hope to avoid having to deal with that hypothetical, and we will seek to persuade the Israeli Government not to embark on a path so damaging, for all the reasons I have set out this afternoon. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be asking me that question in the House should we fail.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Yet again, the unimaginable horror of what is happening in Gaza has been joined by yet more unacceptable behaviour from the Israeli Government. Let me be clear to the House: the butchers of Hamas could draw this to an end today by releasing the hostages, but that does not make right the starvation and destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza. A dictionary definition of ethnic cleansing includes the mass expulsion of a people from their land. I ask the Minister two questions. What does he think and how does he feel when he hears Israeli Ministers say:
“We are finally going to occupy the Gaza Strip… Once we occupy…we can talk about sovereignty”?
Those of us on the Labour Benches stood on a manifesto commitment to recognise the state of Palestine. If not now, when?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has a deep commitment to these issues; he raises them here and elsewhere often. Let me be clear: any attempt to annex land in Gaza would be unacceptable. Palestinian territory must not be reduced or subjected to any demographic change. He can read from that the strength of our views on some of the announcements made by some of those associated with the Israeli Government. We want to see a Palestinian state that can function safely, side by side with a safe Israeli state, and it is regrettable that that seems like such a distant prospect. I am sure that we will continue this discussion in the House in the weeks and months to come.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
In the light of the latest outrage from the Netanyahu Government in displacing hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians, which comes on top of the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, the murdering of aid workers and the expansion of violence by settlers, we get from the Minister strong opposition, a request for “urgent clarity” and a reiteration of his “outrage”. He says that he is taking action, but he can hear from all sides of the House that nobody is satisfied with the level of action that the British Government are taking. I implore him to listen to the support from all sides of the House, recognise a Palestinian state, impose a full arms embargo on Israel and sanction Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. In the name of God, as others have said, please can we get aid into Gaza so that people will stop starving?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Lady is right to press on the absolutely vital importance of aid getting into Gaza. Those are points that we make regularly and with force to the Israeli Government. Part of my anguish is about the reports that I read, as so many in the House do, of the continued failure for that to happen. I will address a point that I think she may have made, which others have also made, about whether there are alternative routes to get aid into Gaza. A range of alternative routes, other than through the land crossing, have been tried. It is the view of the British Government that no route other than a land route can get the scale of aid that is now required into Gaza. Israeli decision making is preventing those land routes from being in operation. The hon. Lady asks about the recognition of a Palestinian state, and I refer her to my previous answers.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement following yet another appalling turn of events towards Gaza by the Israeli Government. In a Westminster Hall debate in February, I said I feared that
“if the occupation continues, it will become increasingly difficult to apply international law to the situation on the ground.”—[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 198WH.]
I now fear that if we do not recognise a Palestinian state, there will be no Palestinian state that includes Gaza left to recognise. Will the UK Government take immediate steps to recognise the state of Palestine?
Mr Falconer
We are clear about the principles of international law that apply. As I said to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), on Friday we appeared at the International Court of Justice to set out our understanding of the obligations on an occupying power—in this case, Israel. We were clear about what international law, in our view, meant for the occupying power.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
As we have heard, the Netanyahu Cabinet has approved an illegal plan to expand its military offensive to capture and occupy all of Gaza. That will put 1 million children at acute risk of starvation, epidemic disease and death, with the deliberate blockade of food and essential supplies. Does the Minister deny that that constitutes genocide in real time? When did he last assess the real risk that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
As the House knows, I will not make a determination from this Dispatch Box on questions of law. We assess risk. I can confirm that those assessments are ongoing and that a prevention of humanitarian aid reaching Gaza is part of them.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
As we approach the anniversary of the ICJ advisory opinion on the occupation, what is delaying the UK Government’s response? Is it that the opinion requires not just recognition that the occupation is illegal, but the Government to set out what steps they will take to end that occupation? Will the Minister at least say from the Dispatch Box whether the Government believe that the movement of the Palestinian population of Gaza would constitute a forcible displacement?
Mr Falconer
Forcible movement of the Gazan population out of Gaza would be forcible displacement, and that is a clear concept in international law.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Israel is an important security, trade and democratic partner, but that does not give it a blank cheque. The fact is that 13,000 children have been killed and 25,000 have been injured, maimed or wounded—some of them have been orphaned. I have been in this House for 20 years, and for many years I have supported Israel—pretty much at all costs, quite frankly—but today I say that I got it wrong. I condemn Israel for what it is doing to the Palestinian people in Gaza and the west bank. I withdraw my support right now for the actions of Israel and what it is doing right now in Gaza. Of course the hostages should be released, of course Israel has a right to exist, and of course Israeli and Jewish people should have the right to live in peace, but so do the Palestinian people. I have said it before, and I will say it again: the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as the life of a Jewish child.
This is a particular moment in time. We have had lots of statements over the past 18 months. Not only is this not Parliament’s greatest hour, but I am really concerned that this is a moment in history on which people will look back and in which we have got it wrong as a country. Will the Minister stand up to our friends and allies in the United States and make a strong stand for humanity, for us to be on the right side of history and for having the moral courage to lead, not just to follow the United States, and to make a difference? That is why we are all elected here. Let us stand up for life. Let us stand up for all children, not just Jewish children.
Mr Falconer
That was a very powerful intervention. I will not linger long in the answer, other than to say that I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s words and feel their force. I will of course endeavour to stand up on the international stage and here at this Dispatch Box equal to the strength of some of these contributions.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
We have heard throughout the afternoon all the things in Gaza that have been committed by Israel. The truth of the matter is that Israel is committing the cold-blooded murder of medics, civilians, UN staff and even many aid workers in the aid flotilla in international waters. In the west bank, there are more than 500,000 illegal settlers, and illegal violent settlers using force, backed by the IDF and the Israelis, have been killing and maiming people. Does that not show that the actions of Israel have been all about occupying Gaza and the west bank and that, as Israeli Cabinet Ministers have been saying, Israel basically wants a full Judea and Samaria and that it will not stop at Gaza or the west bank, but continue?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I bring in the Minister, may I ask hon. Members and the Minister to make their questions and answers a little bit shorter?
Mr Falconer
Let me restate the British Government’s position in relation to the west bank and the Gaza strip: we hope that both those territories will be a vital part of a single Palestinian state and that is the objective towards which we strive.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
In the past year, 100,000 tonnes of bombs have been dropped on Gaza, which is the equivalent of five times the power of the nuclear weapons used over Hiroshima and Nagasaki some 80 years ago. That action in Gaza has resulted in the deaths of at least 60,000 people, and on top of that we are now going to have the complete invasion of Gaza by Israel. At what point will the Government cease all arms supplies and military co-operation with Israel, cease the use of RAF Akrotiri and, above all, stop the export of any parts for F-35 jets, which have been complicit in the killing of 60,000 people in Gaza? Surely it is time for the British Government to say no: no more, no weapons, no co-operation, no support, and to save lives in Gaza and the west bank. Now is the time to say and do that.
Mr Falconer
I have set out the position in relation to the carve-out for F-35 components. To be clear to the House, we have suspended the sale of F-35 parts where they go directly to Israel. It is only when we do not know their final destination that their sale is not suspended. I will not rehearse the recognition points, given the pressure on time.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Let us be clear, the masked murderers of Hamas could end the suffering of the Gazan people today if they released the hostages and agreed to a ceasefire. But let us also be clear that this extremist Israeli Government, in their own actions in the past few days and weeks, are endangering the state of Israel. As the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) made absolutely clear, the Israeli Government are undermining the state of Israel by their actions, more than any Hamas extremist could dream of. I agree with what the Minister says about practical measures and pragmatism rather than symbolism, but does he not think that the most practical step that this country can take is to recognise the state of Palestine, in conjunction with other states, as soon as possible, in order to move the peace process on?
Mr Falconer
I assure my hon. Friend that we want to move this process on, towards a political horizon and a peaceful solution, as quickly as we possibly can.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I have been in the Minister’s shoes and I sympathise with him as he grapples with an extremely complicated and fraught situation, but does he agree that there cannot be any sustainable peace in the region or a viable Palestine without dealing with Hamas? If so, what would be his plan to achieve that with others, beyond pious rhetoric and hand-wringing?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable and experienced. He is right to focus on the central importance of removing Hamas from any position in Gaza where they could pose a threat, both to the Palestinian people and to Israeli civilians, who have suffered so terribly at their hands. The answer is to remove Hamas and have the Palestinian Authority returned to their rightful place as the sole legitimate Government authority for both the west bank and Gaza.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
In addition to continuing its cruel aid blockade, a far-right Israeli Minister deplorably told a gathering in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that Gaza is to be “entirely destroyed” and Palestinians will be forced to flee in large numbers “to third countries”. Will the Minister wholeheartedly condemn that, as well as the Netanyahu regime’s proposals to expand their military operations in Gaza? Will he confirm to the House exactly what the Government are doing, with their international allies, to stop these cruel and callous proposals?
Mr Falconer
As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), I have not seen those remarks, but we have been clear about what we think is acceptable and we have condemned remarks by other Israeli Ministers. Once I have had an opportunity to review the remarks that my hon. Friends mention, I am sure I will be in a position to provide a further comment. I reiterate our condemnation of the cruelty of some of the measures that have been put in place, particularly the block on aid into Gaza.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
An Israeli human rights group has now described Israel as using starvation as a method of warfare, which is a war crime under article 54 of the Geneva convention. Will the Minister join Ireland, South Africa and many other countries in clarifying that there has been a genocide and apartheid against the people of Palestine? It is time to speak up and out, and to speak for Palestine.
Mr Falconer
I will not rehearse the points I have already made about the determination of genocide and about recognition.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The evacuation orders of the Israeli forces have resulted in the forcible transfer of Palestinians in Gaza into ever-shrinking spaces, where they have little or no access to lifesaving services and continue to be subjected to attacks. What steps will the Government take to put pressure on Israel to ensure it does not go ahead with its plans to move Gaza’s population? Do the Government agree that the plans constitute forced displacement, which is a war crime?
Mr Falconer
As I have said, we are clear on the status of forced displacement under international law. My hon. Friend’s contribution is very important. I know many hon. Members are conscious of the multiple displacements of many Palestinians in Gaza, who have been displaced not once or twice, but in many cases more than three times. The treatment of Palestinian civilians who are just trying to live is terrible, and I share the feelings of the House about that.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The UK Government were right to state at the International Court of Justice last week that Israel has a responsibility under international law to provide food and essential humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, and yet we know that Israel has blocked all aid shipments for the past two months. Given the catastrophe unfolding before our eyes, is it not worth resurrecting negotiations and discussions with international allies about the possible airdrop of humanitarian aid, so that, at the very least, we cannot say that we sat idly by and watched an entire population starve?
Mr Falconer
We have been involved in discussions about airdrops. There is a role for them and we have spoken with partners in the region who have been keen to see airdrops as a contribution, particularly given the pressures on aid, and I am not ruling them out. However, given the scale of humanitarian aid that is needed, I must be clear with the House that helicopter airdrops can only reach a certain level, so while that aid would be welcome, it would be a very partial response to the scale of need that we see.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Israeli Government’s plan to expand their military offensive in Gaza, including holding ground and moving the Palestinian population to the south of the district, is wholly unacceptable. It is a clear act of aggression and flies in the face of international law. I welcome the Minister’s statement that this Government strongly condemn Israel’s actions, but does he accept from voices across the House that the recognition of Palestine as a state is imperative if we are to work towards a lasting peace?
Mr Falconer
I agree with my hon. Friend that a safe and secure Palestinian state, alongside its neighbour, a safe and secure Israeli state, will in the end be the vital component of sustainable peace in the region.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“Gaza will be entirely destroyed”.
That is a direct quote from Israel’s Minister of Finance, Bezalel Smotrich, earlier today. That is the language of ethnic cleansing and genocide from a pariah Government who are using starvation as a weapon of war. Warnings that the Israeli Government will seek to displace the entire Palestinian population and flatten all of Gaza have been repeatedly ignored by this Government over many months, yet that is now the reality that Gazans face. Given that the UK have continued to give support to Israel throughout the conflict—there are reports that an RAF jet flew to Israel with F-35 parts and military personnel only last week—have British intelligence services and the Foreign Office been blindsided by Israel’s approved plan?
Mr Falconer
If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether the Foreign Office was aware of the plan before it was announced, the answer is that we were not aware. In all of our interactions since we became the Government, we have been clear on the view we would take on proposals of this nature.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
For more than a year and a half, we have witnessed a genocide being livestreamed on our screens. We have seen children in Gaza being blown apart by Israeli bombs and infants wasting away from Israel’s imposed starvation, and now Israel is proposing a full invasion and occupation of the entire strip. The Israeli Government are making a mockery of international law, and we are enabling it. It is not enough for the UK Government just to condemn the Israeli Government; when will our Government end all arms sales to Israel and implement trade sanctions? We cannot be asking in years to come, “What did we do to prevent a genocide?” and for the answer to be, “Not enough.”
Mr Falconer
I will not rehearse the F-35 points that I discussed with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but on my hon. Friend’s point about international law, this Government will continue to stand for international law, as we did on Friday at the ICJ. We were absolutely clear on our position on international law as it pertains to the occupying power, which is what Israel finds itself as in Gaza.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
From the Father of the House to the 2024 intake, we are hearing across the Chamber—from Labour, Conservative, Green, Plaid and Scottish National colleagues—a consensus about what the Government need to do on behalf of the British people. We need our Government to recognise the Palestinian state, we need to make sure that the hostages are returned home, and we need to stop the killing of innocent Palestinians who are now faced with starvation. Minister, on behalf of this House of Commons, I plead with you and the Government to take action—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With the Minister. You do not plead with me.
Mr Falconer
I have been at this Dispatch Box on many occasions discussing these issues, but I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that I have felt the force of the contributions made this afternoon.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House this afternoon to give this update, and for his strong opposition to the proposed expansion of Israel’s military operation. Constituents continue to be horrified—as do we all—by the consequences of the assault on Gaza, the blockade of aid, and now the news of escalation this weekend. They ask, if diplomacy is failing, what comes next? What more can the Minister tell my constituents about the latest negotiations? I join others from across the House in the call for meaningful action, including recognition.
Mr Falconer
We are fully committed to playing our full diplomatic role. I hear the frustrations of my hon. Friend’s constituents—indeed, I hear the same frustrations from my own constituents in Lincoln. I know that many across the country watch these scenes with growing horror that they continue this long into the conflict. We will be working on this issue, including with our European partners, particularly France and Germany. We have issued E3 statements together; it is a source of shared frustration that more progress has not been made. As I said in an earlier answer, we hope to see progress towards a ceasefire. We are supporting the efforts of Special Envoy Witkoff in that regard, and we will spare no effort.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Over and over again, from all parts of this House, we witness grandstanding against mass migration and the most vulnerable in any society—refugees and asylum seekers—while knowing all too well that refugee crises are not born in a vacuum, as attested to by the situation unfolding in Gaza before the eyes of the world. Refugees have no choice; they are forced out of their homes and thrust on the world, looking for somewhere safe to seek asylum. After last week’s elections, the Prime Minister—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is going to get to his question very quickly.
Mr Hussain
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. After last week’s elections, the Prime Minister pledged to the British public that he would go harder on the issue of migration. Given what the Israeli Government are now saying, I ask the Minister whether his Government will come down harder—through action, not mere condemnation—to ensure that the world is not faced with a new and devastating refugee crisis.
Mr Falconer
As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the most painful elements of this crisis has been that even those Palestinians in Gaza who wish to leave have not been able to do so. Regrettably, we have already discussed forced displacement many times this afternoon, so I will not rehearse the point, but I can assure him that in the face of potential further escalation in the conflict, we will redouble our efforts to secure the ceasefire that I know everybody in this House wants to see restored.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am going to get all Members in, but I urge short questions.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Israel is starving Gaza to death. I am sorry, Minister, but when Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war and Palestinians are being ethnically cleansed before our eyes, mere words of regret or condemnation from the Government are simply not good enough. We in this House will be judged in history for failing the Palestinian people, so I urge the Minister to listen to the consensus that is being built across the House today and act. We do not need words; we need action for the Palestinian people.
Mr Falconer
I have heard the force of the contributions. I say gently to my hon. Friend that unlike my predecessors, I have taken action in response to this crisis, as have the Foreign Secretary and others. However, in the face of the scenes coming out of Gaza, it is clear that no one can be claiming victory at the moment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement, as well as for his carefully chosen words; it is never easy to respond to all these questions. As he has stated, peace talks must be a priority for the region, and it is absolutely essential that food and aid can reach children. Has the Minister been able to talk with our allies in Israel about allowing independent third parties immediate access to Gaza to distribute needed supplies, while also ensuring—very importantly—that Israel’s safety is not compromised in any way?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman talks about the importance of independence and impartiality, which are exactly the principles that should be guiding the humanitarian operation in Gaza. He is absolutely right that Hamas must not be diverting aid for their own financial gain or using civilian infrastructure for military purposes. The best way to ensure that is to open up Gaza and allow the aid agencies in to operate effectively.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Israeli Government have publicly declared their intent to occupy Gaza indefinitely, and are systematically denying Gaza’s entire population access to the most basic needs for sustaining human survival. This is a war crime, so does the Minister agree that, alongside France, the UK Government must urgently recognise the state of Palestine at the United Nations conference on the two-state solution in June?
Mr Falconer
I reassure my hon. Friend that we want to make our full contribution in moving a two-state solution forward, and of course, we are in touch with all key regional partners in the run-up to the June conference.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
Missing from so much of the debate around the awful conflict in Gaza are the voices of the Israeli people and the opposition. They have been crying out for another hostage and ceasefire deal. Israel is a liberal democracy with elections due next year. Does the Minister agree with opposition figures, such as Yair Lapid, Benny Gantz and Yair Golan, that the threatened expansion of operations in Gaza will do nothing to bring the 59 hostages home or to remove the Iranian-sponsored death cult that is Hamas?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has a deep focus on these issues and is committed to playing his full role here in them. He will understand why I decline the opportunity to comment on Israel’s internal politics. I will restate the British Government’s view, though, that the fastest route to safety for those hostages is a ceasefire. The points that he makes are made with some force.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment directly on sanctions, but he knows that I have privately urged him to consider further sanctions and further measurable action. Given the ongoing horror and the statement from the Israeli Government, please will the Minister consider further concrete action?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend guesses right about my likely response: I will not comment on sanctions from this Dispatch Box. She has raised these issues with real force with me, and I am sure that she will continue to do so. We will continue to keep sanctions under review.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I very much welcome the strong words of condemnation. None of us will ever forget the horrors of 7 October for the Israeli people, but these latest announcements show an Israeli Government who I fear are out of control and making fools of us as allies. First, when my hon. Friend commits to using the full diplomatic weight to bring about that ceasefire that we all urgently want to see, what concrete next steps does he envisage, given that neither Hamas nor Netanyahu seem bothered in the slightest about international humanitarian law? Secondly, the Prime Minister has previously described the recognition of a Palestinian state as an “undeniable right”, so when will we see that right honoured?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues. I will not rehearse the arguments about recognition. It is obviously a vital part of what I hope will be a practical set of steps forward to try to address the truly horrific scenes we see emanating from Gaza. I join him in pressing on those party to the conflict who are in breach of their international humanitarian law obligations to change their approach.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I echo the Minister’s words condemning Hamas and condemning the Houthi attacks on Ben Gurion airport. An aid blockade is an aid blockade, annexation is annexation and war crimes are war crimes. Israel may be our formal ally, but this weekend the Israeli Government have committed to the seizure and occupation of the Gaza strip, which this Government have repeatedly stated is a violation of international law. Can the Minister tell this House the reasoning that FCDO officials have provided to him for not escalating UK sanctions on Israel? Does he agree with me and the calls of this House that the time has come for significant action in the face of crimes that, had they been committed by any other country, we would have already done something about?
Mr Falconer
As my hon. Friend knows, officials advise and Ministers decide, so I will not labour the questions about Foreign Office advice. We will be taking action in response to the events that we see, as this House would expect. I will not comment on sanctions further from the Dispatch Box, but I recognise the force of the contributions and the commitment of many of my hon. Friends, including her, on these questions.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming to the House today. The long-term occupation of Gaza is entirely incompatible with a viable two-state solution and completely undermines any small prospect of a lasting peace. A full-scale occupation of Gaza is inconsistent with international humanitarian law, so can the Minister please advise the House and give some reassurance that the Government are considering urgently recognising the state of Palestine? If the Israeli Government move on the actions that have been referenced throughout this debate, will the Government seriously look at further sanctions? I know the Minister does not like to talk about that from the Dispatch Box, but can he give an assurance that such a review will take place, should Israel move forward with the actions that it has outlined?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right that permanent occupation of Gaza would be a grievous blow to a two-state solution. Clearly, the Gaza strip should be a central part of a Palestinian state, and I can assure him that we continue to keep all these matters under close review.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. It is crucial that there is recognition of the Palestinian state and that the Palestinian people are represented as equals at the negotiating table. Given what has gone on in the region recently, does the Minister agree that Israel must immediately lift all restrictions on aid and allow unfettered access to humanitarian assistance in Gaza? If Israel refuses, what levers can we use to save innocent lives?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right about the critical nature of the aid shortages in Gaza. The World Food Programme has been clear that it is running out of all stocks to sustain life, and it is vital that the Israelis reverse their path and allow aid back into the strip.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Palestinian people have a right to determine the future of their country. What specific action will the Minister take on the proposed indefinite occupation by Israel of Gaza? It risks eroding the sovereignty of the Palestinian people, sets an extreme precedent in international law, and ultimately jeopardises any path to a lasting peace.
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend asks important questions. We are raising these issues directly with the Israeli Government, and we are talking with our allies about what steps we may take next.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It has now been more than two months since Israel blocked food and aid getting into Gaza. Aid agencies tell us that 95% of their work has been stopped or drastically reduced because of the blockade. I welcome the Minister’s comments condemning these appalling actions, but we are now facing a total collapse of the aid system in Gaza. Is it not time now to go further than words and take action against these extremist Ministers who are advocating for this starvation policy?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is a former aid worker. He understands how these things work, and his warnings about the scale of risk for the humanitarian system, which is supporting so many Palestinian lives, are well made. I will not rehearse the comments I have made.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Government are right to strongly oppose the Israeli Government’s plan to expand military action, which is unconscionable. Does the Minister agree that what should be expanded is the provision of humanitarian aid, and that what should be intensified are negotiations and diplomatic pressure on all parties to bring about a ceasefire, a return of hostages and a credible peace process that results in two sovereign states?
Mr Falconer
I do agree with my hon. Friend’s well-made point.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Gaza has had aid blocked for two months. Netanyahu said that the population may be moved for their own safety—safety from whom? Can the Minister explain what further diplomatic consequences Israel will face if it continues down this road?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right to centre on the safety of the Palestinian people. Diplomacy in relation to this situation continues at pace. I will not provide a running commentary from the Dispatch Box, but I can assure him that we are in direct contact with the Israeli Government on these questions and with our allies to discuss next steps.
Point of Order
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions last Wednesday, I was sitting behind the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I made some comments, and I learned the lesson that the microphones in this place are very good and pick up comments made by those sitting directly behind hon. Members. The comments that I made related to the second earnings of the hon. Member for Clacton, declared in his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. A Reform UK social media account digitally manipulated those comments to give the appearance that I had described the hon. Member using a four-letter expletive.
This is misinformation. It is fake news. It is Trumpian tactics. It was reported to Elon Musk’s X; no response was received. If footage in this House is allowed to be digitally manipulated for political ends in the name of Members of this House, that puts at risk the proceedings in this House and, I believe, puts at risk democracy. I have raised this point of order to put the facts on the public record so that my constituents and everyone else know what actually happened, and to seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what I should do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but as Members on both sides of the House will know, downloading and sharing clips of proceedings in the Chamber is subject to conditions of use, and clips should not be manipulated in such a way as to be misleading. May I suggest that the hon. Member raise the matter with the director of parliamentary audio and video as a matter of urgency?
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (Review)
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to review the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority; and for connected purposes.
From time to time, this House has asked itself the question: what value do we place on support for the victims of violent crime? I believe that this is the right time to ask ourselves that question again.
Victim support can take many forms, including non-financial measures. We have got better, but we must get better still, at recognising the lifelong impact that violent crime has on a person. Victims would benefit from better sharing of information about support services, both public and voluntary, and the processes for accessing NHS diagnostic and therapeutic support. That information sharing should start with the police, the ambulance services and the Crown Prosecution Service, and I was pleased to hear recently from the CPS west midlands region about the enhanced victim support that is now in place. Nevertheless, there will always be cases in which financial loss has occurred, or financial remedy is a necessary or otherwise appropriate means of providing some measure of justice for those who have suffered assault.
I think that Members in all parts of the House would wholeheartedly endorse the principle that, whenever possible, the perpetrators of violent crime should pay the costs of restitution. Indeed, it is a welcome and remarkable achievement that the amount recovered to fund support services through the victim surcharge—first introduced in 2007—has nearly doubled over the last four years. However, the criminal injuries compensation scheme exists because some offenders lack, or cannot be proved to possess, the assets or revenue to pay those costs—the so-called straw men of the justice system—and in still more cases, the perpetrators of violence are never identified. Crime statistics notoriously do not tell the full story, but in the West Midlands police force area, nearly one in five violent assaults are not prosecuted because no suspect can be named. I commend the chief constable, Craig Guildford, and the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, for their success in increasing the number and the share of identified assailants, but the point stands.
The animating force behind the current criminal injuries compensation scheme was a Birmingham magistrate and the first secretary of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Margery Fry, who led a campaign in the 1950s under the clarion call of “Justice for Victims.” She argued that criminal injuries could not be narrowly considered to be a private matter between the assailant and the victim. Just as we provide for each other in times of sickness through national insurance, so too, she argued, a duty is owed by the state when it fails to prevent one citizen from injuring another. In her words,
“the State … cannot disown all responsibility for its occasional failure to protect.”
Today that same principle is set out by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which says that payment is sometimes needed as an
“acknowledgement of harm and an important gesture of public sympathy.”
The criminal injuries compensation scheme is now an integral part of the justice system, even if it is—as the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), put it last week—something of a “Cinderella service”.
Nothing that I say today is intended as a criticism of the staff of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority; they work hard in difficult circumstances, given that staff numbers have fallen by a fifth since the current iteration of the scheme was introduced in 2012. The civil service people survey shows that they take pride and find professional fulfilment in their work, and, as someone who once received an award from the scheme, I remain grateful to them.
Important and positive improvements have been made since, six years ago, the Victims’ Commissioner published an excoriating report. Let me say at this point how welcome it is to see the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), in her place. I know that she cares deeply about victim support as well as having specialist knowledge of this issue, and I am grateful to her for her thoughtful responses and conversations about it. However, it is also clear that failings remain within the system, as we heard last week when Members across parties contributed to a debate in Westminster Hall.
I draw particular attention today to the delays that too many applicants still experience; a lack of signposting or integration with wider support services, and a general lack of public awareness of the scheme itself; the trauma of dog attacks on postal workers and other victims by new and banned breeds, the victims of which are mostly ineligible for compensation following changes to the scheme in 2012; the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse; a supposedly £500,000-a-year hardship fund, established 13 years ago, that is now essentially a dead letter—the criteria are so restrictive that no payments have been made from it in the last seven years; and the tariff system itself, as many serious and life-changing injuries are not covered at all. It is true that the upper cap on the scheme is generous by international standards, but the lowest limit of £1,000 has been frozen in cash terms since 1992.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) referred in this place to annex B of the scheme, which defines a “crime of violence” as including
“a sexual assault to which a person did not in fact consent”.
Those are words and ideas from another age. Even if the courts now adopt a more informed interpretation, the continued presence of that definition can only cause harm, and it must be struck from the scheme.
These problems—and I believe, on the basis of my own casework and that of other Members, that they do to an extent persist—impose a heavy burden on the victims of crime. Like some other Members, I bear the physical scars of violent crime, alongside other scars of a different and more subtle kind. I have spoken previously, in another debate, about that experience, and I do not intend to repeat those words today. It is enough to ask hon. Members to take it on trust that delays, the seemingly arbitrary rules of the scheme, the manner of the communication, and, sometimes, poor decision making can add to the sum of the pain that victims feel—a pain that can only be partially outweighed by the release that the end of the criminal injuries process brings. A perpetrator might evade justice, but it is part of the nature of the trauma response that, at a slight or unexpected prompting, a victim may be compelled to relive that crime again and again.
That is why the Victims’ Commissioner has called for an overarching review of the scheme to establish
“whether it actually fulfils its stated remit: to acknowledge the harm suffered by victims of violent crime who have no other access to compensation, and to provide redress as part of a just and compassionate response.”
That is what the Bill, which I beg leave to introduce, would achieve. The legislation would set out a simple requirement for a fundamental review, and for Ministers to report back to the House with proposals for further scrutiny and debate.
I cannot stand here and claim that easy answers exist to all these questions. Although I note that, to the best of my calculations, the cost of the scheme appears to be falling in real terms, we live in straitened financial times. That is why it is better for reform of the scheme to be carried out in a deliberative manner, on the basis of accurate and recent evidence, and with the needs of victims as the primary concern. To that end, I take heart from the Minister’s statement that the Government do not plan changes to the Scheme “at this time”. She went on to say:
“The clear message to me is that we need change, and I will be considering how Government can best provide the support that victims need and deserve.”
I also take heart from the Prime Minister’s statement of personal support for the victims of violent crime when this matter was raised with him a fortnight ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols).
This issue touches the lives of people in every one of our constituencies. No amount of money can return someone to their mental or physical state prior to an assault, but a well-functioning, fair and compassionate scheme can bring victims some measure of justice.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Laurence Turner, Charlotte Nichols, Michael Wheeler, Andy Slaughter, Warinder Juss, Antonia Bance, Chris Bloore, Catherine Atkinson, Kevin McKenna, Mark Sewards, Tim Roca and Alistair Strathern present the Bill.
Laurence Turner accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June, and to be printed (Bill 231).
Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan.
I am honoured to be opening today’s debate as we come together as a House and a country to mark 80 years since victory in Europe on Thursday 8 May. On 15 August, we will mark victory over Japan.
In May 1940, in his first speech as Prime Minister, Churchill proclaimed,
“let us go forward together with our united strength.”—[Official Report, 13 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1502.]
That is what the country did. That generation’s united strength carried them through six years of war, six years of suffering and six years of sacrifice to preserve the way of life that we enjoy and the values that we hold dear today. From the evacuation of Dunkirk to the battle of Britain and the blitz, we remember the brave service personnel from Great Britain and the Commonwealth who served their country, and those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. We thank you and we remember you.
We remember those on the home front, the evacuated children and the women who stepped into essential roles. I think of my Aunt Kath, my grandad’s cousin, who went to work for the first time in a factory, and of the Bevin boys—many from Barnsley—who worked down the pit to power the war effort. We are proud to remember their contribution and the lasting legacy of peace that they fought so hard to secure—today and always.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I notice an oversight in the Minister’s contribution: Northern Ireland made a very significant contribution. There was never any conscription needed in Northern Ireland, and the great thing about it was that the women filled the gap. They worked in aircraft factories, at Harland and Wolff, in engineering, on the farms, in the fields and in rope factories. Some 12,500 women made a contribution to support their men at the front.
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I will come on to speak about Northern Ireland later in my contribution. I was delighted to visit Northern Ireland a few weeks ago to see at first hand how it will commemorate VE Day. I am sure that Members will share how their constituencies or families played their part in the war effort.
This year’s commemorations to mark VE Day and VJ Day have been, and will continue to be, led by those with first-hand experience of the war, and the Government are honoured to be working with veterans and the Royal British Legion to bring this to life. However, as we mark 80 years between today and the end of the war, the number of people with living memory of it is becoming ever smaller. This year’s anniversary may be the last when veterans who contributed directly to the victory can be in attendance, and when young people can speak to family members who contributed to the effort. I am lucky to have grown up hearing stories from my grandad, who served in the Royal Air Force, but the generation born today may not have the same opportunities to connect directly with veterans. It is up to us to keep their memory alive.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister talks about victory. Will she join me in paying tribute to Corporal Thomas Priday, from the 1st Battalion of the King’s Shropshire Light Infantry, who was one of the first soldiers killed in world war two? While she is paying tribute to him and his relatives, will she also pay tribute to the Shropshire Royal Horse Artillery and the Shropshire Yeomanry, which had a distinguished campaign in Italy?
Stephanie Peacock
I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute. He makes an incredibly important point, which he has put on the record, and I am really pleased to echo his sentiments. As I was saying, it is up to all of us to keep the collective memory alive as time marches forward.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
As we celebrate 80 years since the liberation of our continent from a fascist, tyrannical regime, we must be forever grateful to the brave souls who fought and fell for our freedom. Does the Minister agree that we in Europe are once again faced by a regime that is hellbent on subjugation and tyranny? We must stand up to the aggressors and bullies, and remember that peace is hard won.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I am joined by the Defence Secretary, who also heard his point.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am enjoying the Minister’s contribution. Does she agree that the reason we observe 80th anniversaries is that they can be veteran-led? Sadly, that will not be the case in 2039. Does she also agree that it is important that we start to plan for the centenary of the second world war? Having been heavily involved in the centenary of the great war, I can say that the UK began its preparations just a little bit too late compared with our friends and allies.
Stephanie Peacock
The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point, and I spoke to the head of the Imperial War Museum about this issue yesterday. We absolutely need to start to plan now.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister is being incredibly generous. She mentions the Imperial War Museum. Does she share my regret at its decision to close the gallery displaying over 200 Victoria Crosses and George Crosses, which were collected by Lord Ashcroft and given to the gallery for permanent public display? Could she perhaps ask the Imperial War Museum to reconsider that decision?
Stephanie Peacock
I absolutely hear the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and I know that we have spoken about it previously. The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism has had conversations with both Lord Ashcroft and the Imperial War Museum. He is the Minister responsible for museums. I will relay those comments to him, and I will follow up to the right hon. Gentleman in writing.
I will speak about our national remembrance and celebration this week in a moment, but I will touch first on how important the collective memory and legacy is. This Government have launched a number of initiatives to ensure that every generation—young and old—can connect with the history of their families and communities. “Letters to Loved Ones” has encouraged schoolchildren and family members to explore their family histories by looking for old letters and artefacts to help them learn about life during wartime, and to share them on our website. My mum and dad discovered some lovely letters between my grandparents during the war and just after, when they had got married.
To inspire young people to learn about what life was like during wartime Britain, we also announced “Our Shared Story”, which brought together a range of educational resources. They include material for schools from the Royal British Legion called “I’ll Remember”, which focuses on conversations between veterans and young people. People across the country will also be invited to watch “The Next Morning”, a brand-new National Theatre production written by award-winning screenwriter and playwright James Graham. This short film focuses on the hopes, dreams and ambitions of young people after the second world war.
I have written to schools across my constituency to share these materials, and like all of the community engagement resources, they are designed to run through the year to VJ Day and beyond. For instance, the Tip Top Towns initiative is a call to action for community and volunteering groups to get their town or village ready for the commemorations, whether that be with bunting, litter picking or crochet bonnets for letterboxes. I spotted crochet bonnets in Hoyland and Darfield in my area this weekend.
To deliver the VE and VJ 80 programme of events and national engagement, the Government have worked with an array of brilliant partners, including the Imperial War Museums, the National Theatre, the RBL, Atlantic Productions, Arts Council England, the Together Coalition, the BBC and, of course, all the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Ministry of Defence officials and service personnel. I would like to express my gratitude for their commitment, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those currently serving in our armed forces.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I will add one more to that list of excellent organisations supporting the programme, and that is the National Memorial Arboretum in Alrewas. It is really important that we celebrate VE Day and VJ Day in Staffordshire, where Reginald Mitchell, the designer of the Spitfire, was born—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee)—and where RAF Lichfield, the busiest airfield in Staffordshire during the second world war, was sited, just down the road from where we will be celebrating in Alrewas.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Later in my speech, I will talk about the National Memorial Arboretum, which I was pleased to visit a couple of years ago.
We want the whole of the UK to feel included and involved in VE Day and VJ Day celebrations, wherever they live and whoever they are. Events to mark the occasion began yesterday. The Cenotaph was draped in flags overnight into Monday for the first time since it was unveiled in 1920. That was followed by the military procession, which included over 1,300 armed forces personnel and uniformed youth, and it was accompanied by a flypast led by a second world war RAF Lancaster and featuring the Red Arrows.
Indeed, when the news of peace in Europe arrived here in 1945, spontaneous celebrations broke out in the streets. Those parties were replicated by street parties up and down the country yesterday, and I was delighted to join His Majesty the King and members of the royal family to meet veterans at a tea party at Buckingham Palace. May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the fact that it is two years to the day since His Majesty the King’s coronation? I was also pleased to attend the Imperial War Museums celebration aboard HMS Belfast. I know communities across the country will have come together in celebration, and I thank all mayors and local authorities for the local events they have been leading and will continue to lead.
This evening, iconic buildings will be lit up as beacons of strength and national unity, symbolising the return of light after an era of blackouts lasting six years and echoing the moment when the face of Big Ben was relit. From today until Remembrance Day in November, almost 30,000 ceramic poppies on loan from the Imperial War Museums will cascade from the Tower of London, recreating the world war one centenary installation in 2014. The poppies represent a wound at the heart of the Tower, which survived the blitz, and they are being unveiled this evening as we speak.
Tomorrow, a special performance by the Parliament choir will take place. The Imperial War Museums and the National Theatre are working together to showcase “Letters to Loved Ones” and to premier their new film “The Next Morning”, highlighting the huge impact that living history can have.
On VE Day itself, an official service of remembrance will take place at Westminster Abbey, before celebrations conclude with the VE Day concert. The concert, shown live on the BBC, will mirror this with a mix of music, poetry and the spoken word to reflect our proud national stories, values and culture. Through these events, we can make sure that the legacies of those who gave their lives will always have the same profound impact.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This is a particularly poignant debate for me to attend today, because this morning I attended the funeral of Betty Webb, a 101-year-old former Bletchley Park codebreaker who epitomised the very best of this great generation. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to and thanking Betty, as we lay her to rest, for the sacrifice and commitment she provided to the war effort?
Stephanie Peacock
I absolutely join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Betty. I thank her for her service, as I am sure the whole House does.
I thank my counterparts in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments for their support and engagement. Thanks to them, events and services will take place in every devolved nation. To name a few, Northern Ireland will host a beacon-lighting ceremony. I was pleased to take up the invitation from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) to see how her community will mark the occasion. Services of commemoration are taking place in Wales, such as the national service of thanksgiving tomorrow evening and the VE Day anniversary parade in Swansea on the 11th. I look forward to meeting my counterpart in Cardiff next week. This evening, the Royal British Legion Scotland and Poppyscotland will host the Scotland’s Salute concert at the Usher Hall. I was pleased to visit the Scottish war memorial in Edinburgh a few weeks ago to pay tribute to the Scottish soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice.
Mr Dhesi
The Minister is making an excellent speech. As I celebrated VE Day with my Slough constituents—for example, in Britwell and at the event organised by the Royal British Legion in Cippenham—we reflected on the contributions of our family members, including my great-grandfather, my grandmother’s brother and others, who fought during those conflicts. Does the Minister agree that those armies fighting for our freedom closely reflected and are representative of modern-day Britain, and we must use that very fact when countering those who espouse hatred and division?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I echo it.
As we reflect throughout this week, we must of course remember everyone who supported the war effort, particularly those in the Channel Islands whose courage is woven into the fabric of our freedom. The Channel Islands were not liberated until 9 May, and their story is one of hardship and perseverance. To mark liberation day, the Ministry of Justice will be flying the flags of Jersey and Guernsey in commemoration. I will be visiting Jersey and Sark at the end of this week to commemorate liberation day. I look forward to participating in the commemorations, and to meeting and hearing about the soldiers, civilians and children who sacrificed so much.
The second world war was truly that—a world war—and Britain would not be the country we know it to be today if it was not for the Commonwealth troops who fought tirelessly for the allied victory. I am pleased to be working with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission as part of the VE Day and VJ Day commemorations to ensure that the commemorations are worldwide. Its global “For Evermore” tour will honour and shine a light on the stories of those from across the world who fought in the second world war, visiting Belgium, Italy, Malta, France and the Netherlands, and places across the UK, to bring the stories of British and Commonwealth soldiers to life.
It is important to note that many of these service personnel continued to fight in the Pacific long after the war on the European front had come to an end. We will mark that contribution again on VJ Day on 15 August. On the first VJ Day 80 years ago, Clement Attlee, the Prime Minister at the time, said to this House:
“Thus the long, grievous war is at an end, and peace on earth has been restored.”—[Official Report, 15 August 1945; Vol. 413, c. 48.]
Indeed, those six years of war saw the generations before us make tremendous sacrifices to preserve the way of life we enjoy today. On VJ Day, the Royal British Legion will lead the nation in honouring those who fought and died during the war in the far east with a service at the National Memorial Arboretum.
The legacy of those who gave or risked their lives will always have a profound impact, and it is up to all of us to keep their stories alive. As the poet Edmund Blunden wrote in his poem “V Day”,
“once more we have come through.”
Moments of national unity live long in our memories—from the Olympics to Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s jubilees. They bring us together and they remind us of our communal values, how we pull together in times of adversity, how we show compassion to our neighbours and how we put our community before division in times of need. I am grateful that we, as a House and as a country, have had the opportunity to create another moment of such unity, today and throughout the year, as we remember that great generation, all they gave and all they fought for.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her excellent speech and welcome all that the Government have done in preparation for VE Day and VJ Day.
The 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day are a time for the nation to come together and celebrate the conclusion of the second world war—a war in which good triumphed over evil and liberated millions of people from the horrors of fascism. On VE Day, millions rejoiced across the western world, relieved that years of conflict and immense hardship were finally coming to an end. On 8 May 1945, British people—including Her Royal Highness, the then Princess Elizabeth—flocked to the streets to celebrate the defeat of Nazi Germany and the liberation of Europe. People danced long into the night, attended street parties and looked forward to a brighter future.
We must not forget, however, that as those parties wore on, troops from Britain and the Commonwealth, as well as our allies, continued to take the struggle to Japan. It was not until August 1945 that there was victory over Japan. VJ Day marked the conclusion of the war in the far east, and we must never forget the sacrifices of the troops who helped to liberate millions of people from imperial Japan.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
One of my constituents, Pam Gillespie, often leads the VJ Day commemorations in Harlow because her father, George Money, was a far east prisoner of war. Will the shadow Minister join me in thanking people like Pam? Does he agree that it is hugely important that we recognise VJ Day and that, while the war in Europe may have been over, there was still a war going on and many servicemen were still giving their lives?
Saqib Bhatti
On this point, the hon. Gentleman and I are friends; I thank Pam and her family for their sacrifice and for all that happens on VJ Day.
VE Day and VJ Day must forever be remembered and etched into our memories. I am sure this whole House will agree that it is important that we remember these historic days for years to come. This year, 2025, is especially important, as it may well be one of the last years troops who served in the second world war are still alive.
I want to ask the Minister, on behalf of the shadow Secretary of State, if she will comment directly on his campaign to bring home a statue of Vera Lynn. The late Sir David Amess launched an appeal to create a lasting memorial to Dame Vera Lynn, whose songs kept our troops’ morale high, often in times of huge uncertainty and great peril. During the battle of Britain, when it looked like the Nazis might invade Britain at any moment, she really did keep the bluebirds singing over the “White Cliffs of Dover”. The committee need to raise £350,000 to complete the bronzing process and bring the memorial home from the Czech Republic. Could the Minister confirm that this fitting tribute will indeed be brought home?
Every man and woman who served and serves in our armed forces stood and stands up for Britain and the precious values and rights for which we have fought for generations: democracy, liberty and the rule of law. We are forever in debt to the brave souls who fought to defend this country—as the saying goes, freedom is not free. To all those serving, those who have served and those who have sacrificed, we say thank you.
Yesterday, thousands of people descended upon the Mall to watch all three services march in the excellent VE Day parade. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to everyone who took part, but especially to the veterans who made the occasion so special. Today, Her Majesty the Queen will visit the Tower of London to see the 30,000 poppies on display to mark and reflect the sacrifices made by so many in the second world war. Here in Parliament, there will be a celebratory concert in Westminster Hall, where the fantastic parliamentary choir will perform alongside some special guests. On VE Day itself, nearly 2,000 people, including Their Majesties the King and the Queen and a host of veterans, will mark the 80th anniversary with a special service at Westminster Abbey.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
In addition to the fantastic array of national events being held to mark VE Day and VJ Day, does the shadow Minister agree that we have some really fantastic community events in our constituencies, organised by local community groups—including Project Purley, which organised a fantastic celebration that I attended on Monday—which will give us a wonderful opportunity to celebrate and reflect on the contribution of those who fought for our freedoms?
Saqib Bhatti
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: it is the community events that really do define the day for me. She makes an excellent point, as I lead on to in my speech. Over the coming days, alongside the national events, thousands of people up and down the country will also commemorate this historic occasion with street parties, church services and concerts.
In my own constituency, we proudly remember our heroes. Every year in Meriden, in the very heart of England, hundreds of cyclists come to honour the cyclists who lost their lives in the first and second world wars. On Thursday, I will join the mayor of Solihull, who will be lighting a beacon at Elmdon church, and later in the week I will join Visit Knowle’s street party. I pay special tribute to the Solihull Observer, which printed a special edition to commemorate VE Day, with stories of the heroes who come from my part of the world. These events, and many others across the country, truly show Britain at its very best.
In remembering the second world war, we must remember that our victory was forged on our relationships with not just our allies, but our friends in the Commonwealth. Troops came from many different nations and different faiths from across the world—Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh and others—to fight side by side, irrespective of their race or religion, and to stand up for the values that we all hold dear. Their common goal was to stand against tyranny and evil and to stand for freedom.
The conclusion of the second world war marked the end of the last major conflict in Europe until Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine. While we rightly celebrate the end of the second world war today, we must not forget the horrific and brutal conflict taking place in Europe. I am sure we were all moved by the Ukrainian troops taking part in yesterday’s parade. It reflected our country’s deep and profound commitment to their noble cause, and once more shows that this country will not stand by while brutal autocrats seek to impose themselves on Europe. While I am deeply proud of the St George’s flag and the Union Jack, I am also proud of the Ukrainian flag, which has flown over council buildings across the UK as a reminder that this country will always stand up to bullies and come to the aid of those who stand for democracy and freedom.
Dave Robertson
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way—it is unusual for me to make two interventions in the same debate. Reflecting on my family’s experience of the second world war, my taid—my maternal grandfather, who was Welsh—fought in the war, but his war did not end in 1945. He did not come home until 1947, because he was part of the peacekeeping missions in both Italy and Greece. Does the shadow Minister agree that when we look at the situation in Ukraine, it is important that we remember Britain’s role not just in winning the second world war, but in winning the peace, and how important that will be in the future?
Saqib Bhatti
I could not have put it better myself. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the work that is happening now and will continue to happen going forward. If the House will indulge me, I also note that Reform’s flag ban policy would also prevent council buildings from flying armed forces flags—a reminder that populism does not equal patriotism.
To conclude, in times of global uncertainty, reflecting on the second world war lends us some much-needed perspective. Remembering the history of the war and the causes of the war are absolutely essential, and I am hugely supportive of the Government’s work to celebrate the anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day. I look forward to Members’ contributions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Members will be able to see how many have risen to speak in this evening’s debate, so there will be a four-minute time limit after the contributions from the Front Bench.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
As we mark the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day and later this summer celebrate the anniversary of Victory over Japan Day, I am reminded of the extraordinary bravery shown by so many, including our very own Ray Statham, from Newhall, in my constituency. Eighty years ago, Ray was in the English channel supporting the D-day landings; now, as he approaches his 103rd birthday, we celebrate not only his longevity but the legacy of service he represents. Ray served aboard HMS Indefatigable with the Royal Navy, and I know the whole House will want to join me in wishing him a very happy birthday and offering him our deepest thanks for his service to our country. I would also like to recognise Ken Ash from Repton, who served with the Royal Signals, and my own grandad, Frederick, or Fred, Palmer, who served in the Royal Logistics Corps in the Army.
Winston Churchill said that the surrender of Nazi Germany was
“the signal for the greatest outburst of joy in the history of mankind”,
and while for many that was true, for countless others, the end of the war was marked by quiet sorrow for those who never came home. Across the UK and overseas, the graves of those who made the ultimate sacrifice are lovingly maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. We have one such war grave in Swadlincote, in Church Gresley cemetery. Thanks to Glyn Jackson and Joanne Abbassi, we have a folder of the names of those who rest in peace there. I am so grateful to Shelly Lynn, who leads tours of the cemetery, for sharing those names with me. I have written to the Secretary of State for Defence and to the Minister for Veterans and People with their names in a roll call, asking them to join me in sharing our gratitude for their service. Each of their names is a reminder of a family left behind, a future never fulfilled. What strikes me most is their youth. So many were in their early 20s, some just teenagers. They had dreams, careers and families ahead of them, and they gave all of that up for us. For me, this roll call carries an even more personal note. Many brave men and women served in the Royal Air Force as volunteer reserves. I have the privilege of taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme with the RAF this year, allowing me a small glimpse of the professionalism and sacrifice that defines our Royal Air Force personnel to this day.
As we commemorate VE Day and VJ Day, let us remember those who fought and fell not only in victory, but in hope, and let us resolve always to be worthy of the freedom that they gave us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
On the eve of war, Liberal leader Archibald Sinclair warned:
“A policy which imposes injustice on a small and weak nation and tyranny on free men and women can never be the foundation of lasting peace.”
He was speaking about the Munich agreement, which saw European powers cede Czechoslovakian territory to Hitler. Nobody in this House would describe the brave nation or the people of Ukraine as small and weak, but with the spectre of the dictator Vladimir Putin looming large on the eastern edge of Europe and President Trump threatening deals to carve up Ukrainian territory, Sinclair’s words resonate today as they did then.
The wartime generation knew the cost of giving ground to tyrants, as they celebrated 80 years ago this week. The best way to honour those who fought for peace is to redouble our efforts to preserve it. Those people, together with today’s serving personnel and veterans, carry forward the legacy of service inherited from that extraordinary wartime generation. In their memory, this anniversary must be a moment not just of reflection, but of a renewed sense of responsibility. This country is at its best when it works with its allies, not when it shrinks from the world.
This year is very likely the final big celebration for the veterans of world war two who are still with us. There are 360 names on Cheltenham’s war memorial, and many civilians in my town also died in bombing raids. On VE Day, after six long years at war, people in my constituency and around the country took to the streets to celebrate. At Whaddon primary school, children waved Union Jack flags. People lined up outside the municipal offices in the town centre to hear Winston Churchill deliver his VE Day speech. An effigy of Adolf Hitler was burned. The celebrations reportedly ran well past midnight, which is rather late for a genteel Cotswolds spa town in the 1940s.
It is right that we in this House pause to remember the scale of the sacrifice and the legacy of the victory that that generation gave us. This anniversary is not simply about marking dates in a calendar, but a chance to say thank you to the dwindling number of surviving veterans and to all those who have served, suffered, and rebuilt.
Today I think of Lorna, a 105-year-old I recently met at St Ives Court in Cheltenham and very possibly my oldest constituent. She told me proudly about her contribution to the war effort as an intelligence analyst in Whitehall. I think of all those who served in the Gloucestershire Regiment and I think of my two grandfathers, both of whom served— one in the Navy and one in the RAF.
This anniversary is about ensuring that we continue to stand up for what they stood for. We must use this moment to recommit ourselves to the international co-operation and diplomacy that helped to deliver 80 years without a third world war. It is a peace that has been threatened by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is no coincidence that European unity was born from the ashes of the second world war. It has been the greatest peacebuilding project in history and, in the face of the threats that confront us today, we must once again stand shoulder to shoulder with our European allies. That means supporting NATO, standing up to aggression, and strengthening the rule of international law.
That does not mean, as some have callously suggested, that Ukraine should accept a deal to cede some of its territory to Putin. That would be a betrayal of the principles for which the wartime generation fought. That includes those who suffered in the far east. They have often received less recognition than those who served in Europe. The conflict there continued for nearly three months after VE Day, in punishing conditions and at immense human cost. Yet in too many commemorations, their stories are not heard. We owe these individuals our deepest gratitude, and it is good that we are remembering them this VE Day. That gratitude to all those who have served must be expressed not just in words, but in action: action to defend our democracy; and action to defend the British values of liberty, tolerance and respect for the rule of law. Respecting our veterans means looking after them properly after their service is over—looking after their mental health, their housing, and their right to compensation.
This anniversary is not only about how we treat veterans, but about how we tell the story of the war and whose voices we include. The role of Commonwealth forces in securing victory is also often overlooked. Some 2.5 million Indian troops served in the second world war, many of them in the gruelling Burma campaign. Troops from Africa, the Caribbean, and across the Empire fought valiantly under British command. As a Liberal and an internationalist, I believe that we must be proud of them. It is only right that, today and this week, we recognise the contribution of our Commonwealth soldiers. Beyond the parades and ceremonies, we must embed this fuller history into our national consciousness, because remembrance without inclusion is incomplete.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
My constituency has the largest Commonwealth war graves site in the north of England. We regularly put on fantastic events throughout the year, including the Remembrance Sunday services and Christmas services. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating those involved for the fantastic work they do in making sure that we do not forget?
Max Wilkinson
Absolutely. The second-best spa town in the country, I am sure, celebrates VE Day wonderfully well.
This anniversary arrives at a time of renewed global instability. From Ukraine to the middle east, we are once again reminded that peace is fragile—that it cannot be taken for granted. The international order built in the aftermath of 1945 is under more strain than ever. The world is more dangerous than at any point since the cold war. Members in all parts of the House are so proud that many of our parliamentary colleagues have served in the armed forces, and we all stand with our armed forces.
Finally, I wish to express my party’s strong support for the programme of national commemorations planned this year. We can all be very proud of what is happening. These events give us all a meaningful opportunity to reflect on the courage, resilience, and unity that defined the war effort, on the frontlines and on the home front alike. Let us mark this 80th anniversary not just with solemnity, but with resolve. Let us listen to the stories of those who served, from the soldiers to the evacuees, from the factory workers to the codebreakers, and let us make sure that every part of their legacy is carried forward. Let us honour them not just with words, but with action.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
As with so many towns and villages across the UK, brave residents of my constituency, including my own grandparents, were involved in all aspects of the war effort. Our towns and villages answered the call for service—service that took so many forms. Early in the war, Coatbridge hosted the Polish 1st Field Artillery Regiment for a short time after the evacuation of France. So warm was the hospitality offered by the locals that the regiment later adopted Coatbridge as the mother garrison, and the town’s coat of arms was emblazoned on their regimental standard.
Despite their own hardship and struggles, local people in my community and across the Monklands area engaged in whole raft of activities to support the war effort, including knitwear drives, charity concerts and cinema galas, to extend support not just for our own efforts, but to aid others, including the Russian Red Cross Society. Nowhere was that deep sense of common cause more apparent than in the support offered by the women in Coatbridge to the women of besieged Leningrad. I think those women would be frankly ashamed of the actions taken today by Putin in Ukraine.
When reflecting on these years, it is impossible not to think of our own families and the roles that they played alongside their neighbours and friends. They were ordinary people engaging in extraordinary acts. I think of how privileged I was to hear their stories and to reflect on those that went untold. I think of my maternal grandfather, Edwin Simpson, who fought with the RAF and whose wings I am privileged to carry with me today, along with his squadron photo taken at RAF Yatesbury in Wiltshire in 1944—a crew that spanned the country and the Commonwealth. I think of my paternal grandmother, Ethel McNally, who spent the war as a crane driver and was more than a little irked when after the war she was replaced by returning service personnel—something she never tired of shouting about.
The role of women has been well-discussed and will be throughout this debate. At the war’s conclusion, the provost of Coatbridge town council recognised women for their role in the war effort in munitions and weapons factories, which were themselves dangerous environments. In the same message, the provost told of how the armed forces had saved the world for democracy, with their courage, steadfastness, tenacity and grit. Provost Pirie’s tribute is all the more moving as he had lost his son Lieutenant Sydney Robertson Pirie of the 1st London Scottish Regiment just one month before VE Day.
The Minister mentioned parties, some of which lasted days in Bellshill and they were well documented locally. No level of gratitude can be enough to thank those who served and who died, including the hundreds whose names live on the memorials throughout my constituency, for the peace that they secured in 1945. We honour those who died and those who lived in that greatest generation. We commend their service and their sacrifice.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
At the outbreak of the second world war, the National Service (Armed Forces) Act 1939 introduced conscription for all men aged between 18 and 41. Like so many of his generation, my grandfather Harry Fry Davis Reed, born in Plymouth in 1913, received his call-up papers. On 20 June 1940, he reported for duty in Exeter. He joined the newly formed 12th Battalion of the Devonshire Regiment, or the Devons. It was a battalion largely made up of conscripts serving for the duration of the war.
Just one month later, the Nazi bombing of Plymouth began, and the city he called home, where he had grown up, lived and worked, came under relentless attack. Friends, neighbours and fellow Plymothians were killed. Streets were destroyed, and entire communities were changed forever.
In the early years of the war, my grandfather helped defend the coastal areas of what is now my constituency of Exmouth and Exeter East. That knowledge speaks to me when I walk along local beaches at home. I often reflect on what it must have felt like to guard those shores under the threat of invasion, not knowing what would come next, only that you had to stand your ground.
By 1943, the 12th Battalion had been redesignated as a glider-borne infantry unit within the 6th Airborne Division. Their mission was to fly into combat aboard Horsa gliders, which were unarmoured, fragile aircraft made from wood and canvas. The thought of falling from the sky into enemy territory under fire in such vulnerable aircraft is almost unimaginable, but that is exactly what they did.
In 1944, my grandfather deployed to France for D-day. He left behind his young wife—my grandmother—and their two-year-old son, my father. While he went to war, his family remained under the shadow of the Luftwaffe as the bombing of Plymouth continued. Thousands more Plymothians would lose their lives. When Harry returned, it was to a city transformed by devastation and to a community that had endured untold suffering.
But the war was far from over. In March 1945, his battalion took part in Operation Varsity—the airborne crossing of the Rhine. To this day, it remains the largest airborne operation ever conducted on a single day in one location. In the final weeks of the war they reached northern Germany, just south of Wismar. There they maintained their kit, kept sharp and waited, not knowing what horrors lay ahead.
Victory in Europe was declared on 8 May 1945. The Devons were granted leave, and many attended a thanksgiving service in a nearby village. Relief no doubt filled the air, but the war’s final chapter was still to be written. In the days that followed, they came face to face with the unimaginable: the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps. Those images would no doubt remain etched in their minds forever.
I never had the chance to meet my grandfather, as he died many years before I was born, but I am deeply proud of him. His story, while personal, is not unique. That is exactly why I share it. Up and down our United Kingdom, families carry stories just like this—stories of ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstances, and stories of courage, endurance, loss and love. These stories are not rare; they are woven into the fabric of our nation.
Though I have served in the Royal Marines and experienced war myself, I still find it hard to truly comprehend what that generation went through. Their sacrifice, on a scale that few of us today can fully grasp, was made in the name of freedom, in defence of democracy, and in defiance of tyranny. It was a burden carried for all of us. To that generation—our greatest generation—we owe a debt that can never truly be repaid. But we can remember, and we can honour, and we can ensure that their legacy lives on. Because of their courage, we have lived in peace. For that, I will always be grateful. We will remember them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind Members that there is a time limit on speeches.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I am proud to speak in this debate on behalf of the home of the British Army. In Aldershot and Farnborough, VE Day and VJ Day are woven into the very fabric of our community. My words today have been shaped by constituents who have shared with me their memories and specialist knowledge, including Iris Munro, who told me her story as a 16-year-old celebrating VE Day in her home town of Aldershot, and Paul H. Vickers, a military historian who lives in Aldershot and who was a Ministry of Defence librarian for 40 years. I thank them for their help as I try to do the stories from our towns justice.
Aldershot stood at the very centre of the war effort. It was from its barracks and training grounds that thousands of brave men and women were prepared for service across Europe, north Africa and beyond. It was there that troops were forged, not just in skill but in spirit, and it was there that wounded soldiers found safety and solace in the Cambridge and Connaught hospitals.
My constituent Iris Munro, now 96, was the youngest of nine children, and every one of her family played a role—her four brothers fighting across the globe in the European and far eastern theatres, and her father, mother and sisters active on the home front. She vividly remembers the terror of sleeping under the stairs as Aldershot was bombed, and how Lord Haw-Haw singled out the town as he tried to demoralise the population. She also recalls the town’s defiance and spirit of resistance, as she sang “There’ll always be an England” to entertain her neighbours when they sought cover in the dirt-floored underground shelters as the air raid warning sirens wailed overhead.
Aldershot gave the allied campaign strength in its most literal sense, playing a vital role in the preparation for the D-day landings and serving as a hub for Canadian troops, more than 320,000 of whom passed through its gates during the war. Farnborough was the beating heart of Britain’s aeronautical innovation. The Royal Aircraft Establishment based there became a crucible of scientific brilliance. It was in Farnborough that engineers and researchers developed the technologies that gave our pilots superiority in the skies, including radar, advanced aircraft design, and aerodynamics. It was a battle fought not with rifles but with calculations and courage, and it helped tilt the balance in the air towards the allies. Farnborough proved that war could be won not only with force but innovation.
On 8 May, when news of Germany’s surrender reached Aldershot, the town was united in joyful celebration. Fairy lights were hung in a “V for victory” formation on the fronts of homes. A pipe band from a Canadian unit led a spontaneous parade, with hundreds linking arms and singing. Iris remembers singing with friends from her youth club, right at the front of the parade, with her mum proudly waving from the sidelines. In Farnborough, a grand dance took place at the Royal Aircraft Establishment assembly hall. The music did not stop until 3 o’clock in the morning. It was not just a celebration—it was release. A lifetime’s worth of tension and fear was finally let go in laughter, in dance and in community.
Among those joyful scenes, we also have to remember the personal stories. I was honoured to meet Norman “Norrie” Bartlett on Remembrance Day in Yateley last year. He sadly passed away this March. He joined the Navy in 1942, under age at just 16, and suffered the extreme cold and danger of both the Arctic and the Atlantic. I am pleased to say that he was well enough, having seen both D-day landings and the Japanese surrender, to make it to Normandy for the 80th anniversary—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. My apologies for not noticing the time; I was being disturbed by the Whip.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Driving around my beautiful constituency, it is hard to tell that the area played such a pivotal role in the second world war. Only one active military base remains on the site of the old RAF Driffield at Kelleythorpe, which is now used by cadets and occasionally for other training. Back in the 1940s, the countryside of East Yorkshire was littered with airfields. The area played a vital role in taking the air war to Germany. I do not have time to go into detail about each base, but I will do my best to give the House a whistlestop tour.
RAF Bridlington was made up of a number of units, including air gunnery schools, initial training wings, air-sea rescue and a marine craft unit. Just to the north, RAF Bempton was established as a radar station, becoming part of the Chain Home Low network. RAF Cottam near Driffield was a satellite base that was used only occasionally for flying and mostly as a bomb storage site. RAF Cowden to the south of Hornsea was an RAF bombing range. We are occasionally reminded of its past when bomb disposal teams are called in to deal with ordnance unearthed by the fast-eroding coastline.
RAF Hutton Cranswick was developed as a fighter base with many Spitfire squadrons passing through. It was used not only by the RAF but by the Royal Canadian Air Force and several Polish fighter squadrons. RAF Catfoss near Brandesburton had a small number of Spitfires and trained strike aircraft crews for operations in north Africa and the middle east. Huggate wold was surveyed for a bomber base, but a better location was found nearby. However, a pop-up airstrip was created at Huggate wold with steel mesh, as it was required for the invasion of Europe.
It is Bomber Command that has perhaps left its legacy in East Yorkshire. With its proximity to Germany, the area was home to hundreds of aircraft and crewed by men undertaking some of the most dangerous missions of the war in the skies over continental Europe. RAF Full Sutton, RAF Lissett and RAF Driffield were home to many of those bomber crews: Halifax bombers, Wellington bombers and others. The 158 Squadron based at RAF Lissett lost 144 aircraft in just two years, costing the lives of 851 airmen. They are remembered by a fantastic memorial on the Gransmoor Road just outside the village.
It was not just bomber air bases. We had RAF Carnaby near Bridlington, which was a particularly important military asset as it was one of only three emergency landing strips in the country. It was 2.7 km long and 230 metres wide—five times the normal width. More than 1,500 bombers made emergency landings at Carnaby during the war, including the Dambusters, who landed there with their grand slam bombs still on board when they were diverted due to bad weather over their targets in Germany.
While the RAF played a vital role in my constituency, the infantrymen of the East Yorkshire Regiment also served with distinction throughout the war. Their battalions served at Dunkirk and in India, Burma, north Africa and Sicily before landing in the first wave on Gold beach on D-day. Despite many casualties on that first day, they achieved all their objectives and fought on through Normandy and all the way to Germany. Our area also has a French connection as a number of regiments from the Free French army were based at Hornsea under General Leclerc.
I am delighted to have had the brief opportunity to highlight East Yorkshire’s rich wartime history, but I also want to pay tribute to all my constituents currently serving in the armed forces and to the 5,000 veterans living in the local area. Whether in Normandy or Northern Ireland, on land, air or sea: on the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Europe, we thank you for your service and your sacrifice.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Eighty years ago, Britain celebrated victory in Europe. The war was over, although the real achievement was not just the military triumph but the extraordinary effort that got us there: the unity, the resolve and the national determination to stand up to fascism and defend freedom and democracy. I have thought about that a lot over the years, listening to my grandad share memories of his time as a commando during the Italian campaign, as I watched my dad leave home to go to the first Gulf war, and again as I served in Afghanistan. The message of VE Day has stayed with me. Victory is not just about those serving; it is about the whole country behind them.
When I was in Afghanistan, we faced daily attacks from rockets, snipers and mortar fire. Those moments still come back to me, but I remember just as clearly how our fight on the frontline relied on so many others. During that time, we lost many good soldiers and marines tragically, but we learned: our tactics changed and military surgeons developed new procedures. The same innovation was happening back home, where our engineers were designing mine-resistant vehicles, better body armour and equipment to jam radio-controlled explosives. That innovation saved lives. In Ukraine, where I was last month, the same is happening right now. The Ukrainian defence industry has gone into overdrive to engineer the kit that will help save it from Russian aggression.
There is no denying that we live in increasingly dangerous times. War is raging on our continent. Eighty years on from VE Day, the idea of a lasting peace in Europe is a fading reality. That is why I support the Government’s plans to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, not because it sounds tough, but because it is necessary. However, if we are truly serious about security, we must go further than just raising the budget. We must ensure that spending builds strength at home.
In 1945, it was British industry in shipyards, foundries and engineering firms that turned the war effort around. HMS Catterick—the ship my grandad served on before he landed at Salerno—was built in Barrow shipyard. Industrial heartlands like the Black Country made tanks, armoured cars, weapons and ammunition. Those places did not just support the war; they made victory possible.
Today the Black Country still has the talent, the tools and the tradition. Somers Forge in Halesowen produces vital equipment for the Royal Navy and B. B. Price in Cradley Heath has been forging parts for ships, tanks and aircraft for generations. They are not relics of the past; they are the backbone of the future defence industry, because deterrence starts long before the first shots are fired.
As we are seeing in Ukraine, a strong and capable military is essential to deterring our enemies. This VE Day, as we honour those who served and sacrificed, we also have a duty to ask what country we are building today. Are we ready for the challenges ahead? Are we investing in the skills, industries and infrastructures that kept us free 80 years ago? We owe it to that generation and to the next to be bold, to rebuild our strength at home so we can face threats abroad and to remember that Britain’s security has always rested not just on the courage of its troops but on the quiet determination of the people and places that back them. That spirit of 1945—unity, purpose and resilience—is not a memory; it is a blueprint. It is time that we followed it again.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
In 1945, after six long years of hardship, sacrifice and loss, peace returned to a continent torn apart by conflict. When the news broke in Mid Sussex—in our towns and in our villages—people gathered for street parties, shared cups of tea at “bring your own cup” celebrations, held thanksgiving services and lit bonfires that could be seen for miles. There was joy, yes, but there was also reflection, for while victory brought peace, it could never undo the human cost.
I recently met a wonderful charity working hard to highlight the work of a specific group during the war: the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit, who were an essential part of the war effort. Among those who served and died in the PRU was William Comber, a constituent of Mid Sussex at that time. Flight Lieutenant William Edward Comber, the son of William and Emma Comber, was born in Cuckfield. On joining the RAF, he was posted to 680 Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron, operating in the Mediterranean. He was taken ill on 5 December 1943 and was taken to the No. 63 general hospital in Salonika, Greece, where, despite the use of an iron lung, he died of polio on 10 December. We thank him, and I ask the Minister to support a national memorial to the Photo Reconnaissance Unit. We also thank the countless others who served and gave everything for their country.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
My constituent, James Hares, was one of the brave pilots in the same unit. Despite the unit having a death rate of about 48%—one of the worst of the war—he survived, only to sadly pass away on the journey home. We have heard from so many colleagues already how those stories are largely untold and how many people did crucial work in helping to win the war—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. If Members are going to get in during this debate, interventions need to be interventions and not mini-speeches.
Alison Bennett
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and for her additional insight into the work of the PRU. Coming from an Army family—the kind that took me, aged seven in 1984, on a tour of the D-day beaches as a holiday—we remember our war dead. Our war dead must be remembered, and doing so matters to me. Their strength and sacrifice paved the way for the freedoms we enjoy today. That is why this anniversary matters. It is not just a historical milestone, but a powerful reminder of the values that we must continue to uphold: courage, unity, resilience and an unshakeable belief in the importance of peace.
It is fantastic that Mid Sussex is once again coming together to commemorate VE Day in the same spirit shown all those years ago: from a reflective service at the Burgess Hill war memorial to community street parties and parades. With the lighting of beacons in Victoria Park in Haywards Heath and St John’s Park in Burgess Hill, this anniversary will be marked with pride, with dignity and, I know, with heart. VE Day is not just about looking back; it is about reminding ourselves of what was fought for—freedom, democracy and peace—and about recognising how vital it is that we protect those values today.
Sadly, we live in a world that still faces conflict and uncertainty. There are dark, divisive forces that seek to disrupt peace, incite hatred and push to the side the lessons that were learned 80 years ago. So on this 80th anniversary, let us remember, let us honour and, above all, let us ensure that the legacy of those who gave everything lives on—not just in our words but in our actions.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I am privileged to speak in this debate today after so many powerful speeches from colleagues across the House. I am also glad to have the chance to draw particular attention to the people of Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, and the special role that my constituents and their forefathers played in securing victory for the allies. The Fife and Forfar Yeomanry was present at many of the second world war’s most crucial turning points, from the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940 to the Normandy landings in 1944 and the crossing of the Rhine in March 1945. Hundreds of young men lost their lives, and we will remember them.
I draw attention to the enormous contribution that women made to the war effort. Having entered the workforce en masse in Kirkcaldy’s world-famous linoleum industry during the first world war, the contribution to the second world war effort by Kirkcaldy’s women was invaluable. Women working at Nairn’s manufactured fuel tanks for Halifax bombers, and their biggest contribution was to anti-gas fabric for capes and gas masks. Such quantities could only be produced in Kirkcaldy, and that was a decisive factor in the allied victory, as the Nazis could not manufacture gas-proof textiles in sufficient quantities and so never used gas in air raids for fear of retaliation. One of the most iconic symbols of Britain’s war effort—and, indeed, its lack of use—are therefore testament to the hard graft of Fifers, particularly our wartime women.
Adding to their contribution were the thousands of Poles in the 1st Independent Parachute Brigade, stationed at Auchtertool in my constituency, who helped to fortify Scotland’s east coast and set up anti-tank barriers and pillboxes from Burntisland all the way up to Montrose, accompanying the fortifications on the island of Inchcolm in the Forth. The regiment later went into battle in Operation Market Garden in the Netherlands in 1944. General Sikorski, the leader of the Polish Government in exile, had a house in Auchtertool as well, and I found a quote from Winston Churchill as he updated this very House on the death of General Sikorski in July 1943:
“Until the moment of his death he lived in the conviction that all else must be subordinated to the needs of the common struggle and in the faith that a better Europe will arise”.—[Official Report, 6 July 1943; Vol. 390, c. 1947.]
Many Poles made their homes in my constituency after world war two and they are an important part of our community today.
The memory of those who fought in both world wars and all others, and in particular of those who did not make it home, is kept alive by the fantastic work of the Kirkcaldy Legion. Its work alongside the Kirkcaldy United Services Institute and the Hill of Beath Ex-servicemans Club in my constituency supports veterans in our area. I am also glad of the work that our Labour Government are putting in to support our veterans and their families.
I commemorate the contribution of my granny, Isa McCue, who served in a munitions factory, and my grandad, Sam Ward, who served in the RAF during world war two. Civilians before the war, like so many, they stepped up to secure our freedom. In the face of the challenges in our own day and age, in this debate and on the 80th anniversary of VE Day on Thursday, we commemorate real people who worked, who served and who gave their lives for freedom and prosperity in the face of immense challenges. They are, after all, the reason we are here today.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
What an excellent speech to have the privilege of following.
It is always so impressive when people do their duty right up to the very end, and so I ask the House to salute the passing of Normandy veteran Cecil Newton, who as recently as last year came back to Lepe beach in New Forest East and read out the names of more than a hundred of his comrades in the Royal Dragoon Guards who were killed in the D-day landings and beyond. He was one of 6,000 troops who landed on Gold beach, having departed from Lepe beach. He was in an amphibious Sherman tank that made it to shore—not all of them did—and he survived being wounded in combat too, passing at the great age of 101.
We have heard from many speakers about the connections between their constituencies and the military history of the second world war. That was a theme on which I expatiated back in May 1997 in my very first speech in this House. I will repeat just one reference from that oration, about when I discovered a small plot of RAF graves in Fawley churchyard in my constituency. I could not help but be moved by the inscription on the headstone of a young airman, John Burrow, whose parents had written the following:
“Into the mosaic of victory we lay this priceless piece—our son”.
I thought that that was such a wonderful thing to do in the depths of their loss: to say, nevertheless, that this is what we are doing for the victory of our country over Nazi Germany. I salute them and their memory too.
How does one do justice to the second world war in a few minutes? I will pick out one key factor without which everything else would have been different: the existence of the English channel. There can be no doubt that if we had been contiguous with the continent of Europe, we would have suffered the same fate as all our allies there. There is no way in which we could have resisted being overrun. When we think about how difficult it was to reinvade and retake the continent for democracy in 1944, even with Britain as the launch area for that invasion, we realise how virtually impossible it would have been without the United Kingdom remaining outside Nazi German control.
We can also look at the areas covered by a simple listing of the campaign stars that were awarded: the Atlantic Star, the Africa Star, the Italy Star, the Burma Star, the Pacific Star, the France and Germany Star and, much belatedly, the Arctic Star for the brave men of the merchant navy and the Royal Navy, who risked everything to get supplies to Russia.
Let us not forget one last thing. When the war ended, the country for which we went to war, Poland, remained under occupation by the Soviet Union, and it took another 44 years of determined deterrence, coupled with the nuclear balance of terror, to ensure the eventual emergence of democracy in that country too.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate to honour the sacrifice our communities made during the second world war, and to celebrate the victory of democracy over tyranny. I began the week of VE Day by paying my respects at Hawkinge cemetery in my constituency. There are 96 British military personnel buried there, mostly airmen who made the ultimate sacrifice during world war two. Those airmen would have flown from RAF Hawkinge, part of which is now the site of the Battle of Britain Museum in Kent, housing the world’s largest collection of battle of Britain memorabilia. I urge all Members of this House to visit it if they get the chance.
RAF Hawkinge was the nearest Royal Air Force station to enemy-occupied France. The nearest Luftwaffe fighters in Calais were just six minutes’ flying time away. As a result, the air force base and the villages in the surrounding area became a regular target for Luftwaffe bombs. With the areas around Dover and Folkestone also being subjected to long-range cross-channel shelling from German artillery batteries stationed along the French coast, it is little wonder that the area soon became known as “hellfire corner”.
After the battle of Britain, RAF Hawkinge continued to play a vital role throughout the war, with British, Commonwealth and other allied pilots flying bomber escorts, reconnaissance and intruder missions from there. Indeed, Hawkinge played a pivotal part as a frontline fighter station in 1944 against Hitler’s V1 flying bombs. Operation Diver was the code name given to the RAF strategy to intercept and destroy V1 flying bombs before they reached London. RAF Hawkinge’s location and its proximity to Nazi-occupied France meant it was used as a forward base for fighter aircraft to save countless lives by intercepting the flying bombs before they reached the capital. Despite the variety of planes that flew from RAF Hawkinge during the war years, it is the Spitfire that has a particularly close connection with the aerodrome.
Turning to another part of my constituency, Ashford railway works was a prime target for German bombers during the war. Around 4,000 air raid alerts were sounded, and bombs fell regularly in the area around the railway works. Although there were many fatalities as a result of these bombing raids, the most devastating took place on 24 March 1943. On this day, an air raid that lasted around three minutes resulted in the deaths of 52 civilians and one RAF pilot on the ground. A further 78 people were seriously injured. Although the railway works was the main target, the surrounding areas were also badly hit.
During the raid a bomb fell on Beaver Road primary school. Thankfully, the sirens sounded in time and the children managed to get into the playground shelters. As a parent, I dread to imagine the panic and fear this bomb caused. It is little wonder, therefore, that long before the all-clear sounded, parents rushed to the school to find out what had happened to their children. When they got there, they found that, thankfully, they were unharmed. The headteacher, Miss Adams, received an award for her actions on that day, which ultimately saved the lives of the children.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak in this debate to recognise the sacrifices made throughout Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages, and to honour the legacy of all those who lived during world war two. We should recognise that it is our duty today to continue to uphold the values they sacrificed so much for.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Eighty-five years ago, we saw the forces of fascism rise up to threaten democracy and freedom in Europe—forces of darkness that would seek to control, oppress, subjugate and exploit the people of these islands if they prevailed. But they did not prevail. We owe our current reality to the bravery and heroism of those who gave their lives in order that we may maintain the way in which we continue to live our lives.
In Scotland, generations were lost and villages and towns were hollowed out of their breeding-age men who were barely men at all, often in their productive prime, who were sent to die in a foreign, distant place among the deafening and unrelenting roar of mechanised warfare, seeing their friends and neighbours die and drawing their own last breath desperate for a kind word, a mother’s soothing touch or an absent reassurance before a short life slammed shut. It was a far cry from the cheerful “Boy’s Own” adventure “We’ll be home soon.” Nobody got home soon.
Many did not return at all, and many of those who did would never be the same again, because that is how it is with wars in the past. There was a legitimate desire to lock it away in a box, out of sight, which was nice if they could manage it, but many could not. Many families saw the slow heartbreak of husbands who were irreparably damaged—either physically or psychologically—and the distant, silent fathers who returned, never quite able to access the men they were before the war.
Total war has a long tail, and it is still visible on these islands 80 years later in society and the economy. Indeed, the war debt to the United States was fully repaid only in 2006. If the war stores had not been evacuated from Coventry to the Perthshire hills between Almondbank and Methven, I would not have got a job there in 1989, and I can guarantee that if I had not worked for the Ministry of Defence, I would not be standing here today.
Scotland stood tall in those darkest of times militarily, economically, industrially and culturally, just like our neighbours in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and in Norway, Denmark and the low countries. Scotland’s shipbuilding, coalmining, locomotive manufacturing, agricultural output and production of steel were all pivotal to the war effort. While young men fought, an army of older men and women toiled in the factories and the fields, equipping those at home and those in peril defending their homeland.
Scotland’s industry and geography made it a target for the Luftwaffe. The first aerial combat above the United Kingdom in the second world war happened in the Firth of Forth, where the Luftwaffe targeted Royal Navy ships anchored off Rosyth. While London’s horrendous blitz raged on for eight long months, towards the end of that period the Clydebank blitz lasted just two nights, but on those two nights in March 1941, the Luftwaffe killed 1,200 civilians, injured a further 1,000 civilians and destroyed 8,500 homes in that town.
Eighty-five years ago in Europe, we saw the forces of fascism rise up to threaten our freedom. Then the superior forces of freedom and liberty rose higher still to crush fascism down where it belongs. Eighty years after the end of that war, autocracies are still alive and well in our world today. To honour those who paid for our freedom with their own lives, we must remain forever alert to the fragility of our freedoms. We owe them all so much, and the absolute least that we can do to acknowledge their selfless sacrifice is to never, ever forget that liberty and vigilance go hand in hand.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
This week I am privileged to be attending events across the constituency to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE day and the sacrifices of those who fought in the second world war, including veterans such as David Edwards and Tom Griffiths, who have a school named after them in Mondrainville in France, having helped to liberate the village. In Monmouthshire, we will also be reflecting on the 110th anniversary of the second battle of Ypres, when the 3rd Battalion the Monmouthshire Regiment suffered almost 700 casualties. Monmouthshire veterans and the Abergavenny Royal British Legion will unveil a new commemorative bench to mark both that event and VE Day on Thursday.
While we take time to remember those who have served in decades gone by, it is also extremely important to remember those who have committed to serving now and recently in our armed forces, and give recognition to their contribution to our national security and peace. Monmouthshire boasts a fantastic armed forces community because of its strong sense of camaraderie and support. We have a vibrant Royal British Legion presence in Abergavenny, Caldicot, Chepstow, Monmouth and Usk, as well as cadet groups across the county. There are so many people I could name who are involved in that work, but I pay tribute in particular to Peter Farthing, who was recognised this year for his outstanding contribution to the Abergavenny Royal British Legion. He works tirelessly for veterans across Monmouthshire from remembrance services to fundraising and welfare support.
I am so glad and thankful that this Government are committed to strengthening support for our veterans and armed forces community. Veterans today can face serious challenges and they deserve the greatest level of respect for their service and the many sacrifices they have made in its course, and that extends to the families who support them. I am proud that this Government will put the armed forces covenant fully into law to strengthen support for serving personnel and veterans, and to ensure that everyone who has served or continues to serve and their families are treated with fairness and respect.
In attending commemoration events this week, all of us across the House will remember and recognise the bravery of those who fought in the second world war—both those who saw VE Day and those who tragically did not. We must also remember those who have served each day since then from 1945 right up to the present day. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to all those who have served and who continue to serve our great country and who allow us to live in peace.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I look forward to marking VE Day on Thursday in the Royal Burgh of Sanquhar, which is part of Upper Nithsdale’s proud military heritage, at the beacon to be lit at Hass hill in Lockerbie, and at a parade in Dumfries on Saturday. What Ministers and yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, might not know is that the end of the war in Europe was first announced in Dumfries, because the Provost Fyfe jumped the gun and announced it at 12 pm. Local newspaper reports are clear that by the time Churchill made the official announcement at 3 pm—despite the pouring rain—the party was well under way in Dumfries.
I want to reference two individuals who are strongly related to the war but at different ends of the spectrum. The first is Air Chief Marshal Lord Hugh Dowding, who was born in Moffat. Lord Dowding is the man who masterminded the battle of Britain, and it is generally accepted that he played a crucial role in ensuring that Hitler’s Operation Sea Lion—the proposal to invade this island—did not succeed. He was a tactical genius who knew how to manage the RAF resource and ensured there were detailed preparations for the air defences.
The other person is David Shankland MBE. He was a great character in my local community when I was growing up. Davie, like a lot of people, was involved in an incident that was not an attack by the enemy but a ship carrying munitions that blew up in Bombay harbour. That ship—the SS Fort Stikine—blew up and took down the ship that Davie was on, El Hind, as well. About 1,300 people perished in that incident, and Davie was one of only six people on his vessel to survive. He took that as a message that he needed to dedicate the rest of his life to public service, and that is what he did. When he was demobbed, he became a nurse. He was the first male state-registered nurse in the south of Scotland, and he went on to be a distinguished nurse tutor. That is the sort of impact the war had: people going through it and making it a positive experience.
I also want to mention my mother Dorah. She was 13 when the war began, but as soon as she was 18 in 1944, she volunteered and became an Army cook, going from rural south Scotland to Norfolk. Her abiding memory of the war was D-day. Having cooked the night before for a full and overflowing canteen, she said she went in the next morning and there were only four old men to serve. My aunt, who remained in the south of Scotland, had to work on the farm. She was 19 and worked throughout the war as a farm labourer because, as others have referenced, there just were not men to do that. We pay tribute to those people, even if they did not have a formal role.
The final point, which I am pleased that a number of Members have raised, is VJ Day. The King’s Own Scottish Borderers from the south of Scotland were heavily involved in the eastern campaign. People never really felt that they got the acknowledgment they deserved, because they felt that the war had ended and yet it had not.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We still have a number of Members trying to get in, so we will set the speaking limit at three minutes.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
VE Day, especially this year, offers us a chance to reflect with gratitude on the sacrifices made by those in the armed forces and those on the home front to defend our way of life and freedoms from tyranny. A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of visiting Thurrock museum’s exhibition marking the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe, and it takes its jumping-off point from a picture taken at the time of a VE Day celebration in Grays. Visitors are invited to look at the joy on people’s faces and the celebrations—children dancing spontaneously, bunting up in the streets, cakes being served—but also to reflect on what is going on behind the picture: the fact that people in those photos would be awaiting the return of loved ones for some months and may be waiting for loved ones who were never to return. Also, visitors are encouraged to reflect on the extraordinary sacrifice of those on the home front and the changes it made to their way of life.
I took a moment to pause on some of the lyrics sung by Vera Lynn. We often think of them as upbeat, patriotic and bringing us all together, but looking behind the words of
“There’ll be bluebirds over
The white cliffs of dover”
she speaks about a return to normality. When she sings,
“And Jimmy will go to sleep
In his own little room again”
we can only think what that meant every evening when those sirens went off for parents to take their children down to an air raid shelter, wondering if they would ever emerge and what they would be emerging to. While it was a moment for celebration, it was also a moment perhaps to reflect on the great loss and sacrifice that people made.
At the exhibition, there is a set-up made to look like a VE Day celebration, and they have photos of those who might have been round the table. We are allowed to explore the stories of 10 extraordinary Thurrock residents and the lives they led during the war. I would like to highlight two that stood out to me: Charles Corder from South Stifford, a RAF navigator who was awarded the medal for conspicuous gallantry; and Vera Robertson, a civilian from Little Thurrock who assisted the Norwegian resistance by sheltering them at her flat in Norway.
The war definitely changed the course of people’s lives, and it also brought about social change. I would like to touch briefly on the fact that VE Day marked the return of over 300,000 disabled servicemen and women—something that led to the first ever piece of legislation considering the needs of disabled people. The war did act as a catalyst to change and learn. In that spirit, I hope that by commemorating the anniversary this year—one of our very last chances to join with those who served—we take a moment to learn lessons and the values of hope and freedom over evil and tyranny; to pledge to honour the values that those great servicemen and women fought to protect; to learn from the bravery, courage, compassion and sacrifice of those on the home front to face down hatred and division in our society; to support those in need; and to champion the values that bring us together as a nation.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Like many of my generation, I have a grandfather who served in the second world war. Though I was never old enough to ask him about it before he passed away, I was always very proud to have a relative who had taken part. I was proud that he had served in the Desert Rats during the north African campaign, and I was honoured to follow in his footsteps when I served in the 7th Armoured Brigade, the Desert Rats, during operations in Iraq 65 years later.
The second world war left an indelible mark on our nation. Its impact ripples throughout so much of our culture, heritage and identity. I am certain that it had a huge influence on my interest in the military, which led to my own desire to serve. My former regiment, the Duke of Wellington’s, saw action in France, Tunisia, Italy, India and Burma, and battle honours at Anzio in the Italian campaign and at Sittang bridge in Burma, operating as Chindits behind Japanese lines at Imphal and Kohima. These campaigns played a crucial role in securing victory over Nazi Germany and imperial Japan.
My Huntingdon constituency played a key role throughout the war. RAF Molesworth opened in 1941, with the royal Australian air force’s 460 Squadron operating Wellington bombers. After 460 departed, the United States army air force soon arrived and is most closely linked with the 303rd Bomb Group, popularly known as “Hell’s Angels”, arriving with B-17s in September 1942. It launched the first US army air force bombing raid over Nazi-occupied Europe later that year. The US air force remains at RAF Molesworth to this day and is still embedded in the local community across Huntingdon.
RAF Wyton was also a key player as the home of the Pathfinder Force from 1942. The Pathfinder Force was an elite unit, tasked with leading RAF Bomber Command’s night-time raids deep into the skies over Germany and locating the target at a time when night-time bombing was suffering from poor results, with targets being missed. That role was not without risk. From 1942 to 1945, the Pathfinder Force flew a total of 50,490 sorties against some 3,440 targets, and at least 3,727 members were killed on operations. The activity at RAF Molesworth and RAF Wyton is a significant reminder of the vital role the RAF played but also of the sacrifice and work of our allies and US personnel throughout the war.
To conclude, I pay tribute to all those who did so much so that we can live freely. They were normal people asked to do things that nobody should have to —make incredible sacrifices, endure terrible suffering and experience tragic losses. The second world war was a defining moment in our nation’s history, more so than any event in living memory. As those who experienced it pass and the first-hand memories are lost, it is easy to forget what was done by so many, but we must never forget, and we will remember them.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
On VE Day, Captain Harry Richardson of the RAF, from Ochiltree in Ayrshire, was half a world away. VE Day did not mean the end of all conflict. The war with Japan continued, and despite extensive service in Europe, Captain Richardson was still on active duty in India as a bomber pilot. While the country celebrated, Captain Richardson and many others fought on to keep the peace. He flew 62 bombing missions over Germany, Europe, Burma and Malaysia until 1947, when Japan surrendered. Leaving the RAF as a flight lieutenant, he earned the Distinguished Flying Cross, the war Star, the Air Crew Europe medal, the Burma Star and the Defence medal.
This year, Captain Richardson celebrated his 107th birthday and will travel to London for the VE Day commemorations. Not all veterans reach 107, so it is also important to pay tribute to those who have fallen. This week I will visit “Untold Stories”, an exhibition at Girvan library, where Richard and Loran Conaghan of the Girvan and District Great War Project present local stories from the war, aiming to inspire our younger generation.
One story is of Corporal Norman Nicholson Campbell. He joined the Pioneer Corps, leaving behind his wife Mary and four-year-old son Malcolm. In Dunkirk, 1940, Norman was taken as a prisoner of war to Stalag VIIIB in Lamsdorf, Poland. By August 1940, his wife had passed away from cancer, and eight months later, his son died. Corporal Campbell died of a cardiac arrest in 1943, two years before VE Day, and was laid to rest in Krakow in 1948. This story is a stark reminder of the sacrifices made by so many and their loved ones during the war. As we celebrate VE Day 80 years on, it is right to remember everyone who made that possible. We thank them.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Eighty years ago, when the guns fell silent, the long and bitter war against tyranny in Europe was over. Britain’s peace was marked by not only celebration, but gratitude and reflection on all that had been sacrificed to make it possible. That peace had been fully and faithfully earned across my constituency, with courage, with resolve and at great cost. From every corner of the constituency, men and women stepped forward to serve, in the air, at sea, on the frontline and at home. Their names are etched into memorials across our communities to remind us of not only who they were, but what they gave.
Brecknockshire, with its long-standing military tradition, stood as a proud centre of that service, but the uniform was worn across the constituency, in the hills of Radnorshire, in the valleys of Cwm Tawe and beyond. Among them were those who served with distinction in local regiments such as the South Wales Borderers and the Welch Regiment, both of which saw action across Europe, north Africa and the far east.
The Royal Navy also bore our town’s name with pride. HMS Brecon, a Hunt-class destroyer, served with honour in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, carrying the name of Brecon wherever she sailed. Others served in different ways but with equal resolve. In the Swansea valley, local men were conscripted as Bevin boys, sent into the deep and dangerous seams of the south Wales coalfield to mine the coal that powered our fleets and fuelled the wartime economy. Their work was exhausting and often overlooked, but vital to victory. Many of them were not released until 1948.
In the fields of my constituency, the rhythms of farming did not cease. Amid rationing and relentless shortages, Welsh agricultural workers, and the Land Girls who stood beside them, kept the nation fed. Across the constituency, women took on vital responsibilities in munitions factories, hospitals, civil defence, and at the heart of their communities. Their contribution was lasting. It shaped the peace that followed, and the freedoms we live by today. I was proud to attend the commemorations last Saturday in Ystradgynlais, organised by Jade and the Swansea Valley armed forces club, where that contribution was honoured. Let our remembrance be a promise: to live up to their example, to work together for the public good, and never to forget what was given in the hope of a fairer future. Finally, I wish to pay tribute to RAF war veteran John Gwynne, who was a worthy guest of honour at recent VE Day celebrations in Talgarth, aged 104.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Before reflecting on the anniversary itself, I wish to pay tribute to the Royal British Legion and its volunteers. I have a dickie bow that the Bollington branch of the legion, one of the oldest in the country, has kindly given me, and I will be wearing it with pride on Thursday, along with other RBL volunteers across the wider Cheshire area, and indeed the country. We owe them a debt of gratitude for their dedication, which is a living legacy of service.
During the war, communities across Macclesfield answered the call to duty. Mills and factories pivoted to produce essential war materiel, from uniforms to parachutes and engine components, helping to sustain our armed forces. Thousands of the iconic Lancaster bombers were assembled at Woodford aerodrome, and on the frontlines, the Cheshire regiment served with distinction from the deserts of north Africa to the bloody hills of Italy and the beaches of Normandy. Cheshire soldiers were at the heart of the fight to liberate Europe, and their bravery and sacrifice was part of the great national effort that we are talking about today.
In the air, RAF pilots from Macclesfield also did their bit. Eric Bann was a member of the Macclesfield aeronautical society, joining the RAF at the outbreak of the war. He went on to fly 60 missions. He was in the thick of the action from the outset. He was shot down in the channel in July 1940, yet he still managed to get back to the air, downing a Messerschmitt and a Heinkel in the following weeks. On 28 September his Hurricane was attacked while patrolling over the Isle of Wight. Witnesses saw his plane ablaze before he bailed out. Tragically, his parachute failed to open. His death was front-page news in the Macclesfield Courier, which praised him as
“a glorious example of courage, gameness and determination.”
Even with victory, the cost was staggering: 400,000 lives lost, cities bombed, homes destroyed. Economically, the war left our country exhausted, and psychologically, as Members have pointed out, the trauma ran deep for those who fought, those who waited, and those who mourned.
As we meet here today, war once again strides across our continent, with the invasion of Ukraine by Russia bringing back scenes that we hoped never to see—cities in ruins, civilians targeted, millions displaced. It is a bitter reminder that peace cannot be taken for granted, that the values we fought for are still under threat, and that tyranny unchecked only grows bolder. VE Day is not just a day of remembrance; it is a call for resolve, and a reminder that we in Macclesfield, and across the United Kingdom, choose peace, but that we must be ready to defend it. I will end with some of my favourite words from the man who led us through that conflict:
“In all our long history we have never seen a greater day than this. Everyone, man or woman, has done their best.”
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
It is a pleasure to take part in today’s important debate. The end of the second world war in Europe was a defining moment in the history of Wales and Ynys Môn. It brought an end to six years of conflict during which an estimated 300,000 Welshmen served in the military, with 15,000 killed. Ynys Môn may have been many miles from the frontline of the blitz in south-east England, but it was still targeted by bombing raids, including at the strategic port of Holyhead.
The island played a vital part in the war effort. RAF fighter crews flew sorties from the island bases of Mona and Valley against Germany, while an airfield at Bodorgan was used as a storage space. Those airfields were responsible for training and hosting thousands of servicepeople, with 1,378 men of the RAF and 408 officers and women of the WAAF based on RAF Mona by the end of the war. The legacy of the war can still be felt today. Valley remains a centre of military and civil aviation, with Mona now used as a relief landing ground. Valley is a source of highly skilled jobs and education for local people, with a partnership between Grŵp Llandrillo Menai and Babcock delivering apprenticeships to local young people, including aerospace engineering maintenance.
The impact was felt on the home front too. The island hosted evacuee children from Liverpool and Manchester, helping to keep them safe during the air attacks by Germany. There were also more than 40,000 Welsh people who could not speak English, especially in the western parts of Wales, such as Ynys Môn. To address that, the BBC broadcast news of the war for around 20 minutes of every day in Welsh; such programming paved the way for S4C decades later. Rationing still impacted the everyday lives of the people of Ynys Môn for many years after the war ended.
Those who sacrificed so much both on the home front and in the fields of conflict did so in the name of peace and order. The rules-based international order that emerged from the war is now under increasing strain. As we see a rise in the far right across the globe and leaders who disregard human rights and international law, we must be bold in confronting them. We have an obligation to honour the sacrifices of the generation before us by upholding the legacy that they left us. I thank the organisers of the service that I will be attending on Mynydd Parys on VE Day to commemorate the contribution that Wales and Ynys Môn made in the war and in bringing about a more peaceful world. I close my contribution by reaffirming that message and noting how important it is that we honour those who fought and sacrificed so much for our freedom.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day. I am proud to serve as the Member of Parliament for Bexleyheath and Crayford and to represent a constituency that is home to around 2,000 veterans. My constituency is in proximity to the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich, in the south-east corner of London. Back in the day, the Royal Arsenal was home to one of the biggest munitions factories in the UK, with 32,000 employees producing guns, shells, cartridge cases and bombs, so my constituency became a prime target for Nazi bombing.
While many of its residents were fighting overseas, my constituency was really playing its part to support the war effort. Crayford was home to the Vickers factory, which again produced machine guns, anti-aircraft predictors, naval gun-laying equipment, fuses and casings for Barnes Wallis’s bouncing bomb. The Slade Green heavy anti-aircraft battery was built in the late 1930s and was the most easterly anti-aircraft site built inside the London inner artillery zone. Today, the gun emplacements, fire command post, pillboxes and air raid shelter are still standing. After a successful local campaign in 2010, the site is now grade II listed.
There are a number of war memorials across the constituency, including the garden of remembrance in Oaklands Road, Bexleyheath; St Augustine’s church in Slade Green; St Paul’s church in Northumberland Heath; and the Crayford war memorial garden. A window in St Paulinus church, Crayford, commemorates three members of the women’s voluntary services who died in a V1 explosion in July 1944. In total, 66 people were killed and 184 properties were destroyed, with 7,000 properties being damaged in the area around Crayford High Street. Hundreds more properties were destroyed across the constituency as a result of Nazi bombing.
I pay tribute to the East Wickham & Welling War Memorial Trust for the work it does to commemorate the war effort and the brave soldiers from Bexleyheath and Crayford who served in the second world war. Its area of benefit covers parts of my constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). It has carried out extensive work to ensure that a memorial is in place for local people who gave their lives, and it holds an incredibly moving service every November to remember them.
I also mention the hard work and dedication of the two Royal British Legion branches in my constituency—the Bexleyheath and Welling branch and the Crayford branch—and thank them for all the work that they do to recognise the important contributions to the war effort. I look forward to joining them in attending a number of events in my constituency on Thursday to commemorate VE Day and to be able to pay my respects to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for us.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is an honour to speak in this debate commemorating VE Day, which is of great significance to many in my constituency, where a significant proportion of the population are veterans or from military families.
The Royal British Legion has encouraged us to ensure that the stories of veterans are at the centre of our commemoration events this week, so I would like to share the story of my grandfather, James Paterson, who was a navigator on a Stirling bomber. On 16 August 1943, his plane was shot down in south-east France. Only two of the crew of seven survived—my grandfather was one of them. He was rescued by the Resistance in the area of Ambérieu and was saved by three families, who hid him at great personal risk—in the town, and in the forest and the hills nearby. Eventually, four months later, he was smuggled out, over the Pyrenees, to safety.
Without the bravery of those families, my mother would never have been born and I would not be here today. I pay a special tribute to Marius and Jeanne Lapierre, who hid my grandfather in their bakery. In 2014, my father’s research reconnected my family with the Lapierres and we have since remained in contact. Last year, I was honoured to visit Monique Lapierre—one of the daughters of the family, after whom my aunt is named—who has since sadly died.
As we remember this week the bravery of all those, like my grandfather, who fought in the armed forces for freedom in Europe, let us also remember the bravery—often unsung—of those, like the Lapierres, who fought and resisted in so many different ways at great personal risk to themselves and their children, to save the lives of strangers. Let us all hope that we would do the same. As we challenge the forces of the far right, and as we recognise and remember the resistance 80 years ago of those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend Europe against Nazism, let the memory of all those who showed such bravery never be forgotten.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in such a significant debate as we celebrate the 80th anniversary of the allied victory in Europe and the victory over Japan. Today, we honour all the men and women who gave us the freedom we enjoy today, and who fought against fascism for our freedom, dignity and liberation. Nearly a third of those men and women came from the Indian subcontinent: 2.5 million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs—the largest volunteer army ever seen in history. One of those men was my grandfather, Nand Singh, who served in what was known as Malaya. Before him, my great-grandfather fought in Europe during the first world war.
Growing up, my parents recounted stories about the sacrifices that my forebears made during both world wars, but I did not see those contributions recognised elsewhere—not in the history textbooks at school, the documentaries on TV or the films on the big screens. Although they have been mentioned today, some 2.5 million men were simply airbrushed out of history. Despite a valiant effort to expose that history, it remains all too easy to surrender to the fear and to forget our historic unity, especially during flashpoints of racial or religious division. This VE Day, we must remain firm in our pursuit for the truth of our past: the forgotten stories of how Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs rallied together to achieve a common goal. Through paying tribute to those stories of unity, we can fight the lies that tell us our perceived differences define and divide us.
The second world war was bloody, brutal and barbaric, but within that violent context, there are glimmers of hope: stories of hope and unity, of togetherness instead of division, and of respect for our rituals over denigration of them; stories to drown out the nasty, noisy narratives that we see online and on our streets, which pit one religion against another, judge us by our skin, and dictate the respect we deserve based on religious identity; and stories to remind us that despite modern-day racial tensions, flashes of sectarian violence and religious hostilities, we can work together, we can stand united and we do have a shared history. I pay tribute to those brave men and women whose resilience and fortitude built this country, and whose shoulders we stand on as we enjoy the freedoms we enjoy today.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Victory in Europe Day is a time not only to celebrate, but to reflect and remember. I am privileged to represent a community that does all three.
Recently, I met two veterans of the war, both 100 years young. It was an honour to spend time with them, listening to their stories. In April 1945, Mr Philip Jackson from Keighley drove one of the first wagons into Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, notorious as the location of the death of Anne Frank, her family and over 70,000 inmates in the cruellest and most unspeakable of conditions. The work of Mr Jackson and his unit not only began the process of recuperation for the survivors, but provided us with a record of that terrible place for the world to see. I also met Pam Rae from Ilkley. Mrs Rae was a Women’s Royal Naval Service radar mechanic, installing cutting-edge radar sets in ships on the Clyde, including HMS Vanguard. In fact, Mrs Rae took part in the original VE Day celebrations and the parade in Glasgow 80 years ago.
Groups working to preserve the memory of that great generation and educate the young are strong in Keighley and Ilkley. Our cadet forces are a constant presence, flying the flag for our modern armed forces, and an organisation called the Men of Worth Project has meticulously researched the lives, stories and legacies of hundreds of men and women of the first and second world wars from Keighley and Ilkley. I thank Andy Wade and his team for their incredible work. Our very own Home Guard unit, WR28, is still going strong. When I visited that unit recently, I was thoroughly impressed by the traditions that it is still keeping alive.
Of course, even once the fighting is over, our armed forces continue to remember those who fought. That memory is also preserved by our fantastic armed forces and veterans breakfast club, which helps bring a vital social network to veterans and servicemen across the Ilkley area. Mark Sugrue and the team recently held a sleep-out to raise money for and awareness of veterans in crisis. Across the whole of the Keighley and Ilkley constituency, we are incredibly proud of our veterans.
To conclude, I wish to make reference to those soldiers for whom victory in Europe 80 years ago was not the end. Victory over Japan would take another three gruelling months, and right up until the atomic bombs were dropped, it was widely feared that a full invasion of Japan was inevitable. I thank those soldiers for their service, their dedication and their commitment to our nation. I wish all Members of this House and my constituents a very happy VE Day, and look forward to celebrating with them on VJ Day in August.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Every anniversary commemorating the allies’ victories on VE Day and VJ Day is a significant one. The triumph of liberal democracy over authoritarianism, nationalism and fascism is a lesson from history that we must never forget, and a sacrifice made by so many courageous men and women that must always be remembered.
This year is even more significant, as we mark 80 years since the end of world war two. But for the grace of God, this could therefore be the last significant anniversary that we share with surviving veterans of the greatest generation—heroes one and all. I extend my most profound gratitude to those heroes in Newcastle-under-Lyme, across our United Kingdom and in all parts of the then empire, now the Commonwealth of Nations. They fought so that we could have the privilege of living in the world we live in today, one in which we enjoy freedom and security, democracy and decency, and respect and understanding. Our world will be a darker place when we lose the last of the greatest generation.
Yesterday, back home in our ancient and loyal borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, I had the great privilege of attending a VE Day party in the Westlands. It was a celebration to rival those held on VE Day itself, full of families—some of which had three generations present—with much merriment, real gratitude, genuine loyalty, obvious patriotism and serious pride. My thanks go to Kay, Yvonne, Suzanna, Dianne and Sarah for their organisational prowess and for bringing so many members of the community together. I would also like to play my small part in paying tribute to and remembering those who we lost during the war and those who have passed since.
Fred Kite was a world war two veteran born in Newcastle-under-Lyme and who fought in north Africa, Normandy and Greece. He was the only second world war British soldier to receive the Military Medal three times. His third was awarded for the
“greatest personal courage and his example of remaining in action against odds that were much against him”.
That is a lesson for us all. I would also like to remember two Staffordshire-born Spitfire pilots; they were both born in my constituency and flew as part of the Photo Reconnaissance Unit.
There are countless stories from not just the United Kingdom, but the Commonwealth and the wider world—stories of normal people doing extraordinary things, all in the name of freedom. The Brampton Museum in our town centre has an exhibition looking at the contribution our community made to victory in Europe some 80 years ago, with some amazing stories about some amazing people. The spirit of togetherness and solidarity from the war forms the stories that my grandparents shared with me as a child, and they will live with me forever.
My grandfather came to this country from Jamaica in 1941 to serve King and country on his British passport. Many men like him came to roll up their sleeves and not just help defeat the Germans, but rebuild Britain too. How lucky are we that they did? Without the blood, sweat and tears of men and women from across the Commonwealth fighting on the beaches, in the air and on the mainland, we could not and would not have won the war. As we celebrate 80 years since the end of the most terrible global war in modern history—
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
On this 80th anniversary of VE Day, I pay tribute to those brave men and women from Esher and Walton who played their part; their names are etched on memorials throughout my constituency. All Saints church in Weston Green, Esher, has undertaken the invaluable project of recording the stories of some of the fallen on its memorial, including soldiers who fell in Italy, north Africa and the far east, sailors lost in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and pilots lost over Norway and Egypt.
We are privileged to have veterans who are still with us. My constituent Wilbur Holver celebrated his 100th birthday last month. Born in America, he served as a marine engineer, clearing mines to assure the safe passage of allied ships outside Le Havre and Antwerp, which became essential entry points for allied supplies. Wilbur told me he celebrated VE Day in three countries. First, in Holland, he celebrated with the British troops. He said it was
“the biggest party I’ve ever been in”.
It was still going when he left and returned five days later—he said that the party lasted a month or more. He then returned to France and partied some more, before ending up in London on leave, where he found himself in front of Buckingham Palace, still partying. He came to live in England, in Esher, and we are lucky to have him.
Our local area suffered during the blitz. It was once described as doodlebug alley on account of the many German V-1s passing overhead. In June 1944, a V-1 fell on Imber Court in Esher, the Met police training ground, killing 20 men of the Welsh Guards training battalion competing that day in their regimental sports competition.
On the home front, Sir Bruce White, who lived in Hersham, was instrumental in the design of the floating Mulberry harbours, and the people of Walton played their part in units such as the Walton Sparrows, which formed a vital anti-aircraft battery. The Women’s Land Army operated at Rivernook Farm in Walton and at Bell Farm, and the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes moved its headquarters to Claygate in my constituency. More than 150 local women worked there, provisioning millions of men through the canteens and bars scattered across the globe; NAAFI oversaw 7,000 canteens, and its facilities served more than 3.5 million cups of tea every day. When the war finally ended, Oatlands Park Hotel, which is still going, played host to the official celebrations, with cabaret and hundreds of guest.
As we commemorate 80 years since victory in Europe, we owe a profound debt to those who made and make sacrifices—even final sacrifices—to bring about a better, gentler world. We must never lose sight of the profound blessing and fragility of peace and how hard it was won.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Last Friday, I visited Kilmarnock football club to witness the signing of the armed forces covenant next to its award-winning memorial garden. It was both a pleasure and an honour to see the club’s continued commitment to our veterans, and its acknowledgement of those who lost their lives in the service of our country. The timing was perfect, as in this most important of weeks we celebrate the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe—VE Day—and we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defeat Hitler’s Nazis. This is also one of our last opportunities to pay tribute to living second world war veterans who served and sacrificed to defend our way of life.
The Scottish contribution to the events leading up to VE Day on 8 May 1945 was truly significant, encompassing military service, industrial output and civilian support. Scotland, although small in size, played a disproportionately large role in Britain’s war effort during world war two. The war generation are true heroes, and the backbone on which this country was built.
I want to tell the House more about the contribution that Kilmarnock football club made to the war effort. Its ground, Rugby Park, was requisitioned by the Government on 4 June 1940, and a few days later the troops marched in and took over the ground to be used as an oil and fuel depot. In July that year, the club gave an interest-free loan to the British Government of £1,000 for the war effort. It may not sound significant today, but let me put it into context: 80 years ago, it would have taken an average worker five years to earn that amount. During my visit, it was wonderful to see the original documentation from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Kingsley Wood, which remains a treasured piece of the club’s history.
At this time when every part of our nation united—Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, pulling together in a time of need—Kilmarnock football club was no exception, and made its own contribution. Many players stepped up and did their duty, in the name of service to our nation. Sadly, eight of them paid the ultimate price and never returned home. I want to remember them, not only in this debate but always. May we never forget their sacrifice. When the war ended the club reclaimed its ground, and its generous loan was repaid in full, albeit interest-free. After the events of wartime, and with the efforts of Italian and German prisoners of war, Rugby Park was rebuilt, with football returning in April 1945. VE Day was as much a moment of pride and relief for Kilmarnock as for any part of the UK, marking the culmination of years of sacrifice and determination.
The lessons of the second world war and the global security challenges we face today reinforce the need to face our adversaries together, through the strength of our alliances such as NATO. Learning the lessons of history is a meaningful way in which we can pay tribute and honour the sacrifices made by so many veterans who fought for our country in world war two and subsequently.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
One of the most moving accounts that I read this week was that of 101-year-old Ruth Klauber, a Jewish refugee and a mechanic on the Lancaster bombers. She spoke not of celebration but of sacrifice. When asked for her opinion of yesterday’s celebrations, she said:
“Well, yes, we won the war. It’s good to celebrate that we won the war and what that means for democracy. But for me when I think of VE Day, I think of the pilot with whom I fell in love, the only man I ever loved. And he flew many successful missions but his last was his last. He never came home.
For me I think of the cost of war. War is not something you celebrate. It is something you remember. It is something that you look back on and reflect on how it was a failure of man. It was a failure to reach an outcome that didn’t involve hundreds of thousands of young men being killed.”
She went on:
“We must never stop always working to ensure we don’t end up in a scenario again where more people are slaughtered. And that means you always have to stand up for democracy.”
Those words should weigh heavy on all our shoulders in this significant week.
I also want to take the opportunity to commend the community across my constituency whose efforts have been immense during this significant week. Across our towns, villages and housing estates, the atmosphere is one of pride and remembrance. Lamp posts and walls are proudly decorated with our national flag and with banners and bunting—all of it part of a collective effort to both celebrate and commemorate the great allied victory. There is no greater source of pride than seeing our communities come together, not only to mark this historic triumph but to remember those who secured the civil and religious liberties that we enjoy today. I am free to hold and express my views because of the bravery, the willingness to serve, and the ultimate sacrifice made by those who stood against fascism, tyranny, genocide and racism, aggression and suppression.
I note the exemplary effort of Upper Bann. Portadown was a key industrial centre and played a significant role through its engineering, textile and transport industries. Lurgan played a critical role. Brownlow House, a grand 19th-century building that I have spoken of—I thank the Minister for her visit—was the headquarters for the US army, and General Eisenhower himself visited it. The D-day landings were planned from Brownlow House. Banbridge was not found wanting; it was central to the agricultural supply chain when people participated in the dig for victory. Young men from Banbridge served with distinction in our armed forces.
That is only the tip of the iceberg as to how Northern Ireland contributed to the overall victory. Northern Ireland stepped up, and I want it clearly noted in this House today how thankful we are for the united effort from every corner of our United Kingdom.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The 80th anniversary of VE Day and VJ Day is a time for us to remember and honour those who fought to defend our freedoms, our values and our people. It is also a time to recognise the contribution that veterans from across our country continue to make to their communities.
For many of our veterans, their service to this country and their commitment to fighting for our values do not end when they leave the military. I will take this opportunity to tell the House about one such veteran from my community, Mike Lyons. I did not know Mike for very long, but one of the privileges that we have in this place is that we get to meet people who we instinctively know are the best of us, which is what Mike was. He served in the military for seven years, and was a member of the Royal British Legion’s New Addington branch for more than 30 years.
For many years, Mike ran the Final Roll Call campaign to ensure that world war one soldiers who returned from fighting, and who were institutionalised due to what we now know as post-traumatic stress disorder, were properly honoured and given their rightful place in history. His campaign led to 26 servicemen who were buried in unmarked graves, without a military burial, finally being given the dignified memorials they deserved. Mike wanted to ensure that their memories lived on and, just before Christmas, asked me to light a candle for them in Parliament. Our candle of remembrance in Parliament quickly turned into a full-on candle-lighting ceremony at the tomb of the Unknown Warrior in Westminster Abbey. At one point, someone questioned whether we needed insurance for the bugler.
Sadly, Mike passed away before our ceremony could take place, but with the support of his family and friends, we held our ceremony as planned. In March, it was a privilege to welcome Mike’s family, his friends, his local councillors, community leaders from the family centre and New Addington Pathfinders, members of the Royal British Legion, Army cadets, members of Croydon’s veteran community, the Minister for Veterans and People, flagbearers and a bugler to Westminster Abbey for our candle ceremony. I hope that we did Mike proud.
As we look ahead to the 80th anniversary of VE Day and VJ Day, we must commit ourselves to ensuring that our armed forces community is looked after now and in the future, so I welcome the Government’s announcement of a UK-wide support system for our veterans. In Croydon, we have launched the Croydon Cares for Veterans campaign to raise funds for SSAFA Croydon and the New Addington branch of the Royal British Legion. As it was for the second world war generation and for Mike, it is our actions that demonstrate our commitment to the people who serve this country. It is our actions that will protect our values, and it our actions that will honour what our armed forces community continue to fight for today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is great that this House is commemorating the historic victory that marked the end of the war, which had taken so much. At a time when we are often asked to apologise for so much, it is important to recognise the victory that we had in the name of democracy and freedom throughout the world. It is good to see the Minister in his place.
Members will be aware that I had a debate in this Chamber on the heroism of Newtownards man Blair Paddy Mayne, who richly deserves to be awarded a posthumous VC. I was amazed by the number of people who, until they watched the TV drama “SAS: Rogue Heroes”, did not quite understand how integral Blair and, indeed, Northern Ireland soldiers were to the war effort. It has to be remembered that we had no conscription in Northern Ireland—we did not need it, because every single man who joined up did so out of love for King, country and the principle of freedom. That is still the case today for serving armed forces personnel from Northern Ireland, who proudly serve King and country and who gave their all during the troubles.
The debate on Blair Mayne highlighted to me that as a youngster, I was taught about the essential contribution of Northern Ireland’s men and women to the UK’s war effort to secure victory over the Nazis, and over Japan in Asia. My constituents in Strangford gave their lives, with war memorials in the Ards peninsula, Comber, Killyleagh and Ballynahinch. Hundreds of young men, and indeed some women, gave their all for King and country at that time.
We need to remember that Northern Ireland contributed significantly to war production. Weaponry, munitions, aircraft, tanks, ships and small arms were all built in Northern Ireland. There were also opportunities for women. For example, the Royal Ulster Constabulary required female police, although they were subject to a marriage bar. Similarly, women were employed in the auxiliary services for the armed forces and as an additional agricultural labour force. In engineering, some 250 women were employed, and by 1943 some 12,500 women were employed in Northern Ireland.
For these reasons, those from both sides of the community—Roman Catholic and Protestant; nationalist and Unionist—will be celebrating with a full heart, with family stories and memories handed down through the generations. I think some 44,000 served in uniform, and 10% of those did not come back. Separately, 1,000 people lost their lives in the Belfast blitz, which acknowledged the importance of the Northern Ireland war effort. Some time ago, I attended a memorial service to the young RAF and Army men who were killed in the blitz in Newtownards.
The role of Ireland Northern in the victory for the allies cannot be overstated. As the MP for Strangford, I am proud not simply to lay a wreath in their memory each year, but to raise my hand in salute to the members of the armed forces, the labourers and engineers, the women who filled the gaps and those who lost their lives in the blitz. We salute them all again today, and honour their sacrifice. The best way we can honour them is to recreate that British spirit in our children and our grandchildren, and remind them of the cost of all we hold so dear. We will remember them, and on 8 May we will celebrate them in communities throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
In York Outer, we will be celebrating VE Day and the peace we cherish today as a result of the tenacity of the wartime generation.
May I take just a moment to set the scene of what VE Day was like in York? After nearly six long years of war, the city burst into life with spontaneous celebration. For the first time since 1939, York Minster was lit up, with its great bells ringing out across the city. There is even a recording on YouTube of the minster’s bells from that day with a comment that the bellringers, like the rest of the nation, may have been a little out of practice. However, on VE Day they rang out with the sound of triumph and relief. It was truly a suburban tapestry of victory in York, with Canadian service personnel seen dancing in Fulford and driving about York on their motorbikes. Bonfires were lit across the city, including throughout the many communities that make up my constituency. One particularly memorable bonfire was in Bishopthorpe, on the very site where the wonderful Bishopthorpe junior school now stands—a symbol, then and now, of hope for the next generation.
I wrote to all the fantastic primary schools in my constituency to task our talented pupils with drawing a York street party celebrating VE Day, and one of those drawings is on its way to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The winning school is Elvington Church of England primary school—it is just a stone’s throw from RAF Elvington, where French pilots flew alongside British pilots for the last years of the war—and I will be writing to the lucky pupil to congratulate them soon.
York played a huge role in the second world war, and it continues to do so today. We are home to the Queen Elizabeth barracks at Strensall, to the HQ of the 2nd Medical Group and to many inspirational serving personnel and their families, who serve our country. I am truly privileged to have them in my constituency. We also have the Yorkshire Air Museum in Elvington, which makes a huge contribution to the local area. This week, it will be hosting a “We’ll Meet Again” weekend to celebrate VE Day and take residents back to the 1940s.
Finally, I must say that York was truly magical in its contributions to the war effort. It really contributed to the profound victory we had in Europe, and I pay tribute to the families that played their part.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
It is a real privilege to be able to contribute to this debate. It is right that we take the time to pause and reflect on the sacrifices that the great generation made. Not only are the generation that fought in the war mostly no longer with us, but even those who remember the war as a child are getting fewer and fewer by the day. My mum often talks about how her earliest memory was the party and my grandparents dressing up, but only later did she realise what it was. The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) reminded us why that generation often did not talk about what they had experienced and the difficulties they had shared.
Before the new town of Cumbernauld was created, the people of the villages that made up my constituency were miners, weavers and farm workers. They all played a massive part in fuelling and feeding the nation and contributing to what we now refer to as the defence industries. We do not remember these people every year on Remembrance Sunday, but it is important to pay tribute to their work today, because they were as big a part of the war effort as those who fought in the armed services.
My family members were those essential workers. My grandfather, Sam Laidlaw, was an engineer in a paper mill that had been repurposed for essential war work. My other granddad, John Murray, was a dairyman whose farmhands were women from the Land Army and prisoners of war who were brought in daily from a camp up the road. My great-aunt, Helen Murray, was a nurse in Clydebank during the two days of the blitz. None of them ever talked about it.
Representing a new town, it is difficult to look at our war memorial and not think of the town as it is today—the seventh biggest in Scotland—instead of as the village that it once was. The names are so familiar and so similar—a full generation of a village wiped out. It would be the same across the nation.
I am glad we have been able to make time today to pay tribute to all those who played a role, whatever that role was. Whether that was in the armed forces, the mills, the farms or the mines, we thank you.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I am always humbled by the history of this Chamber, but more so than ever today. It was a Government of national unity who steered the United Kingdom through the second world war, and the names of Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Bevin and Sinclair all deserve to echo through history. Conservative, Liberal and Labour MPs united in service to defend our nation, our allies and our values in the struggle against tyranny. As we commemorate VE Day 80 years on, I begin with a tribute to our political leaders of the time, because it was not inevitable that history would take the course that it did. In the early summer of 1940, some voices called for us to make peace with Hitler.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about commemoration. The Westhoughton branch of the Royal British Legion, set up in 1921 after 109 soldiers from the town died in the first world war, was one of the first of its kind in the country. With that in mind, will he congratulate the Westhoughton branch of the Royal British Legion on the excellent VE commemoration event that was hosted at the weekend?
Andrew Lewin
I will happily congratulate the branch of the Royal British Legion in my hon. Friend’s constituency and all those across the country, which are doing such valuable work.
After the fall of France, there were some who said that despite the heroism at Dunkirk, our military was on the back foot. A small number advocating for talks with Germany might even have suggested, to use a modern phrase, that we did not have many cards to play—thank goodness their advice was so emphatically rejected.
The decision to stand against Hitler’s Germany in 1940 was not born merely of self-preservation; it was so much more. It was a free and proud country saying that aggressors cannot be rewarded, that a hateful ideology must be opposed and that our allies are worth fighting for. Those are timeless lessons. The greatest debt we all owe is to the brave men and women who served and sacrificed so much during the worst conflict that humanity has ever known.
Hatfield, in my constituency, is rightly famous as the birthplace of the Geoffrey de Havilland Mosquito fighter bomber, one of the RAF’s most effective weapons against the Luftwaffe and an example of the ingenuity that was so crucial to the war effort. Known as the “Wooden Wonder”, more than 6,500 Mosquitos were delivered to allied forces over the course of the conflict, and it is believed that more than 3,000 were built on site in Hatfield.
The neighbours in Welwyn Garden City had an integral role to play as well. A few miles north and east of Hatfield, Panshanger aerodrome started out in 1940 as a decoy factory, luring the Luftwaffe bombers away from Hatfield aerodrome. After victory in the battle of Britain, and with the threat of bombing raids easing, the aerodrome officially became RAF Panshanger in 1943 and operated as an important flying school.
Welwyn Garden City was also a sanctuary for Jewish people fleeing the evil of Nazi tyranny. Civilians were welcomed from 1933 onwards, and Applecroft hostel was established on the west side of town. Thanks to the records of the Welwyn Garden City interfaith group, we know the story of Sam Otto, a 21-year-old Jewish man, who escaped the Nazis in Leipzig, travelled bravely across Europe and was welcomed into the hostel in 1939. He said on his arrival, “If the hostel wasn’t heaven, it must be next door to it.”
Today, Welwyn Garden City is home to a thriving Ukrainian population, as our community once again opens its arms to those in greatest need. As we commemorate VE and VJ Day, I feel exceptionally fortunate to stand in the Commons Chamber where our political predecessors had the resolve to stand united against Nazi tyranny. I am equally proud to represent Welwyn Hatfield, to recognise some of the contributions made to the war effort and to simply say thank you to everyone who fought for freedom.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
As we reflect on this historic moment, the 80th anniversary of VE Day, we remember the significant contributions of our communities, our country and our Commonwealth. We have heard some very moving and powerful contributions today in this debate from across the Chamber. My own part of the country, Colchester, played a pivotal part in the second world war: our residents served on the frontline and on the home front; our industry stepped up; and our rivers and coastlines were fortified as part of the eastern command line. Many of those fortifications can still be seen in our Castle Park and along the River Colne. They are just a few examples of the many that I could give of the resilience and determination of the people of Colchester during those dark times.
The presence of the armed forces in our community today, and also of veterans of course, is a testament to our enduring commitment to national security and our readiness to respond to crises both at home and abroad. Colchester is marking VE Day and our military history in many ways this week, and over the course of many months. This weekend, I unveiled a new blue plaque at the main gated entrance of the former cavalry barracks, which played such a vital part in the first world war, training and treating England’s war horses. The historic guardhouse at that site has been restored and is a reminder of the centuries’ long association of the military in Colchester.
On Thursday, at Colchester town hall, we will raise the VE Day flag and the Pegasus flag, which is the flag of the airborne forces who did so much to help us achieve victory. We will also gather at Colchester’s war memorial with service personnel from 16 Air Assault Brigade and I will later join the Nepalese community, remembering the Gurkha soldiers who contributed so much and who continue to make so many sacrifices in the fight for peace today.
As we honour the sacrifices made by those who fought for our freedom 80 years ago, let us also acknowledge the ongoing contributions made by our present armed forces. Their commitment to protecting our nation and upholding the values that we hold dear is as vital today as it was during the second world war, and we renew our commitment to them. And, as we heard earlier today, we must also renew our commitment to ending conflicts around the world, from Ukraine to the middle east.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
As we mark 80 years since the long-anticipated news that the evil Nazi regime, which had orchestrated the greatest act of mass murder in human history and terrorised Europe, had been defeated by the allies, I want to concentrate on the role of my constituency of High Peak in the second world war. So many of our men and women served their country during the war, but, sadly, far too many made the ultimate sacrifice in defeating fascism. Although our communities were spared much of the horrendous bombing that affected larger areas such as London, there were some notable exceptions.
It was one July evening in 1942 when the Luftwaffe found themselves flying over High Peak. After failing to find the large propeller factory in Lostock, because of low cloud cover, the high-speed bombers wreaked havoc on two High Peak villages, one dropping its bombs on Torr Vale and the other dropping two bombs near Swizzels Sweet Factory. Had those bombs landed on the factory, the world may never have known Love Hearts, and many childhoods would have been poorer for it. The good news is that Swizzels is surviving and thriving today.
Skipping ahead to 1943, more planes were flying over High Peak, but this time it was the 617 Squadron of the RAF practising the low-level flying needed for Operation Chastise—the squadron more commonly known as the Dambusters. The Dambusters were vital in convincing people that the allies were winning the war against Nazism, and it was the rolling hills of the High Peak that helped the brave RAF personnel to pull it off.
In this time of celebration and reflection, we naturally remember the strength and bravery of the people who fought during the second world war to keep our country free, and we must never lose sight of the scale of the sacrifice that people make when they join our armed forces today.
My uncle Ronald Pearce served in the second world war and fought bravely in the Italian campaign. He survived, but the war took its toll on him. It was a time when there was little understood and little done for those suffering from trauma and mental health issues. That is why I warmly welcome this Government’s announcement of VALOUR—a UK-wide veterans’ support service that will work with health, employment and housing charities and which is backed by one of the largest ever Government funding commitments for veterans.
As we celebrate the incredible achievements of the greatest generation, we cannot hide from the fact that we live today in an increasingly unstable world, with antisemitism once again on the rise and a war on European soil because of a tyrant’s invasion of a neighbouring country. May our generation have all the fortitude and resilience of the generation we celebrate today.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Victory in Europe Day in 1945 was a moment of national rejoicing. It was also the moment when Britain and the world started to count the cost of war—the human catastrophe of totalitarianism. Yet it would be hard to find anyone in the country who would say that the price was too high. I think we heard that today in the moving recitations from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart).
That greatest generation fought for our country and for freedom, but they also fought for British values of democracy and the rule of law. It is estimated that in 1941 there were only 11 functioning democracies in the world, and half of those could trace their genesis back to this mother of Parliaments. It is no exaggeration to say that democracy is Britain’s greatest gift to the world, and it is our duty to defend that gift, both at home and abroad. It is why I was pleased to see soldiers from Ukraine marching in the VE Day parade this weekend.
Our war leaders in 1945 knew that winning the war was only the first step to winning peace. They started immediately to set up a series of international organisations, including the United Nations, the European Council, NATO and the European Coal and Steel Community. Together they have protected democracy, freedom and human rights for the past 80 years. The spread of democracy across the globe has been a great success, but we must not be complacent.
Threats to our democracy are real and not all come from hostile nations. Some arise from conditions in our own country. Our society faces great challenges, with yawning inequality that is greater than at any time since the 1930s, when similar circumstances saw fascism sweep across Europe. This is not a time for hands-off government; it is a time for intervention. Just as in the aftermath of the second world war when the Attlee Government promised good jobs, high-quality homes, universal healthcare and educational opportunity for all, so the mission for this Government is to deliver that commitment anew to the British people.
On this 80th anniversary of VE Day, we have so much to be proud of and thankful for as a nation. I am in complete concordance with the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) in that we need to take heed to protect, preserve and defend the precious gift of democracy, which was won at such great cost and selflessly bequeathed to us by the wartime generation.
I thought I would leave my final words to Churchill himself, who in his address to Parliament on 8 May 1945 added a coda that was not included in his original broadcast—he actually said these words initially to the media, so I hope he got permission from the Speaker at the time before coming to the House. Churchill said that the strength of the parliamentary institution has been shown to enable it to at the same time wage war and
“preserve all the title deeds of democracy”.—[Official Report, 8 May 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1869.]
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
This week, events are being held across the Bishop Auckland constituency celebrating 80 years of peace in Europe, which followed a war so terrible that we still mark the years since. I vividly remember celebrating the 50th VE Day 30 years ago in my last year at primary school by dressing up as an evacuee, singing Vera Lynn songs and colouring in a Union Jack to be hung as bunting. Back then, some of that resilient war generation were still sprightly enough to kick a football, or at least to sit and share their memories with us. But age has wearied them with each passing year, and fewer and fewer are still with us, so weeks like this are important, lest we ever forget that generation who stood firm against tyranny and crossed land, sea and sky to secure the freedoms we enjoy today.
Bishop Auckland played its role by sending young men off to war, caring for evacuees and digging for victory. Victory in Europe cost the best blood of the 20th century, and those who survived not only won the war, but went on to win the peace and build modern Britain, including the welfare state and the national health service. We owe that generation a debt we will never be able to repay.
My grandad was just 19 when, with the 12th Yorkshire Battalion, he parachuted into Ranville in the early hours of D-day, and later into Arnhem during Operation Market Garden. He never really spoke of what he saw until the final months of his life, but he carried it with him quietly. My dad recalls a time when they sat to watch the film “The Longest Day”. In a scene when one of the officers shouts, “Come on, men,” Granddad walked across the room, turned off the telly and said, “They weren’t men; they were boys.” But home from war he came. He raised two sons—for many years as a single father—and did his part to build a better world. He would have been amazed to have a grandson serving in this place.
The victory won in Europe 80 years ago this week was not a victory for Britain and France over Germany, but of liberal democracy over fascism and racism. It was a victory for the whole of Europe. Europe is the best example of lasting peace and reconciliation that the world has ever seen. May we always see ourselves as friends and allies and never surrender to those who want to divide us.
Across the world in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and beyond, we see conflict once again robbing children of their homes, and families of their future. Here in Europe, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shattered assumptions that peace in our continent was secure. It is not; it must be defended. Peace must be defended not only with arms but with unity across Europe, with moral clarity and with political courage to stand up for international law and human rights.
Remembrance is not nostalgia; it is responsibility. If we are to honour a generation that fought for us, we must fight in our time for the peace that they gave us.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
As I was born in 1958, my childhood was surrounded by people who had fought in world war two, but as a child it all seemed so long ago. My father was an RAF doctor serving in the middle east and in East Anglia. The fatality rate of the air crews was quite appalling, not least because of all those killed as the planes crashed. I remember stories my dad told us of crawling into stricken planes to extract wounded pilots. Like many who fought in the war, he spoke about it only in his greatest old age, but now that I have grandchildren of my own, it no longer seems so long ago. What tricks time and memory play on all of us.
Suffolk was on the frontline defending our country. Our airfields were key to the liberation of Europe. The brave men of the United States air force flew bombing raids from Rougham deep into Europe, and the incredible fighter ace and double amputee Wing Commander Douglas Bader flew from RAF Honington. Vanishingly few of that generation are among us now, but I was delighted to send my congratulations to one of them—Jim Grant, from Stowmarket—on his 100th birthday last year. Jim signed up to the Royal Marines in 1943 and served until 1946. He was present at D-day, firing for the troops at Sword, Juno and Gold beaches. I salute his service.
We must also never forget the thousands of extraordinary ordinary citizens who made this contribution to the people’s war for freedom. In Suffolk, we received thousands of volunteers for the women’s land army from all over the country to milk cows, pull potatoes and drive tractors. They were determined and indomitable, and alongside the home guard and the ARP wardens they made a huge contribution to our victory.
Many in the House will find it quite unbelievable that war has returned to Europe. As we speak, rockets and drones are being flung at cities, and civilians hide in air raid shelters. Those who start wars do not respect the lessons of history, which, as the great songwriter said, are simply blowing in the wind. They must not be allowed to win. I therefore welcome the Government’s choice to increase defence spending and applaud the commitment to go further—2.5% is really not enough.
Eighty years ago, Mr Churchill addressed the Commons from the other place, this Chamber having been hollowed out by a direct bomb strike. On the same day, he reminded us that Britons were the first
“to draw the sword against tyranny.”
We cannot forget that. It has now fallen to us to safeguard the peace that his generation won, and we must put aside our political differences.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Eighty years ago, celebrations broke out across the country that were spontaneous, joyful and often very noisy. There was a group of people, however, who were not talking loudly about the work they had done during the war. Some were based in Leighton Buzzard, in a place called Q Central. It was a secret communications hub and at its height, more than 2,000 people— predominantly women—were working there, running the largest telephone exchange in the entire world.
Many in the constituency and further afield think that more people need to find out about this contribution. Lots of people know about the neighbouring secret work at Bletchley, but Leighton Buzzard’s contribution has not been recognised for too long. I am proud of the work of a local historian called Paul Brown, who has been bringing that secret work to the public’s attention.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarkable speech, remembering those who contributed to our war effort. Will she join me in remembering all those who fought and fell in world war two from across my Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency, in particular those who worked at Samuel Fox’s steelworks in Stocksbridge to make munitions and equipment to enable a successful outcome to the war?
Alex Mayer
I absolutely think that everyone’s contributions to the war effort were vital to ensure victory and peace.
This Thursday, I will be at Leighton Buzzard war memorial with local people, laying a wreath in memory of those who served at Q Central. It is vital that we make sure that the people whose wartime service was carried out in the shadows are now brought into the light.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
As I reflect on VE day and the celebration of victory over fascism in Europe, it strikes me that the war effort was one of common endeavour by ordinary people such as my grandad, who was a translator at Bletchley Park, and Richard Brock, who, when I met him last year, was 100 years young. Richard was one of the men who liberated Bergen-Belsen concentration camp.
To sit with someone who had known that horror at first hand truly was a privilege, and it was a privilege to pass on my personal thanks on behalf of a survivor’s family. That is because my friend Krysh had a Polish grandma, and she survived Belsen. After her liberation, she came to Britain and settled here. The rest, as they say, is history. Except it is not just history, is it? It is not something that we can bring out to look at on special occasions and congratulate ourselves on beating fascism before putting it away until the next anniversary. It did not start with the camps, did it? It never does. No, it was more insidious than that.
It was a slow and constant poisoning of minds by people intent only on power. It was a setting up of different groups as scapegoats. It was the use of pseudoscience to back up an ideology of racism and eugenics. It was the use of propaganda to turn people into caricatures and the use of the press to create a narrative of blame. It was the turning of ordinary people on their neighbours. It was taking the propensity of humans to group together and turning that into a sinister tribalism. Why look to the difficult solutions to complex problems when people can simply blame the groups, over there, that they have been taught over many years to hate and fear? In the ’20s and ’30s, it was the Jews, the Gypsies, the gays and the disabled. It was the intellectuals and the trade unionists. It was anyone who challenged that narrative of hate.
So who is it today? Fascism did not start with the camps, and the ideas underpinning fascism are not artefacts of history. I end with the plea that we do not treat fascism and tyranny as an historical artefact, and that we remember that they are a living possibility—even now, even here. The overthrow of fascism is not a bauble to admire once a year. Rather, it is a reminder that we should never let it get that far ever again, that we must be on our guard and that we should never let it flourish.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. With a two-minute time limit, I call Luke Myers.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Today we remember the extraordinary courage, sacrifice and service that brought about victory in Europe 80 years ago, and it has been a privilege to join VE Day commemorations right across my constituency this week. I am proud of our community for organising so many events to honour that brave generation. In our towns and villages, we remember all those who answered that call of service, many of whom would never return. We think of servicemen including Stan Hollis, a local lad from Middlesbrough who earned the only Victoria Cross awarded on D-Day for his sheer bravery in Normandy. We remember servicemen such as Harry Tout, a future mayor of Guisborough, who fought in north Africa and up the spine of Italy. And we remember the airmen, the mariners, the Green Howards and all the others who laid down their lives for freedom.
We also pay tribute to those who played their part on the home front, from the land girls in our North Yorkshire countryside to the women and men of steel, the shipbuilders and steelworkers who kept the country afloat. This made Teesside a target and it was one of the first places in Britain to suffer casualties in the blitz, but the industrial haze also clouded enemy targeting, with the smog protecting the Smoggies. That generation’s courage made peace possible. Their service shaped the world we inherited and their patriotism was unwavering. We honour them today not only in words but in the way that, as a society, we stand together for each other and stand up to fear and hatred wherever it rears its head. As we remember them, we rededicate ourselves to the values they fought for: democracy, peace and fairness.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
On Thursday 6 March this year, I attended a poignant evening of commemoration in the Bathgate Regal theatre. I believe it was the first 80th anniversary of VE Day event in the UK, and it was a fitting tribute to our local heroes. It was an emotional evening right from the get-go, when the Whitburn Band kicked off with Glenn Miller, because my papa, John Sullivan, was a pianist in a big band. He was also a plumber from a small village north of Glasgow, who was plucked from that village and sent to serve with the RAF in Burma, thousands of miles from his home. He had probably never left the UK before—he might not even have left Scotland before—and he did not know when or if he would return home. But he did return home, and I am here today.
My mind also turned to my other grandfather, Jimmy Campbell, who served as a miner all his days, again making an essential contribution to the war in a dangerous role like so many others in those days. For example, the Linlithgow Munitionettes, the women who worked in the Nobel munitions factory, were exposed to hazardous toxins day in, day out. On 5 February 1943, four of those women went to work and never returned home due to an explosion. Thanks to the work of a local historian, Kathryn Welch, a light has been shown on the Linlithgow women once again, and efforts are under way to remember their service. These examples speak to the service of a generation—ordinary people who did extraordinary things in the name of service and democracy. We owe them a debt of gratitude that we cannot repay, but we must honour their legacy by standing united and resolute in the defence of democracy today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the co-operation of colleagues, we got everybody in. We now come to the Front-Bench speakers, starting with the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure and privilege to wind up such an excellent debate. I pay tribute to all the contributions we have heard as we in Parliament follow the public yesterday in taking our turn to mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day—one of the most momentous days in our country’s history. VE Day was the triumph of freedom over tyranny in Europe. We must be forever grateful to all those who served to deliver that victory, not least as the great poignancy of this year’s anniversary has come from the fading of our living link to those who were there at the time. But that link still remains; there was a particularly powerful moment yesterday at the start of VE Day proceedings in Parliament Square when world war two RAF veteran Alan Kennett, turning 101 later this month, formally gave the military procession its send-off, holding the torch of peace. That living link, often through family, really matters.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) cannot be here today, but I know how much his lifelong passion for the armed forces stems from his father’s service with the Royal Navy on D-day. Throughout most of my life, I had a reminder of the war every single day because my late mother was called Faith precisely because she was born in 1941 when our eventual victory was far from certain. Although my mother regarded herself as English, she was born in Haverfordwest in Wales because her dad, my late grandfather, was a civil engineer who in wartime switched from building railways to running a naval munitions factory at Trecwn in Wales; maybe defence procurement is in my blood—who knows?
As many have stressed, it is important to remember that the war did not finish on VE Day and that 80 years ago some of the most bitter fighting would still come in the Pacific theatre. I therefore join my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) in looking forward to celebrating VJ Day in August.
There were many fine speeches. A particular theme was the contribution of so many nations fighting alongside us under our command. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) stressed the role of every part of the Union, particularly strong from Northern Ireland. The hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) stressed the role of the Commonwealth, and the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) specifically mentioned the role of the Indian armed forces, which is ironic given what is happening as we speak in terms of India and Pakistan. Of course, those forces fought so bravely in world war two, at Monte Cassino in particular.
The hon. Members for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) and for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) stressed the presence of Polish forces in their constituencies, including those involved at Market Garden, in that epic battle. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) stressed the involvement of Canadian troops. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) mentioned the Free French hosted in his constituency, and the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) reminded us of the historical contribution of the Nepalese community, which continues to this day with the incredible contribution of the Gurkha regiment.
It was a particular privilege to hear from those colleagues who served in the armed forces. The hon. and gallant Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) spoke about the importance of his experience visiting a Ukrainian defence company. I also had that experience recently; it was a real lesson and incredibly inspiring. My hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke movingly of his grandfather, whose incredible contribution included D-day, Operation Varsity and of course the traumatic experience of liberating concentration camps. I hope that inspired him to his own distinguished career in the marines. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), in an excellent speech, stressed the crucial role of RAF Molesworth and RAF Wyton.
We had all the pomp and ceremony on the Mall, but the real story of VE Day celebrations is in communities up and down the country. A number of colleagues spoke about community celebrations, including the hon. Members for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). The hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) made a fascinating speech, reminding us of the important role of RAF Hawkinge in intercepting the flying bombs, as they were called then. It is ironic because of course we now talk about the menace of drones flying over Ukraine.
A number of colleagues spoke about the important role of women, especially in wartime industry, including the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) and the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, who spoke of the role of her grandmother in the defence industry. A number of colleagues also spoke of the contribution of women working on our farms to ensure that we had food security during the war, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell); my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), in a fantastic speech; and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who reminded us in particular of the contribution of the Women’s Land Army.
The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) reminded us of what he called the long tail of war—its lasting psychological impact. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) stressed the important role of RAF Valley, which was one of the most enjoyable visits of my time as a Defence Minister.
The Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), made an excellent intervention when he said that surely the most important lesson of world war two is to always stand up to aggressors. That is why it has been so important to support Ukraine as it faces another European war inflicted without a shred of justification by another aggressive, bullying dictator. I am incredibly proud of what we did in government to support Ukraine, and like the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), I was moved to see the Ukrainian soldiers joining our VE Day procession yesterday. I hope that one day, we will get to attend their VE Day celebration.
It is wonderful that our nation has once again had the chance to pay a glorious tribute to that incredible generation who secured victory over tyranny 80 years ago. We must never forget the lessons from that terrible war: to always stand up for democracy and freedom, and to do so by backing our armed forces and standing strong with our allies against the bullying dictators who threaten us once again.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
It is a great personal privilege to close this debate. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), for her inspiring opening speech and every Member who has contributed so thoroughly to a memorable and important debate.
After the guns fell silent in Europe, during those historic days in May 1945, a period of enduring peace began between the major global powers. That peace was secured by a courageous and undaunted generation of British men and women, and has lasted almost 80 years. Those men and women who served on the frontline, in the factories, down the mines, on the farms or embedded with our allies demonstrated the very best of Britain’s character. Their grit and fierce resolve carried Britain through the bleakest of times to victory. The commemorations we have seen this week are a fitting way to pay tribute to their generation and to thank them for what they did for our country—indeed, for the whole world.
As Minister for Veterans and People, I particularly want to express my profound gratitude to all the serving personnel and veterans who are taking part this week from Britain and across the Commonwealth, and of course our Ukrainian allies who took part in the parade yesterday. Whether they are joining the many events here in London and across the nation in person or watching and listening from home, the nation is eternally grateful for their service and the unflagging sacrifice of not just them but their families, who serve as well.
I have witnessed the cost of conflict at first hand. I stand before this House as not only a Minister but a military veteran. During multiple tours in all corners of the world, I have seen the very best of humanity, in the form of remarkable courage and comradeship under pressure. I have also seen its darkest aspects. Never were those two extremes more apparent than during the second world war.
This week, we commemorate 80 years since the liberation of Europe and the west from a period of dark and violent tyranny. We remember all who suffered and fought against the unimaginable horrors of war. We also remember the remarkable British and allied soldiers who liberated Europe, who witnessed the catastrophic consequences of unchecked authoritarianism that attempted to redraw international boundaries through the use of force—a wise person once said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme”—and who rose to the immense challenge of bringing hope to a place where hopelessness had taken root. Remembering these stories and events is an honour and an obligation. They remind us of the importance of standing up to dictators and aggressors. As with many things, Churchill said it best. It was
“a victory of the great British nation as a whole…to draw the sword against tyranny.”
No duty is more vital to the Government than protecting the security of the British people. Even after eight decades without a major world conflict, the illegal invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing war for its right to self-determination have reminded us that we have no inalienable right to peace. To win a lasting peace, we must deter the use of force through deft diplomacy and strength. That is why this Government are working flat out to build a stronger, more robust armed forces, which value and reward service personnel for their courage, their outsized contribution to society and their unwavering commitment to defending our nation. It is why we are making the biggest increases in defence spending since 2010, and it is why we are modernising defence through a comprehensive strategic defence review, defence reform and defence industrial strategy.
I would like to respond to some of the points raised during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) highlighted the important point that wars are not won by armies, navies or air forces; they are won by economies, industries and societies. That is never more telling than in Ukraine, where we see a scale of conflict that is incomprehensible in some cases. In world war two the UK had just under 400,000 killed in action. In Ukraine, the Russians have already taken 950,000 casualties. That means that by the end of this debate, the Russians will have taken over 2,000 to 3,000 casualties—in one single day. There are thousands of drone strikes a day, 16,000 artillery rounds used a day, and thousands of tanks destroyed. Woe betide any democracy or individual that takes our peace and democratic system for granted.
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), who paid tribute to the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. I believe that the national monument is proceeding through the planning procedures as we speak. We are also almost there with the monument to Dame Vera Lynn, and Members have my full support with that as we move forward.
As this debate draws to a close, I again thank all Members for their contributions. It is a simple fact that it is society that wins wars. We have heard amazing stories from across all our constituencies about those integral parts, whether that is industry, farmers, or the miners who contributed to the war effort. That is truly remarkable, and it is right to recognise them. It is also right that we paused from the regular cadence of our political work to recognise the immense scale of sacrifice that led Europe to freedom, out of the darkness of violence and tyranny. That generation of our countrymen and women gave their lives so that we might live freely. They leave us and the next generation a reminder that freedom is not free, that we must be resilient during difficult times, and that we must always remember, because
“the nation that forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten”.
In my search for inspiration on how best to close this debate, I stumbled across a quote that perhaps captures the essence of the British spirit to fight and defend. It is by an unknown American soldier, and it goes along these lines: “Those Brits are a strange old race. They show affection by abusing each other, and will think nothing of casually stopping in the middle of a firefight for a ‘brewup’”—to make a drink—“but I would rather have one British squaddie on side than an entire battalion of Spetsnaz! Why? Because the British are the only people in this world who when the chips are down and it seems like there is no hope left, instead of getting sentimental will strap on their pack, charge their rifle, and calmly and wryly grin, ‘Well, let’s get after it.’”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan.
Petrol prices in Dunfermline
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition regarding high fuel prices for people and businesses in Dunfermline. Prices in Dunfermline, Scotland’s historical capital city, are often as much as 6p per litre higher than in towns as close as 10 miles away. This cartel of pricing in and around Dunfermline is damaging small businesses, and unnecessarily increasing the cost to people getting to work, families on the school run or the child taxi service, as well as young people getting to college or training places. It is also increasing carbon emissions as a result of drivers travelling outside the city for cheaper fuel. The petition is signed by my constituents and backed by more than 600 people who have signed an online petition relating to the same issue.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Dunfermline and Dollar,
Declares that residents in Dunfermline are being unfairly charged higher fuel prices compared to nearby areas; states that fuel is an essential commodity required by the majority of people within Dunfermline for their daily lives and essential for the local and regional economy; understands unfair petrol pricing puts a significant strain on family incomes particularly younger people, those on low incomes and small businesses; and notes that over 600 people have signed an online petition relating to this issue.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to instruct the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to investigate higher petrol prices in Dunfermline compared to the immediate area and take immediate action to address this that will ensure petrol prices are fair and competitive in Scotland’s historic capital and newest city.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003066]
Neon Signage
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a few comments and observations on the debate we have just had. It was a profound debate, in which colleagues spoke about their personal experiences and their family members. It is fitting that we had it as a way of recognising the sacrifices that millions and millions of people in our armed forces made. I think of the expression:
“They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.”
The celebrations and the debate today are a way of remembering them.
I will talk about a couple of things, one of which the Minister in the previous debate spoke about—standing up for what is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) talked about the fact that things do not happen in isolation. She talked about how in the second world war there was a demonisation and othering of communities, which led to the catastrophe that occurred. She also said that those things are still happening. I will mention that I am a very proud British and Pakistani Muslim—I was born in Pakistan. At this moment, Pakistanis and Muslims are being demonised by many people—not just the mainstream media, but senior politicians who should know better than to cause division.
I remind the House of the contribution of the Commonwealth to the fighting in the second world war, which was alluded to earlier. My uncle had a King’s commission in the British Army at the time, and other members of my family fought for the British Army. In addition, 5.5 million Muslims across the world took part in the war, and many of them died. There were 2.5 million people in the Indian army, and 1 million of them were Muslims; many of them would have been in what is now called Pakistan. It is important that those things are remembered when we look at history and the contributions made by many people.
I will be honest: at this moment in time, with the discourse that is happening in our country and the demonisation of people on boats, migrants and others, I am actually scared. I see the rise of fascism happening, which is exactly what happened in the second world war. I know that the majority of people in this country are brilliant, wise and sensible and will not let those things happen, but it is timely that we have a discussion such as today’s debate so that we can remind everybody of the pitfalls that exist.
Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been on the armed forces parliamentary scheme; I have been with the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. I have met some of our current Army and Air Force personnel, and I pay a big tribute to them for the wonderful work that they do to protect our country. I respect, cherish and admire them, and we should do as much as we can to help our armed services and veterans. That is the least we can do for the sacrifices that they have made for our country.
I return to the Adjournment debate. I know that its topic might have caused people some confusion—what on earth does the protection of neon signage as a creative industry mean? Today is an opportunity for me to speak on an issue that may seem niche at first glance, but that speaks to a broader truth about the way that we value heritage, craftsmanship and the lifeblood of our creative economy.
I rise to speak in support of the campaign to protect the heritage craft of neon sign making—a uniquely British tradition that is now at risk. Neon was discovered here in the United Kingdom in 1898. After its discovery, Sir William Ramsay and Morris Travers demonstrated that by passing electricity through the gas, they could make it glow, paving the way for iconic neon signs the world over, from Piccadilly Circus to Times Square.
My constituency of Bolton South and Walkden is proud to be home to Neon Creations, a small but dedicated business led by Catherine and Tony Spink. Since 2005, they have been handcrafting authentic neon signs using techniques that date back over a century. They do not mass produce or cut corners—they are artisans in the truest sense of the word.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I support everything that my hon. Friend says. I commissioned a piece of neon artwork from a local artist, Stuart Langley, in Teesside a number of years ago. Does she agree that neon is as valid a medium of expression as any other artistic endeavour?
Yasmin Qureshi
Absolutely, and I will go on to talk about the amount of work and experience that artists need to work with neon.
I recently visited Tony and Catherine at their studio and I was transported to a magical world of amazing colours. I saw the stunning artwork that they have produced and was given a demonstration of how they bend the glass to create their signs, which I managed to do as well. To watch them was truly fascinating, but this proud craft is under threat, not because we no longer appreciate its beauty, but because it is being quietly and insidiously eroded by misleading marketing and unfair competition from mass-produced light-emitting diode imitation products, often deliberately and incorrectly labelled as neon signs. Let me be clear: if it is not made of glass and filled with gas, it is not a neon sign.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is putting forward an argument for the creative industries, but what the neon sign market has created cannot be ignored. I always do my studies before I come to the Chamber to take part in the Adjournment debate. MarketWatch predicts that the neon sign market will grow by 7.5% annually between 2024 and 2031, making some $3.3 billion by 2031. Is there not a way for the neon sign market and the creative sector to work together to the advantage of all?
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will touch on a few more things.
Authentic neon signs are handcrafted from glass tubes that are heated, bent and shaped by hand, then filled with inert gases, like neon or argon. It is a meticulous and time-consuming process requiring years of training, dexterity and experience. There are only 27 full-time neon glass benders left in the United Kingdom, down from hundreds in previous decades. It is a red-listed, endangered craft and, without action, it will be lost.
The problem we face is not just commercial, but cultural: it is about the loss of a craft that is as British as Harris tweed or Sheffield cutlery. In fact, like Harris tweed, we believe that neon signs deserve formal legal protection through a certification mark, a defined British standard or, ideally, the introduction of a neon signs protection Act. This is not an anti-technology argument. LED signage has its place—it is cheaper, mass-produced and useful in many applications—but to allow businesses to market LED signs as “neon” is misleading consumers, harming artisans and erasing our heritage.
Let me illustrate how this is affecting real businesses. Neon Creations has seen a sharp drop in demand because customers are being told by large retailers that £30 LED signs are neon signs. The products may look superficially similar, but they are entirely different in construction, quality and artistry. When customers receive them and discover that they are not authentic, they contact businesses like Neon Creations not to buy but to ask for repairs on something that is not actually neon. Catherine and Tony have faced online harassment and threats of legal action, and have had their comments blocked on social media for merely correcting the record. That is what comes to people when they tell truth to power.
Let us consider the facts. Neon is safe. Despite common misconceptions, neon signs are powered by low amperage and do not get dangerously hot. The gases used—neon and argon—are inert and naturally occurring in our atmosphere. Neon is efficient. A typical neon sign for business use costs around 21p per day to run, barely more than an LED and far less than people assume. Neon is sustainable—unlike plastic-heavy LED products, neon signs are made of glass and are fully recyclable. Perhaps most importantly, neon signs last much longer. They have a lifespan of at least 10 years, outpacing LED alternatives, so why are we allowing this confusion to persist? Why are we allowing misleading labels?
The British Sign and Graphics Association, the Heritage Crafts Association, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Greater Manchester chamber of commerce all support stronger protections for neon craftsmanship. This is not just about one constituency or one business; it is about defending the principle that authenticity matters, and that heritage crafts should be recognised, not undermined by the march of mass production. We must also address the issue of consumer transparency. It should not be acceptable for retailers, large or small, to market a product as neon when it contains no glass, no gas and no craftsmanship. We have rightly challenged fake olive oils and falsely labelled meat; we must apply the same standard in this case.
Harris tweed is protected by law, ensuring that only fabric hand-woven in the Outer Hebrides can bear that name. We propose a similar model for neon signs, which could take the form of a certification mark that can only be applied to genuine glass neon products; a formal British standard for neon signs, developed with input from the British Standards Institution and the BSGA; and maybe a private Member’s Bill, a neon signs protection Act, that would enshrine a legal definition of the term “neon”. These measures would not be burdensome, and they would not create red tape. They would simply be a way of telling the truth in advertising and providing a very important protection to a very small but significant industry.
Let us not forget the cultural value of neon. It is signage, but it is also art; it evokes memories of cinemas, diners, music venues and city skylines. It is a symbol of expression and identity, and to lose it would be to dim the vibrant glow of Britain’s creative past. Neon Creations and other similar businesses are trying to pass on their skills to the next generation, but they cannot, because there is not enough work to justify training new glass benders. As of now, there are no full-time neon trainees in the whole of the United Kingdom. If we do not act, the pipeline of skills will close forever. That is why I am in the Chamber today to advocate for that pipeline and the small businesses that refuse to give up on this craft.
I have written to the Secretary of State, urging the Government to support clear definitions and protections for neon signs. I know that the all-party parliamentary group for craft is supportive of that campaign and is looking into the next steps, but more needs to be done. Will we stand by and watch the lights go out on one of Britain’s most unique and visually iconic crafts, or will we act to ensure that when someone buys a neon sign in this country, they are buying the real thing? This campaign is not just about glowing tubes of gas; it is about truth, heritage and the people behind the glass—people such as Tony and Catherine Spink in Bolton. They are people whose livelihoods depend on honesty in our markets and fairness in our laws. Let us give them that protection. Let us light the way for the future of British neon, and let us ensure that the word “neon” once again stands for authenticity, artistry and excellence.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That was an absolutely fascinating speech. I look forward to the response from the Minister.
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
I am sure that you look forward to every response from a Government Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) ended her speech by saying,
“Let us light the way for the future of British neon”.
I am grateful to her for securing this important debate and, consistent with her approach, I am also grateful for her thoughtful and rather illuminating speech—if you will forgive the pun, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not actually write that pun; somebody in my Department, to whom I am enormously grateful, wrote it.
Chris Bryant
No, I am not sacking them. You cannot call for civil servants to be sacked from the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, otherwise people will call for you to be sacked.
As the Jamaican reggae artists Tenor Saw and Bob Marley have lyricised,
“Life is one big road with lots of signs”.
This debate has shone a light on not just neon signage itself, but the wider question of how we protect, support and promote the often overlooked corners of our creative economy. Let us be absolutely clear: as my hon. Friend said, neon is not simply about advertising, and it is not just a relic of a bygone era. It is artistry and craftsmanship; it is a part of our living heritage and of the living texture of our urban and rural landscapes. I remember for a while there was a neon sign on entering the Rhondda that used to say, “Two can dine for £1.99. Fine dining.” [Laughter.] I think it is slightly out of date.
From Glasgow to Blackpool and from the corner pub to the west end theatre marquee, there is neon. Behind each flicker of neon gas is a maker, a designer, a glass-bender and an engineer of light. These are not just tradespeople, but creative professionals sustaining a skillset passed down through generations. Many artists in the UK and across the world have taken advantage of what is, as my hon. Friend said, Great British invention. It was only in about 1912 that it passed to the United States of America and became part of its advertising hoardings. We think about neon adverts, but it is an essential art form, too. We have only to think of many of Tracey Emin’s neon works, such as “Fantastic to Feel Beautiful Again”, which is a beautiful piece, or—apologies for this, Madam Deputy Speaker; do not get overexcited —“Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Cover My Body In Love”, which is another great work.
The Liverpool artist Chila Kumari Singh Burman’s work often uses neon. I went to an extraordinarily wonderful exhibition of hers at the Imperial War Museum North, which had large amounts of neon, drawing on her family’s tradition of running a shop. Members may recall that a few years ago she covered Tate Britain during the winter period with lots of different neon signs. For that matter, people can go online—this is my advertising for the Tate—and buy one of her tiger or ice cream neon works for £950. For that matter, at Tate Modern there is Martin Creed’s work, “DON’T WORRY”. It is difficult not to sing, “Don’t worry”, is it not? A few years ago at Tate Britain, the Welsh artist Cerith Wyn Evans did an extraordinary piece, which I really remember, because it was such a contrast with the galleries it was in. It was 2 km of neon light. That was back in 2017.
The creative industries as a whole, as my hon. Friend will know, contribute £124 billion a year to the UK economy, and neon, as a niche but important part of that ecosystem, has a dual role in commerce and in our culture. Advertising is one of our key exports in the UK and an important part of our creative industries, too. We need just think of the Piccadilly Circus signs, God’s Own Junkyard, or the glow of a fish and chip shop on a rainy Tuesday night. These are not just signs, but signifiers of place, of character and of British eccentricity. They are things that imprint themselves in our memory as part of what we think of as our own home town.
I hear the call today for consumer transparency and greater support—the point was well made—whether through planning protections, trademarking or cultural preservation funding. Under existing legislation and guidance, there are provisions in place to protect unique aspects of our historic environment, including street furniture and signage. Indeed, the entrance range of the Walthamstow Stadium, with its fabulous neon sign, is grade II listed. Anyone can recommend a building, site, monument, designated landscape, battlefield or, indeed, sign for inclusion on the national heritage list for England, so long as they meet the eligibility requirements. I encourage people to do that.
I hope the House will allow me—apologies again for this—to cast a light on my Department’s work on living heritage. I encourage neon crafters to make a submission to the inventories of living heritage in the UK when we open the call for submissions later this year, following our incorporation of the convention last year. That is a fantastic opportunity for the neon craft community to advocate for their craft, raise awareness and be part of a wider conversation on living heritage.
Let me also address another point that my hon. Friend made, which was about sustainability. She is right that some people have incorrectly expressed concern about energy use by neon, when modern neon is far more efficient than its reputation suggests. When maintained, it outlasts LEDs, is recyclable and in some cases is even repairable.
On consumer transparency and the use of the term neon, I fully understand the concern that clearer definitions and protections could help prevent confusion for consumers and help preserve the value of handcrafted neon signage. We have only to go online for two or three minutes to find lots of different supposedly neon signs being advertised relatively cheaply, which are no more neon than they fly in the air. They are sometimes described as “LED neon signs”, which is a contradiction in terms. I fully take on board the point that my hon. Friend has made, and I thank her for bringing this matter to our attention as we engage with Departments across Whitehall on their trademark policy development. This is not solely a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
As I said earlier, protecting neon is not about nostalgia. It is about supporting livelihoods, unlocking tourism, and giving our public spaces character at a time when homogenisation threatens to reduce the character and unique identity of everything from our skylines to our high streets. The Government hear the case being made for neon signage, not as a gimmick or an indulgence but as an essential, flickering thread in the tapestry of British creativity. We hear the concern from artists, from heritage bodies and from communities who want to see colour, identity and local pride preserved. We are committed to working with industry, local government and the wider public to explore how best to secure the future of this unique form of creative expression. On this, we will not let the lights go out. As the Greek-born American neon artist Chryssa once said,
“I saw Times Square with its light and letters and I realized it was as beautiful and difficult to do as Japanese calligraphy.”
We should never let go of such artistry in our British traditions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Illuminating!
Question put and agreed to.
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
Parking Regulation
(1 day, 9 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
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered parking regulation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for his support in securing this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) —my good friend and constituency neighbour—for their tireless work in challenging the rip-off fines that private parking companies across the country are charging our constituents day in, day out. Irrespective of industry pressure, we will continue to fight on behalf of our constituents who face unfair parking fines. I also thank the RAC and the AA for their ongoing work to advocate for drivers across the country.
I will keep my contribution brief to allow other Members to speak for their constituents. I know that MPs are here from across the country and across party lines because their constituents, like mine in Derby, are fed up. They are fed up of wrestling with a faulty payment app or an out-of-order ticket machine only to find that they will still be fined. They are fed up of the hassle of appealing a parking fine that should never have been issued in the first place. Most of all, they are fed up of feeling scammed by private parking companies that are unfairly pocketing their hard-earned cash.
In my constituency, the Copeland Street car park is a repeat offender, ripping constituents off—both workers and visitors—with unfair fines. Do not just take my word for it; listen to my constituent who fell foul of unclear signage while doing jury service at Derby Crown court. He will now have to defend himself in court against fines in excess of £1,000. Another of my constituents is a member of Derby’s community with hearing difficulties, who uses the car park to attend essential hearing appointments. After receiving an unfair fine, he is understandably worried that this will happen again and again.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Please refrain from mentioning any matter that may be sub judice.
Baggy Shanker
Another resident contacted me and said:
“I’ll probably just pay the fine without contesting it, because the hassle of appealing would be too much.”
The data shows us that those people are sadly far from alone. Although almost one in two motorists who appeals gets their fines cancelled, 80% of private parking fines are paid straight away. A lack of proper regulation has written these companies a blank cheque to collect unfair fines. According to insurance company Churchill’s data, they are on course to make 15.4 million requests to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for vehicle records this year. That is a record average of more than 43,000 private parking tickets issued every single day—one every two seconds. Shockingly, 2,700 will be issued during the course of this debate. It is time to say enough is enough and introduce a legally binding code of practice, to put an end to the extortionate fines.
Earlier this year, I wondered why private parking companies introduced a voluntary code of practice, after years of doing everything they could to block a legally binding code of practice being introduced. To nobody’s surprise, the voluntary code goes nowhere near far enough to stand up for drivers and give them the protections they need. The cap on parking charge notices is still too high. The debt recovery fees are still allowed under the industry code. Put simply, they are setting their own rules and marking their own homework, or at best their mates’ homework. That is just not good enough.
Private parking companies need to act with fairness and common sense. To achieve that, we need a robust code of practice put into law, which stands up for drivers and holds these companies to account. Voluntary guidelines are failing drivers. We need clear, enforceable rules that cover signage, the grace period, appeals processes and the use of CCTV. We also need to put an end to the threatening letters that use legal jargon to intimidate people into paying fines, and we need caps on those fines. Ultimately, we need accountability.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Labour Government’s determination to drive up standards across the private parking sector by committing to publishing a statutory code of practice. Today, on behalf of every driver who has faced the nightmare of an unfair fine, I urge the Minister to commit to introducing such a code without any further delays. Most importantly, the emails that flood our inboxes every day show that drivers across the country are willing us to stand up for them. Now it is time for action.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they must bob if they want to speak in this debate. A lot of people want to speak, so if anyone intends to intervene, they should prepare their interventions carefully, because if an intervention is too long I will cut you off.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) on leading this debate, which has been a collaborative effort and is beautifully well attended.
Many private parking companies aim to make their record-making profits from the demands they issue via penalty charge notices, not being satisfied with their advertised parking fees. There is no incentive for them to operate fairly, to make PCN rules straightforward or clear, or to run a genuine appeals process. This model has worked on intimidation and threats, with the companies knowing that a fair proportion of people will be intimidated into paying. The process rapidly escalates into debt collection threats and solicitors’ letters. This cycle of threatening letters, which are often referred to as threatograms, tends to continue regardless of appeals or evidenced facts.
The companies will point to their own independent appeals processes; however, such processes are neither independent nor fair. In fact, they are run by the trade associations: the British Parking Association and the International Parking Community. These organisations are directly funded and directed by the private parking companies, the biggest of which are owned by US private equity groups. For too long, this industry has been allowed to set its own rules and mark its own homework, always at the expense of the motorist, and the RAC and AA agree.
There is a legitimate need for parking management to prevent abuse, but costs and tactics are out of proportion to any legitimate aims. Primary legislation already exists to create a truly independent regulator. We urge the Minister to progress the consultation on the existing draft code of conduct and set up the new regulator that is clearly necessary. These private parking companies are out of control, causing misery for far too many motorists. It has to stop.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
In Horsham town, in my constituency, we have a central car park outside a Sainsbury’s, which is operated by a third-party contractor. The number of disputed tickets is out of control. Does my hon. Friend agree that the voluntary code of practice, which was introduced last year, seems to have made absolutely no difference? I can detect no reduction in the difficulties being created.
Martin Wrigley
I agree with my hon. Friend.
I have spoken to a former employee of one of these private parking companies who was dismissed for whistleblowing. In my constituency of Newton Abbot, I have received numerous complaints about the behaviour of some private parking companies and the tactics they use, which include breaching data protection rules by hiding data and failing to comply with subject access requests. They have created a culture of “charge first, think second” and their default position is to refuse appeals. They also use equipment that is designed to be awkward or even to fail, such as machines that will not take cash or card payments, and then they deny appeals, arguing that drivers could have paid by app. They “double-clock” people coming in and out of car parks more than once, even if they have paid for tickets. One victim of this practice appealed and won because the company involved could not provide evidence to support the charges that had been made, but it took the company a further six weeks to cancel the charges.
Other tactics include deliberately targeting people who do not respond to their threatening letters, which are often issued with the wrong address or similar, and selecting them for court action. The companies know that these people are the most likely not to turn up, thus obtaining a default judgment, and that the cost of setting aside a county court judgment is greater than paying it off. There is also a constant use of trumped-up bailiff charges, many times the price of a normal parking fine.
In my constituency, Norma, an elderly driver, forgot to display her blue badge. She received a PCN for £100, which she paid but appealed. She was not offered the discount rate applicable under the company’s own code until I intervened.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this debate. At least four unpaid carers attending weekly Dementia Matters meetings in Brecon have been fined. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is more that we can do to protect unpaid carers?
Martin Wrigley
Absolutely—this is something that they should not have to put up with.
Norma felt bullied into making the payment to avoid threats of escalation. Complaints go into a flawed process: appeals are simply denied, and the supposedly independent appeal system acts as little more than a tick box, with no real opportunity to argue reasons. This is immediately followed by continued threats of enforcement, action and increased costs—and it goes even further than that.
Private parking companies seem to have licence to go much further than any other form of organisation. Why can such companies set up automatic number plate recognition or CCTV, have cameras literally hidden on any old building—often really high on outside walls—to film entire streets and into the houses opposite, and have them running 24/7 with a 360° view using night vision, when councils or the police would never be allowed to do such a thing? Why are private parking companies allowed to use such cameras with no restrictions, especially when councils cannot use them at all for off-street parking, since the Deregulation Act 2015 banned camera use for parking contravention in council car parks?
We urgently need an independent regulator. The public need information on how the camera systems are used and who is recording. We need to ensure that the appeal system is working, and that faulty parking machines are rapidly fixed. We need a cap on the maximum penalty charge that can be issued for contraventions. We need a proportionate and responsible debt recovery process for operators to use for non-payments, and we need responsible behaviour and transparency from the companies operating in this area. Critically, a new regulator will provide a single code of practice, so that all private parking operators follow the same rules, and a single independent appeals process.
In 2010, indiscriminate wheel clamping and towing on private land was described as a licence to print money due to the firms’ rogue conduct. The practice was banned by the local transport Minister, the then Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who said:
“The rules governing parking on private land should be proportionate and should not result in motorists being intimidated or forced to pay excessive fines.”
Rather than the private parking lobby and finance world learning its lesson, it reverted to an industry based on outrageous practices, charges and threatograms. Let us end this situation. I ask the Minister to take urgent action.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I am going to have to impose a three-minute limit straight away, I am afraid.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The issue we are addressing today is symptomatic of a country where people who have done everything right are being burdened and bullied by a system that is weighted against them. I want to use this debate to tell the stories of some of my constituents in Darlington, and to outline why I am urging the Government to take action to regulate the private parking industry.
The reason people are so enraged by this issue is because it is a microcosm of people’s broader experiences. What was once an ordinary, day-to-day, unremarkable occurrence has been allowed, through the incompetence of the last Government, to become a truly unacceptable experience for ordinary people. While many simply pay the fine, for a lot of people in Darlington an unexpected bill of £170 really affects their budget.
I pay tribute to the people who have shared their stories; it has helped me greatly in my conversations with Ministers, colleagues and the companies. Each of the 140 people who have reached out to me since I was elected has been treated unfairly, and I am confident that they are just the tip of the iceberg nationally. I am convinced that we absolutely must regulate private parking companies, and that action is long overdue.
The car park that the majority of my constituents have complained about is situated right next to the Darlington Economic Campus, which houses the Treasury. While I was visiting that car park in my first week, a man using a wheelchair was trying to use the machine to pay for his parking. It had taken him longer than five minutes to get to the machine, so he had missed the window to pay without a fine. He was rightly shocked and angry about the unfairness of the rule. The fact that I witnessed him getting caught out in real time convinced me, there and then, that this was happening so frequently that something had to be done. Ten months later, the five-minute rule has been stopped, but we need to go further to protect people. We need proper reporting, proper regulation and an independent ombudsman for appeals, and we need it quickly.
Many Members will be familiar with the story of Hannah Robinson. She received a staggering £11,000 in parking fines from a single company across 67 tickets. In every case, she paid for her parking. Her only fault was that she did not do it within the five-minute window set by the operator. Often that was not even possible. Machines did not work, phonelines were unresponsive and the internet signal was too poor to pay online. The five-minute rule has now rightly been banned following campaigning efforts by MPs such as my hon. Friends the Members for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), whom I have been proud to work alongside. However, Hannah and others like her should never have been charged in the first place, or dragged through legal proceedings or forced to fight ruthless companies to prove they had done nothing wrong.
Another Darlington resident, Kim, had her life completely knocked off course for parking in the same facility. Like Hannah, she paid for her parking but was unable to do so immediately because of technical issues. She was sent a £170 charge, but she never received the letters. Completely unaware of the issue, she received a county court judgment. Her credit score collapsed. She and her partner were both working full time, doing the right thing, and were blocked from getting a mortgage. The fact of the matter remains: we must take action on this issue, as it is long overdue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Members for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for setting the scene so very well. Not a week goes by in my constituency when I do not have complaints from those with parking tickets, so I wish to register my concerns.
Parking regulations in Northern Ireland are managed mostly by the Department for Infrastructure. It is the relevant agency to issue parking tickets, to which I am no stranger on occasion. A lot of the referrals I have every week on behalf of constituents relate to the Department and to private companies. In the financial year 2023-24, the Department for Infrastructure issued approximately £7.4 million-worth of penalty charge notices, commonly known as parking tickets, which perhaps highlights the scope of issues concerning public parking regulation in Northern Ireland.
First of all, machines are not working and people still get tickets. Secondly, payment facilities are not working. Thirdly, disabled bays are not always marked correctly with lines on the road or signage, and people may get a ticket for something that was there in the past and is not there now. People may also be just minutes, or seconds, over their time limit. Disabled people coming back in wheelchairs is an example.
Here’s a cracker—that was something that used to be said. One of my constituents complained to me one day. They went to a shopping centre—I will not mention which—and when they went in, there were no lines. As soon as they came out, there was a line painted right around the car. The paint was so fresh that there were spatters of yellow over the car, and guess what happened? They got a parking ticket. You could not write that story. We fought the case, and to be fair, the company withdrew the fine, as it should have. It should never have happened. What the—it would be unfair to say that; I do not want to use bad language.
I am under time pressure. These are the issues in my constituency of Strangford. I have heard of resident permit parking schemes that have been introduced in some areas across Northern Ireland. For example, Belfast has a system with a £30 annual permit to allow people to park in designated bays. There are ways of doing it better. I know the Minister is a good Minister—he answers questions and always tries to be constructive. There are methods whereby we can move forward, and a bit of common sense and flexibility would help. The Minister is always keen to have discussions with his counterpart in Northern Ireland, so will he tell us what is happening in relation to that? Regulations sometimes differ between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so I ask him to tell us what has been done in those talks to work together better.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for the work they have done on this issue.
I am not the only Member to have people stop me in the street or message me to tell me how angry and frustrated they are at having to fork out for penalty charges in circumstances they think are wholly unfair. I have been there myself: as a mum of three, I have had to get my children out of their car seats, pull out the pushchair, unload the bags and try to ensure they do not run out in front of oncoming cars, all to the chorus of one or more children trying to get my attention—the usual juggle. Try finding a working payment machine or downloading an app when you are the only thing standing between children and soft play.
When I read about the case of Rosey Hudson, who was taken to court for nearly £2,000 of unpaid charges because she had not paid within five minutes, I became really keen to raise this issue in Parliament. The cases that have been raised with me have involved not just those caring for young children, but people with mobility issues, and machines not working. One person could not even find a parking space and was still charged.
Unlike Rosey, not everyone feels able to stand up and contest the fines. Many are put off by the threats of legal action and are worried about going to court. Of the 3.8 million private parking tickets issued in just three months last year, 80% were uncontested. When I convened a roundtable with MPs, car parking firms and consumer groups, I was asked what a fair time limit would be, but if a person pays for the time they have parked, there is no loss to the car park, so they should not face penalty charges. I am glad that the time people have to pay has been doubled to 10 minutes, but the only way to have a fair system is to have a statutory code. We want to protect drivers from unfair practices, plain and simple—particularly given that the number of parking tickets issued to motorists has nearly doubled since 2018.
Lola McEvoy
Does my hon. Friend agree that the sheer volume of parking tickets could be having an impact on people’s desire to visit our high streets and town centres, as they worry about parking without getting fined?
Catherine Atkinson
I completely agree. Firms hand out more than 43,000 parking tickets to motorists every day—one every two seconds. In line with what my hon. Friend said, I acknowledge the important role that private car parking plays, especially in our city and town centres. I want people to shop in our brilliant independent shops, such as those on Sadler Gate. I want people to be able to go to our fantastic restaurants, such as Lorentes, BEAR, the Dining Room and the Bookcafé. I want them to visit Derby theatre and our brand new 3,500-capacity performance venue, Vaillant Live. We need to ensure that when people use private car parks, they do not feel ripped off.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Parking regulations are not about where we leave our cars, but about how we shape our communities, support our local economies and respond to the climate crisis. When done well, they should enhance our communities, not stifle them. They should be not a revenue source, but a planning tool to balance environmental priorities, support active travel and nurture vibrant neighbourhoods. They are not about declaring war on motorists; they are about our public spaces, which belong to us all. The Liberal Democrats have proposed a national framework for fair parking standards, with clear rules that ensure transparency in permit pricing, protections for small businesses and common-sense exemptions for essential workers.
My Bath constituency is a beautiful and bustling city, but it is under pressure. Narrow Georgian streets and high visitor numbers mean that space for parking is in high demand. Parking regulations must be implemented fairly, with safeguards for lower-income households. Let us not forget the digital divide, which we have already heard about. As we move towards app-based payment systems, we must ensure that no one—especially the elderly or vulnerable, or those struggling with their kids—is left behind. We call for a requirement that all parking areas retain alternative, accessible methods of payment. Many of my Bath constituents—we have already heard about this issue this morning—have been hit with disproportionate fines from private operators, especially around retail areas and tourist hotspots. We need stronger regulations, and a binding code of conduct to prevent abuse and to ensure that all enforcement is appropriate and clearly communicated.
Today, we are calling for a review of private parking enforcement. Too many of my Bath constituents are being caught out by unclear signage and unfair fines, while appeals processes are skewed against individuals.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Constituents of mine in Yeovil have been given unfair fines at car parks run by Parkingeye, Excel Parking and Euro Car Parks due to unclear signs, faulty ticket machines, bad apps and poor road markings. Does my hon. Friend agree it is clear that private parking companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves?
Wera Hobhouse
Indeed. We have already heard this today, but we must have a mandatory code of conduct. I have one constituent who was hit with a £100 fine by a private company, despite having spent the entire time parked in the business that owns the car park. When she went to the Independent Appeals Service—as some people dare to do—the review stated that the charge was in the region of £85, when it was actually a lot higher. That also raises questions about the quality of the appeals process. It is high time that we brought private parking more fully under statutory regulation, with a code of practice that puts fairness first.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. The Government were elected back in July on a mandate to put more money into working people’s pockets. However, almost as soon as that money goes in, those same pockets are being picked by the increasing costs of just living their daily lives. One of the most egregious culprits is the private parking industry. On average, 41,000 new private parking fines are issued each and every day. We are on course for more than 14 million this year alone. That is an issue that affects pretty much every motorist in the country, whether through being fined themselves or worrying that they will make a mistake and that they are at risk of being fined.
I will tell a couple of stories from my constituency just to illustrate the argument. First, we have Katie Lovett. She parked at the private car park near the railway station but was not sure how the payment machine worked, so approached someone on duty for help. This is what she said when she wrote to me, as her words are far more powerful than anything I could write:
“I received a letter from a debt company in March of this year telling me I had a parking fine of £170 for parking longer than I paid for at the London Street NCP carpark in Southport in January. I’ve never parked here before and even asked a gentleman if I paid on arrival or exit and he told me you pay on exit by putting your registration number in and paying the amount shown. This is exactly what I did although I found the whole process very complicated.”
After a lot of back and forth, she ended up paying the fine because:
“It turns out it was my fault because unbeknown to me you have to put the length of time you’ve been parked for in the machine when you pay. So I only paid for one hour and not two.”
Katie is not alone because, secondly, we have an issue with the Ocean Plaza car park near the beach. One of my residents went to the shops there a couple of months ago—parks up, does his shopping and gets a letter two weeks later to say that he had been parked for three days, four hours and 38 minutes. It was an obvious mistake, but it took the intervention of my office before the parking firm would admit it.
Even I have been caught out. I do not particularly class myself as a shrinking violet on this, nor do I think I am any less competent than the average person when it comes to dealing with these issues; but when someone like me gets a £100 fine through the post, God help the average motorist, who is just trying to navigate the complex multitude of different regimes and approaches. There needs to be standardised regulation in this area, concerning issues such as signage, grace periods, appeals processes and complaint handling. There needs to be a consideration period, so that people can make an informed judgment about whether to accept the terms and conditions.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that private parking firms are running a racket in this country by adding debt recovery fees on top of already expensive parking fines? Will he join me in urging the Minister to bring forward the new regulatory code as soon as possible and ensure that it includes the ability to prevent the addition of bailiffs’ charges on top of already expensive fines?
Patrick Hurley
I agree completely. The £70 uplift that the recovery firms are charging is indefensible.
For repeat offenders in the industry, there needs to be a statutory code of practice. It should include the power to remove a company’s access to the DVLA register of keepers, meaning that operators who fail to meet the standards of the code would be prevented from enforcing unpaid parking charges and would therefore effectively be unable to do business. Lastly, the Government need to stop the private operators issuing and enforcing fines due to inadequate signs, broken machines, faulty ANPR cameras and simple mistakes around dealing with the technology. I await the Minister’s remarks with interest.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
In rural areas such as West Dorset, public transport is limited. Unfortunately, a car is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Our current approach to parking is outdated and increasingly unfair. At Dorchester South station, a lack of parking provision has become a source of real frustration, with drivers forced to park in surrounding residential streets, sometimes blocking access to emergency vehicles or cutting off neighbours in their own driveway. Some beach car parks have been privatised, pushing up charges and limiting access.
Where parking is available, payment systems increasingly discriminate against older people and against those without smartphones. Apps require good signal or wi-fi; large parts of West Dorset have neither. The use of apps and the withdrawal of cash or card options effectively exclude some of the most vulnerable people in our community, including older residents.
West Dorset experiences a dramatic increase in population during the summer, with up to 42% more people during peak months. It puts a huge strain on beach car parks, residential streets and protected natural areas. There must be parking to account for those swells in population, so that it is not our roadsides and verges that pay the price. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the creation of an independent car parking regulator, which would help to ensure national standards for appeals, signage, access and fairness. It would provide much-needed oversight of a system that currently operates with too little accountability and far too much inconsistency.
Hospital parking is another area in which urgent reform is needed. Research by the Liberal Democrats has found that NHS staff, patients and visitors have paid out £1.15 billion since 2018 in car parking fees. More than £300 million has come from NHS staff: people who are caring for others under intense pressure are being charged to go to work. We believe that this must change. We are calling for a visiting and caring fund to reduce parking costs for NHS workers and ensure that patients are not penalised for needing treatment or seeing loved ones.
What we need is a parking system that works for those who live in West Dorset, for those who visit and for those who rely on fair and safe access to work, healthcare and community life. Until that happens, we are letting down far too many people.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on their excellent speeches.
This is not a marginal issue, but a systemic one. It touches the lives of millions of motorists and contributes to the erosion of our high streets and of public confidence and belief in a fair process. Constituents continue to be harassed, penalised and financially extorted by a private parking industry that has operated largely unchecked for over a decade. In my constituency, I continue to receive complaints about one particular operator, which has become notorious. I am extremely disappointed that it has failed to respond to queries raised by my office. The scandal is that there are many motorists who pay up even when they should not have been issued a fine at all. The companies are known to use intimidatory methods to press people into paying high fines. People pay because they do not want the aggro.
I have a number of stories from constituents, but because time is short, I will share just one. Leila told me that she parked in the Broomhill Excel car park for a hairdressing appointment. There is no coin machine, so people are wholly reliant on the app. On that occasion, the machine did not work, but she kept trying for 17 minutes and eventually the payment went through. She thought nothing of it until she received a letter stating that she was liable to pay a fine of £100. She worried that the payment had not gone through, but she checked her statement and it showed that it had. She therefore confidently appealed, thinking that it was an oversight on Excel’s part. She was aghast to learn that her appeal had been rejected because, per its policy, she was seven minutes late. It erroneously states that there is an alternative payment source; there is not. It is wholly reliant on the app, which was not working at the time.
Catherine Atkinson
Some car parking firms still believe that their code of conduct is enough—the code of conduct that they decide and that they police. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a statutory code of practice so that car parking is straightforward, convenient and fair?
Abtisam Mohamed
I agree: the private parking code of practice is not fit for purpose. Will the Minister explain whether the Government will consider reintroducing the official private parking code of practice as soon as possible? Will he also consider the immediate suspension of DVLA data access for any operators found to have engaged in predatory practices or information misuse?
Our constituents cannot continue to face this unjust system. The only winners under the current system are the private parking companies that are profiteering at the expense of the public.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate.
Like many Members here today, I have received complaints from constituents, but I am mainly here because of Janice, who came to my surgery to tell me her story. Her son tragically passed away from cancer in 2023. After his diagnosis, Janice and her husband went to seek support from a local cancer charity. They struggled to access the building, so they pulled over briefly to call for directions; they then went on to get the support that they needed. It was only when they returned home that they received a £60 fine for allegedly having parked on the side road. Understandably, Janice contested the fine, explaining the situation. The company that issued the fine states on its website that it will reply to challenges within 28 days, but Janice heard nothing. She then received a letter saying that the fine had doubled.
Sadly, Janice’s experience is not unique. At Norwich railway station, taxi drivers were outraged to keep getting fines for supposedly staying over the time limit. The CEO of the taxi company says:
“If taxi drivers are facing such issues despite having tracking data to challenge the fines, what about regular commuters and visitors who lack the resources to contest these decisions?”
I am pleased that in that case the parking companies reviewed all the fines, but it should not have come to that.
The common denominator is a parking industry with free rein to do whatever it wants. Where drivers park and how they pay for their parking is a lottery. As many Members have pointed out, it can exclude many people. It is obvious that the voluntary code is not fit for purpose. I fully back the calls for a legally binding code of practice backed by the law, so that we have a fair system with a cap on parking charges, with clear professional standards, with complaints handling and with a single independent appeal system. I add my voice to those of colleagues in this room and across the parties calling for immediate action.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate.
The RAC estimates that 14.5 million drivers will receive a parking fine this year. That is more than one in three drivers in this country. In the Derbyshire Dales, I have heard time and again from residents that private parking companies sometimes employ tactics akin to bullying and intimidation, many of which have been eloquently outlined in this debate, to get them to pay unjust fines. It has clearly become widespread: just 2% of drivers state that private parking firms treat fairly those who contravene parking rules.
I will share a few stories from the Derbyshire Dales that highlight the severity of the issue. Rachel Betton is a constituent of mine who was dropping off her grandchildren at a trampoline centre in Derby; I believe it may be the same one that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South mentioned. Rachel never even parked, but she was charged £60 by Excel Parking Services for entering the car park. Like many constituents, Rachel felt that she did not have the time or energy to appeal, so she decided to pay the fine despite feeling that it was unjust. Unbeknownst to her, however, her payment never went through, leaving her to pay an increased fine of £170.
Other constituents have had the same negative experience with the same company. Kathleen Jackson, who is 76, told me that she was fined £170 after it took her over 10 minutes to figure out how to use the machine. The machine has now been replaced due to serious functionality issues, but that has not stopped her having to pay the fine.
The issue is particularly problematic for disabled constituents, who often need more time to get to parking meters and pay for parking. One such constituent, Claire Ashbrook, has told me that she has been left feeling particularly stressed because she does not have the money to pay the fine, as she is caring for her sick daughter. These stories demonstrate that the private parking companies cannot be allowed to mark their own homework.
Although it is welcome that a voluntary code of conduct has now been introduced, it is voluntary. Only a statutory code of conduct will ensure that private parking companies are held to account. For the good of my constituents, I ask the Government to consider implementing such a code as soon as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Because you have all been so disciplined, and because one Member who had emailed about speaking in the debate is now not planning to do so, I can be a little more flexible with time, but not too much. You have roughly four minutes each from now on.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. It is clear from this debate that there are systemic weaknesses in how the private parking system is structured and regulated. That is the core issue that I wish to address.
One of the two DVLA-accredited trade associations is the International Parking Community. Members of the IPC are granted access to DVLA data to pursue unpaid parking charges. If a constituent receives a penalty charge notice from an IPC member, they are directed to appeal via the Independent Appeals Service, a body accepted by the DVLA for the purpose of handling appeals.
Although the IAS is an accredited alternative dispute resolution provider, it is not directly run by the Government. The word “independent” may lead consumers to believe that they are appealing to an impartial Government-run body, but the IAS operates independently of both Government oversight and parking operators. The International Parking Community and the Independent Appeals Service are both trading names of one company, United Trade and Industry Ltd. This overlap raises legitimate concerns about perceived conflicts of interest, as the same corporate entity that profits from private parking companies through membership fees is responsible for overseeing the code of practice and adjudicating disputes under it. This lack of separation, clearly, could undermine trust in the fairness of the process.
The IAS asserts that its independence is safeguarded by its use of qualified solicitors or barristers as self-employed adjudicators, all of whom remain anonymous, are duty-bound by their professional codes and are paid fixed fees regardless of appeal outcomes. It is also true that individuals retain the option of appealing a PCN through other means, such as in court, under consumer protection legislation. However, for the average citizen, and particularly for someone without time, resources or legal understanding, the impression of full independence created by the Independent Appeals Service’s name could easily be misleading. At a minimum, the current framework could contribute to a perception of bias and could foster a lack of public confidence.
These are precisely the issues that a Government private parking code of practice needs to address. I therefore look forward to the Minister setting out the progress that the Government are making in addressing the issues. I hope to hear about the progress to be made in how private parking is enforced, to ensure greater oversight, consistency and fairness.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) on securing this important debate, and so many others on campaigning on this issue.
I speak on behalf of the people of Weston-super-Mare, Worle and the villages. Our proud coastal community has stunning beaches, three glorious piers and a tourism and hospitality sector that plays an essential role in our local economy, but parking is a growing problem that is echoed across communities up and down the country. Far too often, the cost and availability of parking acts as a barrier, deterring visitors, frustrating local businesses and making it harder for residents to enjoy the very places that they call home. The issue has been hugely compounded by unscrupulous private parking companies, especially in recent years.
In Weston, we want both locals and tourists to come and enjoy our seafront and our high streets. We want them to visit our small businesses, our events and our attractions, but when a family find that parking for a day at the beach can cost as much as their fish and chips, they think twice. They might not come at all. The prospect—so often reinforced by these unscrupulous companies—of unfair and unclear fines further exacerbates the issue. We need to dramatically rethink our approach to parking regulation in coastal areas. That goes further than having a code of practice for private regulators; it is a wholesale issue about how we reinvigorate our town centres generally.
We must see cheaper and more flexible parking options, particularly during peak season, when towns such as Weston thrive on day visitors. Those might include capped daily rates, off-peak discounts, or partnerships with local businesses to validate parking. Too often, we have seen a “computer says no” attitude when such initiatives have been suggested, and far too often we are told, “We’ve outsourced this to private companies rather than innovating in-house.” Governments can make local decision makers shift their thinking on the subject.
Accessibility is also key. We have heard a lot about people with disabilities, older people, and those with Parkinson’s, such as my mum, who has been stung by parking charges simply because she cannot access the app or she does not do things quickly enough. Often, those are the people most at risk of extortionate fines, which are so out of proportion with the perceived error. It is not just about convenience; it is about fairness.
Lola McEvoy
In Darlington, there are car parks with no signal, so people have to go outside to download the app, log into it and then pay for their parking, by which point they have often incurred a charge. Does my hon. Friend agree that in our code, we should include the provision of multiple payment methods in every car park?
Dan Aldridge
Absolutely, and this goes to the heart of a lot of what we have talked about in this place in respect of the shift to a digital-first world. In many ways, that is great, but it excludes so many people. We need to continue to have other options, including cash payment, available for people who need them.
Coastal towns face unique economic challenges. Hospitality and tourism are two of the few industries that we rely on in Weston. If visitors are put off before they even step out of the car, or are punished by opportunistic private parking companies, we all lose out—local people, shops, cafés and attractions alike.
Let us be clear: better parking regulation is not about free-for-all parking; it is about sensible, locally driven policies that work for both residents and visitors. It is about supporting coastal regeneration by making it easier, not harder, for people to spend their time and money in our towns. Let us make it easier for people to get to our town centres, and for our communities to thrive.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. As MPs, we all have a massive volume of casework that is generated from constituents who have come to us with concerns about parking charge notices. My constituency of Mansfield is no different. There is a real sense of anger among local people.
Common complaints that I have come across include problems with parking payment apps, payment machines that are out of order or not functioning properly, difficulties speaking to a real person to query a PCN, and, in particular, PCNs that have been issued wrongly because automatic number plate recognition systems have malfunctioned yet it is possible to prove payment. I have also dealt with many cases in which someone has purchased a ticket but has simply incorrectly entered a digit from their registration number into a tiny payment machine keypad. Many constituents, particularly those with visual impairment or those who are older, have come to me about that.
One company in particular, which manages the St Peter’s retail park car park in Mansfield, has been the subject of hundreds of complaints to my office. I have since met representatives of the company in Parliament, and I am pleased that they have agreed to make numerous improvements, including installing new payment machines, and to refund a large number of PCNs.
However, I still have many reservations about the conduct of car parking companies in my constituency. From my observations, it appears that many companies are intent on generating as many PCNs and as much income as possible, and putting up as many barriers to appealing as possible—for example, not having staffed telephone lines, or insisting that appeals must be made in a very specific manner. Charge income is increasing at a record rate, while the number of vehicles on British roads is increasing only minimally. Clearly, something is going wrong. We seriously need to consider why that is the case and look at the regulatory framework under which parking companies operate. Many operators have told me that they are British Parking Association approved and they adhere to the code of conduct and practice, but that is a voluntary code created by the car parking industry, as the British Parking Association is a membership organisation funded solely by the car parking companies themselves.
It seems to me that these companies act as judge and jury in the regulation of their industry, and I think enough is enough. My constituents in Mansfield demand that we in this House scrutinise these companies and decide whether further action is needed. I therefore urge the Government to look into the matter and to consider statutory regulation as a priority.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and other colleagues for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have made contributions illustrating something that is a scandal across the whole country.
I want to highlight how my constituents in Shipley are being ripped off with a number of cases that are impacting both residents and shoppers. I spoke to a constituent who lives at Victoria Mills, a beautiful residential development in the heart of Saltaire. He has been trying to register his vehicle with the company that operates the residents’ car park, BaySentry. It has him down as owning two cars and two spaces, neither of which has the correct registration details, so every time he enters or exits his car park—sometimes two or three times a day—he is issued with a fine. The website is extremely difficult and confusing to use. Although he has been contacting the company, which keeps saying it will respond in three days, he has still had no response. Having clocked up several thousands of pounds in fines owed, he has decided to move out. He knows that other residents threatened with the same sort of penalty notices have paid up because they are too scared, as we have heard today.
Another constituent overstayed slightly at a supermarket car park, but saw that the signage was extremely poor and submitted evidence to that effect. She went down the route of appeal using POPLA—Parking on Private Land Appeals. That pretends to look like an independent appeals process, but, as we know, these are not independent processes; they are paid for by the parking companies. She has got into dispute with POPLA, which is not progressing her appeal. This is really undermining people’s confidence in parking.
The third case study is that of Susan, who has a happier story. She was shopping at the new Lidl store—she was there 30 minutes before opening time to use the browsing time before the store opened on a Sunday—and she received a fine from Parkingeye. She paid the fine and went to appeal, but got no joy from the company. It turned out that Parkingeye was not up to date with the store opening times, and it should never have fined her as she was not there out of hours. Thanks to my intervention on her behalf, we got a small victory: the cameras were updated and she got her money back.
It should not require the intervention of MPs with these private companies to stop this rip-off Britain. It seems like the companies have a blank cheque and are exploiting law-abiding residents of my constituency and people around the country. I hope the Minister will respond positively to my call and that of colleagues for properly independent regulation and clarity for consumers, and a legally binding code of practice.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, which I would like to finish by 12.58 pm so that the mover of the motion has the opportunity to sum up the debate.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing the debate. I know from my personal experience and that of my constituents that private parking can often feel like the wild west. Extortionate fees, poor signage, outrageous fines and an often opaque and unjust appeals process are too often the norm. As one can see from the attendance at the debate, it is a real issue across the country—although oddly not in many Conservative constituencies, it seems. In the words of the AA, private parking operators often act as “shark-like businesses”. I consequently welcome today’s debate and the opportunity it affords to shine a light on this issue.
Some of the stories we have heard are appalling. The time has come to stop wringing our hands and do something about the issue. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the introduction of an independent parking regulator with appropriate power to regulate fees, enforcement and appeals. It is vital that national standards are introduced to protect motorists and ensure transparency across the system.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Trust in parking companies is so low that more and more motorists are moving to on-street parking, including in Heald Green, where nuisance parking outside high-footfall businesses has caused much concern among local residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to encourage holistic parking strategies, to ensure that motorists and residents get a fairer deal?
Mr Kohler
I completely agree. We need a parking system that works. We are not against parking; we are against abuse of the parking system.
It is beyond doubt that the status quo is allowing private companies to act with impunity, preying on the millions of motorists in this country who rely on private car parks to go about their everyday life. As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Abbot, for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for West Dorest (Edward Morello), and the hon. Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), as well as many others, many of these companies use underhand tactics to increase the fines charged and county court judgments issued. It is simply not acceptable. As the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) said, it is rip-off Britain.
As the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) noted, the RAC has said that private parking operators are on track this year to hand out a record 14.5 million fines, each costing the recipient up to £100, and potentially more if they dispute or delay payment. Many fines are not for genuine infringements; they are simply devices to raise money, with little to no scrutiny by the Government. As the hon. Members for Derby North, for Derby South and for Shipley noted, some of our constituents face fines that soon escalate to many thousands of pounds. It is truly shocking. Such situations simply should not be allowed to happen.
The Government must urgently stamp down on the abuse of the parking ticket system. In addition to the establishment of a fully resourced and empowered regulator, a clear national code of practice must be reintroduced to promote transparency. Will the Minister confirm when the code of practice will be reissued? We also need a robust independent appeals body, as the industry’s own processes clearly are not working. As the hon. Members for Derby South, for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) said, many motorists simply do not bother to appeal, as the process is so difficult and time-consuming.
Lola McEvoy
On the appeals process, constituents across the country are attending court to find that their hearing has been cancelled by the company at the last minute. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a waste of their time and a waste of the court’s time?
Mr Kohler
I do. These companies use tactics simply to increase their profits and our frustration, and to make people impotent in the face of their abuses.
Even when individuals take the trouble to appeal, the process is opaque and impossible to navigate, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) so eloquently noted. I have experienced that myself. When one of my constituents got in touch about an incorrect parking penalty notice from Britannia Parking, it was well-nigh impossible to find the contact details of the company, while the links it provided to appeal did not work.
The Liberal Democrats stand for fairness and accountability in the private parking system. Although we welcome the Government’s promise to introduce a code of practice, as always the devil will be in the detail. We must scrutinise the new code when it materialises, to ensure that motorists are properly protected from rogue parking firms. We remain of the view that the Government should go further and introduce a regulator with appropriate powers to enforce the code of practice and put an end to the abuse.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Members for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate. As we have heard from across the Chamber, there are many examples of rogue parking companies. Before I begin, I will just note that this is my first opportunity to reply to a debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition—not bad for a boy from Broxbourne—so please go easy on me.
Luckily, both I and my constituents have plenty of experience of dealing with parking problems—as do many Members across the Chamber, as we have heard, with passionate contributions from Members on both sides of the Chamber, including the right hon. Member—sorry, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); he should be a right hon. Member. It would not be a debate in this Chamber without him in attendance. I noted down many comments from Members across the Chamber, but I will not go through them; I will just say that I heard nothing that I disagreed with about these cowboy parking companies. I think everyone has agreed with everything that everyone else has said and that action needs to be taken on rogue parking companies.
Parking is a crucial part of everyday life, but too often it is overlooked because it is not a glamorous political issue. When parking is too hard to find, too expensive or just too complicated, it can have a ripple effect on the local economy and the basic quality of life of all our constituents. I would like to make a number of practical points to the Minister and I look forward to the Government taking constructive steps to make things easier and better as soon as possible.
Although Labour’s manifesto failed to mention parking—its priorities clearly lying elsewhere—the Conservatives pledged to roll out the national parking platform fully, ending the ludicrous situation of someone needing one app on their phone to park in one car park, another app to park in the car park down the road and so on. A single payment system would make paying easier, especially for older people. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), said in February that options were being explored with the parking industry to deliver that platform, so let me ask today’s Minister: how are those discussions going, and when will we see action on that matter? Can he confirm whether the funding for the pilot version of the national parking platform ceased on 31 March?
While making parking easier for drivers, there is a balance to be struck between making simpler regulations and protecting pedestrians and local residents. At the last election, we promised to give councils the power to ban pavement parking if they so wish, provided that they engage with businesses and residents first to ensure that they are not adversely affected. It is incredibly frustrating for pedestrians to find their path blocked by inconsiderate cars; for those with disabilities or young children in prams, it can mean the choice between a dangerous detour and not continuing their journey at all. My sister has used a wheelchair to get around Hoddesdon and sadly has been forced into busy roads too many times.
At its most serious, inconsiderate parking can be a matter of life and death. I am sad to say that in my Broxbourne constituency there was a case in which an ambulance was unable to reach a person experiencing a 999 medical emergency, with paramedics having to run down the road because cars were parked too closely on both sides of it. In my previous role as the local county councillor, I was able to respond immediately by putting in place practical double yellow lines to ensure that that could never happen again, while ensuring that parking was still available.
Alice Macdonald
I totally agree with the hon. Member on the challenge of pavement parking, particularly around the times of the school run. There was a consultation on the issue in 2020, and I hope the Minister will be responding to it. May I ask why the Conservative Government did not respond to the consultation and take action on some of these areas?
Lewis Cocking
We did try to implement some of the recommendations from the consultation; the courts and the private companies that threatened legal action were the reason why we could not do that. I hope this Government will answer those questions and reply to that consultation, as the hon. Member rightly says; I would not go near a primary or secondary school in my constituency during school pick-up and drop-off time. Sadly, it is often parents taking their children to school who are parking dangerously, and that affects other children going to the same school. We must do something about that.
I firmly believe that councils and councillors, who understand their local areas, should have the power to tackle inconsiderate parking. The Minister speaks about devolving more responsibility to local authorities. Will that include the power for local authorities, if they so wish, to ban pavement parking?
When it comes to parking, local people also need a say from a planning perspective. In my constituency, a new development has been proposed with just 17 spare spaces for 80 flats. If only half those flats contain two people—a couple who both drive—spaces will run out very quickly indeed, forcing more cars on to already full neighbouring roads.
Baggy Shanker
Although the shadow Minister raises some really important issues around school parking and parking on pavements, does he recognise that this debate is focused on the operations of private parking companies, which are ripping off so many of our residents, and that we should not dilute that message?
Lewis Cocking
I politely say to the hon. Gentleman that if he will wait, I am coming on to that point in my speech. There are a range of parking issues that all affect this situation.
The issues around planning and getting the right number of parking spaces are already evident in Marsh Close in my constituency. Constituents there have written to me to share their frustrations about struggling to find space to park close to their home—why? Because not enough cars were catered for when the development was built. The Government’s new national planning policy framework expects parking to be integral to the design of new housing schemes. That is vital and should be applied in every new development. Almost every development I see needs more parking spaces, so the Government must prioritise it.
Constituents have also been in contact to tell me stories of dreadful treatment by the handful of rogue parking companies, as we have heard from Members from across the Chamber today. Outrageously, Parkingeye has repeatedly sent threatening letters to one of my constituents, demanding money, without even providing an explanation of why they had received the fine in the first place.
Across the country, 14.5 million parking tickets will be issued to drivers this year. Too often, parking firms deliberately work to fleece motorists for as much money as they can, with misleading and confusing signage, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees. That must stop. The Government must get a grip on these cowboy operators, stop this war on motorists and deal with the other parking issues that our constituents are always contacting us about.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate and for the spirit and intent with which they both spoke. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate.
I must say that I am generally not one for diary policing colleagues, and I always say to constituents that the number of people attending a debate does not always reflect the amount of feeling that exists about an issue. However, it is clear that both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have tapped into a real issue, and the range of colleagues present, of different political persuasions and from around the country, shows that. Something my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) said particularly stuck with me: I think that all colleagues have experienced, as I have myself, being contacted by frustrated, angry and upset constituents—good people, who go about their days doing the right thing, but end up battling a system that is not only seemingly unresponsive to their challenges, but is actually set up to challenge them and indeed to trip them up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot spoke about the strength of feeling that exists about this issue, but they provided a purposeful and solution-focused approach to lead the debate, which has stood us in good stead. In the contributions that colleagues have made, they have clearly set out the “rap sheet” and the frustrations of their constituents, and I will respond to those points shortly. I hope that their constituents, and indeed constituents from around the country, can hear their voices in this debate; they have been very present.
I have a little more time in which to speak than colleagues did, so I will start by saying, as they perhaps would not have had time to do, that there is an intrinsic importance and value in private parking. Parking is important for our motorists and, as some colleagues alluded to, it is also important for the resilience of towns, cities and communities across the country. People want and need—and must be able—to use their cars to do their shopping, attend medical appointments, go to work and take their children to the activities they need to go to.
As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said, in many areas across the country, people are totally dependent on their cars and rely on the consistent and available provision of good-quality car parks. All our communities in our towns and our cities rely on having a mix of transport options, of which privately managed car parks are an essential element. That is how important and fundamental car parks are.
If we individualise some of the challenges that exist, such as a number being keyed wrongly here or an overstay by two minutes there, parking might be seen as a granular challenge, but actually it is a hugely significant issue for the vitality of our communities. Like other colleagues, I have heard from those who represent the private parking industry, who say that 99% of the time there is a quality interaction, but we have heard stories in this debate that show that is too often not the case—and too often for seemingly avoidable reasons.
I am grateful to hon. Members for setting out their cases. I am also grateful to those colleagues who highlighted that the issue is on the rise. We heard about the scale of it: as colleagues said, between 2012 and 2022 there was a near 500% increase in DVLA vehicle keeper data requests. Something must be done. As other colleagues said, a parking charge will be issued every two seconds during this debate. The system must be fair, and it must ensure that motorists can park without fear of an unfair charge.
I will speak a little about what we intend to do as a Government shortly, but colleagues have set out an important road map—if hon. Members will excuse a totally unintended pun—for different improvements that could be made to the system. First, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) mentioned the clarity of the rules. My hon. Friend raised an important point about his assessment of his own capacity to comply or otherwise with rules. By instinct, I want to follow the rules to their fullest—I definitely do not want to get fined—but they can be difficult and unclear, and they ought not to be. They ought to be something that anybody can comprehend and follow.
Similarly, my hon. Friends the Members for Derby South and for Shipley (Anna Dixon) talked about the importance of signage. It is important that that is not seen as a hurdle to clear—an invisible hurdle, something that people could have known if only they were 15 feet taller. There has to be fairness in ensuring that people know how to follow the rules.
The systems themselves also have to work, as my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said. Kimberley, in my constituency, is in a dip, so it is often very hard to use the app because there is no connectivity. The systems have to be ones that people can access and use.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) talked about proportionate responses, so that, if people do not follow the rules, the penalties are fair and relate to the transgression. He also made important points about what parking can do in a tourism context. Like him, the last thing I would want is for someone to come to my constituency—perhaps to enjoy Nottingham’s fabulous night-time economy—and for the one thing they remember to be, “Oh, but I got a parking ticket, didn’t I?”. Those things stick, so the system has to be fair and transparent; if it is not, there is a knock-on impact.
My hon. Friends the Members for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) and for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) talked about an appeal system. This is fundamental. People must be able to exercise their right to a fair hearing. People must also have confidence in the appeal system. Otherwise, they will not use it, and the virtuous feedback loop that is created when the appeal system demonstrates to operators areas where there might be challenges—why are they getting a lot of appeals on a specific car park? Is there a signage or technology issue?—gets lost.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) mentioned access to the DVLA database. The database is accessible where there is reasonable cause, which underpins the system. I say to her and other colleagues who expressed concerns that there can be consequences for operators who misuse the system.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about Northern Ireland. This is a devolved matter, but I reiterate a commitment I have given to him in relation to a number of other issues, which he very kindly mentioned: I talk to my counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive frequently about a variety of issues, and I am always keen that we learn from each other. There are sometimes good reasons for doing things differently, but we must not create a lack of clarity by doing wildly different things. It is always interesting to hear what they are doing, and I am always keen to borrow the best of what is going on across the UK.
Like a number of other colleagues, the hon. Gentleman also mentioned a local example from his constituency of the importance of political pressure in getting the right thing to happen. I think particularly of the five-minute cap issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and the constituent who was fined £2,000. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned the significant fine—a matter of public record—given to one of her constituents. Reading ahead to where I am going here, colleagues will know that pressure by hon. Members meant that that system was changed under the voluntary code of practice. That is a good thing, but that is not how a system ought to work.
Similarly, in my community we had a number of complaints about the same car park. A member of staff from my office went and saw that one of the cameras had been knocked, so they were getting duff data. We were able to get that changed. That may have to happen sometimes, but that is not a system that is working. It should not rely on politicians intervening in individual cases to change policy. We can and will do much better.
I want to reiterate—or iterate and then reiterate, perhaps—to colleagues our commitment as a Government on this issue. I hope colleagues have seen my strength of feeling on this issue. We are committed to taking action to protect motorists and drive up standards in the private parking industry. We have a helpful bit of support from previous Parliaments in that. I think that, other than the hon. Member for Strangford, only you and I, Mr Efford, will remember the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which started as a private Member’s Bill tabled by Greg Knight. That was a good use of the private Member’s Bill process.
The 2019 Act places a duty on the Government to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the operation and management of private parking facilities. However, doing so was an exercise that confuddled four previous Prime Ministers and five Secretaries of State—one of them twice—not to mention goodness knows how many Ministers. The process was too slow and too chaotic. As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), said, the Government tried in 2022 but then had to withdraw the code of practice. I give the clear commitment from this Dispatch Box that as a Government we will deliver.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
What timeframe is the Department working to? I am not the only Member present who has asked that question, and it would be helpful to get confirmation from the Minister.
Alex Norris
I suspect that my reply to the hon. Lady will be the same as I have set out previously to a number of Members, either via written question or in correspondence. The timeframe is coming in due course. I will talk a little more about that, because we are having an important debate. We want to get this right, and I am aware of the potted and challenging history in this space. We want to get it right this time, and we are committed to delivering a code that recognises the importance of this issue to motorists and gets it right for them.
The Department meets regularly with the AA, the RAC and other consumer groups, which have done such important work in this area, to ensure that the code we publish will act in the best interests of motorists and addresses their concerns. As would be expected, we have talked to the accredited trade associations—the British Parking Association and the Internation Parking Community—to ensure that we do not inadvertently make life harder for motorists along the way. I assure Members that we will engage with the issues that have been raised with the Department as we work towards publishing the code.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
We have talked about the impact of parking practices on particular towns, and I am concerned about some of the towns in the Tyne valley, where a lot of effort is being made to preserve the local environment and clean air, and to drive down car use and promote the use of public transport. Northern Rail has just brought in paid parking at Stocksfield train station, which has dramatically impacted the local community and caused a lot of concerns about future on-street parking in residential areas. It would be good to know that the Government are considering those kinds of moves from train companies, which will ultimately have a damaging effect on local communities.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend’s intervention shows that there needs to be, at the heart of this Government’s work, stronger local say about the full transport balance. The goals that he talks about are those of many of his constituents, who are the experts in ensuring the right balance. Whether that is in regard to bus services or planning, as raised by the shadow Minister, we want to ensure that the tools are in the hands of local communities, so that they can lean in and plan at a community level the amenities and assets that they need collectively.
Lewis Cocking
Will the Minister assure us that he will go back and look at the national planning policy framework, to ensure that local development plans include enough spaces? I regularly visit developments in my constituency, and every one needs more parking.
Alex Norris
I am slightly loath to start a speech on the national planning policy framework—not least because I think you will smite me down, Mr Efford—but I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s points. We have of course consulted on the NPPF, and have published our changes as a result of the consultation.
On the code of practice, our goal is to find a proper balance to ensure that parking charges and debt recovery fees are fair and proportionate, while providing an effective deterrent against the small number of people who deliberately do not comply. We intend to publish a consultation shortly—and I do mean shortly—to outline where the Government are and give everybody a chance to share their views. I encourage colleagues from across the House to take part—as always, I am available to meet any and all to hear their views—but I cannot say strongly enough that it is coming shortly.
Martin Wrigley
I hear stories of places like Cornwall council being so strapped for money that they are considering sub-letting all their parking spaces to independent private parking companies, which will run them for nothing other than the fines they will take from tourists visiting Cornwall and residents. Does the Minister agree that this issue is urgent? I do not hear urgency in his timescales. I repeat the request for a specific timescale for introducing a code of conduct.
Alex Norris
I appreciate that this is an urgent issue—that was a feature of all Members’ contributions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me when I say “shortly”. At the risk of getting into a debate about what is short and what is urgent, all I can say is that we want to get on with this at the best pace we can. We want it to work, deliver and hold up. Last time, in 2022, it did not survive its first contact with reality. We will publish the code shortly, but I ask for a bit of trust that I am getting on with it at the fastest possible pace.
This has been a valuable debate, and I am grateful for the challenges that colleagues set out. I have heard them clearly and they will form part of my considerations as Minister. I hope that the constituents who have had their voices brought into the room feel that they have been represented. I hope those who think, “Well, this happened to me too, and boy am I frustrated about it,” appreciate that change is coming. I very much look forward to delivering that change.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I call Baggy Shanker to sum up for a couple of minutes. That is not an invitation for a seven-minute speech.
Baggy Shanker
I thank all Members from both sides of the House who took part in the debate. As enlightening as their contributions were, it was really unfortunate to hear so many stories of residents across the country who have been subject to fines and such poor tactics and behaviours from private car parking operators. That needs to stop.
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. He recognised the issues and challenges, and committed to take action. He said he will take a bit of time to ensure we get the regulation right, because it has to be sustainable once it is implemented. I welcome his commitment to start a consultation process shortly. Enough is enough, and we need to protect our residents from rip-off fines. As I said earlier, over the length of this debate about 3,000 more fines have been issued.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered parking regulation.
Energy Resilience
(1 day, 9 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
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered energy resilience.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I submitted this motion before the power failures at Heathrow and the Iberian peninsula, before the latest run of cyber-attacks, and before international conditions led us to increase our spending on defence. A more volatile and uncertain future is changing the question that we expect our energy system to answer but, as an engineer who spent years working on low-carbon energy technology, I know that the question changed before that.
The question changed when offshore wind became our cheapest source of electricity and when the payback period for photovoltaics dropped below just a handful of years. The question changed when the world woke up to renewables and we, an island nation with exceptional wind resource, favourable geology and a skilled energy sector, realised that we could become a clean energy superpower.
The prize is lower bills, increased security and the re-industrialisation of our economy, with all the jobs, innovation, trade and growth that come with it. To win that prize, our electricity system will need to double in capacity, accommodate dispersed, wild and unpredictable generation, and support varying demands that will become more mission-critical for our economy and everyday lives.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing the debate forward. Whether we like it or not, we must be aware of and consider these important matters. The Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 established that the Department for the Economy must ensure that at least 80% of electricity consumption is from renewable sources by 2030. Unless we can harness reliable tidal energy, we are dependent on conditions that cannot be predicted. That must be considered.
Tom Collins
Yes, diverse energy sources will be critical for future system resilience.
The Minister has clearly shown that the operational constraints for a robust electricity grid are known and in hand. The challenges of a future electricity system go far beyond those we face today. Three quarters of a century ago, when our energy systems were built in the shadow of world wars, resilience was front and centre, but the guiding star was efficiency, ensuring that energy taken from the ground was transferred with minimal loss. The defining challenge of tomorrow is to take energy that appears in places and at times determined by the weather, and deliver it in places and at times determined by the people who depend on it.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I was delighted that Bethlem Royal hospital in my constituency recently secured a £725,000 grant from the Government to install solar panels. Does my hon. Friend agree that when used in partnership with back-up generators for essential services, on-site renewable energy generation will protect organisations from rising costs and provide greater energy resilience for their non-essential services?
Tom Collins
I agree that with the correct technology, those systems can provide local resilience.
The fundamental change to the core role of the energy system has been from efficiency to storage. How we achieve that future system is already well debated. We start with energy efficiency and insulation, then we move on to shifting the time of demands, and we can enhance that with intraday storage in some buildings. The way we actively control and manage the response to demands and our storage is the big question for the future electricity system.
Currently, moment-by-moment control is achieved technically using the A/C power itself as a signal. Control over longer time bases is co-ordinated and partially directed through markets. In the future, we expect markets to play a bigger part in our electricity system, working in shorter timeframes and in a more distributed way. When we think about resilience, the design of our economic and commercial energy system and the digital systems that enact it will be absolutely critical. The commercial energy system will be as critical as the physical one.
Whereas markets may be good for some resilience attributes such as flexibility and diversity, they are often bad for others, such as redundancy, continuity and headroom. Also, our new digital communications channels offer potential single points of failure for our system. This is a fundamental question of national security. In the light of a string of cyber-attacks, it is crucial that when our digital world fails, our heating, lights, sanitation and vehicles must not. Either our grid must not depend on signals such as dynamic pricing to keep working, or those signals must be multiple-fault tolerant. With distributed generators playing a larger role in future, avoiding cascade failures requires them to support graceful degradation instead of disconnecting in the face of uncertainty.
This dynamic, digitally enabled future can introduce other risks, not only for resilience but for social equity. It must not penalise those who cannot afford battery storage, and each internal system boundary and each new pricing location threatens overall value. Alongside markets, our systems must incorporate core features that function primarily in the public interest. The system must be resilient against market-induced price instability and commercial failures, both for our security and for those markets to function healthily.
That all misses the single largest and most novel component of our future energy system: clean, long-duration energy storage at scale—storage, not just for seconds through inertia, not just for minutes through demand-side response, and not just for a day or night through in-building storage, but intraweek and longer to ride through long stagnant weather events or other major disruptions. Today, our energy resilience is assured by the incredible flexibility and capacity of fuels: oil in transport and off-grid heat, and methane gas for heat in buildings and industry. Those fuels intrinsically store energy indefinitely and carry vast amounts of energy through simple infrastructure, such as pipes and tanks. Our gas system currently carries three times as much energy each year, and up to four times as much in a day as our total electricity system. It shares its energy storage capability with the electricity system through gas power stations, our core electricity resilience assets. We have found our dependency on gas to be a weakness, but only because we depend on it for our system’s strength.
So, we face a crux. How might we win the energy resilience prize, benefiting from the clean versatility of electricity and the stabilising, security-critical storage capability of fuel? There is one answer that the UK has itself pioneered. There is a fuel that is carbon-free and 100% interoperable with electricity, and capable of being manufactured from electricity and cleanly converted back into it again at will: hydrogen. The Government, and others, have spotted the unique potential of hydrogen to fuel a clean and secure future for British industry. I would argue that they could go further, enabling industrial renewal in and around national clusters, but also in our towns and suburbs. As we seek to secure a material supply chain, the UK could deploy our immense wind resource and become a circular economy material recovery superpower of Europe.
Over recent years, however, the debate has become paralysed by an either/or question. Electrification and hydrogen have been presented in some sectors as mutually exclusive. Hydrogen has been presented as scarce and expensive. Policy has been asking whether the answer in various sectors is electrification or hydrogen, but the design answer is resounding and simple: it is both. These two energy vectors are complementary, with hydrogen power stations able to provide our grid with headroom, responsive generation and inertia, and hydrogen storage able to provide our national asset of inter-day and inter-week energy storage. Our future electricity system needs hydrogen, and at a vast scale. The truth of the matter is that hydrogen will be as cheap and abundant as we design it to be.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The Dorset clean energy super cluster, in my constituency, has proposals for fixed and floating offshore wind, carbon capture and storage, and hydrogen storage. Does my hon. Friend agree that having all that energy generation and storage in one place is a really effective way to boost Britain’s energy resilience, and to quickly boost our energy infrastructure and our ability to create, store and distribute energy here in Britain, rather than being dependent on energy coming in from overseas?
Tom Collins
I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. I am so glad that Members have identified how critical it is that we have a diversity of energy sources, that we have energy storage, that these are distributed around our system, and that we invest ambitiously now to bring them into reality.
Our energy system has always been multi-vector, and it must be in the future, too. By embracing this reality, we have an opportunity to design and choose how our electricity and gas systems are coupled: upstream through underground gas storage and power stations; mid-system with smaller distributed generators, including fuel cells; downstream in areas on constrained legs of the network; or perhaps even in homes through smart hybrid heating systems. We can deploy hydrogen production wherever it is most helpful: offshore, onshore, or at critical nodes in the transmission system. Pipe infrastructure is relatively low cost, high capacity and, being underground, intrinsically secure.
The size of our supply of green hydrogen is our choice. If we choose constrained supply, we choose constrained growth. If we choose ambition and abundance, that will also be worked out in our economy. It is time to move on from old ways of thinking. There is virtually no risk of stranded assets; investment in both electrical capacity and hydrogen production is zero regret. The call to action for both sectors is simple: go big. That is, and must remain, the message of the Government.
Now is the time to convert this ambition into concrete goals in the technical domain. Industry’s voice is clear: there is an urgent need for decision making. We must deliver our ambition not by iterative cycles of consultation, but rapidly through partnership. We need to short-circuit policy silos, get all the stakeholders in a room and thrash it out. We must be open to answers that back multiple technologies. Our problem is not that we need a silver bullet, but that we had one that was literally too good to be true. Moving on from fossil dependency means diversification.
Historically, we have always relied on multiple energy vectors in homes to provide energy resilience. That is still an option now. It means moving away from questions of either/or to answers of both/and. Those decisions are not easy, but they can be made. The end point is not crystal clear, but it is sufficiently in focus. Our industrial community has the knowledge and evidence we need, and the risks from here can be managed.
This is a moment for leadership and, fortunately, this Government have the will and the opportunity to deliver it. As corporate players scramble to shape this debate to create future opportunities, investors are seeking a clear statement of ambition and for the Government to get hands on, set goals and pick winners. Recognising that there will be more than one winner in a diverse and resilient future, we can show ambition now for electrification and a powerful UK hydrogen economy.
In the end, a resilient energy system is about putting people first and making power, warmth and movement dependable, affordable and accessible to all. Seventy-five years ago, the UK built energy systems with world-leading reliability and resilience. Now it is time to do it again, and to secure a new era of economic renewal, growth and security. With ordinary people as our guiding star, through ambition, pragmatism and practical collaboration, we can deliver an energy that, for the next 75 years, through night and day, come rain or shine, dependably keeps every single person in our fantastic nation empowered.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Thank you, Mr Efford, for chairing this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) for securing it and for all his experience in this area, which is of great value to me and the Government. It is an important topic. I will speak more broadly about the issue of energy resilience, and then come to some of the specific points that he raised. As I said in the House last week, maintaining this country’s energy resilience is a key priority for the Government. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, it goes hand in hand with us taking, as fast as possible, the opportunities from new technologies on our path to net zero.
In the context of the widespread power outages experienced across the Iberian peninsula last week, this debate is particularly timely. I praise my hon. Friend for his significant foresight in securing the debate many weeks before both of the incidents that he referred to; that is a real skill that we might come back to. I will repeat what I said in the House last week about all those who were affected. We clearly saw significant disruption in Spain and Portugal on our television screens here, but I was glad that power was restored remarkably quickly.
My thoughts are with all those who were affected, and with those who are now carrying out the work to investigate exactly what happened. A significant number of unfounded claims and speculations have been shared by Members of this House, and across social media, about the cause of the disruption. Clearly, given it was such a significant failure, it will take time for the Spanish network operator to carry out an investigation into its exact cause, and it is important that we wait for that statement before rushing to any kind of judgment.
Turning back to the UK, Great Britain has a highly resilient energy network, largely because of how diverse it is. In recent years, although we have seen high energy prices, our energy supply has remained reliable because we are supplied from more than one source, including the UK continental shelf, our long-term energy partners such as Norway, international markets for liquefied natural gas and interconnectors to the European continent. That means that we are not reliant on any one particular supplier for security of energy supplies, and we are confident that the system operators have the tools that they need to effectively balance supply and demand in a wide range of scenarios all year round. As my hon. Friend set out, storage is also an important flexibility tool in the GB system, allowing us to respond to short-term changes in supply and demand, especially during colder months.
To further protect consumers, Ofgem sets annual targets on customer interruptions and customer minutes lost, which means that companies themselves are directly incentivised to reduce the number of interruptions, no matter the cause. Of course, I work closely with the National Energy System Operator and Ofgem to ensure that resilience is built into our networks wherever possible.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is an ever-present voice in these debates, is no longer in his place, but I wanted to give my regular response to him: although I take the issues of energy in Northern Ireland very seriously, they are devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive and not my immediate responsibility. I think he probably knew that that was what I was going to say anyway.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester raised our journey to net zero and what we need to do to ensure resilience as the system decarbonises. We are obviously committed to maintaining current levels of resilience and reliability through collaborative work with industry, the regulator and other stakeholders, and there is a variety of ways in which we can do that.
Obviously, the most common cause of any disruption in our network, here in the UK, is storms and weather events. We have seen lessons learned from storms such as Storm Arwen, which led us to introduce a number of resilience measures. There is also the role of critical new technologies, such as hydrogen, which my hon. Friend raised throughout his speech and can be used in energy resilience. He is correct, of course, that we now have an opportunity to design a clean energy system, and that is why NESO is carrying out new functions that will shape resilience policies on our journey to clean power.
I will briefly talk about what we learn from incidents. Our system is remarkably resilient, but, of course, no system is immune from disruption entirely, so we must plan for all eventualities and learn from incidents when they happen. We do that through working closely with the energy industry to ensure that robust plans are in place. We learn from every incident, in strong partnership with others.
My hon. Friend rightly raised the dependencies in our energy system. The recent example from the Iberian peninsula really brought home just how much our lives are dependent on electricity in one form or another. The point about our telecoms and communications systems, which are so reliant on mains electricity now, is really important for us to consider in these resilience plans; we must make sure that we have back-ups in place. That complex interdependency was also demonstrated by the recent fire at the substation in Hayes, which resulted in the closure of Heathrow airport. Such incidents are incredibly rare, but they occasionally occur in a complex system with many thousands of assets, such as ours.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero continues to lead cross-Government work with the Cabinet Office to enhance the resilience of all critical sectors to major energy risks, such as those listed on the national risk register. Events in the Iberian peninsula last week, as well as those in Heathrow in March, highlight just how crucial electricity is to our wider system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester was right to point out that, as we move to a clean power system, the question of storage will be key. That is why I was delighted the Government announced the funding to build the first long-duration energy storage assets in more than 40 years. We have worked to set out the cap and floor scheme so that major infrastructure projects can be delivered. We look forward to those projects coming forward in due course.
My hon. Friend highlighted the role of hydrogen. Although I am not directly responsible for hydrogen, I am as excited by the opportunities it presents as my colleagues in the Department are. It can play a key role in our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower by delivering new clean energy industries. Although it can provide near-zero emission hydrogen, particularly green hydrogen, as my hon. Friend said, it is not yet available at scale, but there is a real opportunity. He made the point about trying to bring people together to recognise that this is a really exciting opportunity and moment. It is everything that the Government are about through our approach to delivering the clean power mission and unlocking the potential of these more nascent technologies to provide significant resource into the future. That is an important point to put on the record. We are very supportive of what hydrogen can do in our system in future.
This is a very important debate. The question of energy resilience is one that we will return to, quite rightly, because it is never a settled subject. The Government have credible plans in place that we test robustly at regular intervals to make sure that, in the unlikely event they are needed, they work as we intend. It is clearly important that we revisit them regularly to make sure they are as detailed as possible.
I reiterate the point that I made in the House of Commons last week: the UK has a secure and resilient energy supply. Our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower is the best route to improve our energy security into the future. When we have experienced incidents that threaten our energy resilience, we have used those as opportunities to prepare better for future threats. Preparing for outages is an ongoing task that Government, industry and the regulator collaborate on. We are also taking this opportunity to build not just the clean power system that will deliver climate leadership, energy security and bring down bills in the long term, but the storage assets and everything necessary to make sure we can capture clean power and utilise it when we need it most.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester not just for securing this timely debate and the points that he has made on storage and on hydrogen in particular, but for all the work that he is doing generally in Parliament on these really important issues. As we progress towards clean power by 2030 at pace, rapidly deploying new infrastructure, we will continue to work with all those in the energy sector to maintain the high levels of resilience and security that this country needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Dedicated Schools Grant
(1 day, 9 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
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Dedicated Schools Grant.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the f40 group for its assistance with this issue, as well as all those in attendance, including the Minister, whose presence is greatly appreciated. I bring this debate forward on behalf of the headteachers, teaching staff, support staff and young people across Gloucestershire and the other local authorities that are among the lowest-funded councils by the Department for Education across England.
In its 2024 manifesto, Labour pledged to
“transform our education system so that young people get the opportunities they deserve.”
There is a clear alignment between that and the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to increase per pupil funding above the rate of inflation every year. Our goal is to support all pupils and expand educational provision, not to shift resources away from more disadvantaged counties like Gloucestershire. Schools in my constituency are faced with increased pressure right now, owing to the inequitable dedicated schools grant, combined with the rising cost of special educational needs provision.
Consecutive Governments have failed our children. With short-term mindsets, they have not adequately resourced education through which our children could otherwise go on to boost every workplace across the country. Those Governments left our children to emerge into a country where every public service is crumbling, but in which they need a university degree to become a police officer. Brexit took away their access to Erasmus and left a bitterly divided society, which is still struggling to readjust following the covid-19 pandemic.
When Sir Kevan Collins recommended a £13.5 billion covid catch-up fund for our children, Boris Johnson’s Government fielded only one tenth of that figure, after thoughtlessly spending billions on botched contracts for personal protective equipment. Our children continue to suffer the consequences of that decision through a mental health crisis; an explosion in demand for special educational needs and disabilities provision; and almost a million young adults not in work, education or training. I entered politics because I believe in fairness. Whatever else we do in this place, I believe there are two routes through which we can improve the future of our country—political, including electoral reform; and education, education, education.
Within every child lies the potential for greatness—the potential to solve tomorrow what seems impossible today. Our children represent our hope for the future. They are yet unburdened by the decades of dogma, societal pressure and institutional inequity that weigh upon us, and dilute our own potential. In every aspect of our lives, we must strive to prepare the ground ahead of them, and leave them a better country and a better world than was passed to us.
Our teachers recognise that more clearly than any of us. They dedicate their careers to the fulfilment of our children’s potential, because there is no more rewarding pursuit than to help others to develop. No salary compares to being thanked in the street by those you have helped, and watching with pride as they go above and beyond what they imagined they could. Labour’s 2024 manifesto described teaching as a “hard-earned and hard-learned skill” and pledged to work to “raise its status.” I commend the observation that we are continuing to fail our teachers, and the commitment.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that teachers and teaching assistants in schools were the first line of defence against cuts to public services from the last Conservative Government, and that, when the Department for Education is asking schools to make efficiencies alongside the extra funding they have received, that means that some TAs will lose their jobs? Last week, in my constituency of Esher and Walton, I walked into a school on a visit and the headteacher had just had to let two TAs go because his school is facing a deficit of £200,000.
Cameron Thomas
I wholeheartedly agree, and will come to that point shortly. I hope my hon. Friend will pass on my empathy to her headteacher.
Our teachers are no longer simply expected to educate our children according to the curriculum. Governments and society continue to expect more and more of our already overburdened teachers. Increasingly, four-year-olds are being introduced to school non-verbal, unable to use cutlery, and sometimes wearing nappies—but those are just the headlines. Discipline, time management, self and social awareness, self and mutual respect, moral courage, honesty, work ethic, public service and charity are soft skills and attributes that should be introduced in the home and honed within society as well as at school. This Government, with honest intentions towards our children’s healthcare, now have teachers cleaning their pupils’ teeth—just one additional straw upon the camel’s back. It is no wonder that teaching assistant posts are vacated or lie empty when people can earn more working in the local supermarket.
I understand that fixing the education system will be complex and expensive, and that action must also take place beyond the scope of the Department for Education, but something that can be addressed now is a more equitable allocation of funding. This would go a long way to remedying the situation for many schools in Gloucestershire and elsewhere. The dedicated schools grant is the mechanism through which the Department funds local authorities, which in turn allocate their resources to the schools within their jurisdiction.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
One school in my constituency has a £100,000 bill due to the national insurance hike, which is resulting in redundancies. Does my hon. Friend agree that the national insurance hike is exacerbating the inequity that many schools face in our local communities?
Cameron Thomas
I entirely agree. I have long spoken out against the short-sightedness of the national insurance hike, and I will come back to the short-termism that I think it important this Government escape.
The dedicated schools grant is allocated according to the national funding formula, which is outdated and puts schools such as mine in Gloucestershire under increased pressure. Mainstream schools in the lowest-funded local authority receive £5,000 less per pupil per year than they do in the highest-funded authority.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
In Oxfordshire, we receive an area cost adjustment of just 2%—that is to take into account the difference in the cost of living in different parts of the country. In London boroughs, that adjustment reaches 18%. It simply does not match the cost of living in Oxfordshire, where house prices are comparable to those in London. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this lack of funding is impacting the education of our children?
Cameron Thomas
As somebody who was—let us be generous—barely educated in Oxfordshire himself, I am very much aware of the issue.
My mainstream schools in Gloucestershire fall into the bottom 20% of DSG funding, earning £1,000 less per pupil than schools in the top 20. This means that Cleeve school, for example, with its 1,851 pupils, faces an approximate annual deficit of over £1.8 million compared with a similarly sized school in Middlesbrough.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I agree with all the points that my hon. Friend has made so far. This morning, I spoke to the headmaster of the Thomas Hardye school in Dorchester in my constituency. His previous job was at a London borough school in Croydon, where on average he received £10,000 per pupil; in West Dorset, that figure is £5,000. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s funding formula for schools does not take into account the added costs of rurality and providing services in places like West Dorset and, no doubt, his own constituency?
Cameron Thomas
With such gravity, my hon. Friend says it better than I could ever hope to. The inequity is there for all to see, and it is interesting that one of his teachers has experienced both ends of that scale.
My four-year-old daughter and her friends will begin their primary school education in Gloucestershire in September. I want them to have, as the Labour manifesto put it, the opportunities they deserve. To me, that means the same opportunities as every other child—but by the time they finish their GCSEs under this inequitable system, the dedicated schools grant will have invested between £10,000 and £50,000 less in our children than in those elsewhere in the country.
The Government might point to an upward trend in the dedicated schools grant in Gloucestershire since 2021, but on the current trajectory, it will take 15 years to achieve equity. By then, my daughter and her friends will have long since left school. Unless the Government act now, their potential will have been diluted by the dedicated schools grant as is. By the time we achieve equity, according to trends based on the Government’s own statistics, the vast majority of those teaching today will have retired. My headteachers have told me that, for most schools, approximately 85% of their funding is ringfenced for staffing costs, but that rises to over 90% in some particularly desperate cases.
The level of teaching experience in our schools is diminishing because our headteachers are having to make their most experienced and highly paid teachers redundant, so that they can recruit less experienced teachers on lower wages just to balance the books.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
In West Sussex, the deficit on our DSG grant is £130 million, and that will potentially double by next year. Despite that, SEND provision, which is the main driver of that deficit, is deficient across the district. So many schools approach me on this subject. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to not only find a way to wipe out the deficit but remove the fundamental cause, which is the ballooning cost of SEND provision?
Cameron Thomas
My hon. Friend makes eloquent points. Clearly, the SEND crisis is exacerbating the situation to a significant degree. What we look for from the Government is a long-term strategic plan to deal with this, rather than just pushing it down the line.
Since 2014, mainstream schools have been required to contribute the initial £6,000 of additional costs for SEND pupils from their own core budget. Owing to the inequity in the DSG, it is easy to see why that has a greater impact on those schools in lower-funded authorities. Resources have become so stretched many teaching assistants are available only to support pupils with the greatest SEND requirements. Underfunded primary and senior schools are taking drastic actions to balance the books. One primary school head I spoke with spends his holidays in school, completing the tasks of a caretaker he can no longer afford to employ. Across Gloucestershire there is nothing left to cut. Headteachers are overwhelmed and cannot afford to meet the cost of any pay rise that may arise from the Government’s negotiations with teaching unions. The impact of an unfunded pay rise, I have been told, would be ruinous.
I recognise that this Government inherited from the Conservative party an utterly broken country. That was a hospital pass but, almost a year down the line, my teachers remain on the frontline of a genuine crisis, to which they have been given no real answers. They do not have time for more politics as usual. They do not have another 15 years for this system to reach equity, nor do they need more short-termism. They need their Government to step up now with long-term solutions that do not simply pass the challenges down the line.
To support teachers and enable them to plan for the future, rather than simply stave off financial collapse, I ask the Government to review the national funding formula, and target funding to achieve near-term equity. Thank you, Ms Butler, for chairing this debate; I look forward to the contributions of others and the Minister’s response.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. Let me start with a simple fact: Devon is one of the worst-funded education authorities in the country. For 2024-25, Devon receives just £5,484 per pupil—about £200 less than the national average and about £1,500 less per pupil than in inner London. I have experienced the difference through the eyes of the teachers I have talked to in Devon who have taught in both inner London and rural Devon, and who described to me the difference the funding makes. For an average Devon primary school, it equates to losing the budget for one whole teacher.
Devon is an f40 authority—one of the 40 lowest-funded areas in England. The national funding formula was supposed to level the playing field, but it has left schools in areas like east and mid Devon struggling. Nowhere is the crisis more obvious than in special educational needs. Devon’s high needs block allocation for 2025-26 is £125 million, but the anticipated cost of supporting SEND children is £172 million. Up to now that funding gap has been filled by the so-called safety valve, but I understand that we might not have that safety-valve relief from 2026. If we compare Devon’s high needs allocation per pupil to that of a council such as Camden, we see a real disparity, as we do with Westminster, which receives £2,610 per pupil against Devon’s £1,245 per pupil. Devon is being asked to deliver special educational needs provision on half the budget.
Let me share the story of one affected family. Kathryn Radley lives in Uplyme in the area I represent, and her daughter Sophia is autistic. At one point Sophia was offered just six hours a week of online education, and her family had to borrow money to keep that minimal support going when the council did not fund it. The education, health and care plan that was issued for her was unworkable, did not name a school and was not supported by any deliverable provision. Sophia, who did not misbehave or disrupt her class, and who simply needed specialist support, was left isolated at home with anxiety, and with no place in the system.
Devon currently spends £55 million on SEND provision in the private sector, which is not properly audited or scrutinised. Meanwhile, state schools in the area I represent, such as in Honiton, Axminster and Sidmouth, are crying out for more resources to support special educational needs—more teaching assistants, specialist hubs and early intervention services—but they cannot get them because the per pupil funding is far less than it is elsewhere. We therefore see teachers who are overwhelmed, too few teaching assistants and staff who prioritise behavioural cases over inclusion, meaning that many children like the one I described simply cannot cope.
Devon needs urgent and fairer funding for its schools from the dedicated schools grant. We need to expand local SEND resource bases and give mainstream schools the tools they need to include every child. Indeed, the Department for Education should give Devon’s children the funding for education that they deserve.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on securing this important debate.
For far too long, the state of rural and semi-rural schools has been forgotten, particularly in my part of Northumberland, where Northumberland county council, which is still run by the Conservatives, treats my part of the county with what I can only describe as tender contempt. The previous Government thought so little of my constituency that eight and a half years ago they built a school that is already deemed structurally unsafe. Students have had to be transported to another part of the north-east to continue their education. That is the context in which I situate my remarks.
Generations of rural students have been left behind. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for his circumspectness in his comments about the awful circumstances that the Government inherited. It is not possible to start any discussion of any policy without recognising that we received a generational hospital pass, as I think he put it.
Having grown up in a rural area, I know that there are foundational characteristics. I confess to not knowing too much about Gloucestershire, having not had the chance to go there much beyond, I think, one family funeral when I was about 10, but I am sure it is lovely. From what I can tell, Northumberland has a lot that is similar, including large distances to travel and restricted access to opportunities and services. I went back to my old high school recently to discuss some of the access to work schemes that staff there try to provide and some of the opportunities for younger people to get employment skills. The teachers are working every hour they get, but they are hamstrung by the lack of local bus routes and appropriate public transport, and the lack of employers with the capacity to take on apprentices or students who are in need of work experience.
For far too long during the 100 years my constituency had Conservative representation down here, the challenges were not given voice or addressed. That was the challenge, dare I say it, of being considered a safe Tory seat: people could vote for their MP but not get a voice as part of that. We need to do more to engender stronger ties between communities and schools, to ensure that those growing up in our communities do not have to search too far outside them to find the opportunities and jobs that they want to progress in life. Unfortunately, the reality for many students is that they do have to.
I will direct the remainder of my remarks to two particular schools. First, Haydon Bridge high school is an incredible school in a beautiful location—and I get to visit a lot of schools. Haydon Bridge is a wonderful town on the Tyne Valley railway line—although the railway could do with running on time a bit more—and it has a fantastic school with genuinely fantastic teachers. Unfortunately, when I visited I had to discuss the funding issues with the headteacher.
I would dearly like to see the new administration at Northumberland county hall put their hands in their pocket to do something about the state of the school, which has been underfunded for a long time. There has not been the political will, nous or leadership among the Conservative group in Morpeth to stand up for students in the west of Northumberland. The teachers at Haydon Bridge could not work any harder, nor put on more opportunities. They are always looking at how to make the school more attractive and at how they can drive employment and employability, but for far too long the voice of rural schools has been shut out of the national debate.
Prudhoe community high school was opened eight and a half years ago. It was built under a Conservative Secretary of State and Education Department, but it was closed due to cracks in the infrastructure. I have been working on that with the staff and the community in Prudhoe. It would be a struggle to find a more inspiring group of people, particularly the headteacher and the teaching staff there. They had to deal with cracks appearing in the structure just months before GCSEs and A-levels—an incredibly challenging situation—and did so to the best of their ability. Everyone accepts that the ultimate, best outcome would have been for the students to be able to go back into the school to receive their education on site, but that would not have been safe. People had to work incredibly hard to find an appropriate site that did not involve travel and enabled the students to continue their education safely.
I urge the Minister not just to look at the matters raised in this debate but to consider—as I know she has many times, because I have chased her down corridors about this—the circumstances of those at the community high school. I also put that point to the exam boards, because the students had a black swan event with their school being deemed unsafe so close to exam times. Some of the boards have said that it falls under the definition of a school with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, but I do not believe that—I want to put on the record. For far too long schools in my constituency in the west of Northumberland have been forgotten about and done down. It is beyond time that those responsible, particularly at county hall, stand up and take note.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I remind Members that if they want to speak in the debate, they should please stand. We have calculated that Members will have about five minutes per speech.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing the debate.
Investing in education is investing in our future, so we need to get it right. The national funding formula creates huge discrepancies in how children are supported in different authorities. My local authority, South Gloucestershire, has long been at or near the bottom of the funding league table, and that lack of investment is having a real impact on children. Thornbury and Yate is largely rural, but most of the rest of South Gloucestershire is urban. Generally, with all sorts of Government funding, when taken as a whole, it has suffered through not being rural enough for rural support but not having the concentrations of deprivation seen in some urban areas. Even within my constituency there is huge variation in the demographics of school intakes.
I recently wrote to the Minister about the case of one primary school in my constituency that I visited. It provides a good example of the pressures caused by the unfairness in the existing funding system. Staff at the school told me that it has developed a reputation for being particularly supportive of children with SEND, and thus has an unusually high proportion of children who require extra support. On top of that, it is being asked to support increasingly high levels of medical needs, which its already overstretched staff are not trained to meet. It also has a high number of children with English as a second language, and a third of its pupils qualify for pupil premium funding.
In many ways, the school’s intake is comparable to a school the staff visited in London, yet that school gets much higher per pupil funding simply because of the local authority it is in. That shows in the services that the London school is able to provide, from having specialist art and music teachers to having two teachers per class. Our children in Thornbury and Yate deserve more than what the funding currently provides.
The disparity is undermining the work that our local schools do and leaving them worse off. We need a fairer national funding formula that supports disadvantaged and rural schools, not just those in more affluent and urban areas, and recognises the wide variation within local authority boundaries.
Edward Morello
I agree 100% with my hon. Friend’s point. I have no doubt that in her constituency, as in mine, there is a similar problem: when the Government talk about a fully funded pay increase, it is based on a school average. In many rural places, we do not have the average because we have smaller class sizes, or we have single, large schools that cover a large geographical area and a large number of pupils, which are heavily disadvantaged as a result.
Claire Young
I absolutely agree. It is a particular problem for small rural schools, which often have small class sizes because the schools are small overall.
We need action on funding for special educational needs and disabilities, as too many children are being left without the support they need. For years, schools in South Gloucestershire have had to ask the Government to allow them to take money from the schools block to supplement the high needs block. That reduces the funding available for early intervention which, as we know, is so important for better outcomes. It also makes the funding situation worse as more children need higher-cost interventions at a later stage. The high needs block must be protected and expanded to reflect the growing demand and rising complexity in children’s needs.
South Gloucestershire is one of the authorities with a safety valve agreement, which is intended to help councils to manage large deficits in their high needs budgets. It was signed pre-covid, with targets that are unachievable thanks to the impact of the pandemic. Next year, when the agreement ends, the council faces a cliff edge in funding. It, and other councils in that position, face impossible choices between balancing budgets and supporting vulnerable children.
Furthermore, in the case of South Gloucestershire, the previous Conservative Government failed to provide the requested £30 million of funding to provide an additional 200 special school placements locally. As well as being better for the children, that would have reduced costs. Earlier this year, I had a meeting with the Minister and South Gloucestershire’s council leadership in the hope that this Government would take a more sensible approach, but the focus seems to be on providing spaces in mainstream settings. We support that as a goal, with extra funding for early intervention to make it possible, while recognising that there are children who need support now and did not get that early intervention. We also need funding for them.
I ask the Minister to think again about what works now, because otherwise another generation of our children will miss out. Without a solution to the ending of the safety valve agreement, the whole system could collapse, leading to longer waits, reduced provision and more children out of school. We need sustainable, long-term funding for children with high needs, and an end to short-term financial firefighting.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate and to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on securing the debate and on his powerful speech. I alert Members to my position as one of the vice chairs of the f40 group, which represents 43 local authorities with historically low funding for education and campaigns for fairer funding for schools and SEND provision.
Somerset is one of those 43 councils. Its 2025-26 dedicated schools grant allocation is just £8,500 per student, while some councils get nearly £5,000 more than that per pupil. The launch in 2018 of the national funding formula for mainstream schools introduced a minimum per pupil funding level, which was designed to level up funding. However, that has continued to lock in historical funding elements, preventing some local authority areas from receiving more funding. The Liberal Democrats understand the need for regional variation to ensure that schools can operate successfully, but that should not come at the expense of schools elsewhere, which often struggle to make ends meet.
As other Members have stated, the DSG is made up of four blocks, one of which is the high needs block, which supports SEND provision for children in both mainstream and specialist schools. Somerset’s 2025-2026 allocation of high-needs block funding is £1,250 per student—more than £2,000 less than the highest-funded local authority. It has been stressed many times that the SEND system is broken; the variance and unequal DSG funding is a big reason for that. My inbox, like that of many other Members, is full of correspondence from parents who all desperately want the best education for their children, but are concerned and deeply upset that their children’s needs are not being met by their schools.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
My area of Harrogate and Knaresborough is covered by North Yorkshire council, which is part of f40, which my hon. Friend mentioned. On high-needs funding, we are 146th out of 151. That is causing real challenges in that rural setting, with children sometimes having to travel for hours to get to school. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about those low levels of funding, which are compounded by the cut to the rural services delivery grant that local authorities receive?
Sarah Dyke
I will touch on that. Delivering education in a huge rural county has so many pressures and complexities and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring that up.
Let me give a couple of examples of children who are suffering and whose educational needs are not being met in my constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton. One of them is Jensen from Ilchester. He is only seven years old, but has been experiencing severe mental health distress while awaiting a long overdue neurodevelopmental assessment. His mother told me that he has lost all enjoyment in life. He misses his education and his friends, and all the while he is being passed between services. Jensen is not alone in that situation.
Many other children in Glastonbury and Somerton face similar challenges: Charlie from Castle Cary, for example. He has an EHCP, but his school is simply not able to meet his needs. His mother said that he has been left for months without his educational needs, as specified in his EHCP, being met. As a result, his behaviour at school and his mental health are declining. The differential in DSG funding means that children like Jensen, Charlie and many others heartbreakingly cannot get the support that they deserve. Families are being left to suffer alone, fighting a system that is just not working for them.
We know that the system is broken. The Isos report released last year found that all actors within the system are behaving rationally—schools, councils and parents—but the system is just not up to scratch. The funding model needs to be reformed to make it more responsive to changes so that individual schools can receive funding based on need. I urge the Minister to consider reviewing the funding formulas for both schools and high needs.
The Liberal Democrats have a plan to invest in our education sector above the rate of inflation so that we can ensure that all schools have the capacity to operate sustainably. We must also give our local authorities the financial support that they need. The previous Conservative Government left schools to crumble and forced councils to do more with less, impacting our children’s education. The persistent budgetary strain does not allow local authorities to create long-term plans for children with SEND, so we would also set up a dedicated national body for SEND to act as a champion for children with complex needs and ensure that they receive tailored support.
Without major reforms and changes to funding, we will continue to see a landscape with uneven funding where children are badly let down and schools cannot provide the support that is needed. I urge the Minister to take action, invest in education, invest in our children and invest in our future.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on bringing us all together for this important debate to highlight the inequity of the system that built up under the previous Conservative Government and became more and more entrenched over those years. I am only sorry that more Conservative Members did not come to pay attention to this issue today. It is a huge factor in the wellbeing of children in all our constituencies, up and down the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) has pointed out, Somerset is one of the f40 local authorities and therefore one of the worst funded local education authorities. A child educated here in Westminster receives £4,000 more funding as a pupil than a child in my Somerset constituency of Taunton and Wellington. At the same time, the demand for SEND in places like Somerset has risen enormously. There has been a 60% increase in placements between 2014-15 and 2023-24 and, as a result, provision in Somerset, as in a lot of other places, is frankly unacceptable. It is not good enough and it needs to change.
Historical special educational needs funding, and the pattern for the national funding formula, is part of the problem. Spending should be based purely on current local need and not on historical need, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out in an important report. It says:
“The use of historical spending patterns as a factor in the 2018 high-needs NFF also helped to cement geographical inequalities in high-needs funding that had arisen over time”.
It goes on:
“The historical spend element determines 25% of the overall formula allocation and drives a large element of the variation in funding across areas. This bakes in…arbitrary differences in council funding that have arisen over time, and lead to large variability in funding per high-needs pupil across councils”.
On the high needs block part of the direct schools grant, it says:
“The present high-needs funding system was introduced in 2018, when numbers were mostly stable, and it incorporates many historical measures of need and spending that already drive substantial geographical differences in spending per pupil. It is ill-designed for the present context of rising need”.
The f40 organisation has said:
“More than 20% of high needs funding is based on a local authority’s historical SEND spending, which bears no resemblance to today’s funding landscape”.
As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, the system urgently needs reform.
Part of the problem is the problem of local government funding generally. In Somerset, £2 out of every £3 of council tax goes on care, whether that is adult social care or care for children, including special educational needs funding. It is no wonder that the outgoing Conservative leader of Somerset county council described that as a “time bomb” that “is ticking”. It is unfortunately likely to go off and affect children and families across Somerset, who are suffering the consequences of the legacy that our councillors are now trying to deal with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) pointed out, the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant has compounded the problems and challenges for authorities such as Somerset, which have a low property base value across the county compared with property values in other part of the country and have historically low income levels as a result.
The national funding formula therefore has to be improved. The f40 organisation—I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton on her work with f40—has said:
“Government is aware of the unfairness and has indicated that it wishes to level up, but it is a very slow process and, at the current rate, will take around 20 years for equitable funding to be established. That is a whole generation of children. Children should have the same opportunities and resources, regardless of where they live or go to school”.
I am sure Members across the House agree with that and I urge the Minister to make good on that promise to reform the system.
Three things in particular need to be done. First, we need greater support within schools for special educational needs children. That will reduce costs later; we all know early intervention matters for younger children and has the most effect. Secondly, we need more hubs locally providing specialist provision and to not rely on the private, unregistered schools sector for much of our special educational needs provision. That is highly costly and not serving pupils’ best interests because it means transporting them long distances. Thirdly, we need more investment, which comes back to reform of the national funding formula. Liberal Democrats particularly want to see reform of local government funding and social care funding, but also above-inflation increases in school funding and a dedicated national SEND authority. That is the kind of reform we need to see in this Parliament and I hope very much the Government will deliver it.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I refer Members to my entry in the register of interests as a serving Norfolk county councillor. Across all the areas that the DSG exists to support, Norfolk is struggling. Early years settings in North Norfolk are under mounting pressures from the national insurance hike, rising wages and spiralling costs.
For many providers, there is simply not enough money coming in to match what they need to survive. It is estimated that 80% of the income from early years settings now comes from Government-funded childcare. When that funding does not match what is needed, these settings get into deep trouble. In North Norfolk, we cannot afford to lose them. Without childcare for working-age parents in my rural constituency, families who have cherished the area for generations will be forced to move.
The risk of a demographic doom spiral is huge. If schools and nurseries close, working-age people will not be able to both work and have families. If working families cannot survive and thrive in rural North Norfolk, people will not have children. We are already seeing an alarming pattern of those with children not going there. If there are no children, there will be no working-age people of tomorrow. That goes for all children, of all ages, abilities and aptitudes. It is a worrying slippery slope for our area both economically and in supporting vital services such as adult social care.
Good, accessible and affordable childcare is a basis on which we can build our rural economy. That is why, as a candidate, I marched 10 miles in protest at the closure of childcare provision in Wells; we got it reopened thanks to the hard work of parents. It is also why, just last week, I protested the proposed closure of East Ruston nursery with worried local parents who depend on it. Early years provision is an often undervalued but vital part of our education system and I am fighting to protect it in North Norfolk.
Meanwhile, Norfolk’s SEND provision is in crisis. The current system is not helping schools, parents, teachers or the local authority. Demand is rapidly outstripping supply, and Norfolk country council was at the last count running a deficit in the high needs block approaching £60 million. That is completely unsustainable, and we have to change the way our system supports these children and young people to give them a far better experience and to set them up for the rest of their lives.
I recently met a mother and her son at one of my constituency surgeries. He was a very smart, engaging and insightful young man. I shared excellent conversations with him about videogame development and computing, and his talent and potential shone through. However, the system has failed him. He has been out of education for three years, and his mother is battling the tribunal system to try to get him access to formal education again. The toll it has taken on both of them is clear and completely unacceptable, and he is not alone in facing such circumstances.
It pains me to think about a lost generation of talented and passionate young people who could miss out on bright futures because of the crisis in SEND provision. Trust has broken down, and we have to do better. We need to enable and encourage more mainstream inclusion for those for whom that is possible, we need to review the tribunal system, which is putting unnecessary stress on families and often producing unworkable outcomes for local authorities, and we need to better support schools in getting the best out of those pupils by ensuring that criteria for their inspection incentivises high-quality inclusion and looks not just at a pupil’s performance on paper, but at their readiness to learn.
Norfolk’s families were failed for many years by the disastrous duo: a Conservative Government and a Conservative-led county council. They have got rid of that Government, and I have no doubt they would have gotten rid of the Conservatives on the council, too, if they had not had their election snatched away from them. I am proud to stand side by side with the parents and children who are demanding better for their futures. I will hold the Government and the county council to account to make sure that is delivered.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing the debate and for his powerful speech. The individuals he mentioned, the school staff he represents, and the educators and local authorities across the country grappling with similar financial challenges will surely welcome his putting the spotlight on this pressing issue.
My hon. Friend is quite right that the pressures on all schools and, in turn, on the staff working in them—both the pressures of educating pupils with different and sometimes complex needs and the financial pressure of operating on budgets that simply do not stretch far enough at a time of high and rising costs all over the country—have increased significantly in recent years. I would be surprised if any MP had not had headteachers in their constituency tell them, as they have told me in St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, of the impossible choices that they face.
At the heart of this crisis lies a fundamental injustice: an outdated and deeply flawed mechanism for allocating the dedicated schools grant. The national funding formula, developed years ago and based mainly on the typical distribution of funding provided by local authorities at that time, and further ossified by funding protections, has created a postcode lottery that fails children and communities.
Let us be clear what that means in practice: similar schools in different parts of the country can receive dramatically different levels of support. That affects a wide range of children, including those who live in pockets of deprivation in parts of the country that are generally wealthier and so tend to receive lower dedicated schools grant funding. Although we know that there are other mechanisms to mitigate that, it ultimately means that a child with specific needs in one area can receive significantly less support than a child from a similar background and with the same needs in another area. That is not just administratively untidy; it is fundamentally wrong. For the organisation f40, which several of my hon. Friends have mentioned and which represents the lowest-funded education authorities in England—it now counts 43 of them in its membership—that is not a small anomaly but a systemic failure that affects hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren, who are being denied the education that they deserve through absolutely no fault of their own.
We feel that acutely in St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. Cambridgeshire ranks 133rd out of 151 local authorities in the funding allocation. Our schools receive £6,133 per pupil in the schools block element, compared with the national average of £6,467. If Cambridgeshire schools were funded at a level equivalent to those of our neighbours in Lincolnshire, a typical primary in my constituency would receive an additional £118,000 per year. If the playing field were level with another neighbour, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire would see £33 million in additional funding. Meanwhile, the demand for EHCPs has grown fast: it has risen by 91% in Cambridgeshire since 2017, far outpacing the 72% increase in funding for the high needs block over the same period. The widening gulf means more children waiting longer for vital support, more pressure on already stretched staff and more families reaching breaking point.
The Liberal Democrats believe that equal opportunity in education is not a luxury, but a fundamental right. Every child deserves access to the same resources and opportunities, regardless of their postcode. Although we understand that regional variation has its place—indeed, we championed pupil premium funding to direct resources towards disadvantaged children—it should not have come at the expense of creating the current disparities.
The problem is reaching breaking point. With schools expected to somehow fund teacher pay rises from existing budgets, those with lower DSG allocations face impossible choices: cutting staff, reducing subjects or eliminating those enrichment activities that are vital to a well-rounded education. The Liberal Democrat solution is clear. We would invest in education above the rate of inflation, ensuring that all schools can operate sustainably regardless of geography. We would extend free school meals to all children on universal credit, relieving pressure on family budgets, and place a dedicated mental health professional in every school, recognising that wellbeing and academic achievement are inextricably linked.
Pupil needs have evolved dramatically and our funding system needs to evolve with them. The time for just tinkering at the edges of the formula has passed. We need comprehensive reform that guarantees an equal base level of funding for all pupils, with appropriate additional support reflecting specific school, pupil and area needs. Our children deserve nothing less.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am pleased to respond to this important and thoughtful debate on behalf of the Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing it, and I completely agree with his remarks about the importance of teaching children in the home as well as the school. It is clear from all the contributions we have heard that, across all political divides, we share a desire to see all children, regardless of their location, their background or the complexity of their needs, accessing high-quality education in a setting that supports their potential. That vision depends heavily on fair and sufficient funding for our schools. As we have heard, the dedicated schools grant is at the heart of that.
It would be appropriate, before turning to the concerns raised today, for me to briefly review the last Government’s principal achievements in this space, all of which have a bearing on any debate on the dedicated schools grant. Hon. Members will recall that it was a Conservative Government that took the step of reforming school funding through the introduction of the national funding formula, thereby ending the postcode lottery that, for too long, left similar schools receiving vastly different allocations. The national funding formula delivered greater transparency and a demonstrably fairer methodology, and drew a clearer line between the needs of pupils and the funding schools received. However, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury set out, there are clearly still some disparities. It is right that we look at those and consider what can be done to address them. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on that.
It was also a Conservative Government that increased core schools funding to record levels. Between 2010 and 2023, funding per pupil rose in real terms, with particular investment in the high needs block of the dedicated schools grant. In fact, by the final year of the previous Government, we had delivered a £10 billion increase in overall schools funding compared with 2019-20, including a £4 billion increase to the high needs budget, bringing total high needs funding to £10.5 billion in 2023-24. We backed that up with targeted support for pupils with SEND through capital investment focused on expanding special school places and improving facilities across the country.
It was the Conservative party that took decisive action to address poor-quality provision, cracking down on unregistered settings and increasing the powers of local authorities and Ofsted to take action where provision fell short. Our approach was unambiguously vindicated, as England soared up the Programme for International Student Assessment league tables between 2009 and 2022 in maths, English and science. In that period, England went from 21st to seventh for maths, from 19th to ninth for reading, and from 11th to ninth for science. Moreover, in December 2023, children in England were named best in the west for reading, and in December 2024 they were ranked the best at maths in the western world in the 2023 TIMSS—trends in international mathematics and science study. Regrettably, where England has surged in international education rankings, Labour-led Wales has slumped. While England went from 21st to seventh in maths, Wales went from 29th to 27th. While England went from 19th to ninth for reading, Wales stayed 28th. While England went from 11th to ninth for science, Wales slumped from 21st to 29th.
Ultimately, whether in England or Wales, there will always be more to do, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury highlighted, but I can say without hesitation that the legacy left by the last Government on school funding and educational outcomes is overwhelmingly positive, based on a relentless focus on sustained investment and principled reform, and a clear commitment to inclusion. It is not just our record; it is the yardstick by which the current Government must be judged.
Our position today is consistent with that record: we support fair funding, we support the principles behind the dedicated schools grant and we believe in the importance of local flexibility and accountability. We support the overarching aims of the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, and the continuation of investment to support the transition to new national standards, but we also recognise the real pressures that local authorities and schools are facing. While funding has increased, so too has demand, and the current system is struggling to keep up.
The number of pupils with an education, health and care plan has more than doubled in the last decade. Local authorities up and down the country—Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat alike—are grappling with high needs deficits, a growing wave of legal challenges and spiralling parental frustration. In my constituency, SEND makes up an ever-growing proportion of casework, and I hear every week from parents struggling to secure the provision that their child so desperately needs. It is little wonder that the Public Accounts Committee recently found that the current system risks creating a “lost generation” of children without intervention from central Government.
The National Audit Office was equally blunt in its 2024 report on SEND provision, which made it clear that, without systemic reform, there will be systemic collapse. The crux of the matter is that, as of January 2024, approximately 1.9 million children and young people in England were identified has having special educational needs, with 1.7 million attending school. Despite the 58% real-terms increase over the last decade in high needs funding, which reached £10.7 billion in 2024-25, the system is not delivering improved outcomes for those children and young people.
The financial strain that is placing local authorities under is deeply alarming. The NAO estimates that, by March 2026, 43% of local authorities will have deficits exceeding or close to their reserves, leading to a cumulative deficit between £4.3 billion and £4.9 billion. The situation is exacerbated by the impending end of accounting arrangements that currently prevent those deficits from impacting local authority reserves. Without a clear plan to manage the deficits, many councils risk issuing section 114 notices, effectively declaring bankruptcy.
Demand for education, health and care plans has surged by 140% since 2015: the number of children with one reached 576,000 in 2024. That increase, coupled with long waiting times—only 50% of EHCPs were issued within the statutory 20-week target in 2023—has eroded confidence among families and children in the system’s ability to meet statutory and quality expectations. Sadly, at the very moment that clarity and support were most needed, the Education Secretary introduced the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which would do nothing less than destroy standards in English schools.
No less serious are the broken promises on compensation for national insurance contributions, which have left schools in an impossible funding situation. It is reported that some schools face funding gaps of up to 35% for those additional NIC costs. That shortfall will only exacerbate existing financial pressures, forcing schools to divert funds from essential services, potentially leading to the loss of valued staff, reduced capacity to accommodate pupils with special needs and a generally lower standard of education provision.
In summary, we are at a point where the Government are asking councils to maintain high-quality provision even as they manage large accumulated deficits, some exceeding £100 million, without knowing how or when those will be resolved. Schools have been asked to go further and faster on inclusion without the confidence that adequate support services will be in place to back them up. At the same time, parents are being asked to trust a system that all too often feels both overwhelming and overwhelmed.
I want to put a number of questions to the Minister that reflect the concerns raised by Members, local authorities and professionals across the education sector. First, the Government have confirmed that they will continue funding local authorities through the dedicated schools grant for the foreseeable future, but what is the long-term plan for managing the high needs deficits that many councils have accrued? The safety valve programme and the delivering better value programme provide some support, but they are not available to every authority and they do not provide a long-term solution. Will the Minister confirm whether the dedicated schools grant will remain ringfenced beyond 2025? Will she guarantee that local authorities will not be forced to divert core council budgets to prop up SEND provision at the expense of other vital services?
Secondly, on transparency and accountability, colleagues have spoken of the challenges that their local schools face in not just securing adequate funding but navigating a system that is complex, fragmented and adversarial. Parents are turning to tribunals in record numbers, while local authorities are caught between an ever-growing web of statutory duties and finite budgets with which to deliver them. What steps are the Government taking to reduce the number of SEND tribunals, and what support will be offered to schools to manage rising demand?
Finally, I want to address the issue of place planning and capacity. One of the most frequent complaints we hear from local authorities is about the mismatch between need and availability, particularly in relation to specialist settings. This is not just about funding; it is about the ability to plan, build and adapt provision to changing demographics and trends. Will the Minister set out what work is being done to support local authorities in expanding specialist provision where it is most needed? How will the Department ensure that capital investment keeps pace with rising demand? What role does she see for the dedicated schools grant in ensuring that sufficient places are available for all?
I will end my long list of questions by thanking the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for securing today’s debate. The dedicated schools grant is a critical part of how we deliver education in this country, but if it is to work as intended, particularly in relation to SEND, it must be fair, transparent and sustainable. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government will make it so.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on securing this debate on the dedicated schools grant, and on the important speech that he gave on such an important subject. Getting this right is a key part of achieving the Labour Government’s aim of breaking down the barriers to opportunity for every child and making sure that the link between background and success is truly broken. That is why we are putting education back at the centre of national life again, and why we have prioritised education funding by increasing the overall core schools budget by £3.2 billion in 2025-26, taking the overall core schools budget to £64.8 billion this year.
Like many Members, I regularly visit schools in my constituency. I know that individual schools face different challenges when it comes to their budgets. The unfunded spending commitments that this Government inherited mean that we have to take tough decisions to restore the public finances, but I am proud that against that backdrop we are putting the money where our mouth is and committing more funding to enable every child to achieve and thrive. The Department for Education will continue to support teachers and school leaders to deliver on that as much as we can. We are ensuring that schools are supported to ensure that they spend their money as efficiently as they can while delivering the best possible life chances to as many children as they can. That means supporting them with best practice for budgeting and financial planning, support and mentoring for school business professionals, and giving hands-on support through school resource management advisers who provide independent and tailored advice to schools on how they can best maximise every pound that they spend. More widely, the national funding formula distributes funding for mainstream schools, as we have discussed already, via the dedicated schools grant. It is based on pupils’ needs and characteristics, so that we can direct the funding to where it is needed.
In 2025-26, £5.1 billion of the school national funding formula has been allocated through deprivation factors, with £8.6 billion allocated for additional needs overall. That is 17.8% of total core funding through the formula, so £1 in every £5 goes on those factors, which helps schools in their vital work to close attainment gaps. I have listened very carefully to the debate, but I must reiterate that the purpose of the national funding formula—I think hon. Members appreciate this—is not to give every pupil the same level of funding per pupil. It is right that pupils who need additional investment attract the additional funding that helps schools respond to and meet their needs. That means that schools in more expensive areas, such as London, attract higher funding per pupil to reflect the higher costs of being at school in London, because of the higher costs that are faced.
However, I recognise that schools have historically struggled with chaos and short-termism in school funding. When we came into government, because of the timing of the general election, in 2025-26 we wanted to give schools certainty about their funding and to minimise disruption for them. Consequently, we prioritised keeping the same funding formula, so that schools had certainty about it, and we also prioritised the speed of allocating that funding over making any changes to the national funding formula that might have been made—but I can confirm that for 2026-27 we are reviewing the national funding formula. I have listened very carefully to what has been said today, because we recognise the importance of establishing a fair funding system that directs funding to where it is most needed.
Richard Foord
After the Government conduct that review of the national funding formula in 2026-27, will the Minister set out what additional funding she expects to have to put into the formula that urban councils such as Westminster might attract to cover their costs?
Catherine McKinnell
I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot get into the detail of a particular local authority area, or indeed a particular aspect of the funding. He will also appreciate that the national funding formula is fairly complex and obviously any changes to it will be very carefully considered, so that we make sure that it is allocated fairly. Nevertheless, I appreciate the issues that various hon. Members have raised today about the different challenges faced by different parts of the country, different demographics and different geographies. Obviously, all those factors will need to be taken into consideration.
Members have also touched on the issue of pay. In its written evidence to the review body, the Department proposed a 2025 pay award for teachers of 2.8%. We were clear that schools will be expected to fund that award from the overall funds they will receive next year, including the additional £2.3 billion provided in the autumn Budget. The schools’ costs technical note, which was published in March, forecast a £400 million headroom in school budgets nationally in this financial year before staff pay awards. As I said at the beginning, I recognise that individual schools will have to balance funding and costs differently, which will matter in how any staff pay award might affect their budget. We will continue to support schools as they navigate these decisions, which are in line with the asks of the rest of the public sector, too.
Tom Gordon
I recently met a number of schools in my constituency; part of the problem that they have in balancing the books is the ongoing lack of reasonable amounts of maintenance funding. Last year I met the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who is the Minister with responsibility for early years, to discuss this issue. Will that funding also be considered when we talk about funding allocation, because in places such as Harrogate, where we have schools that are hundreds of years old, the cost of maintaining those schools far outstrips the cost of maintaining new builds in urban areas?
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the challenge that the hon. Gentleman faces. I also appreciate that some of these capital challenges, which are obviously revenue challenges as well for some schools, are a big challenge. We have seen chronic under-investment in our school estate over many years. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) and his constituents have sadly experienced that a school built only eight years ago also appears to be crumbling now. We have a significant backlog of repairs and maintenance, and support that has to be given to schools to get them up to a standard whereby they can deliver the education that we know children deserve. Obviously, we will continue to look at these issues as we navigate a difficult financial situation. We are acutely aware of the challenges that many schools face in maintaining their estate.
Fundamentally, each of our decisions is based on the determination to build a firm foundation upon which to rebuild our public services; some of that is about what we deliver and some of it is about the infrastructure. That is because we are determined that all children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities also receive the right support, so that they can succeed in their education and as they move into adult life. High needs funding will increase by £1 billion in 2025-26, which will bring the total to over £12 billion. Of that total, Gloucestershire county council is being allocated over £105 million through the high needs funding block of the dedicated schools grant, calculated using the high needs national funding formula, which is an increase of over £8 million. The high needs allocation is an 8.3% increase per head in the two to 18-year-old population compared with 2024-25. That funding is to support the ongoing costs of special educational needs and disability provision.
To be clear, we do not expect local authorities to use that increase in high needs funding to pay down historical deficits. The structure of the high needs funding formula is largely unchanged. As I said, we need to take time to consider what changes might be necessary in future years to ensure that the system is fair and directs funding to where it is needed, and supports any reforms that we want to bring forward in relation to special educational needs and disabilities.
The Government recognise the strain that the rising cost of special educational needs and disabilities provision is putting on local government, and particularly the impact on councils’ finances. The statutory override is a temporary accounting measure that separates out local authorities’ dedicated schools grant deficits from their wider financial position to help them manage their deficits, and we are working with the sector to find a way forward. We will set out plans for reforming the SEND system in more detail later this year, which will include supporting local authorities to deal with historical and accruing deficits as part of any period of transition from the current SEND system to any new system. That will also inform any decision to remove the statutory override.
Tom Gordon
I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. I want to press her on her point about working with local authorities. Given that some councils now under Reform control seem to be getting their instructions by diktat from their leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), is she disappointed, like I am, that no Member of the Reform party is present for this important debate?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman makes his point well.
As a Government, we are determined that local authorities will be able to deliver those high-quality services for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, but in a financially sustainable way. Those two elements go hand in hand to create a stronger and more prosperous future for children and families. Many hon. Members have spoken about their constituents’ experiences, and we recognise that too many families and children are not experiencing the quality of SEND services and provision that they should expect, and that the rising cost of SEND provision is putting a significant strain on both local authority and school finances.
Sarah Dyke
The Minister describes the additional funding but, as I have explained, many parents and children are suffering with severe mental health issues; it is heartbreaking to see. The Liberal Democrats want to provide a dedicated mental health professional in every school, so that every child and parent has somebody to turn to when they need it. What steps are the Government putting in place to support parents and children who are facing mental health challenges?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Lady identifies an important issue. Yes, we have a big challenge in relation to special educational needs and disabilities, but we also face much wider challenges relating to young people’s mental health right across our school system. The Government are committed to ensuring that we have mental health professionals in every school and community so that children and families can get that support, whether it be within a school setting or outside if that is where they want to access it.
Hon. Members will appreciate that the spending review is ongoing. It is due to conclude in June, but our objective is to ensure that local authorities, schools and colleges can deliver high-quality services for children and young people with SEND. We will set out in more detail how local authorities will deal with their historical deficits as part of that consideration.
I again thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for bringing this matter forward, and all those who contributed to what has been a very thoughtful debate. I think there is a large amount of consensus on what we want to achieve for children and young people: getting the best outcomes from our dedicated schools grant. The Government have made clear our commitment to addressing the challenges as part of supporting children and young people to achieve and thrive. I am determined that progress will be made.
I want to give my final word of thanks to all those who work in our school system in the interests of our children and young people, in Gloucestershire and across the country. Indeed, I realise I meant to come back to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham to particularly commend the staff at Prudhoe community high school, who have been working incredibly hard to minimise the impact on the children and young people who are taking their GCSEs, A-levels, BTECs, T-levels and all the assessments going on this summer. We know that school leaders and teachers are working tirelessly, regardless of any debate we have in this place about school funding or otherwise, to deliver the best outcomes for the children in their area. They should know that they have a Government who are on their side, who will support them to deliver that, despite the very challenging economic circumstances that we have inherited. We need to deliver the very best for all our children and young people. We have pledged to review the funding system to help to support and achieve that.
Cameron Thomas
I thank all hon. Members for their speeches. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) equated the differential in funding to an entire teacher’s salary. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) contextualised the crisis faced by constituents with inadequate transport infrastructure and unfit buildings. I join him in thanking our teaching staff for their inspiring work ethic. My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) explained how her diverse constituency suffers from not being rural enough and not being urban enough. Her young people do deserve more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) highlighted the legacy inequity locked into the current system. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) called for the national funding formula to reflect current need, not historical need. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) broadened the picture by explaining that families are having fewer children because they struggle to support even themselves.
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), who spoke of the postcode lottery perpetuated by a systemically flawed funding formula. I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), who joined our call to review the national funding formula, even if her recollection of her party’s record differs from that of the rest of the country, not least my teachers.
I thank the Minister, who described her ambition to put education at the heart of the Government’s national rebuild. I am pleased that the Government will commit to reviewing the national funding formula. I am sure she will not mind if my colleagues and I chalk that one up to this debate. Once more, Ms Butler, I thank you for the honour of bringing this debate under your chairship.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Dedicated Schools Grant.
Cullompton and Wellington Stations
(1 day, 9 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
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of reopening Cullompton and Wellington railway stations.
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. The Minister may have heard some of these arguments before, but there have been developments in recent months that he should hear before any decisions are made in relation to Cullompton and Wellington stations.
The south-west has suffered from chronic under-investment in transport infrastructure—a legacy of the Beeching cuts in the 1960s, when communities were cut off as many stations across the country, including Cullompton and Wellington, lost their rail services. The campaign to bring back those stations commenced almost as soon as they were lost. In 1996, Devon county council commissioned a preliminary design for a new station at Cullompton, and by 2013 the metro board had been established, bringing together MPs, local councils, the rail industry and enterprise partnerships.
Since then the metro board has met more than 30 times, co-chaired in recent months by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and me. The studies have culminated in the submission of a final business case to the Department for Transport in May 2024. Later that summer, my colleague and I received letters from the Chancellor pulling the plug on Restoring Your Railway funding. That was a gut punch for communities across the country with less well-established programmes, but I am pleased to say that Restoring Your Railway had already done a lot of the hard work relating to Cullompton and Wellington stations.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Somerton and Langport is the largest area without a station between London and Penzance; it represents a 28-mile gap between Taunton and Castle Cary. I have worked hard with constituents in the area, who indeed put together a robust business plan and applied for the Restoring Your Railway fund, only to find that all their work had been turned down, scuppering their plans to build a station in the area. Does my hon. Friend agree that that decision denies my constituents the economic and social opportunities that the connectivity of a station would provide, which would enable them to bring business and new homes into the area?
Richard Foord
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning economic and social opportunities. I too have been contacted by constituents about how they think a station in their town would provide those. Neil Perry, a resident of Cullompton who commutes daily to Exeter for his job as a teacher, told me that he spends nearly 10 full days each year stuck in Cullompton traffic—time lost to him simply because there is no local rail option. He leaves the house at 7.30 am to beat the worst of the congestion, and must leave work at 2.30 pm to avoid a 25-minute journey turning into an hour-long ordeal. The train from Tiverton Parkway to Exeter takes just 11 minutes, and we could see a journey of a similar time from Cullompton. Neil estimates he would save over £2,000 a year in parking, fuel, and car maintenance and points out that Cullompton would become an up-and-coming and much more prosperous town, which would help to drive growth.
This Labour Government are very keen on economic growth, particularly the role that development and housing infrastructure plays in it. They have set an ambitious target to build 1.5 million homes by 2029, and its success hinges on delivering the necessary infrastructure to support those homes. I hear time and again from the people I represent in Devon that they do not want to, and cannot, see the homes built in advance of infrastructure that just does not arrive.
Nowhere is that more evident that in the Culm Garden Village project. Located just east of junction 28 of the M5, the proposed development would bring over 5,000 new homes to Cullompton. Without a railway station, those new residents would be reliant on the motorway. That motorway is already under severe pressure; junction 28 sees queues on to the inside lane, making it already a very unsafe motorway approach road to use. Residents welcomed the recent news of funding for the Cullompton town centre relief road. It is a step forward but, on its own, that relief road will not be enough. We have already seen the consequences of building homes without the right infrastructure: gridlocked roads, overstretched public services and growing frustration among residents. We cannot see that mistake made again in Cullompton.
Another of the people I represent from Cullompton, Tim Pethick, has worked in mental health services at Torbay hospital for 20 years. He was recently diagnosed as unfit to drive due to epilepsy, and now faces a 34-mile journey to work using public transport. Cullompton has no direct rail link. He has looked into using a bus pass, but that is not possible because bus passes cannot be used before 9.30 in the morning and the bus journey takes more than two hours. Here is somebody who has worked solidly for the NHS for the last couple of decades and whose career might be over if he cannot get good public access through the train. Those are just two examples, but my concern is that they are just two of many people who feel isolated and forced out of the workforce because of the lack of rail infrastructure in Cullompton.
Thinking more broadly, the south-west as a whole is a region where social mobility is a challenge. The South-West Social Mobility Commission’s 2024 report confirms that our region is one of the worst performing in England for disadvantaged young people. By age 19, 34% of disadvantaged young people in our region have achieved a level 3 qualification, compared with 42% nationally. We can see that the south-west has quite a high proportion of disadvantaged students, but a low proportion of disadvantaged students who progress to higher education. The University of Exeter commissioned a 2019 report called “Social Mobility in the South West”, which revealed that only 17% of disadvantaged pupils in the region went on to university—the lowest rate among all regions in England.
A major contributor to that poor performance is transport infrastructure. Young people in rural towns and villages—places such as Cullompton and Wellington—often struggle to access college, sixth form and any sort of further or higher education. For young people without access to a car, getting to college or university is not just difficult; it is impossible.
The reopening of Cullompton station would be transformative, as would the reopening of Wellington station in Somerset. It would open up opportunities to get to Exeter college, the University of Exeter and FE establishments further afield, and would be fantastic for generating new apprenticeship opportunities. As the Labour Government have said, if we want to get Britain working, apprenticeships will be an aspect to that.
Just two weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington and I met the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, and 30 local residents who had travelled to London to lobby him. Together, we made the case directly that reopening the railway stations would not just be a transport upgrade; it would be life-changing for our communities.
A single journey by rail produces up to 75% fewer carbon emissions per passenger than the same journey by car. We know that transportation as a whole accounts for 27% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, so the railway stations would support and bolster the Labour Government’s climate change mitigation aims. The reopening of Wellington and Cullompton stations is not just some idea that will benefit a few people in the south-west of England; it is very much thought through, supported on a cross-party basis, economically sound and environmentally responsible, and it could be socially transformative.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I am grateful both to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), for securing this debate, and to the Minister; I really must be more punctual in asking a Minister’s permission to speak in future, and I am very grateful for his permission to take part in this debate.
A couple of weeks ago, a delegation of 30 to 40 local residents travelled the three or four hours from Somerset and Devon to Parliament to present a couple of letters to the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, in Westminster Hall, one from Wellington town council and one signed by MPs throughout the Cardiff-Bristol-Exeter corridor. It is important to remember that the station’s reopening project, which combines two reopenings in one, will benefit the whole region, and my hon. Friend and I place on record our gratitude to the hon. Members for Exeter (Steve Race), for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) and for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), who have all signed the letter with us and are fully supportive of the project.
For example, the project will enable thousands of young people who have no access to public transport, in west Somerset and elsewhere, to travel to colleges in Bristol, Cardiff and Exeter. It will also enable thousands of customers to reach businesses.
Sarah Dyke
I intervene because Jonathan, a constituent from Somerton, hoped that his son would attend Richard Huish sixth form in Taunton, in my hon. Friend’s constituency. However, the nearest train station is 12 miles away, and there are unreliable bus services right across Glastonbury and Somerton, so it proved impossible for Jonathan’s son to attend the sixth form of his choosing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the lack of rail connectivity creates barriers to education?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend highlights a practical example of how so many young people in Somerset, a place where sixth form colleges are literally few and far between, have difficulty accessing education because of the lack of public transport. This station project would enable thousands of people to reach Exeter college and the excellent Richard Huish college in my constituency, which is well known to be one of the best in the country.
As I was saying, the station’s reopening will allow young people to reach jobs along the Bristol, Exeter and Cardiff corridor and customers to reach businesses. It is no wonder that a key strength of the case for the project is its benefit-cost ratio of 3.67. For the cost of around £42 million, £180 million of economic growth would go into the region, which I know the Government would want to see. Frankly, there is no other rail project in the south-west that is ready to go and could be built and completed in the next two years, as the project is so far advanced. In fact, had it not been for the review in July last year, the spades would be in the ground and the platforms under construction, because the contract was about to be let and the detailed design was almost finished.
Our letter makes other equally telling points about the benefits of this station. Wellington is a growing town, which has had around 2,000 new homes in the last few years and has a projected 41% increase in housing numbers. That will mean about 6,000 more residents, and without the railway station, that is unlikely to be possible.
Finally, we asked the Department for Transport to tell us what the recent benefit-cost ratios were—the figure for our project is 3.67. The answer we received was that the Department does not routinely share or publish benefit-cost ratios. We were asking not for routine publication, but specifically for the benefit-cost ratio information. I hope that the Minister will look at releasing that information.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler. First, I reassure the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) that the potential merits of the Cullompton and Wellington rail stations are still firmly under consideration. The Chancellor announced the closure of the restoring your railway programme in her statement to the House last July. Despite the closure of the programme, the Department for Transport continues to consider the project as part of its spending review.
The stations project has already received £6.15 million to complete the full business case and most of the design work. It is estimated that an investment of about £45 million of additional funding is needed to complete delivery of the stations. However, due to the difficult financial situation inherited from the previous Government, it will not be possible for all transport projects to continue, particularly those not yet in delivery, where spades are not in the ground.
Clearly, the Cullompton and Wellington project is not solely about the restoration of historical infrastructure, but about the important benefits that the stations can bring to their local communities and the broader region in future. The two towns share several characteristics and challenges. Cullompton and Wellington are both characterised by low-density residential neighbourhoods surrounding modest town centres, yet despite their rural charm, there is evidence of serious local challenges that affect the towns’ ability to fulfil their economic, social and environmental capacity.
In 2019, for example, indices of multiple deprivation showed that five areas of Cullompton were considerably deprived compared with national averages, reflecting issues such as educational attainment and skills gaps, income deprivation affecting children and young people, barriers to housing and adverse living environments. Despite these challenges, however, Cullompton is projected to have substantial material growth. With development plans in place, the town’s population is projected to nearly double from 8,807 in 2021 to 17,994 by 2033. Further growth, including the second phase of the garden village, could increase the population to approximately 25,000 by 2040.
In short, Cullompton is already nearly three times the size it was when its railway station was closed in the 1960s. It is likely to grow to more than seven times the size it was over the couple of decades to follow. That expansion underscores the urgent need for enhanced public transport to support the growing community. A new railway station in Cullompton would naturally meet that need.
Similarly, Wellington’s population is set to increase significantly due to ongoing and planned developments, including 2,580 additional dwellings. But Wellington is still heavily car-dependent at present, with many residents commuting regionally for employment, education and leisure. The reliance on private vehicles worsens social inequality, particularly for those without access to a car. The result is high levels of deprivation and inequality among parts of the community, with parts of the town having among the highest levels of deprivation in Somerset and falling within the most deprived 20% of wards in England. In turn, those impacts are likely to worsen further with the predicted population increases in Wellington over the coming years.
Car dependency, especially with Wellington’s links to Taunton, the nearest employment hub, has also created environmental challenges due to the impact of commuting on the road network. For example, air quality management areas that cover parts of Taunton and eastern approaches to Exeter have been designated. Somerset and Devon county councils made climate declarations in 2019 and 2020 respectively, featuring reduced transport emissions as a key pillar, and a need to improve air quality in urban areas.
Reopening Wellington station presents the potential for a significant mode shift from car to rail, particularly for journeys between Wellington and Taunton, Exeter, Bristol and Bridgwater. In addition, improved rail connectivity would reduce travel times and enhance journey reliability, while also promoting sustainable transport options.
The strategic objectives for building both stations are clear. As well as benefiting the immediate areas in Cullompton and Wellington, enhancing public transport connectivity will also support economic growth and productivity in Exeter, Taunton and Bridgwater, reducing road congestion, car dependency and associated carbon emissions. The stations would contribute to sustainable development, connecting new residential areas with regional employment, education and healthcare opportunities. With the provision of station calls at both towns, the case for taking a combined approach presents significantly higher value for money, compared with a stand-alone project in either area.
In conclusion, the Department recognises that the reopening of Cullompton and Wellington rail stations would be a strategic investment in the future of those communities. Enhanced public transport connectivity also aligns with the Government’s goals to drive economic growth, reduce environmental impact and improve social mobility, creating a more equitable and prosperous region.
Question put and agreed to.
Poverty: Glasgow North East
(1 day, 9 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
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered poverty in Glasgow North East constituency.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this most serious of subjects. I rise to speak not only as a Member of Parliament for Glasgow North East, but as someone who knows what poverty looks like up close. I grew up in Easterhouse, one of the most deprived areas of Glasgow. I left school at the age of 15 when both my parents were diagnosed with tuberculosis. I joined my siblings to help provide for our family, doing what we had to do to survive, like so many in our communities still do today. It is that experience that drives me now, recognising that behind every stat about poverty, there are people—families, children and friends—facing impossible choices. Fighting for them is the sole reason I am an MP.
The idea for this debate was born a number of months ago, when I discovered data from Health Equals, which revealed that my constituency of Glasgow North East has the lowest life expectancy of any UK parliamentary constituency. The truth is that although those figures are shocking, they are sadly not surprising. In Glasgow North East, wages are lower, and the percentage of people with a disability is higher, than the Scottish and UK averages. Deaths from preventable health conditions such as coronary heart disease are higher than compared with Scotland as a whole. Tragically, nearly 38% of children in my constituency live in poverty.
As Health Equals tells us, deep inequality between the poorest and the richest cuts lives short. In the UK, one of the richest countries in the world, people are dying because they are poor. When we think about poverty, we need to think of it in context. Glasgow North East having the UK’s lowest life expectancy does not happen by accident, and can be changed only through progressive Government action. For too many years, people in my constituency have operated under a system that has allowed inequality to fester. Opportunities and wealth have been unevenly distributed, and public services have failed people time and again.
The last Labour Government made the eradication of poverty a national mission. Families the length and breadth of the UK felt the benefit of that determination, but after a decade of Tory austerity and nearly two decades of SNP neglect in Scotland, that progress has been reversed and the living conditions of far too many are reminiscent of days we thought had been consigned to history. The Britain that this Labour Government inherited was broken. It was a Britain whose leadership had tolerated the intolerable as more people slid into destitution. That cannot be fixed overnight, but it cannot be allowed to continue either.
The Trussell Trust tells us that 3.1 million food parcels were handed out across the UK between 2023 and 2024—262,000 in Scotland and 5,846 in Glasgow North East. Sadly, tonight 10,000 children in Scotland will go to sleep in temporary accommodation—a number that has risen every single year in the past decade, bar a slight decrease during the pandemic—and one in six Scots will continue their agonising wait for NHS treatment. This is a wealthy country, but its people are poor.
The real lived experiences of people should always be at the centre of debates such as this one, because I believe that they make the most powerful case for change. In the Stobhill area of my constituency, there is a Marie Curie hospice. I am in absolute awe of the work done by Marie Curie to treat people in the final stages of their life with compassion and dignity. However, the staff working at the hospice will openly say that far too many of the people who come through their doors should have more time to live. That is not a hopeful attempt to comfort grieving families, although I am sure it does that too. Rather, it is a reflection of the direct effects that poverty has on people’s living standards.
Funded by UK Research and Innovation, Marie Curie and the University of Glasgow conducted a research project that was titled, “Dying in the Margins”. This research showed that one in four working-age people with a terminal illness in Scotland dies in poverty. That challenges the idea that terminal illness is an equaliser of social classes, recognising instead that it actually worsens inequality.
In addition, there is a 24-year gap in healthy life expectancy between the most deprived communities and the least deprived communities. When faced with a diagnosis of a terminal illness, poorer people are forced into making difficult choices or find themselves suffering hardship because of the associated costs. It is, as one participant in the research noted, a “double burden”.
Let us take, for example, Max. He is a 65-year-old gentleman who really wanted to spend his last days in his community and—importantly—with his dog, Lily. On one occasion, despite being in serious pain, Max even fled the hospice to be reunited with Lily, but his home was unsuitable for someone in his condition. He lived in a fourth-floor flat and could not climb into his bath. Sadly, the housing association failed to carry out adaptations to his home and so, in the final days of his life, Max was forced back into the hospice. He died, with his wish of dying in the comfort of his own home and with his beloved companion Lily by his side unrealised. We cannot change Max’s experience, but we can take action to ensure that we treat people who are in similar situations with greater respect and dignity.
Poverty can strike at any point, suddenly disrupting lives. That is what happened to my constituent Martin. He was a working homeowner who, because of a relationship breakdown, found himself homeless with three children, one of whom has additional support needs. Martin had to leave his job to care for his children during this traumatic period. Glasgow city council placed the family in a hotel, where Martin and his three children had to pack up and move rooms each night. Although Martin tried to keep his children in a routine and in school during this time, their school attendance suffered and their situation has obviously affected their education.
Martin remains in temporary accommodation that is unsuitable for his family. He has been trying to find permanent accommodation since November, but the social housing stock is just not available. Martin wants to work and provide for his family, but he is not receiving the housing support he needs to get him to that point. In short, poverty has put his family’s lives on hold. That is why, when I think of poverty, I think of it as theft. It steals potential and robs opportunity. It denies the world of the brilliance, warmth and talent of so many who may never be seen or heard.
Our duty, surely, is to do all we can to make better the lives of people we may never know or ever meet. I am encouraged by the work already being undertaken by the Government to do just that. The Government are legislating to ensure that work can be a genuine route out of poverty, as well as the realisation of a stable and enjoyable life. Our Employment Rights Bill delivers fairer working conditions, stronger rights and improved pay for millions. These are the steps that show our values: that work should offer dignity and security, not trap people in in-work poverty.
More recently, the “Pathways to Work” paper outlines additional steps through reforms to the welfare system. I welcome, for example, the scrapping of the work capability assessment, which many charities described as dehumanising and distressing. I also welcome the commitment to reduce assessments for people with longer term health conditions.
It would be remiss of me, however, not to acknowledge concerns about other aspects of the proposals, and I hope to hear answers from the Minister today. Can the Government ensure that people receiving end-of-life care will not lose access to their benefits as a result of the plans? Can the Minister set out how new employment support programmes will be delivered in a way that is supportive and empowering, rather than patronising and disparaging? Can the Minister confirm that the Government recognise that for some people work simply is not possible, and that they should continue to receive financial support and assistance?
I ask those questions because I recognise that our welfare system is failing people. I support the efforts to fix it, but reform cannot mean regression. Let us also remember that so much of the responsibility for welfare provision lies with the Scottish Government. They hold powers, so they must bear responsibility. My constituents are waiting too long for support, with the majority of adult disability payment applications taking four months to process. In 2023, shockingly, 116 people died while waiting for the outcome of their application. I will hold the UK Government to account, but I expect the Scottish Government to do more than posture on this issue, which I am afraid has been the extent of their contribution so far.
When my time as an MP ends, I want to be judged on the following questions. Did I make life better for the people in my community who had the least? Was I part of a Government who worked tirelessly to root out the causes of poverty and low life expectancy? Are people living better lives now than they were under the previous Government? We can be the Parliament that ends the era of excuses, and we can be the country that declares poverty not inevitable but unacceptable.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I would like to get to the Front Benchers by 7.08 pm, so everybody has about three and a half to four minutes.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) on bringing forward this debate. I particularly liked her driving force, which is: did I make life in my community better? That should be the driving force of all MPs and I commend her for taking that stance.
I want to say a couple of things about the social security safety net, and what is being provided to protect people from the worst of poverty to ensure that life expectancies are equalised. Those of us who are lucky enough to live in a level of privilege have the luxury of being able to make mistakes and cope with a few rough barriers in our way. We can cope with our washing machine breaking down and our child needing a new pair of shoes in the same month, whereas people who are living on the breadline do not have that level of privilege and luxury. If two of those things happen at once, through no fault of their own, then getting through that and working out whether to buy a washing machine or a pair of shoes for the child—when someone is struggling to make ends meet as it is—is the most difficult choice. If we can get to a position where people have the luxury of being able to make some choices, and are able to ensure that their children can thrive and not just survive, then we have done a good thing and made life better for our communities.
There are issues with the social security safety net. The essentials guarantee has been put forward by the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation among others. In order to pay for an essential basket of goods, someone needs about £120 a week. That includes the most basic food, ensuring an internet connection, heating and rent—it covers those basic things. The universal credit standard allowance is only £92.
Most people agree that the essential basket is a reasonable level for the social security safety net to be at. It would be sensible to look at where we are with the universal credit standard allowance, and whether it does meet basic needs. That is before we talk about things such as the child poverty strategy, and the possibility of cancelling the two-child cap, which people are asking for across the board, as well as scrapping the total benefits cap.
In Scotland we are doing what we can to mitigate some of that. We have managed to ensure that child poverty in Scotland is reducing rather than increasing, but it is much more stagnant than we would like it to be because we are having to mitigate some of these cuts. I echo the views of the hon. Member for Glasgow North East on disability payments; 55% of children in Scotland who live in poverty have a disabled family member. We do not know how the cuts to eligibility in the personal independence payment are going to interact with the Scottish benefits system.
Will people have to do assessments for both adult disability payment and PIP in order to ensure their eligibility for the UC health element, or will the UK Government work out the UC health element on the basis of the ADP assessment? I am not clear on how that will work, or on how the welfare Bill that is hopefully coming in the near future will make it clear. For my constituents, and for those people in Glasgow North East, how those things will interact and what difference it will make to their lives is really key. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us clarity as soon as possible on the interaction between the welfare Bill and the Scottish Government systems on, for example, adult disability payment.
I again commend the hon. Member for Glasgow North East on raising this really important issue. I understand why it is the most important issue in her constituency, and more power to her elbow for making life better for her constituents.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), who is my neighbour, for securing this important debate. Glasgow has disgraceful levels of absolute poverty, with families who cannot afford the essentials to live: food, heat, school uniforms and clothes.
We do not help those in desperate poverty by making unaffordable promises. But despite the constrained public finances, our Government have taken action. Our last Budget raised billions in extra taxes to fight poverty. In Scotland, that means an extra £4.9 billion for the Scottish Government, so that they can tackle record NHS waiting lists and arrest the alarming decline of Scottish education. Our Employment Rights Bill tackles the evil of in-work poverty, with the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Our Government have increased the living wage well above inflation.
Our Government have been in power for 10 months; the Tories were in power for 10 years and the SNP have been in power for 18 years—at the helm of an incredibly powerful devolved Administration blessed with significant powers. The SNP have run Glasgow city council for eight years.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the essential services that families rely on are delivered by local authorities, and that local authorities have had their budgets slashed year on year by the Scottish Government, which impacts their ability to protect and support the most vulnerable people in our societies?
John Grady
I agree. Local government has been emasculated by the Tory Governments in England and Wales and the SNP Government in Scotland. I must say that they are pretty non-discriminatory in their emasculation, because they have failed to properly fund the SNP council in Glasgow for years.
In Scotland, one cause of poverty is the shocking state of the NHS. Record waiting lists do not just delay people getting back to work; the delays mean that their conditions deteriorate to a point where they cannot return to work, and we should be incredibly angry about that. In 2007, the Scottish Government promised to establish a ministerial taskforce on health inequalities, yet Scotland continues to have the worst health inequalities in western and central Europe. On disability health checks, following a successful pilot in 2019-20, the Scottish Government committed to carry out annual health checks for people with learning disabilities in 2022. It was to be completed by 2023, but as of 2023-24, only 6.9% of eligible people had been offered a health check. The SNP’s record in Holyrood on health is absolutely shameful.
Education is an essential pathway out of poverty. However, the attainment gap in Scotland is widening, which means that kids in my constituency and others with large working-class populations have fewer life chances, and they are getting worse—it is an absolute scandal. College education is in crisis. Again, this should be a source of anger.
Glasgow city council has an opportunity to help some of the most vulnerable in Glasgow. Homeless Project Scotland has a food and night shelter in the Merchant City in Glasgow. It serves free hot meals and provides an immaculately clean shelter for homeless people. However, it has had its planning permission refused. The shelter is at serious risk of closing, but I am heartened to hear that Glasgow city council has said:
“We are available to engage...and do whatever we can to help them secure suitable property”.
I hope that the council does that. It has two golden keys to a resolution. It has an extensive property portfolio and it is the planning authority. I cannot think of an organisation better placed to help.
I helped at the shelter on Sunday night. That night, it served over 100 men and women, but because children are also homeless in Glasgow, it serves them too. On Sunday night, there was a boy—just like my boy—with his dad, a teenage boy with his mum, and a girl perhaps the same age as my daughter. If the shelter is closed, where will those children and their mums and dads get a hot meal? Where will the most vulnerable in my city get a safe bed for the night? I hope that Glasgow city council delivers on its promise.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) on securing this debate and on her heartfelt speech about the impact of poverty in her constituency. My constituency of Glasgow North, which adjoins hers, also faces many of the same factors that contribute to low life expectancy—factors that are clearly linked to poverty.
Recent data from the Office for National Statistics has shown that the average life expectancy in Glasgow North is 75.9 years, which is 8.7 years shorter than in the healthiest parts of the UK. However, in a way, that number also acts as a smokescreen. Because it is an average that includes the most affluent areas, it conceals the true life expectancy of the most deprived communities in my constituency. Where someone is born, where they live, and even which streets they grow up on, can help determine how long they live. Although the figures highlight a shocking level of health inequality, they ultimately reflect the deeper and more complex realities of poverty. Poverty does not come from one place; it stems from a web of economic, social and cultural factors. Those are shaped by issues related to class, health, social security, wages, job security, education, housing and access to credit, to name just a few. It is the way that those pressures interact, often reinforcing one another, that sustains the poverty that we see in Glasgow and across the country.
The history of place can accentuate those issues, Glasgow’s history being an example. The deindustrialisation of the city combined with the lack of necessary support, planning and investment in the late ’70s and ’80s led to mass unemployment and growing inequalities that are still felt in communities today. Although the previous Labour Government made great progress combating child poverty rates, that has not been sustained. Subsequent national policy choices and global events have only made those systemic issues of poverty worse, with the financial crash, the cuts to public services from Tory austerity and the long-term impact of a global pandemic hampering Glasgow’s prosperity.
Poverty can also create vicious cycles, which can appear in many different aspects of someone’s life. For example, if someone’s job is insecure, it is harder for them to afford stable housing. Without a fixed address, it is harder for them to access social security. Without that safety net, the risk of homelessness rises and the cycle continues. That is why it is not enough to talk about employment alone. We need to ensure that work provides security and pays a real living wage. I welcome this Government’s decision to uplift the minimum wage, a vital move that ensures that more people can earn enough to live with dignity. The Employment Rights Bill will go further, ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and helping to ensure that anyone in paid work has stability and protection.
But let us be clear: no single policy will solve poverty. What is needed is a joined-up approach—one that brings together housing, health, education, employment and social security. That is why the Government’s focus on building houses, improving the education system, restoring the NHS and promoting economic growth is vital to helping to deliver for those who are most vulnerable. I am also confident that the work of this Labour Government’s child poverty taskforce will be vital in delivering a cross-Government child poverty strategy to reduce and alleviate child poverty. That will be essential in improving children’s lives and life chances now and address the root causes of poverty in the long term.
Glasgow is a city of immense potential, rich in culture, talent and resilience. The fact that some of its communities have the lowest life expectancies in the UK is not an inevitability—it is the result of decisions taken in the past. If we make different choices, we can build a city and a country where every child has the opportunity to thrive and every community the chance to prosper. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in her response.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) on securing this important debate and on being such a doughty champion for her constituents.
Poverty is experienced by many communities across Glasgow, as we have heard, and my constituency of Glasgow West is no exception. In 2022-23, 19.3% of all people in Glasgow were income-deprived, compared with 12.1% in Scotland across the board. In Glasgow in 2023, 41.1% of secondary pupils were registered for free school meals. The figure for Scotland is just 13.2%. The Drumchapel/Anniesland ward in my constituency has the greatest depth of poverty in Glasgow. That is a lot of statistics, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East says, there is a family or an individual behind every single one.
Earlier this year, I held a child poverty taskforce event. The submission from that has been fed into the Government’s taskforce. It was attended by many organisations that work with children and families in Glasgow West. The stories they told and the evidence they offered were truly shocking. One participant, a volunteer with a youth club, reflected on her experience of taking a group of children on a day out and giving each child £5 to buy lunch. One child asked if he could forgo lunch and give the money to his mum so that she could buy bread and milk for the family. As you will gather, I find that story horrific, but that is the reality for many children who are all too aware of the financial pressures that their parents are facing. In effect, it takes away their ability to enjoy their childhood and be children.
As we have heard, since 2013-14 the funding received by Glasgow city council has reduced significantly, putting severe pressure on services across the city. Hopefully, the record settlement that this Government has passed to the Scottish Government will allow them to address what is now chronic underfunding. Over recent years, I have been disappointed that the SNP administration in Glasgow has not seemed to feel it either necessary or required that it should challenge its colleagues in the Scottish Government at Holyrood about that funding situation, because it should not have been allowed to continue.
We have heard a lot about the mortality rate in Glasgow. I will not rehearse that; I will just say that we have known for a very long time that health inequalities, housing conditions, educational opportunities and poverty are all connected. A lifetime ago, I worked in the health service, and we were proud of but challenged by the Black report, which drew attention to all those facts. We have known about them since 1980, and have had the opportunity to do something about them over the years. We made some progress under the Blair Government, and we began to look at poverty, particularly child poverty, in the early days of the Scottish Parliament, but we need to do much more. All these issues are connected. If one part of that jigsaw is in the wrong place, the life chances and life opportunities of all those families and young people are badly affected.
I close by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East again. She was absolutely right to be challenging about what we all have to do, what all Governments have to do and what all local authorities have to do. It is only by working together that we will begin to make a difference for the people who rely on us to do that.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I would like to leave a couple of minutes at the end for the mover of the debate to wind up. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) for securing this important debate and for her very moving speech. It is clear that she is committed to her constituents.
We need to break the cycle of inequality. As we heard, on the streets of north-east Glasgow and in parts of my constituency of Mid Dunbartonshire—including Auchinairn, which neighbours Glasgow North East—too many young people begin life weighed down by poverty rather than uplifted by potential. Across Glasgow, 33% of children are growing up poor, but that figure rises to over 37% in the Glasgow East constituency, the highest rate in Scotland.
Behind every percentage point are hundreds of pupils whose concentration is broken by hunger, and whose homework, if it is done at all, is done under blankets because the heating is off. New figures from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reveal that 6 million people in the UK today are living in “very deep poverty”, and nearly half a million of them are in Scotland.
Poverty on that scale is not just a social failure. It is an economic own goal and a drag on growth. The OECD has long shown that inequality depresses GDP by stunting skills and productivity. A cold, hungry child suffering from illness and missing school is unlikely to become the skilled, creative adult our economy needs. We need investment, not in handouts but in the human capital that will pay Scotland dividends for decades.
Three interventions stand out. First, we must extend free school meals to every child in poverty throughout primary and secondary school. Scotland rightly offers universal provision in primary 1 to 5, yet pupils in primary 6 and 7 and early secondary school still fall through the net. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies finds that a reliable, nutritious lunch raises attainment by the equivalent of two months’ learning each year and boosts lifetime earnings. That is growth economics in a dinner hall: healthier children today, higher productivity tomorrow, and lower long-term welfare and NHS costs.
Secondly, we must make every home in north-east Glasgow and beyond warm and efficient. The Warmer Homes Scotland programme helped over 7,000 households last year, cutting bills and carbon alike, and demand has soared as energy prices climb. Accelerating retrofits in social housing across the region would create skilled jobs and boost economic activity through local supply chains. For families, it means that money saved on energy bills can be spent on essentials such as food, school shoes or a local after-school club.
Thirdly, we must ensure universal access to NHS dental care for all children. Despite school dentists, all too frequently families simply cannot get an NHS dentist. Routine care is being missed and tooth decay remains one of the leading causes of hospital admissions for children. That is not just a public health failure; it is a productivity issue. Dental pain keeps children off school, affects their speech and self-esteem and entrenches disadvantage. Good oral health must be seen as a core part of a child’s educational and developmental success.
Kirsty Blackman
I spoke in a debate in Westminster Hall on NHS dentists a wee while ago. Something like 95% of people in Scotland are registered with NHS dentists, whereas the figure in the England is that only about 50% of adults will ever see an NHS dentist in their life. Is the hon. Member making this case specifically for Scotland? I would love to hear more about where the gaps are in service provision in Scotland.
Susan Murray
That is not my experience in my constituency of Mid Dunbartonshire. We did a survey recently that showed that there was quite a lot of difficulty in finding an NHS dentist, and that many people who were with NHS dentists found that they were moving to private practice. In fact, I know of many constituents in east Dunbartonshire who are travelling to Springburn to reach an NHS dentist, so they have to travel quite a long distance.
Tackling poverty means addressing the full range of barriers that hold children back. Hunger, cold homes and preventable health issues are among them. Those are devolved levers that Holyrood can and should pull. The Scottish child payment is a start, but Westminster must also play its part. The Liberal Democrats are calling on the UK Government to tackle child poverty by removing the two-child limit and the benefits cap, and to reduce the wait for the first payment of universal credit from five weeks to five days. Instead, a UK-wide poverty premium continues to strip cash from low-income households through their higher tariffs and costlier services.
Scotland cannot build fairness on funding shortfalls. Hungry children cannot learn. Cold, unwell children cannot thrive. Nourished pupils, warm homes and healthy children are the engines for future growth. By investing in all our children, school meals, energy efficiency and basic healthcare access, we will not only spare a generation the misery of deprivation, but unlock the skills, health and enterprise that can power north-east Glasgow and the whole of the United Kingdom to a more prosperous future. This is not just a moral choice; it is the smart one, both socially and economically.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
May I start by acknowledging the very powerful speeches that we have heard this afternoon from the Members for Glasgow? I would not say that my view is that the people of Glasgow are generally well represented by Scottish Labour, but they have been very well represented in this debate.
I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) for the way she highlighted the tragedy of low life expectancy and of poverty in general in her constituency. She mentioned Easterhouse, which occupies a particular place in the pantheon of Conservative thinking about welfare because my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) visited it 20 years ago and had his epiphany about what she described as the context of poverty. He described the interconnectedness of the different factors that drive poverty, which go so far beyond simple income poverty—issues around welfare itself but also joblessness, family breakdown, addiction and so on.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) talked about the long consequences of deindustrialisation, which are relevant across our country but especially in places such as Glasgow. He also mentioned the consequence of the 2008 global financial crisis.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East mentioned the stagnation of wages in her constituency. Low wage growth has been a problem across the United Kingdom since that time. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green became the Welfare Secretary in 2010, he introduced reforms that offered real, direct benefits and improvements in welfare and in worklessness. There were 1 million fewer workless households in 2020 than in 2010 and, after housing costs, 1 million fewer people in absolute poverty—100,000 fewer children, 200,000 fewer pensioners and 700,000 fewer working-age people in poverty.
The last Government did make a real impact on poverty. Nevertheless, I want to acknowledge some of the points that have been made in this debate. The fact is that the fiscal situation that we inherited and the choices made by the coalition Government meant that insufficient support was given to people who needed it, particularly as a result of cuts to local authority budgets and reforms to the DWP budgets.
I echo what the hon. Member for Glasgow North East says about the neglect of Glasgow under the SNP since devolution and over the past decade, but I do not agree with her about the value of the reforms being introduced by the new Government. What we have seen is a rushed effort driven by the imperative to balance the books in consequence of a failed Budget last year, leaving a real crisis in the public finances that is now being felt by the recipients of benefits. The Government are balancing the books on the backs of the people least able to sustain that weight.
John Grady
On failed Budgets, my constituents go to the shops with terror at the rising prices that followed the Budget of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the very definition of a failed Budget—one that plunged many of my constituents into poverty?
Danny Kruger
I am not going to defend the mini-Budget to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I do not accept that the rise in prices that all our constituents have experienced are solely, or even in large part, due to that event. They are a result of wider global events—and since this Government came in, I am afraid to say, of a failed economic policy that has driven the necessity of the disability benefit cuts that have been introduced and the winter fuel payment cut, causing 10 million people to lose a vital part of their income. Since the cut, 100,000 more pensioners have been admitted to A&E and 50,000 children have been plunged into poverty in consequence of what is happening at the DWP.
I am very concerned about the announcement of cuts to the benefits regime before the review of the assessment system that gives people the entitlement to benefits. We have a genuine failure at the DWP. In addition to that, jobs are being destroyed by Treasury decisions to raise national insurance on employers, drive up energy costs and introduce a new Bill that will make employers much less keen to take on new workers.
My suggestion to the Minister, if she will allow me to make it, is to rethink the changes to winter fuel payments. I am conscious that in Scotland the Scottish Government are taking over responsibility for this area of policy and I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that it would be good to hear from the Minister about how the interaction of the benefits reforms will work in the light of Scottish Government policy. I also hope that the UK Government will rethink the disability benefit cuts until we get the review of the eligibility assessment schemes. We need more support for people who need help to navigate the system and get into work.
Let me return to the point I made in response to the reference to Easterhouse by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East. We need to attack the drivers of poverty—the interconnected factors that account for the demand for welfare, which is so high. It is social breakdown rather than purely DWP systems that account for the high— indeed, unsustainable—benefit bills that we have. We need to grow the economy to create jobs—good jobs, as the hon. Lady said, that will be right for Glasgow and right for the UK.
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) on securing this debate on a topic that could hardly be more important. I will take the transcript of this debate as a submission to the child poverty taskforce because Members have made significant points today. I know that my colleagues in the ministerial taskforce and in the Child Poverty Unit in the Cabinet Office will read the transcript of this debate with interest, because, as I say, Members have made very important points.
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow East (John Grady), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) and for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), for their contributions. I had the pleasure of reading the submission from the child poverty taskforce event that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West held recently. I, too, read the story of the child she mentioned. We should not apologise for engaging emotionally with this issue, because nothing matters more than the fortunes of our kids in this country.
I also thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray). I welcome all the contributions that have been made as we move towards the publication of our child poverty strategy. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North recently met some of my DWP colleagues at the Springburn Jobcentre Plus office. I hope that she found them to be really helpful, because they will have enjoyed meeting her. I encourage all Members from all parties to engage with their local DWP teams in their local jobcentres. They are brilliant human beings and all constituency MPs can get a lot out of working with them, so I thank my hon. Friend for doing just that.
As has been made evident by this debate, poverty is a stain on this country, and tackling it is a priority. Our plan for change as a Government includes giving children the best start in life, as well as raising living standards in each and every part of the United Kingdom. Reducing poverty is vital to achieving both those ambitions, and to the lives and life chances of millions of people living in hardship right now. That hardship has been caused, as Members have said, by a combination of social and economic failures.
I feel an affinity with Glasgow. It is a wonderful city and shares many features with my own Merseyside. As on Merseyside, Glasgow’s industrial past of shipbuilding and the long-running effects of deindustrialisation have had huge consequences. One of the points that has come out of this debate really clearly is that all of that not only has poverty consequences but consequential health impacts. I know that picture in Glasgow and it is true for my home as well, so I feel it. These problems are acute and places like Glasgow have felt the consequences of policy failures over a very long period. We have heard some of the statistics already. Glasgow, the city, has the second highest level of people on out-of-work benefits in Britain. That is not a good enough future for a wonderful city.
In my role as Minister for Employment—though in my life, many times before—I have been fortunate to be in Glasgow to hear directly about not only the problems that the city faces, but the opportunities and the work to support people in Glasgow. Last October, I was pleased to meet a number of partners tackling child poverty there. We see good results when we are able to join up support for people, and that is the kind of approach I want to feed into our child poverty strategy when it is published. I apologise in advance for not being able to give all the details of what will be in the strategy, but I know that Members will understand and be patient. The strategy, which we are all anxious to have, is coming.
The DWP in Scotland is working closely with partners in Glasgow, including on identifying where we can join up support to make it better and employers that can help to give people a good chance in life. In November, as part of the child poverty taskforce, I was fortunate to meet child poverty charities, experts, parents and children in Glasgow. They told me their stories, their challenges and their priorities, putting those into the development of our strategy, which is focused on increasing incomes, reducing costs and supporting families with better local services, so Glasgow will influence it. We have heard from people, as we have done again today. We understand what they need. This has to be a cross-Government strategy. Members have mentioned health, housing and education, and we will work across the UK Government and with the Scottish Government to ensure that it is an effective strategy.
I will take a moment to describe action we have already delivered to tackle the scourge of poverty. We have taken some urgent steps before being able to publish the strategy. We extended the household support fund, which councils in England can use to support low-income households, so there was extra funding for Scotland through the Barnett formula. That support is there for crises, which is important, but beyond that, we know that we need to act on incomes and ensure that people can do better.
Just last week, therefore, our fair repayment rate for universal credit came into effect, reducing how much people in debt can have taken off their benefits to pay what they owe. A maximum of 25% of someone’s universal credit standard allowance has been reduced to 15%. On average, affected households will benefit by £420 a year, reducing the impact of debt on people. As my dad always used to say, “Out of debt, out of danger.” As a result of the change, 110,000 of Scotland’s poorest households will now be better off. That marks the Government’s first step into a wider review of universal credit to ensure that it works to help lift people out of poverty.
Thanks to our commitment to the triple lock, more than 1 million pensioners in Scotland will benefit from as much as £470 a year being added to their state pension this year, following the increase we implemented last month. That is on top of the biggest-ever pension credit take-up campaign, helping to drive up claims by 81% in the 30 weeks since July, compared with the same period a year earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East asked a couple of questions about the Green Paper and our proposed changes. She asked me specifically about end-of-life care—I agree that the work of Marie Curie and others is deeply impressive. The DWP supports people nearing the end of life through the special rules for end of life. Those rules enable such people to get faster and easier access to certain benefits without needing to attend a medical assessment or to serve waiting periods. In most cases, they receive the highest rate of benefits. Those rules have been extended to apply to people who have 12 months of life to live, rather than six months, so that people can receive that vital support through the special rules six months earlier.
My hon. Friend also asked me about new employment support and how we will protect people where work is simply not possible. That is a really important point, because we know that there are people who need to be protected. The Green Paper outlines how we will consult on that and work on our safeguarding policies to make sure the process of protecting those people is improved. My particular passion on employment support is making sure that people are treated with real dignity, and that our fantastic frontline staff in jobcentres are able to see the person in front of them, not for it to be a box-ticking exercise, but to make sure that person has access to great opportunities. That is the whole point of our employment support changes.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked about the process in Scotland. That will be finalised as we get towards the White Paper in autumn. As she pointed out, we need to make sure that we have got the solution right for Scotland. We will work with the Scottish Government to do that.
In her maiden speech last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said:
“Education and further education are a route out of poverty. It gives you a sense of achievement, self-belief and the confidence that anything is possible.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 765.]
My hon. Friend was absolutely spot on with that sense that anything is possible. She was also right when she said earlier that poverty is theft, because you rob people of that sense of what is possible when you leave them with the indignity of poverty. That is why our whole strategy is about giving people chances and choices in life, with them learning skills and gaining qualifications. We are creating more good jobs through the modern industrial strategy. It is about unleashing the full potential of great cities like Glasgow so they have the growth and prosperity that they should have. Good jobs, with our plan to make work pay, will put money in the pockets of people in Glasgow and give them the dignity, self-respect, chances and choices that they deserve.
We need radical change to the help that we give people to escape poverty and to get a good job, but we need the whole Government to act together, and with devolved Administrations, collaborating in work that will see people do much better. I know that Glasgow is a wonderful place, which I have been welcomed to many times, but I also know the truth of what we have heard today—that people in Glasgow are robbed of years of good life that they should have, because of the shame of poverty. I am glad to be able to work with good colleagues from all parties who care about ending poverty to get the right set of policies in our strategy and to make those policies real, so that people have the chances, choices and dignity they deserve.
Maureen Burke
I will have to talk quickly. I thank the Minister for her speech. I put on the record that the Springburn jobcentre is doing an amazing job at getting people into work; I was blown away by what they are doing, and wanted to state that here today. I thank all Members for their contributions; it has been a very good debate. We are here because we care for our constituents.
On a more personal note, I have to say that people are, and will be, dying sooner than they should. My sister died in her 30s, leaving her 10-year-old girl behind. My brother died in his early 50s with pancreatic cancer. My mum died of a heart attack. I know what it is to lose people, and it is all because of where they lived and what shaped their life. Was it their fate being where they were—where we were brought up? There is lots more that I wanted to say, but I obviously do not have time. This has been a great debate. I am here for my constituents, and for the loss that I felt that I do not want anybody else to feel going forward. I thank the Minister for being here and I thank everybody for their contributions. Thank you, Ms Butler, for giving me this opportunity.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered poverty in Glasgow North East constituency.
Media Act 2024: Public Service Broadcasting System Regulations
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Part 1 of the Media Act 2024—which received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024 —amends part 3 of the Communications Act 2003 to modernise the UK’s system of public service broadcasting.
The public service broadcasting system was last substantively updated in 2003, prior to the emergence of video-on-demand services and global streaming services. The changes introduced by the Media Act are therefore vital to ensure that our public service broadcasters have the flexibility to serve audiences across the UK with high-quality programmes on a wider range of services.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has already begun the process of bringing the provisions of part 1 of the Media Act into force. However, before the remainder can be brought into force, secondary legislation will need to be made to implement various technical changes to ensure the legislation will operate as intended.
With that in mind, I am pleased to inform the House that I am today publishing two draft statutory instruments on gov.uk:
The Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making) and Broadcasting (Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025—If made, these regulations would amend the Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004 to update relevant defined terms to align with the amendments made by the Media Act. The regulations would also confer powers on Ofcom to determine whether “repeats” may be counted towards the modernised original and regional productions quotas of each public service broadcaster (other than the BBC).
The Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025 —If made, these regulations would update terminology and set the level of the modernised independent productions quota for each public service broadcaster in a way that seeks to replicate the effect of their existing (non-modernised) quotas.
The Secretary of State is required to consult Ofcom, the BBC and S4C before exercising her powers to make these statutory instruments. Separately, Ofcom has a general duty to consult each holder of a public service broadcasting licence before amending any licence conditions, including those relating to the determination of appropriate quota levels.
These draft instruments are being published to support this consultation work. It should be noted that they may be subject to further amendment prior to laying and that, once laid, they will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, requiring debate and approval in both Houses before they can be made. I will provide a further update to the House at that time.
[HCWS616]
Veterans Support: A New Approach
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
As the nation celebrates VE Day, we are announcing a new UK-wide veteran support system, called VALOUR, to ensure veterans have easier access to essential care and support.
The nation owes a duty to those who have served to defend our country, and it is only right that the Government step up our support to them.
This Government’s commitment to veterans was set out clearly in our manifesto: we will ensure veterans have access to the support they need, and we will put the armed forces covenant fully into law. Since entering government, we have worked closely with veterans, the service charity sector and others to understand the needs and experiences of veterans and considered whether the current support system for them is working.
The armed forces set most people up for success in life, but when veterans need help, support is too often a postcode patchwork.
There is a range of brilliant statutory and non-statutory support available to veterans throughout the UK. However, too many veterans still struggle to access the help they need within their communities. That is why we are announcing a new initiative backed by £50 million of funding, known as VALOUR.
The new VALOUR system, named to celebrate the courage of our veteran community, will work with enterprising health, employment, and housing charities to shape more tailored local support for veterans.
We will establish a new network of VALOUR-recognised support centres across the UK to connect local, regional, and national services—while harnessing the power of data to shape better services. New regional field officers will bring together charities, service providers and local government to provide more evidence and feedback driven support for veterans across housing, employment, health, and welfare.
This marks a major milestone in meeting this Government’s manifesto promise to fully implement the armed forces covenant. The field officers will work with local government bodies, to act as conveners and share best practice and guidance. This will include applying the principles of the armed forces covenant, the nation’s promise to support the armed forces community and their families.
Our veterans served with valour. Now our VALOUR support network will help ensure our country repays their courage.
This Government are delivering on our plan for change and renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve.
I look forward to updating Parliament with more detail about VALOUR soon.
[HCWS619]
Electricity Security and Decarbonisation: Government Responses
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I am tabling this statement to inform Members of two publications relating to the capacity market. Both publications are Government responses to the recent consultation and call for evidence on proposals to maintain our electricity security and enable flexible capacity to decarbonise. This supports our goals of making Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 and accelerating progress to net zero.
The Government are committed to delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating progress towards net zero, while ensuring the security of supply. Making Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 is one of the Prime Minister’s five missions. Being on track for clean power 2030 is the Prime Minister’s plan for change milestone for this Parliament.
To deliver this mission, we will rely even more on renewable power. This will result in a wholesale shift in our long-term power system. The variable nature of renewables makes it critical that we have sufficient flexible capacity that can be ramped up quickly when generation from renewable sources is low, such as on dark, still days. The clean power action plan published in December 2024 projected that we will need 40 GW to 50 GW of dispatchable and long-duration flexible capacity in 2030 to support our power system and maintain security of supply.
This will require accelerated deployment of low carbon flexible technologies. The Government are already investing in low carbon technologies to support the transition away from unabated gas. In the meantime, the clean power action plan is clear that we will continue to rely on around 35 GW of existing unabated gas, until it can be safely replaced by low carbon alternatives that can provide the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced at all times.
Since its introduction in 2014, the capacity market has acted to secure sufficient capacity to ensure consistent and reliable electricity generation. In October 2024, we consulted on proposed changes to the CM to help maintain our existing ageing gas capacity. The Government response to the CM consultation commits to supporting the economic case for lifetime extension of ageing plants, vital for security of supply. It will do this by lowering the scale of planned works needed to access three-year CM agreements.
While we need to maintain our existing unabated gas capacity, the clean power action plan is clear that we will see a fundamental shift in the role and frequency of unabated gas generation. Unabated gas will move from generating almost every day, to an important strategic reserve role, used only when essential. By 2030, unabated gas generation will make up no more than 5% of Great Britain’s total generation in a typical weather year.
The Government response published today reiterates our intention to ensure that unabated gas plants can decarbonise once low carbon flexible technologies are available. We are introducing two further CM reforms:
New decarbonisation readiness legislation comes into effect from February 2026 and will ensure that all substantially refurbishing and new combustion plants are built decarbonisation-ready. We will modify the CM to ensure that all plants prequalifying for the CM in 2025 that would be captured under the new DR legislation commit to comply with the DR requirements.
We will introduce a first managed exit pathway to enable unabated gas generators with multiyear CM agreements to exit early without penalty and transfer to bespoke support, facilitating decarbonisation by retrofitting carbon capture.
We are also publishing a Government response to the CM call for evidence, which aimed to inform further option development to support the decarbonisation of unabated gas and the approach to developing longer-term views of future capacity requirements and supply. This Government response summarises the feedback received.
The CM reforms we are introducing will ensure that the CM can continue to uphold its primary objective of ensuring security of supply, while also playing a crucial role in achieving the clean power mission.
[HCWS617]
River Basin Management Plans: Court of Appeal Judgment
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
This Government inherited a sector in disrepair and in dire need of widespread reform after 14 years of Conservative failure. The Government know that essential, widespread reform is needed to fix a failing water sector.
The Government welcome the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed) v. Pickering Fishery Association, which was handed down on 2 April.
The judgment clarifies the requirements of the water framework directive and the domestic regulations which implement them.
DEFRA will work together with the Environment Agency on how to deliver improved river basin management planning consistently with the Court’s conclusions.
Given the significance of the judgment, we will lay out more detail on any revised approach in light of the judgment as soon as practicable and we will keep Parliament informed of developments.
This work will also support the development of ambitious future reforms this Government will be making to the water sector to ensure the health of our water environment.
Comprehensive reform is needed to restore our rivers, lakes and seas to good health, and ensure that the water sector works for both customers and the environment. Through these reforms we can begin to regain public trust and restore our rivers, lakes and seas for current and future generations to enjoy.
We recognise the current system is not fit for purpose, which is why we launched an independent water commission, which is looking at widespread water sector reform including the effectiveness of the water framework directive and river basin management plans. The commission will report to the UK and Welsh Governments this summer and both Governments will respond and consult on proposals. The commission’s final recommendations will shape future action to transform how our water system works and clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
[HCWS618]
Independent Commission on Adult Social Care: Terms of Reference
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
The Independent Commission on Adult Social Care, chaired by Baroness Louise Casey of Blackstock DBE CB, formally launched on 29 April with a meeting with people with first-hand experience of the social care system. Today, I am updating the House that we have published the terms of reference. A copy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on gov.uk at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-commission-into-adult-social-care-terms-of-reference/independent-commission-into-adult-social-care-terms-of-reference A copy can also be found on the commission’s website at https://caseycommission.co.uk/about/terms-of-reference/
The commission, reporting to the Prime Minister, will work with people drawing on care and support, their families, staff, parliamentarians, local government and the public, private and third sectors to make clear recommendations to define and build the adult social care system that will meet the current and future needs of our population. The commission will consider older people’s care and support for working-age disabled adults separately, recognising that these services meet different needs.
Split over two phases, the commission will set out a vision for adult social care, with recommended measures and a road map for delivery:
The first phase, reporting in 2026, will identify the critical issues facing adult social care and set out recommendations for effective reform and improvement in the medium term. It will recommend tangible, pragmatic solutions that can be implemented in a phased way to lay the foundations for a national care service. The recommendations of this phase will be made within the Government’s spending plans which will be set out at the spending review.
The second phase, reporting by 2028, will make longer-term recommendations for the transformation of adult social care. It will build on the commission’s first phase to deliver a more preventative model of care needed to support our ageing population, and how to best create a fair and affordable adult social care system for all.
The challenges facing adult social care—from inconsistent standards of care to an undervalued and overstretched workforce, and a lack of support for unpaid carers—are complex and deeply rooted. There have been plenty of good ideas in the past 15 years, but we have been missing the broad consensus we need to find a solution around what our country wants from social care so that it stands the test of time.
That is why Baroness Casey has been tasked with starting a national conversation on what people expect from adult social care as well as building cross-party consensus. Given the independent nature of the commission, Baroness Casey and her team will take any future discussions with political parties forward.
While an independent commission is necessary to address the challenges facing the sector, the Government are taking immediate action to improve it. We are making available up to £3.7 billion of additional funding for social care authorities in 2025-26, we have increased the carer’s allowance earnings limit and introduced legislation that is paving the way for the first ever fair pay agreement in adult social care. The Government are also taking forward a range of initiatives for 2025-26 including announcing new measures to professionalise the workforce, uplifting the disabled facilities grant, promoting better use of care technologies, enabling frontline care and health staff to digitally share up-to-date information, and changes to the better care fund.
I am confident that, with Baroness Casey’s leadership and experience chairing this momentous commission, and with help and support from across the House, she will set us on the road to fundamental reform that will build an adult social care system fit for the future.
[HCWS615]
Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
That the Grand Committee do consider the Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, this draft instrument amends the fixed tariff for whiplash compensation, set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021, by applying an inflationary uplift to the tariff values. In doing so, this amendment gives effect to recommendations made by the Lord Chancellor on 21 November 2024, following the completion of her statutory review of the 2021 regulations. By adjusting the whiplash tariff values to account for inflation, the Government will ensure that claimants can continue to receive proportionate compensation until the next review in 2027. These amendments were debated and approved in the other place on 2 April. I also remind the Grand Committee that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn this SI to the attention of the House.
The whiplash reform programme changed the way claimants are awarded damages for low-value whiplash injuries following from road traffic accidents. The aim of the reforms was to ensure an efficient, proportionate and reliable system for both claimants and defendants involved in road traffic accident-related whiplash claims. At their core, the measures aimed to reduce the number and costs of whiplash injuries and deliver savings to consumers via reduced motor insurance premiums.
Elements of the reform programme were delivered through the Civil Liability Act 2018, which introduced several important changes to the civil claims process. Alongside measures that introduced a legal definition of what constitutes a whiplash injury and banned the settling of such claims without medical evidence, the 2018 Act empowers the Lord Chancellor to set a fixed tariff for damages for road traffic accident-related whiplash injuries lasting up to two years. The 2018 Act measures were supported by additional secondary legislative changes to increase the small claims track for road traffic-related personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000, and the introduction of a new pre-action protocol for personal injury claims below the small claims limit in road traffic accidents. At the same time, the insurance industry-owned and developed Official Injury Claim portal was launched to assist claimants affected by the reforms.
The first whiplash tariff was set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021—which I will refer to as the 2021 regulations—which came into force on 31 May 2021. The 2018 Act requires the Lord Chancellor to review the 2021 regulations, and thereby the whiplash tariff, within three years of its implementation, and within every three years thereafter. In fulfilment of this statutory obligation, the first review of the whiplash tariff was completed on 22 May 2024, and the Lord Chancellor published her report of the statutory review on 21 November 2024.
On reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor concluded that the structure and component parts of the whiplash tariff were effective. However, she recommended that the tariff amounts be uprated to account for CPI inflation between 2021 and 2024, and to incorporate a three-year buffer to account for expected inflation until 2027. She did not consider that any other changes to the 2021 regulations were necessary. In reaching her conclusions and recommendations, the Lord Chancellor took into consideration relevant industry and courts data, as well as information from a Ministry of Justice call for evidence, which ran from 6 February to 2 April 2024. In accordance with the review, this statutory instrument increases the whiplash tariff damages values and, subject to approval by both Houses, the new tariff will apply to all road traffic accident-related personal injury claims in England and Wales from 31 May 2025.
I hope noble Lords will find it helpful if I provide some additional explanation of the increase that will be applied to the whiplash tariff. By way of background, I should say that the whiplash tariff operates via a rising scale of fixed compensation payments determined by injury duration, up to a maximum of two years. The payments in the original whiplash tariff set in 2021 range from £240, for whiplash injuries lasting three months or less, to £4,215 for whiplash injuries lasting between 18 and 24 months. There is a separate, slightly higher tariff for cases where any minor psychological injury, such as low-level travel anxiety, is incurred at the same time as the whiplash injury. Claims for whiplash injuries that last longer than two years fall outside of the fixed tariff.
When the tariff was first implemented in 2021, the amounts were set to include a three-year “buffer”, which was designed to account for expected inflation according to available forecasts at the time and to ensure that claimants were not undercompensated in the years between the tariff’s implementation and the first statutory review. In reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor recognised the impact of inflation on the whiplash tariff amounts. Inflation over the first three-year period ran at a higher-than-expected rate and, as most respondents to the 2024 call for evidence noted, the real value of the tariff had fallen. In the light of this, she concluded that the tariff should be uprated by actual inflation between 2021 and 2024 and should again include a buffer to account for expected inflation until the next review in 2027. Therefore, the whiplash tariff will be increased by around 15% for claims arising from road traffic accidents occurring on or after 31 May 2025.
As I have already mentioned, this increase has been calculated using the consumer prices index inflationary measure. After careful consideration of the available data and evidence, the Lord Chancellor determined that CPI remains the most appropriate measure for uprating the tariff amounts by inflation. It is also worth noting that the use of CPI is in line with common practice across government, as recommended by the Office for National Statistics. In contrast, she considered that the alternative retail price index measure, if applied, would likely overstate inflation.
In accounting for inflation, the Lord Chancellor also decided that the whiplash tariff should continue to be future-proofed by applying a CPI rounding over three years from 2024 to 2027. This approach is consistent with the method used to protect claimants from additional inflationary impacts when the first whiplash tariff was set in 2021. Although this three-year buffer could lead to some overcompensation in the short term, not implementing it would allow the real value of claimants’ damages to decrease and would risk significant under- compensation in the long term. Therefore, this buffer protects access to justice and minimises the risk of claimants being undercompensated in the years leading up to 2027.
As noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the call for evidence showed opposition to the buffer in its present form. Of the 32 respondents, 29 opposed the use of the three-year buffer, but, crucially, their reasons for doing so were different and, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, unconvincing. Some respondents suggested that the buffer would artificially increase the amount of compensation available and potentially undermine cost savings. However, the difference in tariff levels using the buffer is not substantial enough to impact significantly on savings. The tariff amounts are being adjusted only to account for inflation; as such, it is our view that this does not represent a real-terms increase in claim values.
Conversely, I am aware that other stakeholders preferred that the whiplash tariff should be either subject to an annual review or index-linked to inflation to ensure annual increases. As the Lord Chancellor made clear in her report, these arguments are not compelling. A three-year review period, as anticipated in the 2018 Act, strikes the right balance between adequately compensating claimants and maintaining a stable system that is as simple to understand and administer as possible.
It is worth noting that the recent high inflationary cycle was driven by a unique set of circumstances and is not a regularly occurring event. Therefore, while it is appropriate that the whiplash tariff is regularly reviewed against inflation, three years is the appropriate length of time at which to hold such reviews. Other than uprating the whiplash tariff to account for actual and expected inflation, as I have explained, no other amendments to the 2021 regulations are made by this instrument.
In accordance with her statutory obligation, the Lord Chancellor consulted the Lady Chief Justice before making this instrument. The Master of the Rolls, on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice, expressed his endorsement of the proposal to uprate the whiplash tariff. He also noted that the judiciary would not welcome any further derogation from the principle that damages are assessed and awarded by the courts. As noble Lords have seen, in accordance with the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor by the 2018 Act, this instrument adjusts only the level of damages for whiplash injuries lasting up to two years.
I believe that the amendments that this instrument will make to the 2021 regulations represent a balanced, proportionate and practical approach to uprating the whiplash tariff ahead of the next review in 2027. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his careful and comprehensive introduction to this statutory instrument. Its central point is to update the 2021 level of damages, having regard to inflation. We welcome that update, and I say at the outset that we have no objection to the use of the consumer prices index for the uprating, nor do we suggest that three years is an unacceptable review period. We welcome the buffer for future-proofing, as the Minister described it. That will take us to 2027, which will follow a further review.
I am bound to say in passing that I hope the Minister is right that the higher rate of inflation that we experienced recently is a one-off event and not likely to be repeated. His economic forecasting may be better than mine, but I note that it is shared by the Lord Chancellor, who is venturing into unexpected fields —so be it.
However, I continue to have the doubts that I expressed in 2018, when what is now the Civil Liability Act was being considered. For my part, I am not convinced of the merits of a tariff for damages for whiplash injuries, particularly at the higher end of the scale for such injuries. Whiplash injuries—even minor ones, and, in particular, those with psychological consequences—cover quite a range. The sums, which approach £5,000 at the higher end of the scale, for the 18 to 24-month duration injuries, represent a considerable sum of money for many claimants, who may feel short-changed by the fact that there is no discretion applied to the award of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in their case. I still suspect that we would be better served by enhanced scope for greater judicial discretion by district judges and, in some cases, circuit judges, assisted by Judicial College guidelines, so that claimants would feel that they had had individual attention, rather than by the rigid application of a tariff. Those were the points that I and my colleagues made in 2018.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and his committed statement. I thank the Minister for his helpful and thoughtful introduction.
I rise on the principle that the Executive should be held to account—in this instance briefly and positively—and to acknowledge that it is traditional to get orders and regulations through in the way we do, week in, week out in your Lordships’ House. The usual channels usually get it right, but so often our regulations and orders affect thousands or millions of people. Perhaps more of them should have been debated more closely, sometimes even in the Chamber.
However, having read the declaration in the informative Explanatory Memorandum, who would wish to challenge these regulations? The Minister in another place is a KC, and we have the deputy director for civil justice and law policy at the Ministry of Justice, and the most persuasive and courteous of Ministers in your Lordships’ House—and the instrument is laid by command of His Majesty.
I support and welcome the regulations, which offer increased amounts. This and only this differentiates them from the 2021 regulations. The legal framework has not changed. If lower premiums follow, so much the better, but one notes that premiums are imposed by the insurance industry, which does not always deliver on what it infers should be the case.
Can the Minister indicate how many whiplash cases entered our courts in, say, 2022 and 2023? That response may come later, rather than here and now, but can he reference in it the numbers for Wales, as well as those for England? Does the department have any rough estimate—for that is all it can be—of the percentage of likely fraudulent and contrived cases that enter our courts?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister outlined, these regulations follow the Government’s statutory review of the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021. The proposed amendments would increase compensation for whiplash injuries occurring on or after 31 May 2025 from 14% to 15% across all tariff bands. This increase is intended, as we have heard, to reflect inflation since the original tariffs were introduced. It includes a forecasted buffer to cover inflation over the next three years.
The whiplash tariff system introduced by the previous Conservative Administration was aimed at reducing the number and cost of minor injury claims and lowering motor insurance premiums. It introduced fixed compensation levels for whiplash injuries sustained in road traffic accidents and moved away from case-by-case judicial assessment. The structure of the tariff is not altered by this instrument; what changes is the monetary value assigned to each tariff band. The uplift of 15% is designed to reflect inflation since 2021; it includes a buffer to account for expected inflation until the next statutory review, scheduled for 2027.
In principle, we support this change. It is reasonable that compensation should keep pace with the cost of living. We also welcome the Ministry of Justice’s stated intention to work with MedCo to improve the quality and consistency of medical reporting. Reliable, clear medical evidence is essential to the fair operation of this system, but we have some questions and concerns.
This instrument introduces a significant and untested change in how compensation levels are set. Rather than updating tariff figures in legislation, as had been the practice, this uplift includes a forward-looking inflation buffer based on economic forecasts. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, this is without precedent: no other statutory compensation scheme relies on forecasted inflation in this way. Forecasts, as we know, are often subject to revision and uncertainty. There is a real risk that this buffer may underestimate actual inflation, leaving claimants undercompensated over time. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could provide clarity on this point. What assurances can be given that the inflation buffer will be accurate and what mechanism will be in place to ensure that claimants are not short-changed if those forecasts prove incorrect?
In addition, we are concerned about how the Government have represented feedback from their public consultation. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee made it clear that over 90% of respondents opposed the buffer model. That is not a mixed view, even if the reasons given differed; it is, in fact, an overwhelmingly critical view.
We also note continuing concerns raised by third parties. The Motor Accident Solicitors Society, for example, said that the tariff system and the official injury claims portal have damaged access to justice, particularly for those unfamiliar with legal processes or without representation. It also argues that the original tariff amounts were too low—significantly lower than those typically awarded under Judicial College guidelines for comparable injuries outside a motor vehicle context. While this instrument focuses narrowly on adjusting tariff levels, it is part of a much wider macro-reform framework that remains highly contentious.
In conclusion, we support the uplift proposal in this instrument; ensuring that compensation keeps pace with inflation is necessary and fair. However, this policy cannot be left to run on autopilot. It must be subject to scrutiny, accountability and, where necessary, reform. We will support this instrument today, but we will continue to monitor closely whether the whiplash reforms are delivering on their promises of fairness, accessibility and justice.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support for the measures in this statutory instrument. On the points which noble Lords have made, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said he supported it, but he repeated his reservations, which he originally articulated in 2018. Just for the record, there is some judicial discretion. All tariff awards can be increased by up to 20% by the court in exceptional circumstances, so I take the noble Lord’s point but there is some judicial discretion in the level of the awards. He asked how much money has been saved. I cannot give him an answer in a figure. However, HM Treasury laid a report on this in Parliament on 27 March 2025. The report details a summary of the information provided by insurers, which have concluded that policyholders benefited from a reduction in insurance costs through paying lower premiums over the period 2020 to 2023. As it is factual reporting of the information from insurers to the Treasury via the Financial Conduct Authority, the report does not represent the Government’s findings or conclusions. Separate to this report, the Ministry of Justice will undertake a post-implementation review of the whiplash reforms later this year. I hope that last point goes some way to reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. We have no intention of running on autopilot, and all government policies are kept under review. It is certainly the intention in this case as well.
My noble friend Lord Jones was characteristically very generous in his assessment of the Government’s approach overall, so I thank him for that. Regarding the volume of claims in England and Wales, in 2022, there were 1,827, and in 2023 there were 9,335. I am afraid I do not have a breakdown of how much of that is in Wales alone. If I am able to get those figures, I will let him know. I also do not have a percentage for the likely fraudulent claims. Those numbers are not monitored as such because there are different types of fraud. Nevertheless, if there is any data that I can include in my letter to my noble friend, I will do so.
On the Explanatory Memorandum, the calls for evidence and the different views that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, pointed to, more than 108,000 unrepresented claims have been created in the OIC portal since it since it was implemented. The proportion has increased from 9% in the first year to 12.7% as of 31 March 2025, so there is an increase in unrepresented claims, which we think is a good thing. In comparison, only 74 applications were made to the previous system by unrepresented claimants in 2021, so we think that the system is as a whole working well. Nevertheless, I do not want to give any hint of complacency. I undertake that we will continue to review the system and see that it continues to develop, as we hope it will.
Motion agreed.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, the draft instrument before us today makes a number of changes to ensure that legal aid continues to be available to those most in need and continues to serve some of the most vulnerable people in our society who need our support. It ensures that our legal aid legislation is aligned with wider government legislation on domestic abuse and immigration.
First, this draft instrument will make changes to enhance the scope of immigration legal aid. It will make legal aid available for those eligible to apply for settlement in the United Kingdom as a victim of domestic abuse under the Immigration Rules. This change will ensure that all eligible domestic abuse victims can access legal aid for applications under this immigration route.
Secondly, this draft instrument will amend the evidence requirements for domestic abuse victims applying for legal aid. It will do this by enabling victims to present evidence of abuse from appropriate medical practitioners overseas.
In addition, this draft instrument will make changes to terminology to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, replacing “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse”, and “financial” abuse with “economic” abuse. This instrument will recognise that abuse against an individual may consist of behaviour directed at another individual, such as the victim’s child. These changes will ensure consistency with wider legislation.
Finally, this statutory instrument will make changes to complement instruments made in 2023 and 2024 in relation to the scope of legal aid for domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices. If enacted, this instrument will ensure fuller availability of legal aid for individuals in respect of these orders.
Before turning to the amendments in this instrument in detail, I will briefly set out how the legal aid scheme works. In general, civil legal aid is available to an individual if their issue is listed within Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which I will henceforth refer to as LASPO. Then, in most cases, an individual must pass a means test, which is a check on their financial eligibility, and a merits test, which is a check to ensure the taxpayer is not funding entirely unmeritorious cases. In certain cases, most notably those involving victims of domestic abuse or child abuse, evidence requirements must also be satisfied.
I turn to each of the four topics covered in this order. First, amendments are made to the availability of immigration legal aid for victims of domestic abuse who are applying for leave to enter or remain in the UK. Currently, legal aid is available for some victims of domestic abuse who are eligible to apply for leave to remain in the UK under the Home Office Immigration Rules, subject to the means and merits test.
The Immigration Rules set out the rules for entering and remaining in the UK. The rules include the Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse, which I will henceforth call Appendix VDA. This concerns victims whose leave to remain in the UK was based on their partner’s or spouse’s immigration status and whose relationship has broken down as a result of domestic abuse. It is the route by which victims can apply for settlement in the UK, independent of their partner’s status, ensuring they can escape the abusive relationship without having to leave or be removed from the UK as a result. The eligibility requirements in Appendix VDA are amended from time to time.
This instrument amends LASPO to ensure that legal aid provision for victims applying for leave to enter or remain in the UK is aligned to the latest requirements set out in Appendix VDA. The changes will ensure that this alignment will continue in the event amendments are made to Appendix VDA in the future. This will mean that all victims of domestic abuse can access legal aid for advice to assist with an application for leave to enter or remain, under Appendix VDA, subject to means and merits tests.
Secondly, this instrument will make changes to the evidence requirements that victims of domestic abuse must satisfy in order to receive legal aid. Acceptable forms of evidence are set out in Schedule 1 to the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012. Currently, certain forms of overseas evidence are accepted as evidence of domestic abuse. For example, legal aid applications may include supporting documentation concerning an arrest or police caution abroad. However, evidence from overseas medical practitioners is not accepted. The Government wish to change the regulations to enable evidence from appropriate health professionals who are licensed and registered overseas to be accepted for legal aid applications. This will enhance the ability of victims to take action against perpetrators.
Thirdly, the statutory instrument will amend terminology in LASPO and associated regulations to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which I will henceforth call the DA Act. Since the introduction of the DA Act, terminology across government has moved away from “domestic violence” and towards “domestic abuse”, to explicitly recognise that perpetrators use more than just physical violence to harm an individual.
In its definition of domestic abuse, the DA Act describes such behaviour as including
“physical or sexual abuse … violent or threatening behaviour … controlling or coercive behaviour … economic abuse … psychological, emotional or other abuse”.
The inclusion of the term “economic” abuse in this definition—rather than “financial” abuse, as is currently used in LASPO—reflects a shift in recent years to explicitly acknowledge that abuse goes beyond interfering with money and finances to include economic resources more broadly, such as things that money can buy, examples of which include housing, possessions and clothing.
Further, the DA Act expressly states that domestic abuse of an individual includes behaviour and conduct directed at another person. For example, an abuser may direct behaviour towards a child in the household in order to facilitate or perpetuate the abuse of their partner. The definition of domestic violence in LASPO recognises that abuse extends beyond physical violence, and therefore implicitly includes abuse directed at third parties. However, by updating the LASPO terminology to align with the wording used in the DA Act, we aim to reduce the risk of victims perceiving that the abuse they are experiencing is out of scope for legal aid funding.
Finally, this instrument complements previous statutory instruments that made provision for bringing legal aid into scope for victims, third parties and those subject to domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices. DAPOs and DAPNs, as they are known, are new orders that are now available in Greater Manchester, three London boroughs—namely, Bromley, Croydon and Sutton—and Cleveland. They are also available to the British Transport Police in those areas and will shortly be extended to north Wales. This instrument makes further changes to LASPO and the Criminal Legal Aid (General) Regulations 2013 to bring other aspects of the DA Act in relation to DAPOs and DAPNs in scope of civil or criminal legal aid. These changes help ensure fuller availability of legal aid for individuals in respect of these instruments. These changes are technical and address unintended gaps in provision.
To conclude, the draft instrument before us will make legal aid available to society’s most vulnerable people, furthering this Government’s ambition to support victims of domestic abuse. I beg to move.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, time is of the essence, so I will be brief. I thank the Minister for his compassionate introduction. He has been so good as to indicate, unasked and informatively, where the pilot areas are. He mentioned my homeland, north Wales. I wonder whether he can be specific as to whereabouts in that lovely land.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to this order. It has been extremely helpful to hear the way in which he set it out.
Broadly, we support the changes made by this instrument. It is plainly right that the regulations affecting legal aid for the victims of domestic abuse should reflect the broader definition of “domestic abuse” in the Domestic Abuse Act, rather than the previous, narrow definition of “domestic violence”, which failed to recognise, for example, coercive and controlling behaviour. It is also right that the narrow definition of “financial” abuse is to be replaced with a broader definition of “economic” abuse in all the other areas that the Minister outlined. The regulations should be updated—as he has explained that they will be—to ensure that legal aid is available in relation to disputes concerning domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices.
That medical evidence is now to be admissible from overseas health professionals is plainly sensible; it is an anomaly that this was not already the case. There was, for example, nothing to cover the position of a victim of domestic abuse who was assaulted by a partner while temporarily abroad on holiday and who had obtained contemporaneous evidence of that assault while she or he—usually she—was still abroad. It is also sensible that abuse of third parties—often the child of an intended victim or victim—should be within the definition of domestic abuse for legal aid purposes.
As has been explained, these regulations also make a significant improvement in the position of those whose immigration status comes under threat as a result of domestic abuse at the hands of a former partner or spouse when the relationship that has broken down as a result of that abuse formed the basis of their obtaining leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom and the breakdown threatens their immigration status. The provision of a clear route for such victims of domestic abuse to secure legal aid to pursue an application for leave to remain is right and we welcome it.
So all these reforms are very welcome, but this kind of piecemeal reform, welcome as it is, barely scratches the surface in repairing the damage done by the reductions in the scope of legal aid. The Labour Party has a long tradition of supporting legal aid, but legal aid, particularly civil legal aid, has been a Cinderella service in recent years, seriously restricted in scope by the LASPO Act —I entirely accept that the coalition Government, which my party supported, had a lot to do with that —and in a number of very important areas. The service has been starved of funds for the provision of comprehensive advice and the pursuit of cases in those areas that are still within scope.
I know there is no need to remind the Minister of the excellent review of legal aid carried out under the leadership of his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in 2017, but its principles were well stated, thoroughly argued and should guide this Government on the future of legal aid across the field. Indeed, the impact assessment for the 2023 order sets out the principle underlying civil legal aid in wide-ranging terms that I unhesitatingly endorse. I read them by way of reminder and in an effort to hold the Government’s feet to the fire across the wider field of legal aid.
Under the heading
“What are the policy objectives of the action or intervention and the intended effects?”
the impact assessment states:
“The policy objective behind the proposals in this Impact Assessment … is to ensure that legal aid is available to the groups of people identified and that legal aid is fairly provided across all proceedings. The ability of individuals to resolve their legal issues is vital for a just society and it is crucial that people are able to access support when they need it. A core element of this support is access to legal advice and representation where it is necessary. The Government provides legal aid in England and Wales to ensure those who need it can access legal advice and representation”.
So far, that is entirely across the field in general. Coming to the subject of this statutory instrument, it says
“including victims of domestic abuse, and parents having their child taken away”.
This is an important general principle that I remind the Government of in relation to this order, which we support.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this important statutory instrument. We on these Benches support the intent behind these reforms. We welcome efforts to modernise legal aid and to ensure that vulnerable individuals are not excluded from justice due to arbitrary procedural barriers or outdated definitions in law. This order reflects and builds on developments introduced by the previous Conservative Administration, particularly through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and recent updates to the Home Office Immigration Rules, notably Appendix VDA.
The extension of the Appendix VDA route is particularly significant. For too long, victims of domestic abuse who have been abandoned overseas—often as a result of coercive and controlling behaviour—have found themselves in legal limbo, unable to return to the United Kingdom or access the support they need. This change will rightly bring such individuals within the scope of legal aid for applications for leave to enter or remain. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to ensure that information about this change is made clearly available to those who may be eligible for support but who remain outside the United Kingdom? What steps will be taken to ensure that victims who are stranded abroad are not left unaware of their rights under this amended provision?
The order also introduces a practical and necessary change to evidential requirements for private family law legal aid applications. By allowing reports from appropriately qualified overseas professionals to be accepted as valid medical evidence, it recognises that victims may not always be in the United Kingdom when they seek help. This change will reduce avoidable delays and better support families in transnational situations, but I have two questions for the Minister in respect of evidence from overseas witnesses. What steps will be taken to ensure that the evidence from overseas is from a genuinely qualified and accredited professional who, first, matches the professional standards expected of an equivalent health professional within this jurisdiction and, secondly, understands that he or she is complying with the standards of objectivity required of an expert witness complying with the rules of court in this jurisdiction? It is important that this country’s generosity is not abused.
We welcome the modernisation of language in the legislation. Replacing “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse” and “financial abuse” with the broader concept of “economic abuse” reflects the statutory definition set out in the Domestic Abuse Act and the lived experience of many survivors. Abuse is not always physical. It can be psychological, emotional or economic and exercised through control over finances, housing or access to essentials. The updated terminology will support a more comprehensive understanding of abuse among legal professionals and front-line decision- makers.
While we support the direction of travel, we will watch closely how these changes are implemented in practice. Victims whose immigration status is tied to an abusive partner are often in extremely vulnerable positions. Navigating the legal system should not compound their trauma. It is essential that the Home Office and legal aid providers apply these new rules fairly, sensitively and consistently.
There is also the question of clarity and guidance. Following up my two earlier questions, I asked the Minister whether overseas health professionals will be provided with clear information on what constitutes acceptable medical evidence. Without this, there is a risk that legitimate claims may be delayed or refused due to uncertainty about evidential standards or that inadequate evidence might mislead the court. While updating legal language is important, it must be matched by practical understanding. Front-line professionals, from caseworkers to judges, must be equipped to apply these broader definitions in practice. Training and guidance will be crucial.
These reforms build on existing entitlements. They reinforce the role of legal aid as a vital route to protection, justice and stability for victims of abuse, so we support this statutory instrument and thank the Minister for bringing it forward, but we urge the Government to ensure that the implementation matches the intention and that those at greatest risk receive the support they need when they need it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I turn first to the questions of my noble friend Lord Jones. I misspoke in my initial address to the Committee: the pilot areas are already under way in north Wales; they commenced on 28 April. The areas that are covered by these pilot areas in north Wales are the Isle of Anglesey, Gwynedd, Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham.
Lord Jones (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his geographic exactitude. When I think upon the names he mentioned, not much of north Wales is left out.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am very glad my noble friend thinks that. It will be very interesting to see how these pilots develop.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his support and agree with the points he made when he explained his support for this statutory instrument. He said that legal aid is a Cinderella service; I agree with that. He acknowledged that it was the coalition Government that introduced the LASPO Act, but neither the noble Lord, Lord Marks, nor the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, were anywhere near the scene of the crime of the LASPO Act. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the points he made when he was addressing that and the review of my noble friend Lord Bach. I know it very well and think it is fair to say that it is aspirational at this point because money is tight but, nevertheless, the aspirations behind it still stand.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, asked how victims are going to get the information when they are abroad and how overseas doctors will present the information in an appropriate format. I am not aware of any particular advice on that so, if there is something particular I need to say, I will write to the noble Lord on that point. I have experience of the appropriate formatting of medical letters; it is quite a complicated and important part of the whole procedure, so I thank the noble Lord for bringing that to the Committee’s attention. As I say, if appropriate, I will write to him on this. I thank the Committee for its support for this statutory instrument.
Motion agreed.
Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025.
Relevant document: Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 23 April.
As noble Lords know, this Thursday, 8 May, marks the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. It is a momentous day in our history as it marks the end of the conflict in Europe—but not, obviously, the end of the Second World War, since conflict continued in Japan through to August. It was an occasion of national pride, relief and jubilation as peace returned, as well as a poignant moment given the losses inflicted by years of war.
I hope noble Lords will bear with me for saying that I have a precious photograph of my mother, aged 12, holding her younger sister on VE Day on a terraced street in Liverpool. They both have fantastic smiles on their faces because the conflict in which my grandfather was killed, in the Liverpool Blitz, had ended. My mother’s uncle was also killed—at sea when he was serving in the Navy. VE Day is a day of momentous pride, even today, for many people who did not serve in the war but have—or had—relatives who lived through it and who saw its results.
The 80th anniversary would always have been significant but, because the VE Day 75th anniversary commemorations were restricted due to the Covid pandemic in 2020, there is an added emphasis this year. Many people will want to come together with friends and family to mark this special anniversary and to raise a glass to the millions who fought and suffered in order to preserve the freedoms and way of life that we enjoy today. We owe them all an enormous debt. Time has passed—I was born 12 years after VE Day but it coloured my early life for the reasons I mentioned—but their service and sacrifice will never be forgotten.
This week will see a number of commemorative events being held, including but not limited to a military procession from Whitehall to Buckingham Palace, street parties across the country and a service at Westminster Abbey, which will serve as both an act of shared remembrance and a celebration of the end of the war in Europe. A concert will also take place at Horse Guards Parade to mark the end of commemorations on 8 May; indeed, the Parliament Choir will, I think, undertake a concert in this building tomorrow, on Wednesday evening. No doubt other events are planned; the order before the Committee today will allow people to celebrate for longer than they would normally be able to.
Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make a licensing hours order to allow licensed premises to open for specified, extended hours on occasions of exceptional international, national or local significance. By way of background, past occasions when the then Home Secretary exercised this power include such events as: the King’s Coronation; Her late Majesty the Queen’s Diamond and Platinum Jubilee celebrations; the royal weddings in 2011 and 2018; and, most recently, the semi-final and final of the men’s UEFA European Championship last year. The Government consider the 80th anniversary of VE Day an occasion of national significance and, as such, worthy of this proposed extension.
There are a number of practical details. The order makes provisions to relax licensing arrangements in England and Wales, and to allow licensed premises to extend their opening hours on Thursday 8 May for a further two hours from 11 pm until 1 am the following morning.
The Government undertook a truncated consultation with key stakeholders, who were broadly supportive of the extension, and we take the view that this order will not bring about any significant crime or disorder due to the nature of the events. We recognise that there may be implications for police resourcing, but we will continue to work with stakeholders to mitigate any concerns around the impact. Nobody objected to the order in the consultation, truncated though it was.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I thank the Minister for explaining the objectives of this statutory instrument. We are entirely supportive of what he said. It is appropriate that this SI is approved. I have very little to add, except to say that this is an event of major national significance. As a consequence of that, it is right to do what the Government are proposing.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful and instructive introduction and wish well the aims of this order. Saturday’s great London parade ending at the palace was a magnificent event, helping towards national unity, pride and patriotism. I recall my father’s return from Burma with his star in November 1945—there were difficulties in getting a great army back home from far away as speedily as possible.
Our service men and women displayed and paraded on Saturday brilliantly alongside the flag-flying Ukrainian guests. Surely, after the parade, many of the huge crowds and millions watching on television sought to sink a pint or two. As an Army veteran and president of our RBL branch, I am certain that many pints will be sunk on 8 and 9 May. We can generate quite a thirst in Wales when the occasion arises. This surely shall be one. I have marched in many remembrance parades— at least some 45. In several, I marched with a then constituent who wore his medals of two world wars. He was a lovely man and he invited me into his home.
Strangely, some 60 years ago, Wales organised a referendum for or against Sunday opening—for Sundays were supposedly to be dry in Wales, presumably to encourage attendance at church, chapel and other places of worship. The referendum delivered a resounding “No” to opening, so tired, red-faced, ageing men with large stomachs took the Sunday bus that ran across the Wales-England border to quench their thirst in the then attractively wet England. Our local bus ran to Chester. We in Wales still have a lingering gift for whitewash and hypocrisy—but only skin deep, of course.
I recollect the Minister’s superb tenure and many years as Member of Parliament for Delyn. He was much admired as a vigorous and successful constituency man and a friendly and approachable Member of Parliament, just as he now is as a Minister in your Lordships’ House. We have shared a pint or two together over the years.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. Like others, I rise with humility and respect as we mark the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe and, to come, victory over Japan. These are two defining moments in both our national story and the wider history of the free world. This anniversary offers a rare and precious opportunity, perhaps one of the last, for living veterans to share their memories first hand. It is a moment for us as a nation to come together across generations and communities to honour the service and sacrifice of all those who fought, served and contributed to the war effort.
In this, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for including my late father, who joined the Royal Air Force on 4 September 1939, his 19th birthday. He was very fortunate to survive: he served on 43 operations in Bomber Command over enemy territory, the last of them in November 1944. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. He was, he thought, a very lucky survivor. He told me that he could not believe he was still alive at the end of the war. He always marched proudly with his medals in thanksgiving parades, and he never forgot those with whom he served.
Whether in mourning, reflection or celebration, coming together is a time-honoured tradition in Britain. It has long helped us to connect with one another and with our shared history. I therefore welcome the Government’s recognition of the central role that public houses and hospitality venues play in marking national moments such as these. The extension of licensing hours is a small but real gesture that will allow communities across the country to gather, reflect and raise a glass in tribute. Indeed, many of these same establishments were open on the very day that peace was declared. The London Museum hosts a wonderful collection of photographs from the 1945 celebrations. I encourage all noble Lords to visit its dedicated website and take a moment to reflect on those scenes of spontaneous joy and national unity.
We are especially pleased to see the Government place strong emphasis on remembering the contributions of the Commonwealth. Millions from India, Africa, the Caribbean, Australasia, Canada and others further away stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain. They volunteered and they fought. Many made the ultimate sacrifice. Their bravery and commitment are and were integral to the victory we commemorate today and tomorrow, and they must always hold a central place in our national memory.
This statutory instrument enables a broad, inclusive and ambitious programme of commemorative events, from military processions and national services to cultural initiatives, educational programmes and grass-roots street parties. This is a comprehensive and thoughtful approach. We welcome the Government’s vision: a commemoration that is both solemn and celebratory, which reflects our veterans while ensuring that their stories and values are passed on to a new generation.
We are particularly encouraged by the Government’s commitment to inclusivity, ensuring that these commemorations recognise not only the European and Middle Eastern theatre but the Far East and the global scale of that conflict. The previous Conservative Government’s allocation of £1 million to establish a memorial to the Muslim soldiers who died in both world wars is a testament to our ongoing commitment to recognising the diverse faiths and communities who served this nation in its hour of need.
The recognition of the so-called Forgotten Army in Burma and the efforts to honour the many backgrounds, beliefs and nationalities represented in our forces mark a vital and long overdue step toward a fuller and more accurate reflection of Britain’s wartime experience.
As we commemorate these historic anniversaries, let us do so with pride, gratitude and in unity, remembering not only the victory but the values and sacrifices that made it possible.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the contributions of the three noble Lords who have spoken today. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Jones for reminding us both of the joy he would have had when his own father returned home from the war and the contribution this week of the Ukrainian forces, who are still fighting in Europe for the values that noble Lords have mentioned today.
As my noble friend Lord Jones knows, I am Lord Hanson of Flint and for many years he was the Member of Parliament for the constituency covering Flint; he mentioned the British Legion club, where we will, I am sure, see many beers sunk on Thursday as a result of this order. I am grateful for his very kind words about my service over 28 years in that town.
I am also very pleased to have the strong support of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for the order. It is good to see this cross-party support for the recognition. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, ably summed up the mood of this Committee: we have pride and gratitude for the service of people such as his father who served our country with bravery and humility. I am always aware of the fact that when my uncle was killed, he did not know that the war would one day be over and won; he did now know that there would be three more years of the conflict; he did not know that the people such as the fathers of my noble friend Lord Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would come back.
Only now can we reflect on that dark period and on the service of those on the home front, in the Navy, the Air Force and the Army and in the Commonwealth—a point from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which I very strongly agree with—who all came together to defeat an evil. On 8 May 1945, that evil was defeated, and celebrations began. We can do no better on this 8 May than to allow this order to go through, allowing colleagues throughout the country to enjoy an extra couple of hours and have an extra couple of beers, glasses of wine or, dare I say, even soft drinks if they wish to do so. In doing so, we are giving the opportunity to toast the people who made this country what it is today by defeating fascism and all its evil in 1945.
I am sure that we will return to the end of the Second World War later this year. For the moment, however, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and ask that the order be approved.
Cornwall Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Cornwall Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak also to two linked instruments: the East Midlands Combined County Authority (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025 and the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2025.
I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for the scrutiny provided for these instruments. These draft statutory instruments were laid in Parliament on 24 February 2025. If they are approved, the Department for Education will transfer adult education functions and associated adult skills funding to these three areas for the start of the new academic year, 1 August 2025. This will give them freedom to use their adult skills funding as they see fit to help their residents fulfil their potential and contribute to the growth of their region.
The adult education functions being transferred are under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. The specific functions are: education and training for persons aged 19 or over; learning aims for such persons and provision of facilities; and payment of tuition fees for statutory entitlements for certain individuals. These relate to Sections 86, 87 and 88 of the 2009 Act respectively. These functions will be exercisable by these local areas instead of by the Secretary of State. They are subject to an exception in relation to apprenticeships training, persons subject to adult detention or any power to make regulations or orders.
Other specific functions being transferred are the encouragement of education and training for persons aged 19 or over, the provision of financial resources and the provision of financial resources in connection with technical education. These relate to Section 90 and Section 100(1) and (1B) of the 2009 Act respectively. These functions will be transferred to the local areas so that they are exercisable concurrently with the Secretary of State.
The Adult Skills Fund supports millions of adults across England to develop the skills they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. The Government usually allocate around £1.4 billion annually to deliver this provision. This includes national statutory entitlements to free English, maths and digital courses, level 2 and 3 qualifications for 19 to 23 year- olds who do not yet have them, and free courses for jobs for adults aged 18 or over who do not have a level 3 qualification, are unemployed or earn less than £25,000.
If these statutory instruments are approved, Cornwall, the East Midlands and York and North Yorkshire can apply their devolved powers to identify adults with the greatest skills needs in their region, invest more funding to support those groups, work directly with employers, providers and other local partners to commission provision to meet local needs and set funding rates to incentivise the delivery of provision that will have the greatest positive impact in their region. This will help to deliver the Government’s mission, set out in the English Devolution White Paper, to give local areas the powers and freedoms to decide how they spend their funding to deliver opportunity and growth and make a real difference to people’s lives.
The Department for Education has worked closely with each area to ensure that they are ready to take on these functions. Each local area has carried out the relevant local consultations, received the consents required for the transfer of these powers and the making of these statutory instruments, met the Department for Education’s readiness criteria and published a strategic skills plan setting out how they will use their devolved adult skills funding.
The Secretary of State for Education has judged that all three areas have met the relevant statutory tests set out in legislation, such that conferring these functions to the local area is: first, likely to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of some or all the people who live or work in the area or areas to which the order or regulations relate; and, secondly, appropriate to the needs to secure effective and convenient local government and to reflect the identities and interests of local communities.
I thank the partner organisations, colleagues and constituent authorities of Cornwall, the East Midlands, and York and North Yorkshire for their work to get to this important milestone.
To conclude, these statutory instruments will give three new devolved areas the opportunity and freedom to directly shape their adult education provision, address local barriers, focus provision to meet local needs, enhance economic growth and bring greater prosperity to their regions. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am extremely supportive of these three statutory instruments and thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. The consultation that took place on the three proposals supported what the council in Cornwall and the combined authorities of East Midlands and York and North Yorkshire proposed, so it is right to transfer responsibilities to those bodies.
As the Minister said, it will mean that decisions on adult education provision, including skills training, reflect the needs of the combined authority or council areas. However, I would like the Minister to clarify two issues. In the consultation in the east Midlands on the transfer of functions, 1,534 people were against the proposals, with 2,504 in favour. Can the Minister explain, if only for the record, why so many people were opposed to something that seems entirely sensible? Was there a problem or had there been some misunderstanding about what was being proposed?
More importantly, there is going to be an issue, given that these three proposed transfers of functions are adding to quite a number that are already in existence. How will the Government assess outcomes and success? Devolution is supposed to improve services and outcomes. There are tests that the Government could apply: I would like to think that one of those is a reduction in the rate of NEETs—young people who are not in employment, education or training. Do the Government identify a reduction in the NEET level as something that devolution should deliver, given that local people are best positioned to assess how skills, training and educational opportunity can be improved?
A second test might be about the number of young people with disabilities who are employed. That is important, because we should use all the talents of young people that we can, and the NEET figures are simply too high.
The third test I suggest to Ministers is to reassure Parliament in future, first, that the structure that will be put in place will link effectively with employers in identifying future skills needs; and, secondly, that the providers of adult and further education—and, indeed, those of mainstream education in the school system—are all talking to each other, as well as with the council and the combined authorities, to ensure that effective decision-making is happening. This is because it is very difficult to identify future skills needs. It is comparatively easy to identify current skills needs, but identifying skills needs five or 10 years from now, say, is a great deal more complicated. I am interested in what feedback systems the Government have in order to enable all the bodies with devolved powers and responsibilities to teach each other and learn from each other, so that we do not have skills shortages and so that future planning for our skills needs is as effective as it possibly could be. Will there be a regular report to Parliament on outcomes?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a current Central Bedfordshire councillor. I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction of these important statutory instruments. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I, as an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association, am always supportive of further devolution to local government. His Majesty’s Official Opposition welcome the principle of devolved adult education functions; indeed, we were the architect of many of these devolution arrangements when in government.
Local authorities, with their proximity to learners and communities, are often better placed than central government to identify and meet local needs—and, in particular, to tailor them to local circumstances. With the necessary support and funding, this policy, when implemented, can play a vital role in promoting economic growth, social mobility and lifelong learning. However, we must scrutinise not just the principle but the practice. It is around the practice—particularly the funding, as well as the accountability arrangements that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned—where there are some serious concerns.
These instruments will enable the named authorities to assume responsibility for adult education provision funded through the adult skills fund. We are told that this is a step forward for localism; that this will mean the tailoring of provision to local priorities; and that, although 62% of the ASF is already devolved to mayoral combined authorities in Greater London, this extension will now bring the same arrangements to new areas. On paper, this looks really positive. However, in reality, it contains some troubling contradictions. The Government are promoting local empowerment while simultaneously cutting the very funding that underpins it—something that, unfortunately, we see all too often, with the passing on of responsibilities but not of full funding.
It is important to be clear: there is a 3% reduction in the devolved adult skills fund. That is not an abstract number; it is a reduction in actual spending power in adult education for the very communities that these authorities serve. As Dr Susan Pember, the policy director for HOLEX, rightly noted, this move is short-sighted and risks dismantling the sector at a time when adult education should be playing a central role in driving economic recovery and personal resilience.
There are three areas where I believe the Government owe the Committee greater clarity. First, on funding transparency, what proportion of the devolved adult skills fund will be available for local decision-making, and how much is already earmarked for nationally set statutory entitlements? If local authorities are being asked to deliver ambitious education plans with only a fraction of the budget under their control, this is devolution in name only.
Secondly, on the strategic skills plans, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee rightly noted that, although these SIs referenced the SSPs, the detail is sparse. What mechanisms has the Department for Education used to assess the quality and readiness of these plans? Can the Minister assure us that each authority has demonstrated clear capacity and strategy to deliver?
Thirdly, on the wider context of post-16 education, we note the uncertainty surrounding the future of T-levels, apprenticeships and other crucial routes into training and employment. Adult education does not exist in a vacuum. Can the Minister explain how these reforms sit with the Government’s broader post-16 education strategy and how continuity and coherence will be maintained?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their responses. I turn first to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the consultations. They have been widely considered. I was interested in what he said about the West Midlands; it was quite an interesting response. In the east Midlands, the consultation was held between November 2022 and January 2023, and although there was support, the noble Lord was quite right to ask why there was opposition. Among those who responded who were against the proposal, only two stakeholder responses included an element of opposition to the proposal on skills. One stakeholder made a general point of opposition without specifying why. This is part of the problem. There could be a whole raft of reasons behind that, and we need to understand the identity of the people, which of course is not always possible. Another felt that adult education below level 4 would be underfunded, and 29 responses expressed opposition to the proposals relating to skills. Apart from the general statements of disagreement, other comments questioned whether the proposals were realistic and therefore achievable, while some felt that they would lead to larger cities being prioritised at the expense of smaller towns, villages and remote areas. That is part of the discussion. From my experience of places where combined authorities are set up, there are discussions about whether funding is equitably spread and everyone has opportunities.
On measuring outcomes and success, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised some interesting and quite specific points. By way of anecdote, when we had responsibility for delivering growth deals the first time the skills funding was brought down, the performance was off the scale in terms of sustainable outcomes for young people. It is by building on those successes in other areas that we can take our way forward, but the noble Lord is absolutely right in saying that we need to keep a close eye on this and make sure that there is consistency running through all areas. I know that local areas will be the first to highlight any problems coming forward.
To be clear, in all three areas that we are talking about, at least 60% of respondents approved of the proposals. Putting those two elements together, we have to be careful that we do not bring in an onerous regime that is too complex for all partners to be assessed. As everyone will quite rightly understand, the areas are looking at the comments that they have had, and they will be very mindful of them as we move forward into delivery.
On pursuing the level of accountability, once funding is devolved each local area will be required to demonstrate impact and value for money, ensuring that funding is effectively targeted to boost local skills and development. The accountability arrangements for devolved organisations are set out in the English Devolution Accountability Framework, which includes a requirement for devolved areas to publish annual assurance reports and to attend the skills stocktake for the Department for Education. It is a very important development around the setting up of Skills England, and I know it will be very keen to have oversight of the developments going forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, was quite right to question the funding. I think that we all know the answer. Every area has been asked to look at that because of the severe funding problems across the piece. The reduction is 3% compared to other areas, so we have to agree that a substantial amount of funding is still going in. Some £1.4 billion will still be invested in the adult skills fund. The questions that the noble Lord raised were brought up in the other place, and Neil O’Brien, who raised some of the concerns, got a full answer from the Minister on this point. In particular, it was stated that the vast majority of funding will be for local discretion. That was his point: making sure that it is not a top-down approach—which, as we know, is what works.
That goes to the other question about making sure that all the key partners are involved. All areas will look at best practice from other areas where this has worked successfully. It is the ability to bring together relevant stakeholders at a local level. Obviously, there is the funding regime, but the combined authority working with constituent local authorities and bringing together the providers of further education and adult education with business, as well as with the people who will benefit from the services, will enable them to predict the needs of local areas.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Just to clarify, the Minister very kindly said that the vast majority would be down to local decision-making. From that, can we take it that the existing programmes—which are, if you like, centrally directed—are very much the significant minority, and therefore the bulk of the funding will be locally decided? I am happy for her to answer in writing.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I can absolutely do that. Statutory duties will be expected, but I think that we can all be very pleased to know that the balance is genuinely being devolved down to other areas.
On accountability again, I am really excited about the development of Skills England and particularly how it will further develop the accountability framework going forward. It helps to set up a form of a coherent picture, so that there is an umbrella view and something to badge the progress against. It will of course shape technical education, which is another area of concern, through the growth and skills levy, particularly given, as we have all commented on, local areas being able to listen to the businesses in the area and anticipate the demands that come forward.
I will pick up on some figures. The devolved areas in existence have, for example, spent £127 million or 16% of funding on statutory functions, leaving 84% for them to spend on other priorities. That sort of analysis will move the agenda forward and is a real boost of confidence for local areas. Nothing could be more important than enabling growth of the economy in local areas, but particularly growth for a purpose, if you like, so that the local people within those areas fully benefit.
With those comments, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. We have these three areas going through at the moment and several more coming down the line. That will be another opportunity to look at progress and how we are delivering on the ground. We know the challenges that face us and how important it is to have a skilled, flexible workforce and to support all adults to become an active part of that workforce to deliver our growth agenda.
Transferring these adult skills functions and devolving funding to the local areas of Cornwall, East Midlands, York and North Yorkshire will help to ensure that adult education provision is tailored to local needs and will create the best conditions in which we can collectively deliver on these aims.
East Midlands Combined County Authority (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the East Midlands Combined County Authority (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument, which was laid before the House on 10 March 2025, is another important step in supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar, which are critical in achieving the Government’s clean energy superpower mission, including clean power by 2030. An effective planning system is key to unlocking the new infrastructure that our country needs to underpin our energy security and resilience. It is important that planning applications are determined through an appropriate planning route that reflects a project’s size, impact and complexity and in which potential issues are identified and mitigated as necessary.
The nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIP—regime is governed by the Planning Act 2008, where decisions on development consent are made by the Secretary of State for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. The NSIP regime applies to larger projects, with a megawatt threshold determining which energy-generating projects are deemed nationally significant. The NSIP regime provides the largest, most important projects of strategic importance with a single unified approach to seeking development consent, where applications are determined by Ministers balancing local impacts against the wider national benefits. Following submission, an extensive examination period will commence whereby interested parties, including local authorities, people of office and the general public, can make written or oral representations to the examination. This ensures that the voices of communities are heard during the decision-making process.
Until recently, a de facto ban on onshore wind generation in England severely limited deployment. Changes introduced in 2015 saw stringent tests introduced into planning policy alongside the removal of onshore wind generation from the NSIP regime in 2016. These changes set an almost impossible bar to meet, resulting in the pipeline of projects sinking by more than 90%, with only 40 megawatts of onshore wind generation consented and becoming operational in the intervening period.
In July 2024, this Government disapplied those planning policy tests and committed to reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime, reversing the damaging policies of the past decade and placing onshore wind on the same footing as solar, offshore wind and nuclear power stations. As such, through this instrument, onshore wind projects with a generating capacity of more than 100 megawatts in England will be consented under the NSIP regime. The 100-megawatt threshold reflects the advances in turbine technology over the past decade, with modern turbines being larger and more powerful. Reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime will provide an appropriate route for nationally significant projects to seek planning consent where they are of a scale and complexity that can carefully balance local impacts against national benefits and meet the UK’s wider decarbonisation goals. This will provide greater confidence for developers and incentivise bringing forward projects.
Solar has been subject to a 50-megawatt NSIP threshold since it was originally set in the Planning Act 2008. However, much like onshore wind, solar panel technology has seen significant advances in efficiency, enabling a greater megawatt yield per site. Evidence suggests that the 50-megawatt threshold is now causing market distortion. With modern technology, mid-sized generating stations now have a generating capacity greater than 50 megawatts and therefore fall within the NSIP regime. We think this is likely to be disproportionate to their size, scale and impact, and it has resulted in a large amount of ground-mounted solar projects entering the planning system and artificially capping their capacity at just below the 50-megawatt threshold, leading to the potentially inefficient use of sites and grid connections. Therefore, this instrument raises the NSIP threshold from 50 megawatts to 100 megawatts for solar to ensure that mid-sized projects have access to a more proportionate planning route via planning authorities, which should incentivise those projects that would otherwise have capped their capacity to develop to a more optimal and efficient scale.
The Government are also mindful that mid and large-scale solar and onshore wind projects are preparing to enter the planning system and may have already invested and undertaken preparatory steps with the expectation of entering a specific regime. Changing the NSIP at short notice could result in projects entering a different regime than expected, with the potential to increase costs to developers or cause delays.
Therefore, the instrument also makes transitional provisions for onshore wind and solar projects that are already in the planning process when this order comes into force. These provisions will ensure that projects already progressing under one legislative regime will not be required to move to a different regime as a result of the order.
Through consultation, the Government sought views and supporting evidence on reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime at an appropriate threshold and revising the existing threshold for solar. We received a range of responses; most respondents agreed with the proposed approach of reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime, with a majority in favour of a 100-megawatt threshold. While we initially consulted on a 150-megawatt threshold for solar, based on further assessment and analysis of consultation responses, we concluded a 100-megawatt threshold would be more appropriate and better reflect modern technology.
In conclusion, we see this instrument as being another important step in delivering clean power, supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar and establishing the UK as a clean energy superpower. It supports an effective planning system that will ensure that applications are processed efficiently through the appropriate regime and will avoid distortionary effects on deployment. These measures ultimately aim to support future energy security and resilience alongside our 2030 goals and wider decarbonisation targets. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the contents and the wishes of the department in this document. Personally, I am very disappointed that we are where we are. I am a veteran of pylon applications; I was fortunate enough to be elected to the Vale of York in 1997, where there was already a long line of pylons going through the heart of the Vale of York to be joined by another, even bigger, line of pylons within a matter of months of my election. We were promised that the original line of pylons would be removed because it was thought that both would not be needed and they are, of course, unsightly.
I prefer the situation we had under the outgoing Conservative Government.There was virtually a moratorium on onshore windfarms for a number of reasons. The Minister is potentially going to see a great deal of discontent from residents and communities along the route of the overhead pylons will inevitably follow, particularly onshore windfarms. To take the example of offshore windfarms, there are three stages to the application process. When there is an application for an offshore windfarm, everyone thinks, “Oh great, that won’t affect me out there at sea”. Then the second stage of the application is for a massive substation to bring the electricity on land. The third, and completely separate, stage of the application is that suddenly—hey presto—we are going to have overhead pylons to feed the electricity into the national grid. How many applications does the Minister think will fall under this new decision-making regime where onshore windfarms will be decided by the Secretary of State? How many lines of pylons does he envisage will follow on from the applications? Will his department come forward and dictate that these overhead wires should be converted to underground wires?
Alternatively, does he accept—he knows that this is a theme I have pursued quite religiously with him over the past few months—that, if an onshore wind farm is built in, say, the north of England, or in Yorkshire more specifically, the electricity generated will serve the local community? It is colder in North Yorkshire than in many parts of the rest of the country, and we have a distinct lack of electric vehicle charging points. If an onshore wind farm will be built, I see absolutely no reason why the electricity generated cannot serve the population living locally.
I regret the statutory instrument in the department’s name that the Government feel is appropriate or necessary. Solar farms of the size that the Minister is talking about—those of 100 megawatts—will take the decision out of local communities. Again, I would be interested to know how many he envisages there will be. His department, DESNZ, will not lead to many des reses. We will not have many desirable residences along the routes of these overhead pylons. In the case of the solar farms, how will the electricity generated—presumably in the gift of the Government—enter the national grid to feed into the hungry south, leaving the rest of us in heat poverty in the north?
With those few remarks, I regret that the statutory instrument was brought before us. If we learn one thing from the massive outage in Spain, Portugal and parts of France last week, it is that we are becoming completely too reliant on very unreliable sources of energy—sunshine and wind—because the sun does not always shine, and the wind does not always blow.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet. I, too, am a veteran of this debate, but I take a different view from that of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
In 2020, I first had a Private Member’s Bill on the inequity of how planning applications for onshore wind development were treated compared with all other infrastructure. It was a simple point: the self-imposed moratorium that the previous Government had put on the development of onshore wind was done on a completely blanket basis. They took onshore wind developments out of the normal level playing field of planning applications and treated them as some sort of pariah developments that should not be used. That is completely incorrect. As part of the move towards renewables and safe, clean and cheap power, we should exploit those opportunities.
We all know that the wind does not always blow and that the sun does not always shine. After six years on this topic, I do not need to be told that any more. We all know that we have to have base capacity, that we need variety and that you cannot transition overnight, but that does not take away the argument that there was a basic inequity in how these developments were treated.
I tabled the original Bill that I mentioned. I then had another Bill the next year. We then put in amendments on a number of pieces of legislation that were going through. We even won one of them; the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Deben, and the then Opposition Front Bench supported an amendment that had remarkably similar language to this statutory instrument. We won it on the Floor of your Lordships’ House, but it was reversed in the House of Commons, so it is an enormous pleasure to welcome this SI as an example of common sense breaking out on the issue of onshore wind developmentand of the benefit and reward of not taking “no” for an answer in politics.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on this subject and to how she has carried this end of Parliament on a number of occasions.
I normally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on an awful lot of things but I do not quite agree with her here. I spent most of my bank holiday break in an EV in Yorkshire, and I was delighted at how easy it was to recharge it. It was the first time for quite a while that my wife and I had been on a long journey in an EV. The difference in the charging network was absolutely amazing. I praise the previous Government’s EV charging policies as much as I praise the present Government for achieving that, but I recognise —from the Cornwall aspect—that there is a challenge here for really rural areas, and certainly when tourists come to our areas.
I wanted to contribute today to say that I very much welcome this SI and the move to go back properly to onshore wind. It is an important way in which our landowning and farming communities can diversify their income.
I turn to the limit on solar. On every solar farm I have visited in the past few years, I would ask the owners, “What is the energy capacity of this?” They would say, “It’s 49.5 megawatts”, because they do not want to trip over that barrier into the national planning scheme. So I welcome the fact that this SI will make that a lot easier.
However, the one question I would like to ask the Minister—this was raised by the Opposition Benches in the earlier debate on energy security—concerns warehouse roofs and commercial roofs. I am a great supporter of solar but, like me, many people ask, “Why are we not managing to have many more solar applications on existing commercial, industrial and car park roofs?” I recognise that there are often different owners—there is the landlord, and then there is the company that occupies under a lease—so the relationship between owners for commercial buildings is never easy. However, I say this to the Minister: it cannot be beyond the ability of the Government to find a mechanism to incentivise that to happen. It would get huge plaudits from all sides of political opinion if we managed to achieve that. It would also help with the understandable reservations that there sometimes are around the agricultural use of solar, by showing that the right things are happening in other areas too.
I would be interested to understand from the Minister when the planning regime—as we know, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is in the other place at the moment —will become law, as it surely will. It may be amended in various ways as it passes through both Houses, but might it affect this matter in any way?
I very much welcome this SI and hope that we will see a rejuvenation of onshore wind. As I often say, from my own house, I can see—the last time I counted, at least—between 30 and 40 wind turbines. I live on a hill and, to me, they are part of a living countryside. There are right places to put them and there are wrong places to put them; we should leave it to local authorities to decide what those are.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of this order. I thank the Minister for outlining its purpose.
The Liberal Democrats have always championed renewable energy. For too long, this country has suffered from the failures of the previous Conservative Government to invest in clean power and to insulate our homes, contributing directly to the energy crisis and leaving householders and businesses facing soaring bills. The vast majority of people in this country want more action on climate change. That is why we welcome this instrument as another important step in supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar, which are both crucial to achieving the Government’s mission for clean power by 2030.
We are particularly supportive of the lifting of the effective moratorium on onshore wind. This was a deeply short-sighted and irresponsible policy, introduced via the planning changes in 2015 and 2016, which created a de facto ban in England. This ban limited deployment and caused the pipeline of projects to shrink by over 90%, with less than 40 megawatts of onshore wind generated during this decade. The reintroduction of onshore wind projects of over 100 megawatts into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime is crucial. The order reverses those damaging policies and places onshore wind on the same footing as other generation technologies such as solar, offshore wind and nuclear power stations. This provides an appropriate route for large-scale projects and offers greater certainty to industry.
Similarly, we support the decision to raise the NSIP threshold for solar projects from 50 to 100 megawatts. This change is needed in part due to technological advances in solar panels and aims to ensure that applications are processed efficiently through the appropriate planning regime. The previous threshold incentivised developers, as we have heard, to cap their capacity below 50 megawatts to avoid triggering the NSIP process. Raising the threshold should incentivise projects to develop on a more optimal and efficient scale and to ensure that mid-sized projects access a more proportionate planning route via local planning authorities. What assessments have been made of local planning authorities’ capacity and funding requirements to take on this extra work? They must be adequately resourced and supported to handle the influx of potentially larger-scale solar projects.
While we support the ambitions to streamline planning for major projects, concerns remain. The NSIP regime involves decisions made by the Secretary of State, and some respondents to the consultation expressed concern that this process might overly centralise decision-making and bypass local authorities and communities. This is particularly pertinent when considering large projects that can have a significant impact on local landscapes and communities. It is vital that the Government strike an appropriate balance between building nationally important infrastructure, protecting our precious landscapes and ensuring that local communities have a meaningful say. This Government must do more to work in partnership with local communities and ensure that they benefit from the infrastructure that they host—more “working with” and a bit less “doing to”.
How will the Government ensure that local voices are genuinely heard and their concerns addressed in the NSIP examination period, particularly for onshore wind? Can the Minister provide more detail on timelines for these frameworks and assure us that they will ensure that the balance between deploying renewable energy, protecting nature, ensuring food security and considering where best to locate projects is effectively struck?
Finally, the decision to set the solar threshold at 100 megawatts aims to avoid artificial capping and incentivise optimal site sizing. The impact assessment mentions monitoring and evaluation plans, looking at whether projects are clustering below the new thresholds and whether planning timelines for projects have increased. Can the Minister confirm how the planned post-implementation review and ongoing monitoring will assess whether the 100-megawatt thresholds are achieving the desired efficiency and optimal site sizing? All these projects will require timely grid connections, and I encourage the Government to support agrivoltaics.
Other noble Lords spoke about the need for more solar on rooftops and in car parks; for example, France generates 5% of its electricity from car parks alone. The Government may want to look at an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on that. I very much welcome signs from them that new homes will have solar panels installed. There are issues around the way that some of the warehouses have been designed; they have not been built to take the weight of solar panels.
These legislative changes are a necessary step, but successful implementation requires careful consideration of local impacts and ensuring that our planning system is robust and balanced and takes communities with it.
Lord Deben (Con)
I apologise to the Minister for missing the first moments of his speech, but as somebody who was taken to a tribunal by those who do not believe in climate change for daring to suggest that we had in effect banned onshore wind, I feel very strongly that this is an ideal moment to say how important onshore wind is.
Near to where I live in Suffolk, in the town of Eye, which I used to represent in the old Eye division, there is some onshore wind. When it started, an awful lot of people opposed it; they thought it was going to be very ugly and did not like it. Now it has become iconic. Recently, I was pleased to see—this Committee’s chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, will be interested in this—that an attractive ballet was put on using it as the background, showing a wholly different way in which people have accepted it.
I get very tired of people who are very much in favour of having electricity themselves but complain about its expense, which is the cost of gas, and then are opposed every time to having any further renewable electricity. We ought to be supporting this and seeking ways to introduce onshore wind, wherever that is suitable. There are places where it is not suitable; that is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rightly said.
Onshore wind and offshore wind need to be linked to the national grid system, but I hope the Government will recognise that the best way to get support for that is always to find the most appropriate way and try to avoid unnecessary pylons—then you can honestly say to a community: “I’m afraid that here there is no alternative”. I hope that people will recognise that, if we spend a great deal more on the distribution of electricity, the only people who will pay for it are the customers. We have to get that balance right. I hope that the Government will look more closely at alternatives and be able to show why they choose pylons.
On what my noble friend Lady McIntosh said, I have to say that it is not acceptable. It is no good; we will have to take electricity from where we make it to where we use it. If people want electricity, that is what we have to do. Frankly, there is no connection whatever between this and what happened in Spain. The constant desire to write down what is so essential to us seems to me very sad.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I think I am right in saying that the seat that my noble friend represented is now represented by a different party from ours. We need the electricity in the north—I cannot speak for Suffolk—and it would be much better to keep that source of energy close to where it is produced, rather than having pylons criss-crossing and destroying the countryside.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am quite sure that nobody takes electricity more distantly than they need to if it is going to be used locally. In my constituency—which was indeed one of the seats lost at the last election—the issue is not a question of pylons. The issues were very different and not really to do with this at all. I come back to the point that it is not sensible constantly to refer to things that are not connected with this. I repeat that there is no connection between the outages in Portugal and Spain and the issue before us.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for explaining the details of this statutory instrument. In essence, this order would enable onshore wind projects over 100 megawatts and solar projects over 50 megawatts to be considered under the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. This effectively bypasses local planning authorities and grants direct approval to the Secretary of State, thereby overriding local consent for large-scale wind and solar projects. The Government have argued that this is necessary to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy in line with their decarbonisation goals and their commitment to becoming a clean energy superpower. However, several important concerns must be addressed, particularly around local involvement, fairness and the broader economic impact of such an approach.
First, let us discuss the issue of subsidy. Much like offshore wind, onshore wind projects are heavily reliant on subsidies, costs that are ultimately passed on to consumers. While the Government have touted these renewable projects as cost effective in the long term, it is crucial to ask what the clear cost-benefit case is. If we are to depend on these subsidies to push through such large-scale projects, we must ensure that they provide tangible benefits to consumers in terms of not just cleaner energy but affordability. As we know, the transition to green energy must be balanced with the economic realities that hard-pressed families and businesses face today.
Secondly, there is the matter of local consent. Communities should have a say in the decisions that affect their landscapes and way of life. Local buy-in is paramount, and people who live in the affected area should not have their voices ignored. There is real concern that this SI removes that critical step in the planning process by placing too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State and bypassing local consultation. Onshore wind projects can be a significant imposition on the local environment, and it is only right that communities are properly consulted and their concerns are considered before these major decisions are made.
The Government have argued that they need to expedite these projects to meet their decarbonisation targets—targets that are at the outset entirely arbitrary. Furthermore, if the Secretary of State is to take on final decision-making powers for these projects, what accountability mechanisms will be in place? Removing local authorities from the process must not also remove transparency. What assurances can the Minister provide that decisions will be subject to robust oversight?
Thirdly, there is the Government’s selective approach to energy. We have seen instances where good solar projects, which were designed to be sensitive to the local environment and not disrupt prime farmland, have been rejected by the Government or the National Wealth Fund. Are the Government picking and choosing winners in this energy transition? Are we truly seeking the most affordable, secure and environmentally responsible solutions or are we being driven by ideological preferences for particular types of energy, regardless of their practicality or cost effectiveness? This approach is flawed. By bypassing local consent and placing unchecked power in the hands of the Secretary of State, this order undermines democratic principles.
Lord Teverson (LD)
If I understand this, you are moving from 50 megawatts to 100 megawatts. So the 50 to 100 goes under the Town and Country Planning Act as local decisions. You are actually increasing it; previously the 50 to 100 was under NSIP. Therefore, what you are saying is completely wrong.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
We are saying that we want to make sure that we have consent in the local community and robust oversight, and that the order does not undermine democratic principles. That is what we are trying to do, and we also do not want to disregard the voices of local communities. That is the essence of our third concern.
The Government’s selective and ideologically driven approach to energy is concerning because it raises serious questions about the cost-benefit of these projects, especially when subsidies are passed on to consumers without a clear return on investment. While the Government champion renewable energy, they do so at the expense of affordability, fairness and proper local consultation. That will not bring the public with them on the journey. Rather than rushing through this legislation to meet arbitrary targets, we need an energy strategy that prioritises practicality, respects local concerns and ensures that the transition to green energy is both affordable and inclusive for all.
Lord Deben (Con)
Would my noble friend give way so I can ask him about the phrase “arbitrary targets”? The targets are actually the result of the detailed propositions of the Climate Change Committee; they are not arbitrary in any way. He may disagree with the targets, but “arbitrary” means that they have just been picked out of the air. That is not so.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. However, we are now dealing with a moving landscape and we have an accelerated programme on decarbonisation, which goes beyond what was set previously with the target for 2030. This is critical. This road map is critical to that, and so I am right to question whether these targets are real. They are moving around; they seem to be moving on an arbitrary and accelerated basis. I think it is relevant to ask the question about how these targets are moving, as the order as it stands risks damaging both the democratic process and the long-term success of our energy future.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a really interesting debate. First, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that her views are not surprising, as she has managed to convey this to me over the last few months. Interestingly enough, I was interested in the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about EV chargers in Yorkshire because, as the noble Baroness knows, we had an Oral Question about electric vehicles two weeks ago. When I said that we were making progress in rural areas, she gave me the sort of look that suggested that she did not really quite take my point. But we are making progress; certainly, by 2030, we expect to see many thousands more chargers available, including in rural areas. I take the point, and I am not seeking to disagree with the general thrust that, to make this really work, we need to have chargers available to people in rural areas. But we think we are making progress.
On the onshore wind applications, we estimate—and I cannot commit to this—that there could be one or two projects per year entering the NSIP regime.
We do understand that pylons are not going to be popular. The issue, as always, is that undergrounding is much more expensive. The figures that we have are very rough estimates, but they indicate that under- grounding is perhaps five to 10 times more expensive. As part of the trade-offs that we see in this area, I am afraid that we will continue to have to use pylons.
On whether onshore wind energy will serve local communities, one of the benefits of lifting the de facto ban and allowing onshore wind projects to build again in England is, of course, to ensure that clean, homegrown energy is being produced closer to centres of demand. In our various debates today, we touched upon REMA, the review of electricity markets arrangements; of course, we are looking at one of the options for zonal pricing, which we are considering alongside other options for reform of the national wholesale market, but it would strengthen locational operational signals in the electricity market.
By implication, the noble Baroness raised the issue of cumulative impact; she mentioned in particular offshore wind leading to substations then grids. We are commissioning NESO to develop a strategic spatial energy plan, which will, in one case, support a more actively planned approach to energy infrastructure across England, Scotland and Wales, both at land and at sea. It will do that by assessing and identifying optimal locations, quantities and types of energy infrastructure required for generation and storage across a range of plausible futures. The first iteration of the SSEP is due for publication in late 2026. That is not a direct response to the noble Baroness, but it shows an understanding of what she is saying.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has talked to me about Suffolk and Sizewell; I will not tempt him to intervene, though I fear I may have just done so. I met local authority leaders in Suffolk last week to discuss their issues with cumulative impact. One issue is about different operators bringing separate applications that conflict, as well as the challenge that a local authority has in dealing with both that and the accumulation. It is something that we well understand.
The capacity of local planning authorities is of course an important consideration. Local government has concerns and challenges around this; again, Suffolk local authorities raised the issue with me. There will be a review of resourcing in key organisations across the planning system to determine whether they are suitable for handling an increased number of projects in the coming years. I should say that these issues also relate to my own department, because of the national applications that the Secretary of State has to consider, as well as to Natural England and the Environment Agency. If we are to reform the planning system in the way we wish, these matters need careful consideration.
On local concerns, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is clearly right that this will allow more applications locally because the bar will be raised in relation to the areas I have talked about. As the Planning Minister in our department, I see the projects that come through for national consent; they are extensive in setting out the examination process, in which communities have extensive engagement opportunities. I want to make it clear here that, for the applications that come through the NSIP programme, we ensure that local views are taken into account by decision-makers.
On post-implementation monitoring, the impact assessment sets out a number of metrics that will monitor this legislative change, including the volume of applications coming forward; the size and scale of projects; and the average cost and times of receiving consent. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for what she said and for her work in this area. It is nice to see that the Government are coming forward with proposals that are very much in line with her previous amendment.
On the issue of warehouse roofs and commercial roofs, and the earlier discussion about new housing, my understanding is that this is a matter for building regulations. There is discussion across government in this area, and I cannot go any further than what I said earlier this afternoon: we clearly see the potential here and we want to take advantage of it.
Medical Devices (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Medical Devices (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this is a short—I hope—but technical SI, so it may be helpful to the Committee if I give some context. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency regulates medical devices in the UK and helps to ensure that those products are safe and perform as intended. That includes ensuring that the legislation governing them is appropriate and keeps pace with advances in science and technology.
The 2002 regulations transposed relevant EU directives into domestic law and is now therefore considered to be assimilated EU law. The regulations contain references to several specific pieces of assimilated EU law that will form part of the regulatory framework for Great Britain. This is an important step towards delivering the Government’s 10-year health plan, in terms of the development of legislation apart from this SI. We need safe and effective medical technologies to achieve the shifts that will help build an NHS fit for the future, to take us from hospital to community-based care, from analogue to digital solutions and from treatment to prevention.
As we know, since the 2002 regulations were introduced, technology has advanced significantly. The MHRA has therefore set out plans to make a number of updates to the regulations—separate to the SI we are debating today, of course—to further improve patient safety and access to medical devices, as well as to keep the UK as an attractive market for medtech innovators. I assure noble Lords that, as part of this, there continues to be considerable engagement with the sector, not least because life sciences manufacturing is vital to the UK’s economic growth. In 2021-22, there were almost 119,000 people employed at life sciences manufacturing sites across the country. We will support the sector to flourish, in line with our growth agenda.
The MHRA is taking a phased approach to the implementation of the future medical devices regulatory framework in order to support system readiness and to minimise the risk of supply disruption for UK patients. A key piece of secondary legislation was made in 2024 to ensure that there is appropriate oversight of a device once it is in use. The further secondary legislation, to which I have referred, is expected to come into force in 2026. That legislation will update the regulatory requirements for devices before they are put on the market and will introduce key measures such as implant cards, unique device identifiers and an international reliance scheme for medical devices; in other words, it will take us forward to the place where we need to be.
In the meantime, the statutory instrument that we are here to debate will help provide continuity for the regulation of medical devices until the subsequent statutory instruments to which I have referred are put in place. I assure noble Lords that this instrument does not make changes to the current regulatory requirements. Instead, by maintaining the regulatory status quo, it will help ensure a smooth transition to a future regulatory framework that protects patient safety, improves access to transformative technologies and supports innovation.
This statutory instrument amends the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 to remove the revocation date of four pieces of assimilated EU law, so that they can continue to apply in Great Britain until such time as they are replaced with the updated law to which I have referred. The measure was consulted on from November last year to January this year. Of the 287 responses to the consultation, 83% were in favour, while a further 12% had no opinion. If this statutory instrument were not agreed to and the provisions expired in May—in other words, this month—there would be a significant gap in the regulatory framework, as well as risks to patient safety.
I will now give the Committee an overview of the four pieces of assimilated EU law for completeness; I know that noble Lords will be interested in this. First, the decision on common specifications for in vitro diagnostic medical devices sets out specifications that certain IVD devices must meet in order to demonstrate compliance with essential requirements.
Secondly, the regulation on electronic instructions for the use of medical devices establishes the conditions under which instructions for the use of medical devices may be provided in electronic form, instead of in paper form.
Thirdly, the regulation on devices manufactured utilising animal tissue, as well as their derivatives, sets out requirements to be met before those devices can be placed on the market.
Finally, the regulation on the designation and the supervision of approved bodies sets out further requirements relating to those bodies, which assess applicable medical devices for conformity with the regulations.
Although we are revoking the sunset dates instead of replacing them—not least because we do not wish to use up any more parliamentary time with debates on short, technical SIs such as this—the Government do not intend for this assimilated EU law to be kept in place indefinitely. I hope that will be a helpful and welcome reassurance. This SI serves as a temporary measure to maintain the status quo until more permanent measures are in place. In the meantime, this is important assimilated EU law that must continue to be complied with.
That will also ensure that unnecessary EU divergence is minimised, which is particularly important in this instance because, as noble Lords will be aware, Northern Ireland continues to operate under the EU framework for medical devices under the terms of the Windsor agreement. More broadly, I reassure the Committee that the regulations for Great Britain do, where appropriate, align with global best practice. As noble Lords will, I hope, be aware, the Government’s aim is to ensure patient safety while minimising unnecessary regulatory burden.
In conclusion, I am glad to say that the UK is a prime location to research, develop and manufacture pharmaceutical and medtech products. We want to continue to attract medtech manufacturing investments that deploy the latest innovations, are highly productive and are consistently high-quality. Key to achieving this objective is proportionate regulation, and implementing regulatory changes must be done in a sensible and measured manner.
As I have set out, the continuation of this assimilated law is necessary to prevent significant disruption to the current regulatory framework and, consequently, negative impacts on patient safety. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I thank the Minister very much for her introduction to this tide-over regulation, which is as it has been portrayed to us. I should declare that my son is involved in medical technology, in cardiology; you could say that our family has a bit of skin in the game, although I do not understand the technology that he is developing— it is so complicated.
I have just a couple of questions. As the new regulations are eventually developed, can the Minister confirm that there will be no more regulatory burden on those trying to innovate and that we might lessen the bureaucratic burden on them? Will there be compatibility reading across to the FDA regulations? The American market, which is subject to a lot of debate at the moment, is a potential market for devices developed in this country overall. In that process, can there be the assurance that we also do not jeopardise our European market, or the Far East on the global scale? We will need to export the technology that we develop.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I share some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. As the Minister so carefully explained, it is essential that we preserve the existing regulations until they can be replaced. However, does she accept that, although an argument frequently used by supporters of Brexit was that they did not like so much regulation, what is happening now in our very successful life sciences industry—which wishes to do business abroad as well as in the UK—is that its products may become subject to both UK and EU regulations?
EU regulations have generally been recognised across the world as a basis for doing business, making it relatively easy for UK-based producers of medical devices to export them. Would it not be better in future to achieve regulatory alignment with the EU, so that businesses producing new products will not have two different sets of regulatory processes, and two sets of costs to contend with, when they innovate and improve their products? Will having separate UK regulations in future not run the risk that such businesses become more reluctant to innovate, and will this not be detrimental to patient care? If we want to improve patient safety and do all the other things the Minister outlined, would not this be done best in alignment with our major trading partners, using standards that are generally agreed internationally?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. I want to be clear that we on these Benches recognise the need for this measure, since, without it, key regulatory provisions would expire at the end of this month, as the Minister explained. That would create uncertainty and risk disruption to the oversight of medical devices in Great Britain.
We understand that this instrument is, in essence, a stopgap, as the Minister said, and that the MHRA’s consultation, particularly with small and medium-sized enterprises and clinicians, demonstrated strong support for continuity. But while the measure preserves the status quo for now, it has provoked some questions about the Government’s long-term strategy. I am grateful to the Minister for reassuring us that this is definitely a temporary stopgap and that they are looking for a longer-term and more pro-innovation solution than when we were in the EU.
As the Minister said, this revokes the sunset clauses in four areas in particular: performance standards for diagnostic devices, electronic instructions for use, the regulation of devices containing animal tissue and the designation and oversight of approved bodies. These are not mere technical footnotes; they are essential to ensuring safety, clarity and public confidence in the medical device sector, so we understand that revoking their expiry is necessary to avoid disruption.
Can the Minister add any more detail at this stage to what she has already said? This first phase, focusing on pre-market regulation, is expected in 2026. What further reforms are expected to follow? I know that she explained some of that in brief—I suspect that she did not elaborate as much as she could have for reasons of time—but can she say a bit more about the future plans for this regulation? If she cannot now, perhaps she will write to me, because that was a very welcome move. I was going to ask lots of questions about whether the short-term fix will remain in place for the long term, but the Minister has reassured us. Nevertheless, perhaps she could set out some more details either today or in writing.
I do not believe in regulatory divergence for divergence’s sake, but let us be clear that neither should we agree with regulatory alignment for the sake of regulatory alignment. I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, but I recall that, when I was a Health Minister, many a supplier—regardless of whether they supported the UK leaving or remaining in the EU —asked me, “Now that we’ve left, can we take advantage of our independence and develop a more pro-innovation approach than the EU?” In technology—I spent 14 years in the European Parliament—the EU was known as an area for regulation; if you wanted innovation, that was in the US. We have to get a better balance between the two. Whereas the EU focuses more on the precautionary principle and less on innovation, perhaps we can get a better balance in this country, so that we do not align for alignment’s sake.
The Minister also mentioned Northern Ireland. As we know, as a result of what noble Lords, said there are some concerns in Northern Ireland but, given that the EU is seen as an area generating regulation, should the EU impose additional regulatory burdens on businesses in Northern Ireland? What steps will the Government take to support them to protect their competitiveness? That is one of the concerns I know from the most pro-innovation businesses in Northern Ireland.
Finally, on international trade, not strictly within the remit of these regulations, so I hope the Minister and her officials will forgive me—this does not have to be answered straight away—has the Minister or the department assessed the impact of recent US tariffs on medical device imports? Does the UK import a substantial number of medical devices from the US? I know that we talked about the importance of the US as an export market. Will these tariffs have an impact on medical devices from the US, particularly those that have been made with components imported from outside the US into the US before being re-exported? Does that have a price implication? Have the Government made any assessment of the implications for availability, cost and affordability, particularly for NHS procurement? Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and others said, there is the impact on medical device suppliers exporting to the USA. Has any assessment been made of that market? Across the House, we all want a thriving life sciences sector in this country, but we should be assessing the impact of the proposed tariffs. I know some of them have been in abeyance.
I recognise that I have asked many questions, and I do not expect the Minister to have all the answers straight away, despite the advances of iPad technology and wireless communication. Maybe one day that will extend to telepathy. Perhaps the Minister can write to me on the questions that she is unable to answer today. In drawing my remarks to a close, I will be clear that noble Lords on these Benches support this measure as a necessary step to prevent regulatory disruption, but the real test follows. I hope the Minister, in answering the questions, is able to share a clear timeline for the programme for reform as we hopefully move towards a more pro-innovation approach.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their valuable contributions and the way in which they have raised issues relating not just to the statutory instrument before us but this whole area of important work. I am also grateful for the support more broadly on the need to get the legislation right in order to protect patients, get the best medical technology within our grasp and support innovation. I am sure we will return to this subject. I will respond to a number of the points, and I will come back to noble Lords on anything significant that I have not responded to.
I reiterate that this SI is essential if we are going to prevent what I would call significant disruption. The words used were “a stopgap”. I think that is a fair legal term in this setting. It will preserve the status quo as we progress to more comprehensive regulation, which I know is what noble Lords are interested in.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked for an assurance that we would not jeopardise not just the European market but other markets because we need to export technology. That is a fair point. I can say in response that over recent years we have learned important lessons from the implementation of new medical devices regulations in the EU as well as the global approach to regulation. How has this informed our approach to regulatory reform? It is why the Government are taking a phased approach to the delivery of these regulations to support the sector and adapt to the changes. It is also the reason why we are in continued discussion and are working closely with the sector.
We recognise the benefit of international harmonisation of medical device regulations in order to reduce, as we would all like, unnecessary regulatory burden or duplication of assessment for manufacturers, which is something that has been raised many times with me and I am sympathetic to. This means that, where sensible, we will align with the regulations of other jurisdictions, including those in the EU. Any reform to assimilated law will be to support domestic priorities and the Government’s national health and economic growth missions.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, raised a number of points. He raised the issue of products being subject to EU and UK regulations and whether this would make tech companies less likely to innovate. I believe the noble Lord also argued that we should be in line with the EU, and he raised the important issue of Northern Ireland. On these points, we will seek to align with international best practice and EU regulations where they are sensible, support manufacturers and support where we want to get to on patient safety and the contribution of medical technology.
On Northern Ireland, the MHRA is the competent authority for devices placed on the Northern Ireland market. It continues to have oversight of medical devices across the whole of the UK. We will continue to monitor any risks to the supply of devices to the whole of the UK market. I can give the assurance that, at present, the supply is stable and processes are in place to identify alternatives if needed. My final reassurance is that the SI before us today will not have any impact on the supply of devices to Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, also raised a number of key points and requested more detail on what further reforms are expected to follow. He also raised regulatory alignment, making the point that, in his opinion, the EU can be more cautious and asking how we as a country can be more innovative. The noble Lord also asked about Northern Ireland and about the impacts that US tariffs have in respect of medical devices.
On plans for regulatory reform, the MHRA has published plans to introduce several SIs to amend the framework for medical devices. The post-market surveillance SI, which will come into force in June as noble Lords may recall, represented the first significant step in this reform. That legislation will put in place strengthened legal requirements for how manufacturers monitor and report on their devices once they are being used.
In November last year, the MHRA launched a consultation on further aspects of regulatory reform which will inform a subsequent pre-market SI that introduces, among other things, a new international reliance scheme, measures to improve traceability of implantable medical devices, more risk-proportionate changes to the classification of certain devices and the prohibition of misleading claims. We expect that legislation to come into force in 2026. I think that all those will put us in a much better place than we are currently, because they will allow us to keep pace with changes in the market.
The MHRA also continually monitors the UK’s medtech landscape for developments that could affect patient safety and the implementation of regulations. Details of further regulatory proposals will be communicated when available, and I look forward to bringing those before your Lordships’ House.
On US tariffs, there are ongoing discussions, and I will not seek to pre-empt them. The MHRA will monitor any impacts once they become clearer. That is very much under a watching brief.
I hope I have demonstrated the need for these regulations, not just for the public currently but as being key to the forthcoming 10-year plan. I hope that the Committee will agree that we are continuing with this assimilated law to prevent significant disruption to the current framework and to ensure that patients, device users and the economy are all protected.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Maxton
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement with effect from 5 May of the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Police: Stop and Search
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the police act proportionately in stop and search.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Stop and search is a fundamental tool for tackling crime, including knife crime in particular, but it must be used fairly and effectively. The Government support the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s Police Race Action Plan, which commits chief constables to identifying and addressing disparities in the use of stop and search.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as the Minister said, stop and search is a valuable tool in taking weapons off our streets, but Home Office figures show that 86% of police stop and search is on suspicion of possession-only drug offences, and you are four times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are black than if you are white, even though Home Office research concludes:
“It is not clear from the evidence whether ethnicity is a predictor of violent offending”.
What can the Government do to get the police to carry out more stop and search on violent criminals?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that it is for the police themselves to determine whether they undertake stop and search. That was a particular judgment for police officers rather than for Ministers. He will know, in the Metropolitan Police area in particular, 26% of all stop and searches were taken by the Metropolitan Police overall, resulting in over 21,999 arrests—from 16% of those stop and searches.
We have signed up and supported the Metropolitan Police and others included in the Police Race Action Plan, and the Metropolitan Police has signed up to that plan. It looks at how stop and search is being used by police on black and ethnic minority individuals, and at involving black and ethnic minority representatives in monitoring the use of stop and search. The noble Lord is right that stop and search should be used for serious crimes. That also requires strong training and support to police officers, to ensure their safety also.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, how wise is it to put off the introduction of biometric ID cards?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Well, my Lords, I was in the Home Office when we had ID cards, which were abolished by the then Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition. The noble Lord has made his point. I wish that they had not been abolished, but we are in a position now where, 15 years ago to the day, the party that he supports, with Liberal Democrat support, came to power and, as a result, abolished the ID cards that he now seeks to reintroduce.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, every 14 hours a child is strip-searched in England and Wales by the police. Black children are four times more likely than white children to be targeted and most of the searches—at least 50%—result in no further action. It is a legal requirement for an appropriate adult to be in hand and on side when the child is searched, but there is clear evidence of widespread non-compliance with this. Despite the fact that the previous Government did a consultation last June and that the current Home Secretary has said that tighter safeguards are an urgent priority, no action has been taken. Can the Minister tell us when the Government are going to resolve this appalling situation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The Government hope to introduce new safeguards on her very point about the strip-searching of children via amendments to statutory codes of practice and will be bringing those forward in due course.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister, and the Home Secretary in particular, on the pre-emptive action taken over the weekend to arrest a number of threatened terrorists, including seven Iranians who had, I understand, specific targets in mind. Is the Minister able to give the House any more information regarding this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Unfortunately not. I am very grateful to my noble friend for his question. He may be aware that very shortly—which I do not wish to pre-empt—a Statement will be made in the House of Commons by the Security Minister, which I suspect I will be repeating in due course in this House. I hope that he will be patient for both the Statement and for any repeat requested by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister will know, stop and search removed over 3,500 dangerous weapons from the streets of London and still retains a high level of support among Londoners. What assessment will the Government be making of the Metropolitan Police’s use of the new stop and search charter? Do the Government believe this will lead to better stop and search or will it reduce the number of weapons removed from the streets?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is important that we note and support the Metropolitan Police signing up to the charter which monitors how stop and search is used and sets down some basic tenets that underpin the use of it with checks and balances and by monitoring disparity on the basis of race. But it is equally important that the Metropolitan Police has the power to undertake stop and search, because it has resulted in 21,999 arrests, 12,391 community resolutions, 4,150 penalty notices for disorder and 119 seizures of property in the Metropolitan Police area. The Metropolitan Police is obviously making an impact on elements of criminality, but a large proportion of people are still stopped where no action is taken and no offence has taken place. That is why the measures the Metropolitan Police has put in place are so important.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, there are two things that the Government might consider to help police improve the efficacy of stop and search. This relates also to the next Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, about the use of knives on our streets. First, it is no surprise or secret who carries weapons. The mothers of these kids know it, as do their brothers and the people that they go round with. But will they tell the police and will the police do something about it immediately? Could something such as Crimestoppers—which I tried to get going before I left, but could not—act as a good portal to make sure that the information is passed to the police about who is carrying knives and when and get the police out within minutes to go and find them on the Tube, in taxis or wherever they happen to be travelling? Secondly, there is the use of technology. At the moment, we are relying on officers’ intuition to decide where and who they search, when surely technology by now should be helping them in that vital task.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that intelligence-led policing is critical to making the best use of stop and search. That includes methods where individuals who have information can pass it in confidence to the police. The suggestions the noble Lord has made are important ones. It will also be helpful that we will have over this Parliament an extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers, with neighbourhood police officers allocated to each community area. It will build confidence and trust to report those matters.
The noble Lord mentioned technology. It is no secret that the Government have been looking at the question of facial recognition and other technologies along those lines, which can spot and analyse the use and carrying of knives. That is something we are working on, although I cannot give him definitive answers today.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, as has been said many times, stop and search is a vital part of the police toolbox to tackle crime. The 2023 review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, highlighted several areas of concern in how these powers were used. In my years of policing, I always maintained that it is vital that all officers are properly trained in how to use these powers and that they know their limitations within the law. Could the Minister update the House on how the Government are working with the College of Policing to deliver the updated national policing curriculum to ensure that guidance for stop and search is properly understood and implemented on the ground?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right; it is important there is training in the use of stop and search by police officers and that it is updated. It is important that the outcomes of stop and searches are monitored for both the impacts, which the noble Lord mentioned earlier, and to see whether racial disparities are taking place. Those should be fed back to both the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. This is why the National Police Chiefs’ Council is issuing and regularly updating information on the race action plan, both monitoring it and examining its impact.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
There is plenty of time for both questions if noble Lords are quick.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, the Minister was talking about increased numbers of police. Are the Government supportive of neighbourhood policing?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are so supportive of neighbourhood policing that we have put an extra £1 billion into that fund this year. We are employing around an extra 3,000 neighbourhood police this year and will employ 13,000 more over the course of this Parliament.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister gave us a series of statistics about the successes of stop and search in terms of items seized, charges made and so on. But, of course, the other element of stop and search is its deterrent effect. Could he tell us what work has been done to quantify whether stop and search has a deterrent effect and what its extent is?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I cannot give my noble friend a qualitative answer to that at the moment. However, I will say that visible policing and the visible nature of being able to stop and search an individual who is suspected have resulted in a significant number of hauls of drugs, knives and other material. That should on its own have a deterrent effect. I cannot give my noble friend an analysis that we have measured, but I welcome his contribution and I will certainly look at that.
Knife Crime
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brown of Silvertown
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle knife crime.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government are taking a number of steps to halve knife crime within a decade as part of the safer streets mission. We have created the Young Futures programme, the coalition to halve knife crime, the knife-enabled robbery task force, and we are bringing in new and stronger legislation to crack down on the sale of and access to dangerous knives.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
Much of the knife crime in my former constituency in east London was fuelled by county lines drug gangs. I worked with some amazing mums, who were desperately trying to rescue their children who were ensnared in the pernicious clutches of these gangs. Parents facing these circumstances need real support to help them navigate not only the violence and menace of the groomers but the criminal justice system, in which they can be both victim and perpetrator. Do the Government agree? If so, what action can we expect?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I pay tribute to my noble friend for the work she did on this very issue as a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons. She has pressed very hard for an offence to try to break up criminal gangs luring young people into violence and crime. I am pleased to tell her that, as she will know, there is a new child criminal exploitation offence in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently before the House of Commons and will come to this place shortly, to ensure we can take action against exploiters and deter gangs, and have some prevention orders in place. I hope that she will also welcome the Young Futures prevention partnerships, which we have put in place to help guide families and young people through moving out of gangs and criminal behaviour. Additionally—and I know this will be of specific interest to her—the Metropolitan Police has been allocated £8.1 million via the hotspot action fund to include Metropolitan Police officers on the ground in neighbourhood police officer mode.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that there are reports of a dramatic increase in young people carrying knives on a regular basis. This generation of young people has had a really hard time. First, there has been a major increase in the break-up of parental relationships in their young years. Secondly, their schools were closed during the pandemic, and then they have had to cope with the effect of a lot of social media. Would the Minister agree that we really ought to think about returning to some of the preventive and support services that we lost some time in the last decade?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I mentioned the Young Futures programme to my noble friend. That is designed to ensure that we intervene early with children and young people who face poorer outcomes because of factors in their lives that have led them to carry knives. These could be gang related, the result of poor parenting or just from contact at school. It is very important that we get that support for them. It is also important that we tackle the sales of knives, the ability to buy a knife online and the criminality of carrying knives, which we have now done in the Crime and Policing Bill. Those measures will be before this House shortly, and I look forward to cross-House support to pass them.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, last month I had the great pleasure of meeting with Mark Prince, who started the Kiyan Prince Foundation after the murder of his 15 year-old son in 2006. Can the Minister say what money is available for these small, community organisations, which are doing this vital, pre-emptive work to keep children away from knife crime and gang crime?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The main focus of the Government’s new investment on preventing knife crime is the Young Futures hubs. We are starting to experiment with a couple of pilot schemes, which will draw in voluntary organisations and others around them to look at how we can best intervene on young people and their families accordingly. Those pilots will be undertaken very shortly, and I hope that we will roll out a number of Young Futures hubs nationwide once the pilots have been operational. Those hubs would then be the best opportunity for other organisations to work with them to secure resources and contribute to reducing knife crime.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, youth offending teams, which are funded through the Turnaround early intervention programme, do excellent work with children at risk of entering the youth justice system, including those vulnerable to knife crime. However, consistency is vital in youth work, where success relies entirely on building trust. The problem is that funding for these teams is guaranteed only until March 2026. Could the Minister say whether there are plans to introduce some long-term funding to ensure that these teams can continue to do the excellent work they are currently doing?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will draw the noble Baroness’s comments to the attention of the Minister for Justice, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. Youth offending teams are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. But, as I mentioned, the Home Office is trying to invest in the Young Futures programme. Those initial hubs will not replace other types of activity, such as youth offending teams; they are there to generate a collective response from organisations to look at what is needed most to reduce knife crime. So there is new funding going in from the Home Office, and I will raise her point with the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, on her behalf.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, a few weeks ago, the Minister said he was looking at the possibility that the police might be equipped with handheld metal detectors as a way of stopping people in the street and seeing whether they had metal weapons on them. Has he made any progress in that direction?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Yes, I have. We are working with industry partners to develop the very systems that my noble friend has raised previously and again today. The work is part of an innovation competition that was launched last year. Phase 1 is expected to be delivered by the end of May, resulting in the first prototype systems, so I hope my noble friend will recognise that there is action this day.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, given the importance of young men needing positive role models in their lives, and of these being people they actually know and can talk to consistently, have His Majesty’s Government considered—as part of their Young Futures programme—how the PSHE curriculum in schools can be tailored more to facilitating these opportunities, taking note particularly of the excellent work of charities such as Kick, which are providing more and more mentors to primary and secondary schools?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Education and contact in schools is probably one of the key issues that need to be challenged to give young people the skills and confidence to play a role with their friends in a way that is not in a gang—where they are not drawn into criminal activity and have the confidence to resist those temptations when they are put in front of them. The right reverend Prelate’s point is vital, and it lies with the Department for Education in England and with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is key to driving up individuals’ confidence to tackle knife crime at source.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Last year, there were around 50,500 recorded offences involving a sharp instrument. Knife crime, of course, terrifies communities and can have lethal consequences, and it is very worrying that the numbers are heading in the wrong direction. The Government reported in February that 17% of knife crime offences related to children, and over 99% of these were for possession alone. One of the great issues around this is the glorification of carrying knives among some young people, so what might the Minister have to say about tackling this glorification?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a valid point, and I look forward to him joining the Government in supporting the measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, which will come before this House, that tackle the promotion of knife crime on social media, the sale of knives on social media, and his point about the glorification and promotion of knife culture. We are trying to undertake a range of measures, some of which go back to direct interventions—such as the Youth Futures programme—some of which go back to issues to do with better policing and neighbourhood policing, and some of which are around stop and search. But a big proportion is about the ban on zombie knives, the ban on sales of knives and the ban on social media promoting knife culture. Those things will come before this House very shortly, and I look forward to his support.
Artificial Intelligence: Public Services
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to use artificial intelligence to improve public services.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
Public services are of course central to the AI Opportunities Action Plan, which outlines how we will improve these services to drive growth. We have announced £42 million for three frontier AI exemplars, driving departments to use AI to boost productivity and citizen experience. We are adopting a flexible “scan, pilot, scale” approach to AI adoption in public services and, just this week, the NHS published guidance on ambient voice technologies, which can transcribe patient-clinician conversations and more.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reply. Could we bring this a little nearer to home? Perhaps he might say what we can do, if there is the need for it, to improve our performance and the efficiency and effectiveness of both Houses of Parliament. If so, what plans do we have to seek those objectives?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. It is in the Government’s interest to help here as much as we can. However, as the noble Lord will know, that is a parliamentary accountability, not a government one. The Parliamentary Digital Service has issued guidance for Members and their staff on the use of AI, which is going to be updated regularly as required—and, of course, as the understanding around AI improves. Seminars on how to use generative AI effectively are available to all Members and their staff, and the Parliamentary Digital Service is looking at opportunities to apply AI safely to support the work of Members in both Houses.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that caution is needed if public services, in an attempt to be inclusive but also to save money, convey information in languages other than English that has been produced by machine translation? That works pretty well for standard Romance languages and for German, but it is much less effective for languages with many dialects, such as Arabic, and it is currently virtually useless for Asian or African languages because they have not been used in AI training data. Is all this being fed into emerging AI policy and prospective regulation?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. This is an incredibly important point. As the noble Baroness rightly says, the AI training datasets are often not on the right things, and this is an example where there is a need for training of models in different languages and dialects. It will be very important as part of public service improvements. I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue—and yes, it is something that is being looked at.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
This Parliament and our Governments have a chequered history of procurement of software to be used in various government departments. Can the Minister kindly confirm that we will be more rigorous whenever we are procuring services to assist us in the deployment of AI in the public service?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As I mentioned, there are three AI exemplars being used at the moment. They are: future customer experience; citizen AI agents —so starting with an AI agent to help young people to find a job or an education pathway; and the government efficiency accelerator. In all these examples, procurement is exactly one of the things that needs to be looked at. I have mentioned previously in this House that AI assurance services are part of this as well. The point raised, which is that it is easy to get the wrong thing, is right, and we need to look very carefully at this.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Back in January, the Blueprint for Modern Digital Government stated the intention to establish
“an AI adoption unit to build and deploy AI into public services, growing AI capacity and capability across government, and building trust, responsibility and accountability into all we do”.
How will this new AI adoption unit ensure that ethical principles, safety standards and human rights considerations are embedded from the very beginning of the AI adoption process throughout the public sector rather than being treated as a secondary concern after deployment?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The deployment of AI has started, as the noble Lord recognised, and I have given the three headline exemplars—and others are being put in through the incubator for AI that sits within DSIT. He raises a crucial point, and that is why the responsible AI advisory panel is being set up, which will include civil society, industry and academia to make sure that this is looked at properly. An ethics unit is already looking at this, and there are many diverse groups across government. What the Government Digital Service is trying to do is to pull it together into something more coherent, of which I think the responsible AI advisory panel is an important part.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, a slogan from the early days of computing is, “Rubbish in, rubbish out”. Biased historic training data can bake discrimination and historic bias into the system, whether on stop and search, which we have discussed, or whether on insurability or employability, and so on. To flip my noble friend’s very positive and commendable Question, what are the Government going to do to ensure that there are safeguards to ensure that historic bias is not baked into the system?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Once again, that is a very important question. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. It is as true for AI as it is for other systems: rubbish in, rubbish out. Well-curated, properly understood datasets are crucial. It is one of the reasons that where there are well-documented, well-curated datasets that can be used to train models for government purposes, we will be pursuing those. We will use the AI assurance mechanism that I discussed previously to try to make sure that we identify where there are systems that carry risks such as the one the noble Baroness raises.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that the US and China are currently responsible for the 80% of the world’s largest AI models. Does he agree that in an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment, and with clear evidence of diversions on values, Europe’s dependency could quickly become a vulnerability, in terms of not just public services but the upholding of our democratic values? Given that the EU and UK have complementary strengths and values in common, will he persuade the Government to pursue, with the EU, a shared attempt to close the competitive gap? Might this be on the agenda at the EU-UK summit in May, given that the trade and co-operation agreement is totally silent on AI?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We are working closely with our friends in Europe on AI, both at the safety and security level through the AI Security Institute and more broadly. We have a bilateral meeting with France coming up in July, where this will be discussed. There is a need for all of us to think about which models we want to rely on and become dependent on and, indeed, where models can be made that are not general-purpose, wide, generative models but narrower models that can answer the questions we need to answer. Not everything comes down to broad, generative AI.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s plan to drive tens of billions in productivity savings in the public sector with AI is, of course, welcome. But does the Minister agree that any success here will depend on the effective measurement and reporting of progress? If so, what can he tell us today about how progress is going to be measured and what progress has been made so far?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, rightly suggests, between 4% and 7% of public sector spend could be reduced with a mix of digitalisation and AI. Both those things become important; it is not all AI, a lot of it is digital change. I have indicated the exemplars that are being piloted at the moment, both at a cross-government level and the ones being led out of DSIT as part of the incubator for AI. These are being assessed and evaluated. For example, programmes that look at the responses—sometimes tens of thousands—to consultations are being evaluated not only for the answers they give but for the time that might be saved by using them. So a series of metrics will be developed to understand the impact of these measures.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on seizing the opportunity that AI presents to improve our public services; it is a great example of how it can be a great servant to humanity. Is the Minister aware, though, of concerns in the creative industries about it becoming a master rather than a servant of human activity? What measures are the Government taking to ensure that those concerns are met?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Like almost every technology that has been introduced, this can do good and harm. The noble Lord is quite right to raise the question of where it is going to cause more harm and, indeed, where it does something that is not in the interest of the community. That is something that is being looked at; it is one of the reasons that the AI Security Institute was set up—to try to understand what these models will do and where we need to have particular concern for risks. He is also right that one of the aims that should be there for any AI is to free up time for humans to do the things that only humans can do. It is a very important principle, whether for application in the NHS or across the public sector.
Climate Change: Progress
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Krebs
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the publication on 30 April of the report by the Climate Change Committee Progress in adapting to climate change: 2025 report to Parliament, what plans they have to increase efforts to adapt the United Kingdom to the effects of climate change.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to strengthening the nation’s resilience to climate change. We welcome the Climate Change Committee’s latest report and are carefully considering its recommendations. We will respond formally in October, as required by the Climate Change Act. In the meantime, we are working to strengthen our objectives on climate adaptation and to improve the framework that supports departments and communities in managing the impacts of a changing climate.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. The report from the Climate Change Committee points out that there has been no progress in adaptation to climate change since the previous report. During the eight years that I chaired the adaptation sub-committee, we said exactly the same thing. As Yogi Berra would have said, “It’s déjà vu all over again”. The report also says that the Government have no specific measurable targets or objectives for adapting to climate change. I will ask the Minister about just one area. The report estimates that by 2050, approximately one in four properties in this country could be at risk of flooding if there were no adaptation to climate change. My question is: is this an acceptable level of risk? If not, what level of risk do the Government think is acceptable?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, first, on the substantive point that the noble Lord makes about progress, he will know that we are not yet halfway through the national adaptation programme 3. Therefore, the response to the Climate Change Committee, which is due by October, will very much reflect the work in progress in terms of what we need to do to beef up the current plan and implementation and to look forward to the NAP4, which starts in 2028. We are not complacent; we take the committee’s report very seriously, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and her committee for the work they have done. On the noble Lord’s substantive point on the issue of objectives, I very much accept that that is one of the matters we will be considering over the next few months. Secondly, on flooding, of course the report of the committee and the prediction it has made about the 8 million properties that are at risk of flooding by 2050 is something that no Government could take complacently. He will know that we have already committed £2.65 billion to repair or build flood defences, and of course we will look further into this matter in light of the committee’s report.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will the Government rule out any new development on functional flood plains, particularly in zone B, which is the most at risk of flooding? If the Minister rules that out, he has a good chance of having more resilient houses in other places. Will the Government undertake not to build on functional flood plains?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that we are going to rule this out completely. The noble Baroness will know that flood-plain building is possible in the UK at the moment. It is a heavily regulated process with significant planning requirements. We will obviously continue to look very carefully at these issues and whether the requirements are sufficient, but we do not think that a blanket ban is appropriate.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, how much influence can the British Government have on climate change, when many countries are still pumping out more and more gases that will damage the climate? How do the Government assess what we are doing and what other countries are doing?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise the argument, but if every country that emitted the same emissions as the UK does took action, we would have a critical impact on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously, we negotiate within the COP process to encourage multilateral agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but I think that the real lesson of this report is that it sets out in detail the risk to this country and the world of the climate change that will come unless we act towards achieving net zero and reducing our greenhouse gases. This is a very stark reminder of why we should not detract from our pathway to net zero.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the hottest day, the second wettest winter and the second worst harvest on record have all been in the last three years. Given that this report did not find evidence for scoring a single outcome as “Good” in terms of adaptation delivery, and little evidence of change, can I seek the Minister’s reassurance that the Government have heard the very urgent calls for action without further delay, and that the Minister accepts that this must serve as a turning point in our approaches to adaptation delivery?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right. The Committee on Climate Change said:
“There is … unequivocal evidence that climate change is making extreme weather in UK, such as heatwaves, heavy rainfall, and wildfire-conducive conditions, more likely and more extreme”,
and the points he raised are absolutely right. We take this report very seriously. We have been in office 10 months, and we are reflecting on the specific points that the committee has made, area by area. By law, we have to respond by October, and I assure the noble Earl we will take this seriously and give a serious response. As I said earlier, this will lead into the work that we need for the NAP4, starting in 2028.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the report points out that one area in which we have actually moved backwards is the resilience of our water system, not least the atrocious situation that we still have in terms of water leakage. Is this not an example of Ofwat and the water companies letting us all down yet again? What will the Government do about it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out issues in relation to water, water leakages and the performance of water companies. He will know that the Government are engaged in considerable discussions about the future of the industry. I have noted that the Committee on Climate Change in its report says:
“Through the reforms to the public water sector, currently being considered by Defra and Ofwat, the next water regulatory settlement … should fund and encourage more ambitious options to get the sector back on track for its demand and leakage reduction targets”.
We will obviously look at that very carefully.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The impacts of climate change and the need for adaptation are often seen in terms of physical structures and infrastructure, but would the Minister agree with me that there are important effects on health and that it is very central that his department talks to the Department of Health about the effects of, for example, the heatwaves, to which reference has been made, and the effects of changes in our and other countries’ climates that mean that we may see diseases that we do not think of as being relevant to the UK here in the very near future?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be aware that the committee’s report refers to heat-related deaths rising in the UK as a result of what is happening to our climate. Since publication of the national adaptation plan 3 in July 2023, we have taken on board that point. The last Government published the fourth Health Effects of Climate Change (HECC) in the UK report in December 2023, detailing the risks. We have updated the NHS Green Plan Guidance in February 2025, setting out key actions each integrated care system and trust should undertake to strengthen their resilience to climate impacts, and we are very much on the case on this.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, surely in relation to climate change we must be pragmatic in this area and not dogmatic, so my question to the Minister is simply: why do he and his boss, the Secretary of State for Energy, refuse to listen to their closest advisers? Dr Fatih Birol, head of the IEA, says now that investment in oil and gas is required to support global energy security. Tony Blair says net zero is doomed to failure, and Gary Smith of the GMB says the transition to net zero has
“cut … emissions by decimating working class communities”.
Why does the Minister continue to focus on international gas markets when we have an abundance of domestic, cheap, accessible and clean gas under our feet, both onshore and offshore, that would allow us to be energy independent once again and reindustrialise our working-class heartlands? Surely now is the time for the Minister to go back to his boss and tell him to “Drill, Mili, drill”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, if I may say so, that sounded like a very dogmatic question. The noble Lord would be forgiven for not thinking that, in government, his party passed legislation committing us to net zero in 2050. As for the points he makes in relation to jobs, he will know that, in February, the CBI published a report showing that the big growth in the economy in the last year or two has been in the net-zero green sector and that there are nearly 1 million people now employed in that sector—it is the fastest-growing part of our economy. On the Tony Blair Institute, I am a great admirer of Tony Blair, but I have disagreed with him on one or two issues. The report was a global assessment, and it recommended a particular emphasis on nuclear, carbon capture usage and storage and reform of the planning system; we are doing all of that.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thought it would be useful to the House to set out the plan for proceedings this Thursday, which are slightly different to usual to enable us to mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day, paying tribute to those whose service we honour this week.
The House will sit, as usual, at 11 am but for Prayers only. We will then adjourn at around 11.05 am to allow noble Lords with tickets to attend the service at Westminster Abbey and for the Mace to process to the abbey. That service will start at noon. Noble Lords attending should make their way to the Chamber for Prayers or by 11.05 am to join the procession. Black Rod will give everyone a short briefing before setting off. The House will resume shortly before noon for the national two-minute silence to mark VE Day. This will be broadcast, and noble Lords who wish to join should be in the Chamber by 11.55 am. The broadcast will begin just before noon and the beginning of the two-minute silence will be announced by the Deputy Speaker on the Woolsack and the Division Bells will ring for those outside the Chamber who also want to observe the silence.
Once the silence is finished, we will proceed immediately to the first Oral Question—that will be around 12.02 pm. The first Question will be asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and answered by the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. After Oral Questions are finished, we will move straight on to the main business, which will be the Employment Rights Bill. I hope that assists noble Lords and clarifies how business will work on Thursday. I have arranged for an email explaining this further to be sent to all noble Lords.
Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, the UK has the highest industrial electricity prices in the OECD. We have discussed this many times in your Lordships’ House. Our prices are 45 times more expensive than in the USA and seven times more expensive than in China. Without cheap energy we are deindustrialising through the back door. Just last week, on 1 May, the Times reported that:
“Three in five British companies have said that ‘rising and unstable’ energy costs are undermining growth plans”.
So will the Minister please listen to the advice of industry, and reconsider this accelerated plan to decarbonise the grid at any cost to prevent more British jobs being lost in our flagship energy-intensive industries?
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath)
My Lords, I of course recognise the challenge that high energy prices pose for UK businesses. I am very well aware that the Urgent Question in the Commons related to a ceramics company in the potteries, Moorcroft. Let me say at once that my thoughts are with all those workers affected, and I know that Ministers are working very hard with the company and the industry to talk through some of those issues.
I say to the noble Lord that the structure we have in relation to energy prices is the same as the one his Government left when they left office last July. We know that the main reason why we have high energy prices is our reliance on international gas and oil markets, which related back to the shock to the system from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. We believe as a Government that the faster we move to decarbonise, the more we can provide energy security and cheaper energy, and that this is the best way to go forward. If anything came from the previous Question about the advice of the Climate Change Committee, it is that we cannot afford to let go or slow down in relation to climate change. We do not have that luxury; we need to press on.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, our industrial energy prices are too high and our transition to net zero must not come at the cost of specific industrial sectors. The Minister has noted that the original Question in the Commons was in relation to our pottery industry. It is clear that the energy supercharger is helping, but what more can be done to make sure that it is helping all our industries? It is also no secret that the Government are looking at energy market reform in our domestic sector, so can the Minister say what action is being taken to help with industry’s energy costs? What thoughts have the Government had about setting up a permanent independent body to advise the Government on the complex matters involved in the energy market reform policy?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is of course right to refer to the energy supercharger: £470 million is being contributed towards helping companies which are major energy users. Obviously, we look at the scheme and at whether any changes should be made, but as regards energy market reforms, we are certainly looking at a number of issues in relation to the electricity market. We are looking at issues to do with zonal pricing and the rebalancing of the cost of electricity and gas. But these decisions are not easy and there will be gainers and losers, so we have to take this very carefully. The ultimate answer to the noble Earl’s question is that we need to decarbonise as quickly as possible. That will give price stability and certainty to industry.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am chairman of Make UK, which represents 27,000 manufacturing businesses in the UK, which I think by mutual acclaim amount to between 10% and 15% of GDP. Our members are extremely worried because they face a 50% premium—at the absolute minimum—on the price of the electricity they have to pay compared to their competitors in Europe and elsewhere. The question to the Government is that industry prices are unregulated compared to consumer prices, and they are therefore much more open to the vagaries of the market. The Government have the industrial strategy, which, I hope, will be published in the next few weeks. Can the Minister reassure us that high energy prices and the uncompetitive nature that they provide for most of our members trying to export products and therefore grow the economy will be assisted in the industrial strategy?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and thank him for the work he does on behalf of so many important industry companies. He will know that we are in discussion with organisations such as his own and many other business and industry interests. As he said, we hope to publish the industrial strategy within the next few weeks. I cannot give him any guarantees as to what will be in it, but I assure him that I understand the pressures on our industries, and we are considering those very carefully in government.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
But, my Lords, the fundamental flaw in the pricing system introduced at the time of privatisation is that the average price of electricity was determined by the marginal price of the last kilowatt, which is normally produced by gas and, as the Minister rightly said, is therefore driven by international gas prices. That is not a law of physics or engineering but a political decision. Should we not be examining that to rebalance the pricing system to the benefit of industry and indeed consumers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the electricity market operates on the principle of marginal pricing, whereby the wholesale price of electricity is set by the last technology needed to meet overall demand. That is why gas tends to set the price for the market. We are of course looking at this as part of our REMA review that I have referred to. But the faster we decarbonise our energy and move towards clean power, the less gas will have the influence it does in the current system.
Lord Teverson (LD)
What lessons has the Minister’s department learned from looking at our competitors, particularly in Europe, which seems to manage this aspect of its energy markets rather better? What lessons have we learned from across the channel?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we have to look at each country, and some subsidise business costs from the Exchequer. There is no easy way through here; one way or another, there are variations in what Governments do, but we have a very tough public financial situation bequeathed by the last Government, in the form of the black hole they left us, so our options are inevitably constrained. We are not complacent; that is why we have this review of our whole energy pricing structure, and we will look at these matters very carefully. I still maintain, and I think the noble Lord would agree, that the best way to energy security and stable prices is to go towards clean power as quickly as we can.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the Minister was absolutely clear that these are not easy decisions, and I think we all understand that. But the high price of electricity affects not only industries but consumers, so they are decisions, however difficult, that have to be taken. We have been tremendously damaged by the system that we have at the moment, so can the Minister be a little more specific about when we will have the results of the REMA review and when we can change the current perverse system of pricing?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I hesitate to answer the noble Baroness by saying “in due course”. Clearly, these matters are being discussed very fully in my department, and we want to reach a conclusion as quickly as possible, but I cannot give her a date.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, if the Minister is correct in his economic theory about gas and electricity prices—frankly, I am not sure that he is—why is the lower price of oil, which is now getting quite low, not bringing down the price of gas as well?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, it is because of marginal pricing, whereby gas is the most predominant, and it tends to set the price. As my noble friend said, this system has operated for many years, but we are looking at it very carefully.
Energy Grid Resilience
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I begin by expressing my sympathy for all those impacted by the recent blackouts in Spain, Portugal and beyond. This blackout should serve as a stark reminder of the consequences when the power grid fails. Prolonged blackouts are devastating. The collapse of the grid in Iberia highlights the vulnerability of our complex, interconnected systems that underpin modern life, as well as the profound human impact that such failures can have. We must ensure that this does not happen in Great Britain, as the economic and social consequences would be catastrophic.
The Government’s plan to rapidly build a grid that is dependent on naturally unreliable and intermittent renewables in just five years will severely compromise the reliability of our electricity supply. The stability of a grid depends on what physicians know well as inertia—the ability to resist destabilising fluctuations in frequency. This has been a key factor in the security and resilience of our grid over the years. Inertia is provided by turbines in nuclear, hydro and gas power stations, but it is not provided by solar and wind farms. Without sufficient inertia to buffer against sudden frequency shifts, the grid risks destabilisation, potentially triggering a domino effect of system failures that culminates in widespread blackouts.
The most recent annual report from Spain’s equivalent of NESO highlights the risk of relying too heavily on renewables. It concluded that the closure of conventional power plants such as coal, gas and nuclear has diminished the grid’s balancing abilities and inertia. What is deeply concerning is that the same trend is occurring here in the UK. Data from NESO has shown a steady decrease in grid inertia as gas and coal plants are replaced by wind and solar. The transition carries a significant cost, which exemplifies the flaws in much of this Government’s accelerated energy security strategy.
The imposed targets are burdening the British public with escalating costs as the Government push forward with a power system dependent on weather conditions rather than reliable, consistent baseload energy. Billions of pounds are being spent subsidising wind farms, expanding the grid and providing backup through reliable gas plants, yet the Government remain determined to meet the accelerated 2030 clean energy target without being transparent with the public about how this will be achieved.
The lessons from the Iberian peninsula’s experience are clear. We must maintain inertia in our grid to ensure its stability and resilience. Gas and nuclear power are essential for providing reliable baseload generation and inertia. I look to the Minister to provide clarity and assurance. Can he confirm NESO’s and the national grid’s preparedness for a blackout? Will he recognise the role that inertia plays in our power system and the impacts of declining inertia on grid stability? Finally, will he recognise that it is not a reliance on, to quote him, “international gas markets” that puts the UK at risk of blackouts? That lies squarely at the foot of renewables, which cannot provide reliable baseload electricity.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement on the power outages across the Iberian peninsula. Our thoughts are of course with the 55 million people across Spain, Portugal, Andorra and parts of France who were affected.
The Statement rightly highlights the highly resilient nature of Great Britain’s energy. I welcome that we will continue to improve our resilience and ensure that our energy systems are robust and that we have the proper exercises in place. We note that a similar event in Great Britain—a total loss of power—is listed on the national risk register as high impact but very low likelihood. It is reassuring to hear that the Minister has been in regular contact with the National Energy System Operator and is working closely with industry to maintain the resilience of our energy infrastructure.
I also welcome the Government’s taking forward recommendations from previous exercises such as Mighty Oak. As the Minister has noted, the exact reasons behind the power failure remain uncertain. We note that independent examinations are going on and that the Spanish and Portuguese Governments and the European Commission are all examining the causes.
The truth is that there are probably several interlinked events that caused this power outage. Sadly, despite the fact that the causes are at the moment unknown, a “firestorm of disinformation” has already erupted, with some attempting immediately to blame the use of renewable energy. We echo the Spanish Prime Minister’s call for caution against misinformation and disinformation. Energy experts have been quite quick to dismiss renewables as the primary cause.
On disinformation, Carbon Brief notes that UK newspapers have already launched more incorrect editorials attacking our net-zero policies in the first four months of 2025 than they did during the whole of 2024. So I take this opportunity to ask the Minister, what actions are the Government taking to improve government communications and actively counter disinformation in this area?
What this incident does highlight, however, is the critical importance of investing in and upgrading our national grid. As we transition to clean energy, a closely synchronized dance has to happen between building grid capacity and developing clean power. The grid must be designed and invested in adequately, at the right time and with the right volumes, as renewable energy is added and demand for electricity grows. Significant investments are needed: some £77 billion over the next five years to increase electricity levels.
The UK is lagging behind, with grid infrastructure spending being only 25p for every pound spent on renewables. What measures are the Government taking to make sure that investment in our grid is keeping pace and meeting the investment we require?
I also want to ask the Minister about transformers. Following the fire at Heathrow, it has come to my attention that only one factory in the UK produces these bespoke bits of kit, and there are 12 to 24-month waiting times. These are crucial for upgrading our grid and making sure it continues to work, so can the Minister have a look at the transformer capacity issue?
We must learn any lessons, but a baseless rush to blame renewables as part of a culture war helps no one at all. Enabling the resilience and security of our energy grid is paramount. We must focus on the facts, invest strategically in our infrastructure and counter harmful disinformation to deliver a secure, affordable and clean energy future.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments, and I join them in expressing my sympathies for those affected. I am glad to hear that power has been fully restored across the region.
As noble Lords have suggested, the Spanish Government are undertaking a review. We do not yet know the outcome, and I suggest that it is best to await the review before we can look properly at any potential lesson or impact on our own system. Clearly, it is entirely understandable that noble Lords should raise the question of the resilience of our own grid. The Secretary of State has been in regular contact over the past week with the National Energy System Operator, which has provided reassurance that there is no increase in risk to our energy supplies from that incident.
The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, did not come as a surprise to me. We still believe that the best way to secure energy independence is through clean power. The Office for Budget Responsibility has assessed that responding to future gas price shocks could be twice as expensive as the direct public investment needed to reach net zero.
I hope I can provide some reassurance on the issue of inertia. NESO continuously monitors the condition of the electricity system to ensure that there are sufficient inertia reserves to manage large losses. System inertia is the kinetic energy stored in the spinning parts of the generator connected to the electricity system. If there is a sudden change in system frequency, these parts will carry on spinning and slow down that change. System inertia behaves a bit like shock absorbers in a car’s suspension, which dampen the effect of a sudden bump in the road and keep the car stable and moving forward.
In the context of renewable energies, NESO has introduced new technologies such as flywheels to increase inertia and establish new commercial mechanisms to procure these on the GP system as more non-synchronous generation is built and makes up a large proportion of the energy mix. It has also introduced innovative new approaches to manage system stability and the system is designed, built and operated in a way that can cope with the loss of key circuits or systems, minimising the risk of significant customer impact.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, a similar event impacting Great Britain would be a national power outage, with a total loss of power across the whole of Great Britain. This is listed on the national risk register as a high-impact but low-likelihood event, as the noble Earl said. The Great British national electricity transmission system has never experienced a complete shutdown, or anything on the scale seen in Spain over the past few days. None the less, I accept that, as a responsible Government, we must prepare for all eventualities.
On the issue of transformers, I take the noble Earl’s point. Clearly, they are an essential part of the supply chain for our energy sector. We are due to receive an interim report from the review by NESO of what happened at Heathrow—indeed, I think it is due today. We will obviously study that carefully and, if it has implications in relation to transformers, we will consider them very carefully.
The noble Earl also mentioned Exercise Mighty Oak. This was clearly a valuable exercise undertaken by the last Government and we are committed to continuing the work to implement the actions that came from it.
As far as the grid is concerned, I very much take the noble Earl’s point. We know that it needs extending. In the first instance, we are reforming the prioritisation of connections to bring forward projects that are absolutely thought to be able to come forward immediately, rather than applications that will not go anywhere. We also recognise that connection reforms are a critical enabler for our clean power 2030 ambition, and we expect that this will bring forward about £200 billion of investment in network and project build by 2030.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that an essential tool in balancing UK electricity network capacity is the availability of a significant additional number of pumped storage hydro schemes? Will he urge GB Energy to accelerate the pumped storage projects currently under consideration and reconfigure grid capacity to facilitate this?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. I certainly accept that pumped storage energy has a role to play. I shall make sure that Great British Energy is apprised of the views he has taken. He knows that we wish them to operate independently within the strategic framework, which we have debated extensively, but it is a very apposite point, which I will pass on to the chair.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, as was recognised in the other place, reports suggest that Programme Yarrow and Exercise Mighty Oak yielded useful insights and made a valuable contribution to our preparedness in the event of a disruption to the UK’s power supply. However, as proven by the previous Government’s failure to act on the findings of Operation Alice, resulting in a lack of planning for track and trace, border security and lockdowns consequent on the arrival of a pandemic, such diagnostic exercises are only as useful as subsequent actions taken to recommend identified shortfalls in resilience. With this precedent in mind, is my noble friend able to reassure your Lordships’ House that the findings of Programme Yarrow and Exercise Mighty Oak are under constant review and, importantly, that we continue to account for advances in capabilities among those strategic adversaries who might seek to target our critical energy infrastructure?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, Mighty Oak was a successful programme to test plans for full electricity restoration in the event of a national power outage. It was very successful and generated a number of learning points, and we now have a strong governance framework for oversight of the implementation of those recommendations. That work will also feed into the resilience review that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced in July 2024.
I assure my noble friend that there is absolutely no complacency whatever, and nor is there any in relation to the energy security system and cybersecurity threats he referred to. It is certainly a key priority for the Government. We work closely with the National Protective Security Authority and the National Cyber Security Centre and we are certainly not complacent on this.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I do not wish to denigrate the contribution of renewables but, with the increasing electrification of heating and transport, can the Minister explain how the grid can remain resilient without more reliable baseload power, such as that provided by nuclear?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that the baseload that nuclear provides is very important indeed. She knows that we are rapidly approaching the final investment decision on Sizewell C, and the conclusion of the current work of Great British Nuclear in relation to small modular reactors. We are very keen to see the contribution of nuclear recognised. I agree with her that it provides an essential baseload to the system.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, one of the contributors to clean power, which the Government are quite rightly promoting, is solar panels on the roofs of new houses. I commend what the Government are trying to do, but has my noble friend not seen all the opposition from the housebuilders, who say it is too expensive, it will not work, it will make them fat and everything else? Will he keep going with this programme? It is local and very good and will give extra alternatives to all the other types of power that have been discussed this afternoon.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My noble friend will know that my colleagues in the MHCLG are discussing these matters at the moment. I, of course, very much understand the contribution that solar on rooftops can make. We are taking this forward and I am sure we will make announcements as soon as possible.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
Is the Minister able to tell us what proportion of our annual electricity comes from undersea cables, whether from abroad—France, Norway or eventually, possibly, Morocco—or from our own offshore wind farms? Because we know what President Putin has his eye on.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I do not have the exact figures, but I will certainly find them and send them to the noble Lord. Clearly, protecting the offshore infrastructure is a very important issue for the Government. We are working with subsea and offshore operators, including the Joint Maritime Security Centre, to enhance our domestic maritime awareness. I very much take the point and will find the information and send it to him.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the Government have a key meeting coming up with the European Union and, as part of the trade and co-operation agreement, there is, next year, a revision of the energy relationship. With regard to the resilience of our national electricity and energy systems, what do the Government expect to get out of the meeting next month, particularly on interconnectors and a more efficient form of trading between us and our European partners?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord can hardly expect me to go into the details of what we expect out of such discussions. He will know that we are embarked on resetting the relationship between ourselves and the EU. There is to be a summit between the UK and the EU on 19 May and, of course, we have been in discussions with the EU about a number of energy issues. Clearly, what we want is a co-operative relationship that recognises that there is an interrelationship between ourselves and the mainland of Europe. I cannot go into any more detail than that.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. My noble friend the Minister is quite right to highlight the fact that our grid is recognised as one of the more resilient around the world. However, noble Lords have already indicated the number of threats and the changing way in which the grid is operating, with more suppliers and so on coming on stream. Can my noble friend reassure the House that enough consideration has been given not so much to all the things that we are doing to prevent an outage, but all the things that we should be doing to make sure that the public and industry are prepared for those, I hope, rare or even non-existent occasions when the power does go off and for more than just a very short period?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I very much take my noble friend’s point; I will certainly take it on board and discuss it with colleagues. In relation to energy security, I have already said that we must maintain a resilient and secure electricity system. It is a key priority for us. We work closely with the National Protective Security Authority. I pay tribute to my noble friend for the contribution that he has made to these discussions. We are providing extensive advice and support to industry on what measures it should take to protect itself, but I take the point about communication with the public and it is something that I will reflect upon.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I want to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. He is right, and the Minister is right, that in the past we did indeed have resilience. In this sort of case, resilience means bringing in a large amount of extra supply at very short notice, such as could be performed at Dinorwig, the pump storage station, which I was told could bring in several gigawatts at two minutes’ notice and, furthermore, that even if it was never used, the entire system would allow other plants to run at a higher margin, with a higher inertia factor, and, therefore, provide even more resilience and effectiveness for the whole system. In this age, as we move into reliance on renewables on a massive scale, are we providing extra support of that kind—rapid resource mobilisation—which will give us the modern and reliable system that we are going to need to compete in the modern world?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Yes, my Lords, we are. It is a very relevant point. Clearly, we are looking for a balanced energy mix for the future. We see nuclear as being an essential baseload. We will have renewables, but we are looking at hydro storage, as the noble Lord reflected in his own question. The whole point is that we will have a balanced system, but one that is heavily decarbonised. That is exactly the aim of what we seek to do.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, the Statement says that the GB system is “highly resilient” but, in reality, has that not eroded over recent years, as was demonstrated recently at Heathrow, when we have known for some years about capacity problems in west London? The Minister will also be aware of the bottlenecks on the high-voltage national grid, not helped by the current long lead times—around four years—for high-voltage cable and transformers. Even without the rising threat of sabotage, has the network provider not been far too complacent about the threats to the resilience of our electricity network? Finally, he mentioned in a reply about small modular reactors that the industry has been waiting for too long for a decision while our competitors are moving rapidly ahead. Is it not now time for action to get on with building this industry of the future?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in relation to SMRs, I agree with my noble friend that we need to get on with it. I hope and expect that we will have some decisions very soon. I hope that that will set the foundation for future investment in the SMR programme.
As far as west London is concerned, my noble friend is absolutely right to point out the challenges there, and the fact that we basically inherited a system where there had not been sufficient investment in the grid and local distribution network. In relation to Heathrow, let us await the interim and final reports of the review that we have established to see what lessons can be learned. As I said earlier to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the fact is that we expect there to be a major investment in our whole grid system between now and 2030. It will be essential to meet our clean power targets. I think that will give industry the confidence to invest in the areas where we wish it to do so.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about solar panels on the roofs of new houses, will the Minister also look at prioritising solar panels on the roofs of shops, supermarkets and warehouses? Quite often one goes on to an industrial estate and sees a lot of flat roofs but no solar panels and surely that is a much better option than locating solar arrays on top- class agricultural land?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord’s substantive point, and these matters are being discussed in government at the moment. On the use of farmland, he knows that if we were to achieve the whole of our solar ambition, we would not use more than 1% of agricultural land. We will continue to see solar projects on agricultural land, but I want to see much greater development on industrial premises and in domestic houses.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interests. Spending the morning with my newly born grandson has left me in the mood to emphasise the positive, so I can say that I did actually agree with one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Offord, said, and that was that we need to be transparent with the public. There will be difficult decisions to be made and balances to be struck when we build the new infrastructure necessary for the grid. What progress is being made in the public engagement strategy the Government have undertaken about achieving net zero? As we heard earlier today, there are many misapprehensions and mistruths being peddled about the situation in regard to renewables.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on being a grandmother—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
—again. I think that is absolutely right. So much misinformation about energy policy appears in social media and in the media generally. We are doing our best; sometimes Governments are not listened to as much as we would wish. There is no question that, for instance, some of the criticism in relation to energy prices is put at the door of net zero when actually it is because of the uncertainty and volatility of international gas markets. There is a lot that we need to do collectively to get over the reality of why climate change presents such a threat, why, unless we can tackle these issues, we will probably continue to have high energy prices, and why we need to adapt and mitigate as fast as we can. I do not have any easy answers, but it is a matter we are giving great consideration to at the moment.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, resilience is something which is always in the process of being made. It requires embracing emerging technologies. Thorium-based nuclear energy is much safer and cheaper than uranium- or plutonium-based nuclear energy. China and India are leading the race, and I have never seen “thorium” in any UK policy document to do with long-term energy supply. Can the Minister say what investment the UK Government have made or intend to make in thorium-based technology?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
No, my Lords, I am not aware of any investment, but I will double-check. I am very happy to discuss this with my noble friend. We should also mention nuclear fusion as having great potential. The previous Government invested, and this Government are investing, considerable amounts of money in it. The UK has a huge potential lead in this exciting area and there are real signs we may see some positive outcomes in the next few years. I am certainly prepared to engage with my noble friend on this.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I return to a question that was at least implicit in the question from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, on the national grid and possible cyberattacks. We are all aware that there has been a massive cyberattack on Marks & Spencer and one on Co-op Group. No organisation, however large, is immune from the possibility of attack and obviously the national grid is particularly vulnerable. Is there anything the Minister can do to reassure the public and give them confidence that every possible step has been taken to avoid this?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as I think I have already said, the security of our energy system is clearly critical. I take the point the noble and right reverend Lord raised about cybersecurity. Noble Lords will have seen the devastating impact that this has had on retailers in the last few weeks. We work with the National Cyber Security Centre. We are very exercised about this. I can assure the noble and right reverend Lord that we are not at all complacent.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My noble friend the Minister has already referred to the fact that the system operator is introducing innovative new approaches. Might that involve the application of AI to managing the grid? Looking further ahead, and in the light of the report from your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee on long-duration energy storage, could the Minister indicate whether or when the Government might take the type of strategic interest in long-duration energy storage that we will need?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My noble friend is right about AI; that was one of the main points raised in the Tony Blair Institute report, which was raised earlier. We are giving long-duration energy storage a great deal of attention.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, according to National Grid: Live, we are currently relying on interconnectors from Europe for 25% of our energy. Apart from the cost of importing that energy, how much assurance do we have that that electricity comes, and will come, from decarbonised generating capacity?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, interconnectors are very important for our energy security. As we move towards a low-carbon world, we will wish for that supply to be as low-carbon as possible. This will reflect on progress made in other countries, but it is also in relation to the alignment of carbon trading systems. I hope we will be able to make progress on that in the next few months.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start the debate on the first group, I remind the Committee again of the protocol around declaring interests. As I mentioned last week, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of a Bill’s proceedings. That means that, in Committee, relevant interests should be declared during the first group in which a noble Lord speaks. If a noble Lord declared an interest during the previous two days in Committee then that is sufficient, but if they are making their first contribution today then any relevant interest should be declared.
Clause 12: Right to request permission to keep a pet
Amendment 118
Lord Black of Brentwood
“(d) the landlord may not review or withdraw consent once given.”
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this important group on pet ownership, which is a subject of real concern and interest to hundreds of thousands of families that live in rented accommodation and desperately want to share their lives with a pet. I will speak to Amendments 118 and 125, which are also supported by my noble friend Lord Lexden and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to whom I am very grateful. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey for adding her name to Amendment 125. She brings great authority to this debate as a former Defra Secretary of State with a long-standing interest in and commitment to animal welfare.
I also support Amendments 119 and 126, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, to which I have happily added my name. I declare my interest as a patron of International Cat Care. I am very grateful to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Cats Protection and other charities in the sector for their support and the excellent briefing they have provided us, as well as to other organisations, such as Mars Petcare, which has shared crucial research on the benefits of pet ownership and does so much for animal welfare.
I will set out the background to these amendments. We are a nation of pet lovers. Around 13.5 million homes in the UK include a dog and 12.5 million—mine included—are graced by a cat. Unfortunately, however, pet ownership is all too often limited to those who own their own home, causing huge anguish to the millions of families that rent but also want to share their lives with a pet. In 2024, Cats Protection found that over half a million households that would like a cat do not have one because their rental agreements forbid it. Research from Battersea Dogs & Cats Home shows that only 7% of private landlords list their property as pet friendly—an incredibly low number when we consider that, according to the same survey, 76% of tenants already own or aspire to own a pet.
Correcting that imbalance is so important for a number of reasons. There is the obvious link between rental restrictions and pet homelessness, with housing issues cited as the second most common reason that pets are relinquished to Battersea. Last year, Cats Protection took in the equivalent of three cats each day due to landlords not allowing them in their properties—part of a wider crisis of pets having to be given up. At Second Reading, I told the story of Zeke, a cat that arrived in Battersea just 24 hours before his first birthday after his owners faced the heartbreaking choice between finding an alternate rental property or giving him up to a shelter. His story is far from unique: across the UK, thousands of animals urgently need loving homes, yet countless responsible would-be pet owners in the private rental sector are being unfairly prevented from adopting or finding suitable housing due to overly restrictive tenancy agreements.
It is not just our pets that suffer as a result; public health is impacted too. Research conducted by Mars Petcare has found that pet ownership saves the NHS approximately £2.5 billion per year, with pet owners making 15% fewer visits to a doctor. The physical benefits of taking a dog for a walk or a run every day are obvious, but those of us who own pets know it is the mental health and well-being aspects that have the greatest impact. Pets provide people with companionship and loyalty—particularly for those who live alone—help them to meet new people, add structure to their day and offer unconditional love and support. Children also benefit from understanding the responsibilities of caring for a dog or cat and learning how to interact safely with animals. Pet ownership is also often an indicator of a responsible and reliable tenant, which is very relevant to this debate. Research from Battersea showed that three-quarters of landlords surveyed did not observe any discernible increase in wear and tear to their property due to pets.
For all these reasons, I am delighted that the Government are committed to encouraging responsible pet ownership across the private rented sector and I strongly support the ambition of this section of the Bill: providing tenants with the right to request a pet—a request that cannot be unreasonably refused by a landlord. My probing amendments today seek simply to tighten up certain aspects of legislation to guarantee that the pet provisions in the Bill are as effective as possible and that the laudable ambition and clear intention of this legislation is fully realised.
But we are not quite there yet. As it stands, I fear that there are loopholes in the Bill and that landlords will have too much room to deny most requests, risking a serious and unnecessary burden on tenants, the ombudsman and, ultimately, the courts. The amendments I have tabled will provide certainty for tenants and clarity for landlords, and will ensure that the Bill is not a missed opportunity to unlock thousands of homes for pet owners across the country.
Lord Lexden (Con)
I am always glad to support my noble friend Lord Black, with whom I have worked closely on many subjects over many years. Long ago, when we were both in the Conservative research department during a general election campaign, we circulated a briefing note to the party’s candidates telling them what they would need to do to win the support of animals great and small if these marvellous creatures had the vote. I cannot remember whether we included rights for pets in rented property, but it would have been a grave lapse if we had omitted them.
My noble friend’s amendments do not contain a hint of opposition to the Government’s proposals relating to pets; they seek to make the good relevant elements of the Bill even better. The amendments have two objectives: to strengthen the legal protection that the Bill confers on pets and to increase the well-being of people in rented accommodation who want to keep and cherish a pet. These two objectives, as my noble friend has explained, are intertwined. All the research carried out by the wonderful charities devoted to the welfare of pets shows that their owners in rented property not only enjoy greater contentment but lead healthier, better-disciplined lives. The upshot is that tenants who keep pets are likely to seek longer-term tenancies—something that benefits landlords by increasing rental income security.
Surely, through the Bill, we should do all that is possible to prevent responsible people in rented housing being denied unreasonably the opportunity to have a pet or pets, which those who own their homes enjoy automatically, particularly at a time when successive Governments have failed to ensure the provision of sufficient new housing for private ownership.
It is a sad and deeply regrettable fact that a significant proportion of landlords, as my noble friend has explained, are resolutely opposed to the presence of pets in their properties. A 2021 survey by YouGov, on behalf of those excellent charities the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, found that one-third of private landlords who currently refuse to allow pets in their properties are not prepared to reconsider their opposition. They must be expected to go to all possible lengths to try to flout the pet ownership provisions of this Bill.
Nothing could illustrate more clearly the need for stronger legal protection than the Bill currently provides, which could be achieved through my noble friend’s amendment to define more firmly and tightly the circumstances in which a request to have a pet in rented property could be rejected. In the absence of a more precise definition of what would constitute acceptable grounds for a landlord’s refusal, disputes will inevitably proliferate. A lack of clarity and certainty in the law always leads to problems, as we have seen in various contexts recently. Opaque law cannot be satisfactory law.
I hope that the Government will give very careful consideration to these important and constructive amendments.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 119 and 126 in my name, to which the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, has added his name. The provisions of my two amendments simply mirror the provisions that are in Amendments 118 and 125, so that they will apply to superior landlords as well as landlords. A superior landlord is a person who, for example, owns the block of flats and has a greater interest in the tenants than does the immediate landlord. I declare an interest as I have been affected twice recently by the superior landlord being in a position to deny any pet ownership.
I fully agree with the excellent introduction to this issue from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, and all the points that he made, but, if this provision is not added to the Bill, I fear it will completely undermine the Government’s very good intentions, which we support, in bringing forward Clause 12, because the position of the superior landlord will almost always override that of the landlord.
The interests that I quote I will give as examples. The first was from when, during Covid, I rented out my flat. The family who rented it wanted to adopt a cat. The rules applying to the block of flats state that pets may not be kept, so although I as a landlord was happy that this family adopted a cat, the superior landlord rules for the block forbade it. More recently, this year, my husband and I have bought a flat, but even as owners we are subject to a rule that the superior landlord has to give permission for a pet. This means a lot of uncertainty for the vendor and for us, while the superior landlord decided whether we could keep our 15 year-old dog.
If the Government succeed in changing the position for renters, they must also address the issue of superior landlords and their ability to block any pet ownership. If the Government do not address this, the likelihood is that the good intentions behind this clause will fail because of the legal limitations for subtenants. Usually, they do not have a direct contractual relationship—that is, in legalese, no privity of contract—with the superior landlord, unless there is a direct agreement. This can mean that enforcing rights or obligations becomes very difficult if the issue lies with the superior landlord rather than with the immediate landlord.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to this issue, because I fear that, otherwise, as I said, the good intentions of Clause 12 will be totally undermined.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I am not quite sure what the Minister said earlier, but I would like to declare interest as an owner of rented property.
I shall speak to Amendments 120, 122 and 123 in my name in this group. All these amendments seek to highlight where pets could be unsuitable in a rented property. Although, as I have already said earlier during this Committee, as a landlord I have never refused a pet, a blank cheque for pets is not practical. Amendment 120 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if the allergies from that pet would have a negative impact on the landlord’s employees, their managing agents or other related persons, including future tenants. For those who suffer with allergies, this is a very serious matter and can have a debilitating effect, and it is not always possible to remove allergens through standard cleaning. We have all read and heard about the allergies from peanuts et cetera that can kill; well, the allergies from pets are not so serious, but they are very serious for people who suffer.
Amendment 122 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if they reasonably believe it is unsuitable for the property, may cause a nuisance to neighbours or may damage the property or place an unreasonable burden on its upkeep. Wooden floors get scratched and carpets get stained—if they are still there —when pets are involved, so flooring almost always needs to be replaced when a tenancy ends. Some may consider this reasonable wear and tear, and others may not, but it is certainly a much greater cost when there have been pets in a property, and it is an important factor to consider. Not every landlord is in a position always to replace everything every time there is a new tenancy. Of course, some pets are capable of causing more damage than others, and some properties are easier to upkeep than others. I think there should be some leniency and some leeway for landlords who know their properties to make a judgment on this.
Amendment 123 follows on from this and seeks to exclude pets which are inappropriate or disproportionate in size or number. I realise there will be difficulties in defining this. Are five Dobermann pinschers more or less suitable than 25 fox-terriers? Nevertheless, as the Bill stands, I am not clear whether a landlord would be free to make a judgment, which most noble Lords would agree would be very sensible, that a Great Dane could not be housed in a studio flat, or that 50 cats could not be kept in a small terraced house. Given the difficulties, will the Minister consider making it clear that the landlord has, or should have, discretion to make sensible decisions for the benefits of residents, neighbours and the pets themselves?
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 124 is in my name, and I declared relevant interests earlier. The amendment is very simple: it is about putting social housing tenants in the same place as those in the private rental sector after the Bill has become an Act.
I received a copy of a letter that the Dogs Trust sent to the Deputy Prime Minister in March this year in which it proposed exactly the same thing. Looking at the crib sheet for the answer that came back, I see that the first part is commendable in that it says: “The Government understands that pet ownership can be hugely beneficial, bringing joy to owners and supporting mental and physical health”. I can only agree with that. At Second Reading and in various parts of the process of this Bill, it has been eloquently and frequently said how important pets are and—speaking as a Scottish landlord, both personally and as a charitable trustee— I very much believe that and strongly support the concept of there being a rebuttable presumption that pets are allowed where people are renting properties.
The letter went on to make two points. The first point was that the Government did not feel that what amounted to Amendment 124 was correct, because social housing tenants was a separate policy area. Of course, it is all still MHCLG, and I do feel that someone standing at a bus stop in middle England would scratch their head about that particular one: why on earth should someone living in social housing be in a different place to someone living in the private rental sector? It is a distinction without a difference.
In the second part of the letter, it went on to give various reasons why it might be reasonable, within social housing, to say no to a tenant who wanted a pet. It all amounted to a series of reasons why it might not be reasonable for a pet to be allowed in a particular property, but of course that is already how the Bill is drafted: it is possible for a landlord to say that a particular pet or series of pets should not be allowed in rented accommodation, as long as that is reasonable. It is reasonable for a landlord to say no, so I do not quite see what the logical force of that is, because the social housing sector would retain that right to say no. I therefore urge the Minister to reach across the corridor at MHCLG and accept what has become a very popular amendment.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have close connections with various animal charities, in particular as a vice-president of the RSPCA nationally and as president of one of its branches.
I too want to speak to Amendment 124, eloquently introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I see no logic whatever: to make a distinction in the way that apparently has been done is what I call Civil Service short-sightedness, and I strongly disapprove of it. I can see no logical reason whatever for treating people who are renting their properties differently simply because they live in a slightly different type of property. I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at this and come to a different conclusion.
I will broaden this out slightly to look at the various amendments in this group. It seems to me that while the heart is in the right place—and I give due credit to the Government for introducing this general right to have a pet, for which I have long campaigned—the Bill fails slightly in not laying down the circumstances clearly enough, so that it leaves the opportunity for some landlords to squeeze past what is clearly intended. On the other hand, it could make for some difficulties if the tenants themselves are unreasonable.
I suggest that the Minister look at bringing forward a code of conduct that would act as a guide for all the varying points which have been made hitherto—if you like, a “highway code”, not necessarily having the force of law, to which one could look for guidance where these tricky problems arise. I hope that this will commend itself to the Minister.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 124A in the name of my noble friend Lord Leicester. He apologises to the House for not being here. He had hoped to be here, but a long-standing commitment has prevented him from being so.
Of course, my noble friend Lord Black is absolutely right that pets can be extremely beneficial and are a great asset in many households. However, my noble friend Lord Howard is also right in saying that there needs to be a balance; there cannot just be an open door for tenants to have a pet as and when they want, however badly or well that pet behaves.
Amendment 124A refers especially to cats. I was actually quite surprised that my noble friend Lord Black did not mention cats. He mentioned dogs—he gave them a good write-up—but he did not mention cats because he probably knew that I would make the point that cats are killers. They have many assets and I love them dearly, but let out of a house and loose, they are killers. They kill between 160 million and 270 million animals every year, a quarter of those being birds.
I wonder how many of your Lordships woke up early on Sunday morning and listened to nature’s greatest symphony, the dawn chorus. It was International Dawn Chorus Day. We like small birds—songbirds. They are hugely under threat from all sorts of areas, but they are also under threat from cats. There are certain measures that cat owners can take to make their pet less harmful to other species, but the Brits are not terribly good at doing that. In fact, in Germany they have found that some of the Germans are not terribly good at that, either; they have actually made an order in some parts of Germany that during the summer, you have to keep your cat indoors all the time.
Amendment 124A is very tightly drawn. It allows a landlord to say no to a tenant having a cat if the property is in an area designated by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—I remember speaking quite a lot during the progress of that Bill through Parliament—or close to a designated area. In other words, what we are really talking about here are key nature sites: the SSSIs and national nature reserves. The amendment is also carefully worded, in that one is not allowed to have a cat if the property is within a mile of one of those sites. Why a mile? The reason is that the research undertaken by the University of Reading and the University of Exeter at the request of SongBird Survival has found that cats can roam up to roughly 1,400 metres, which is just about a mile. Through their research, they also found that urban cats behave differently from what they call “peri-urban” cats, which are much more likely to stray further and have a different attitude and natural instincts from cats in urban areas, because of the restrictions of such areas.
It is entirely reasonable to encourage landlords to say yes, but equally, it is entirely reasonable to allow them to say no in certain circumstances. Nature in this country needs not only protecting but encouraging. One of the small ways to encourage nature is to say no to a tenant having a cat in an area that is very close to or part of an SSSI or a national nature reserve. That is the right step: protection of nature rather than the will of an individual.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 124 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Earl, I am at a loss to understand why potential tenants in social housing are not included in the Bill. I would have thought that those seeking social housing are likely to be unable to afford to buy their own home, in which case they would not have a problem with having a pet. Why does the Bill not enable such tenants in social housing to enjoy the rights afforded to tenants in private housing? I cannot see the distinction, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply to this question.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am afraid I have none of the expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who spoke about cats with intimate knowledge. At this stage I should redeclare an interest that I declared in the early days of this Committee. For the last almost 30 years my wife and I, by accident, in fact, have been the landlords of five one-bedroom flats in the house next door.
While households normally have as their pet either a dog or a cat, there are some extraordinary households that have a string of other sorts of pet—for example, a snake, monkey or parrot. Looking at page 21 of the Bill, we find that a “pet” is described as “an animal”. On that basis, a talkative parrot or indeed a snake does not fall under these provisions. The assumption therefore is that the landlord is entitled to say no to snakes and, if he needs to—although one hopes it is hardly necessary—no to a talkative parrot. It is important to establish the reasonable grounds on which a landlord can refuse to permit a tenant to bring a pet into the property.
Amendments 120 to 123, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, are very helpful. If they are going to be pressed on Report, I suggest they be condensed into a single amendment.
My wife and I have always refused to permit tenants to have a pet such as a dog or a cat, because we have been concerned about the disturbance of other tenants—a dog barking, for example—and the damage a pet can create in the household.
With that background, it has been very helpful of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, to identify circumstances in which it is reasonable or unreasonable for a landlord to refuse a pet in the premises. That continues to be a very interesting debate. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is going to educate us further on cats, but may we go on?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly, because the noble Lord, Lord Black, covered his two amendments very thoroughly. I do not have pets myself, but I declare that I have a daughter who has recently taken the tenancy of a house, and she has children, a dog and two cats. It was quite difficult for her to make sure that they could all live together, so I understand that a lot of people would have to lose their pets, and I think that is an incredible shame.
I thank the Dogs Trust, Mars Petcare and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for their briefings and work on this, which were very thorough. Amendment 118 would provide security for pet owners in rented accommodation —knowing that, once granted, consent cannot be withdrawn. If this was tabled in the other place by the current Minister, I assume that he is going to accept this amendment, and that the noble Baroness the Minister will tell us that today.
Amendment 125, which I have also signed, would go a long way towards ensuring that blanket no-pet policies cannot continue. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has described the second most common reason that pets are given up to it as because of rental restrictions. That seems extremely hard. Although I do not have any pets, I understand the value of pets to people in all sorts of ways, and I hope that we can have some success with these amendments.
Lord Carrington (CB)
I shall speak to Amendment 126A and to support the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Leicester. I had not intended to speak on this, but it is a point that there is a big difference between pets in rural properties and pets in urban properties. Speaking as someone who lets rural properties, I have never had any problem with stopping tenants bringing their pets, but I would mention that cats are a particular problem in certain areas. I think that the very carefully drafted amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, makes a great deal of sense in this respect.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as entered in the register and apologise to the House for not having spoken before in Committee. I spoke at Second Reading, but the combination of the west coast main line and prior commitments has made it impossible in Committee until now.
Briefly, I make just three points, in no particular order. First, in respect of Amendment 118, the nicest, cutest little puppy can turn into a horrible adult dog, and if it is impossible for the landlord, having given consent, to change that if the cute little puppy turns into a dog from hell, that would be a very great mistake. It is a matter of balance, reasonableness and judgment. Secondly, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, because that seems to be elementary sensibleness—nothing more. Thirdly and finally, having heard the very persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Black, I suddenly wondered: were they asking the Government to make it compulsory for tenants to have pets? I ask the Minister what her view about that would be.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I speak on this group mainly in support of Amendment 124 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I wish the Committee to note my entry in the register of interests: that I am a part-owner of a large independent veterinary practice, with a significant proportion of our turnover generated from pets.
I welcome Clause 12 as it will increase the number of properties that tenants can keep pets in. With the growing number of pet owners in the past five years, it is certainly welcome. How we care for pets and how we value their companionship has changed significantly in society in the last 10 years, and that is why this clause is so important. But we must be aware that there are many in society who are allergic to pets, who find them scary and who are made nervous by them, especially children, and those who just do not like pets. Therefore, somehow, through this amendment, we need to ensure a balance between landlords, tenants and their pets, and others in society.
As previously spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the amendment gives access to all tenants, regardless of whether they are in the private rental sector or accessing social housing. This gives tenants the right to request permission to keep a pet, regardless of their landlord.
The Bill is also about improving opportunity for tenants to keep a pet; surely this simple amendment will create a level playing field between the social housing sector and private landlords. Social housing is probably the most likely first place to go for individuals on low income or who are homeless, seeking to find a home for themselves and their families, which often include a pet. This has been drawn to my attention recently by a TV advert for a homeless charity. Its website says:
“New polling from homeless charity St Mungo’s reveals new extent of the housing crisis and its impact on people sharing their lives with a pet. 50% of those surveyed reported being placed in situations where they were forced to choose between remaining with their pets or accessing housing. This situation is ever present, within the last 12 months, 43% of respondents experienced challenges in finding housing that allows pets. This is amplified for those between the ages of 18-24, where 70% experienced this”.
Therefore, to ensure that the private rental sector is not forced to take up all the housing needs of pet owners, I hope that this amendment will be considered by the Government. Surely the reasons for not allowing a pet in the home are the same for private landlords as for social housing landlords.
On the other amendments in the group, I support Amendment 118 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, which would ensure that a landlord cannot withdraw consent. If a pet is causing an issue for a landlord, that will surely be covered by other provisions in the Bill. The landlord could terminate a tenancy using anti-social behaviour as a reason, whether it was caused by the tenant or the pet. The amendment would ensure that the tenant, once the pet is allowed in the home, cannot be forced to remove the pet unless the tenant has breached a term of the tenancy agreement.
I also support Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, which would ensure that a tenant in all properties, regardless of who the landlord is, can ask for the right to keep a pet at their home. Like the social housing Amendment 124, this amendment seeks to increase the number of properties available to tenants, but also ensures that all landlords, regardless of their position in the rental housing sector, are obliged to consider the request of a tenant to keep a pet.
Amendments 125 and 126 provide some clarity for landlords and tenants, with definitions of when it is unreasonable for a landlord to reject a request for a tenant to keep a pet. This clarity can only help with negotiations between landlords and tenants with regard to keeping pets, and solutions will be found more quickly, I hope, and with less bad feeling between the two parties. This clarity will reduce the number of cases that can be referred to other authorities to decide whether a landlord’s reasons for rejection are in fact reasonable. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest, having a young grandson who had an affinity with snakes. When he was very young, living in central London, he had several, one of which was quite large and called Wilberforce. Wilberforce used to do what snakes do—rear up and sway when anyone came in the room, so he was quite intimidating. One day he—we think it was a he—disappeared and has never been found. I mention this as a cautionary tale, as he may one day turn up somewhere where he is not quite as welcome as he was originally.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, the provisions relating to tenants keeping pets may seem a small aspect to some, but their impact on the well-being and lives of millions of renters cannot be overstated. We on these Benches warmly welcome the Bill’s intention to make it an implied term in most assured tenancies that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a tenant’s request to keep a pet.
We support many of the amendments in this group, with the exception of Amendments 120, 122 and 123. For too long, a blanket ban on pets has been a source of needless unhappiness and stress for renters, compounding the sense that this large and ever-growing group are often treated as second-class citizens. This includes social renters, and we commend the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on that issue. Indeed, research estimates that pet ownership contributes considerable savings to the NHS each year, as an example, potentially as much as £2.45 billion annually across the UK through reduced doctor visits. It is simply wrong that the joy and benefits that a pet brings should be restricted to those who are fortunate enough to own their own home.
We have heard compelling evidence illustrating the scale of this issue. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which I thank for its briefing on this issue, has highlighted that housing concerns are the second most common reason why dogs are relinquished to its care. Even though I am here in fear of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on this issue, I add my thanks to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for the rescue cat that we got from Battersea, who brings us daily joy and, I reassure the noble Earl, kills a lot of rats. Despite 76% of UK private tenants owning or aspiring to own a pet, only 8% of landlords currently advertise properties as allowing pets. This creates immense difficulty for renters, forcing them into heartbreaking decisions, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford.
Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13 introduce the right to request a pet and allow landlords to require insurance, but we feel that they still leave further questions about the practical implementation. Sources currently suggest that there are no readily available insurance products for tenants to cover potential pet damage. We welcome some of the probing amendments on this issue and look forward to hearing from the Minister about any clarification on that. Organisations such as Generation Rent argue that the existing tenancy deposit should be sufficient to cover those damages. We must ensure that the Bill does not disadvantage the most deprived renters, perhaps by exploring alternatives such as allowing for a higher deposit or different insurance mechanisms such as the Scottish model of an additional deposit. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on this issue.
Crucially, the Bill states that consent cannot be unreasonably refused. However, what constitutes unreasonably withholding consent is not yet clearly defined. We need the reasonable grounds for refusal to be set out with more clarity, ensuring fairness and consistency in decisions, especially if the proposed ombudsman service or the courts are involved.
A particularly troubling aspect is the exemption allowing superior landlords to override a landlord’s approval for pets. This risks undermining the spirit of the legislation, especially for tenants in blocks of flats or leasehold properties where management companies or freeholders might maintain blanket bans. We on these Benches support my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer in her Amendments 119 and 126 which seek greater clarity on this issue. This exemption should be removed to ensure that the right to keep a pet applies consistently across all types of rented homes. Other practicalities, such as the proposed timeframe for landlords to respond to pet requests, also may need some scrutiny or flexibility. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has suggested that a shortening of this time might be an idea.
The intention behind these clauses is commendable, reflecting a much-needed shift towards acknowledging the important role pets play in many people’s lives. There is evidence that renting to tenants with pets can be commercially beneficial for landlords, with pet owners tending to have longer tenancies, averaging 24 months compared with 21 months for those without pets. Pet owners are also often willing to allow more regular inspections or consider covering additional costs. While concerns about damage are understandable, most evidence suggests that these fears can be exaggerated. In our view, and as other noble Lords and contributing organisations have highlighted, some refinement is needed. We must ensure that these provisions are not only well- intentioned but genuinely effective in practice, providing clear rights for tenants while addressing some of the legitimate concerns. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these amendments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will very briefly intervene. I agree that people who like pets benefit from having them, and I guess that landlords who do not like pets are going to have to put up with it, which seems fair enough. But—no pun intended—what a legal can of worms we are opening here. What is a pet? I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking: snakes are animals, as are alligators, rats, goats, snakes, and even fleas, which some people keep as pets. That is going to cause a great deal of stress and redefinition at some point.
Listening to the very interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, we heard that we are also going to introduce a category called an anti-social pet. That is going to be very hard to define and prosecute, and I suspect the unreasonable grounds for refusal will, again, cause interesting legal conundrums. So this amendment will go through, and I am happy to support it, but I wonder what legal can of worms we are opening for the future.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this section of the Bill is set to introduce some significant changes affecting the rights of renters, the rights of landlords and the nature of the relationship between those two parties, and we need to consider these provisions and the amendments to them with particular care.
Amendments 118 and 119, tabled by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seek to prevent consent from being withdrawn by a landlord once it has been granted. This proposal presents some challenges, as far as we can see, and may benefit from a more considered approach. It poses a risk to landlords when taking on a new tenant, because it raises the prospect that they could be tying themselves into a contract whereby they would have no right to remove, in future, a dangerous, aggressive or damaging animal from their own property.
In our opinion, these amendments also suffer from the way that they have been drafted. If a tenant acquired a new pet, would they be obliged to seek consent again from their landlord, or would the one issuing of consent cover all future acquisitions? If a tenant was granted consent for a goldfish, does this amendment really seek to assume that the consent is also automatically granted if the same tenant decides to buy an Irish wolfhound?
Amendment 120, tabled by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to address that fundamental question of proportionality, which I have referred to several times throughout my remarks on the Bill. This amendment rightly seeks to protect the landlord beyond the immediate term and ensures that they will still be able to make full use of their property after a tenant has left. If a landlord reasonably believes that a pet could limit their use of their property into the future and thus reduce its utility and value, it is surely reasonable to allow the landlord the discretion to protect their asset and the health of their family and future tenants.
My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising takes this responsible approach further in Amendments 121, 122 and 123, which would provide the landlord with the capacity to refuse consent if a pet was a dangerous wild animal, if a pet risked causing damage or disruption, or if a tenant wished to keep an inappropriate number of animals or an inappropriately sized animal in their property. These amendments would not only preserve the balance of the renter-landlord relationship but help to ensure the safety, protection from damage and the well-being of the landlord and tenant alike. As it stands, the Bill creates a huge risk for landlords: they could enter a contract with a tenant who could bring an unsuitable, untamed or even dangerous animal into their property without the capacity to refuse. These amendments are a sensible opportunity to redress this risk.
Amendments 124, 125 and 126, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seek to clarify unreasonable circumstances for pet refusal, including in social housing —Amendment 124 is an extremely interesting amendment from that point of view. In our opinion, outlining these conditions could make the law clearer in application, although it is right that this should not come at the expense of the right of the landlord to safeguard and utilise their property. For instance, these amendments attempt to prevent a landlord refusing to consent to a pet on grounds of pre-emptive concerns. For this demand to balance out with respect for the rights of the landlord, it is surely reasonable to support a further amendment that would allow a landlord to withdraw consent once provided if their pre-emptive concerns turn out to be valid.
We also have some concerns about the vagueness of the language used throughout these amendments, for instance the references to
“a generalised fear of damage to the property”
and to “generalised” animal welfare concerns. The Committee would benefit from further clarification about the specific steps a landlord would need to take to move from “generalised” to what would be considered a valid concern under the text of this amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 126A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leicester and introduced by my noble friend Lord Caithness. This is a very sensible proposal that is designed to build consensus and clarify points of concern over the scope and definition of the terms used by the Government in the Bill.
I think that Amendment 124A is for national, if not international, debate. Although I understand my noble friend’s concern, I think that debate probably goes wider than this Bill.
We must always remember that this Bill will be used to govern a series of relationships that involve possibly millions of people throughout the country. We have a duty in this place to make sure that the law is as clear as possible and that the relationship we create between a tenant and a landlord is fair and mutually beneficial. We need to make sure that we create market conditions in the rented sector that ensure a steady supply. If landlords start to pull out because of vague and overburdensome regulation, prices will go up and the choice for renters will go down. This is not an outcome that the Government want, nor one that will promote and protect renters’ rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank all the animal charities and organisations that have helped us with this clause. I know that other noble Lords have really appreciated the briefings that those organisations have sent out. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Howard of Rising, the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Leicester —whose amendment was ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their thoughtful amendments in relation to pets, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
Before I go into the detail of the amendments, I reassure noble Lords how much I truly realise the incredible importance of pets to people’s lives, and I confirm that the Government have included provisions on pets in the Bill in recognition of that. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, just mentioned that balance: we have tried really hard to get the balance right between wanting tenants to have the right to have a pet and making sure that landlords can have their responsibilities and property recognised.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and other noble Lords, for their recognition of the intent of pet provision in the Bill. No one wants people to have to give up precious pets just because of the tenure of their housing.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I would not make it compulsory to keep pets, although I took on board the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about the impact on people’s health. If you were allergic to pets, making them compulsory might be a different issue, but we have no intention of doing that.
Amendment 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, seeks to ensure that once a landlord has granted consent for a tenant to keep a pet, that consent cannot later be withdrawn. Noble Lords have mentioned my honourable friend Minister Pennycook’s advocacy of this issue. I reassure noble Lords that when a landlord gives permission for a tenant to have a pet, that consent is binding and cannot be revoked, with the exception of the very rare occasion when that becomes an anti-social behaviour issue, which it might. Apart from that, it cannot be revoked. That is because, once permission is given, it forms an implied term of the tenancy agreement. This is an unwritten contractual term that tenants can rely on, as it is legally binding. Any attempt by a landlord to withdraw consent once given would therefore be unenforceable. This principle will be clearly outlined in the accompanying guidance to ensure clarity for both landlords and tenants.
Given this, I do not believe it is necessary to add further provisions to the Bill, as doing so would introduce unnecessary complexity into legislation that is already clear on this point. The Bill is designed to create a fair and workable system for both landlords and tenants. Adding an explicit provision where the legal position is already established would have the potential to risk confusion and unintended consequences. In the light of that, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for her Amendment 119, which seeks to ensure that a superior landlord “cannot unreasonably withhold” consent when a request is made to allow a tenant to keep a pet. Although I understand and sympathise with the intention behind this amendment, I have some concerns about it. If accepted, it could lead to significant legal uncertainty.
Many superior leases include absolute prohibitions on pets, and introducing a reasonableness test in those cases could create confusion and conflict with existing contractual terms, which are legally binding on both parties. I intend to look at any data that might be available on the extent to which this might have an impact, but it could place a considerable burden on immediate landlords who would be required to engage with those superior landlords—who are often based overseas or are difficult to contact—before responding to a tenant’s request. That could cause delays, additional legal costs and the kind of practical difficulties the noble Baroness outlined herself in her own case—I hope permission is forthcoming for her dog. For those reasons, the amendment is not proportionate or necessary, and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, will not press this amendment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, for Amendments 120, 122 and 123. Amendment 120 seeks to allow landlords to refuse a pet request where they reasonably believe that the pet may have a negative impact due to allergens on a range of individuals, including themselves, their employees, agents, neighbours and even future tenants. Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, I must express concern that it would significantly broaden the scope on which landlords could refuse consent.
The Bill already allows landlords to refuse permission where there is a legitimate concern, and guidance will make it clear that health-related issues, such as severe allergies, can be taken into account where medical evidence supports this and there is a genuine and ongoing concern to health. However, this amendment would go much further. In particular, the inclusion of future tenants introduces a highly speculative element, allowing landlords to refuse a request based on hypothetical scenarios that may never arise. That would give landlords an effective veto, entirely undermining the legislation, which aims to strike a balance between landlords and tenants. For these reasons, the amendment is not necessary or proportionate, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing it.
Amendment 122 seeks to allow landlords to
“reasonably withhold or withdraw consent”
for a pet introduced mid-tenancy, where it is deemed
“unsuitable for the property, … may cause a nuisance”,
or may risk property damage or unreasonable upkeep. While I understand the noble Lord’s intention to provide clarity, I respectfully say that this amendment is not required. The Bill already permits landlords to refuse their consent on reasonable grounds, which are best judged on a case-by-case basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Black, recommended some guiding principles around this and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, called for a “highway code” of guidance. We will be providing guidance alongside the Bill to give examples of the types of situations in which it may be reasonable for a landlord to refuse or withdraw their consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. This will support both landlords and tenants without restricting flexibility in legislation. There is also a risk that listing specific reasons in the Bill may unintentionally narrow the interpretation of what counts as reasonable, excluding other valid concerns not explicitly named.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I would like to give her a bit more ammunition. I am looking at a website to do with MHCLG that talks about the “one team” approach in which MHCLG is very sensibly engaged. The first key principle in this approach is joined-up delivery. I feel there is a strong case here for a one-team approach and joined-up delivery.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for those further comments. As I said, I will be happy to have further discussions with him and to take this important point back.
Amendment 124A would introduce specific grounds for landlords to refuse consent for a tenant to keep a cat where the property is located within, or within one mile of, a protected site under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Government fully recognise the importance of protecting biodiversity and environmentally sensitive wildlife areas. However, we do not believe that such a blanket provision is necessary or proportionate in the context of this legislation. Nor is it fair on tenants, given that there is no similar restriction imposed on home owners in such environmentally sensitive areas.
The framework set out in Clause 12 already allows landlords to refuse consent where it is reasonable to do so. The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, would in effect create an automatic exemption covering a significant number of properties near protected sites across England and Wales, regardless of the tenant’s circumstances or willingness to act responsibly and, as I said, would not affect any private owners in that area. It risks introducing an overly rigid restriction, undermining the Bill’s aim of promoting fair and balanced access to pet ownership in rented homes.
Tracking devices, which are sometimes put on cats’ collars, show how extensive cats’ daily travel can be— I think the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to the extent of cats’ wanderings. It would be very difficult to keep a track on that for different places in different areas. It also places an unreasonable burden on landlords, requiring them to assess environmental designations and the distances between a property and a protected site—matters which are outside their typical responsibilities. For these reasons, I do not believe the amendment is necessary, and I hope the noble Earl will consider not pressing it.
While I understand the intention behind Amendment 125 from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, I do not believe it would be practical for the Government to specify every scenario in which a landlord could or could not reasonably refuse a request to keep a pet. There are simply too many variables to account for, including the type of property, the nature of the pet and the specific circumstances of both the tenant and the landlord. This amendment seeks to outline certain, though not all, circumstances that may be deemed unreasonable when a landlord refuses a tenant’s request to keep a pet. However, its inclusion could inadvertently lead to any circumstance not explicitly included on this list being presumed reasonable by landlords. This could create unintended consequences, limiting flexibility and making it more difficult to fairly assess individual cases.
The question of whether it is reasonable for a tenant to have a pet in a rented property is, as I said before, best determined on a case-by-case basis. In most instances, this will be agreed on between the landlord and the tenant. As I said, there will be guidance available on this. Where disputes arise, they can be appropriately resolved by the ombudsman or the courts, which will be better placed to consider the individual facts of each case. It is also important to note that landlords will always retain the ability to refuse permission where a superior lease prohibits pets. This ensures that landlords are not placed in a position where they are forced to breach their own legal obligations.
Given these safeguards, I do not believe it is necessary to introduce additional legislative provisions that could add unnecessary rigidity to what should remain a flexible, case-by-case approach. In light of this, I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing his amendment.
Amendment 126 from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, seeks to define specific circumstances in which it would be considered unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent for a tenant to keep a pet, such as personal opinions, general fears about the risk of damage caused by pets, or past unrelated experiences. While I understand the intention behind this amendment, I must resist it on the grounds that it could complicate the existing proposals unnecessarily. The Government’s position is that superior landlords should retain the ability to refuse consent without needing to justify their decision, particularly given the practical challenges involved in engaging with them.
In many cases, superior landlords are not based in the UK or are part of complex ownership structures and that can make communication slow, difficult and costly. Requiring them to provide reasons for refusal risks drawing immediate landlords and their tenants into prolonged and expensive legal or administrative processes. The Bill is designed to improve fairness and clarity in the tenant-landlord relationship without overburdening parties with obligations that may be difficult or unrealistic to meet in practice. That is why I said I will look into the quantum that might be involved here and come back to the noble Baroness on that, if that is okay. For these reasons, I do not believe the amendment is proportionate or necessary, and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will consider not pressing it.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for bringing forward Amendments 126A and 124A. Amendment 126A would place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance on what constitutes a “reasonable refusal” of a pet under Clause 12, and would require consultation with landlords before they do so. I recognise the intention behind this proposal, which is to provide greater clarity and assurance for landlords when they consider tenant requests. As I have said, the concept of reasonable refusal is, by design, flexible. It allows landlords to take account of the specific circumstances of each tenancy. What is reasonable in one case may not be reasonable in another.
That said, I can assure the Committee that we will publish guidance to help landlords and tenants understand how these provisions should operate in practice. However, guidance of this nature cannot and should not seek to cover every possible circumstance. It will provide helpful principles and examples, but it is vital that landlords retain the ability to exercise reasonable judgment based on individual cases. For these reasons, I do not believe the amendment is necessary, and I hope the noble Earl will consider not moving it.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am glad she will produce the guidance, though perhaps not in the form I would have liked. Can I clarify one issue I am now confused about? If a tenant wants a pet, there has to be a written agreement. Does there have to be a written agreement for every pet, or does “a pet” cover a multitude of pets?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My assumption had been that it was for a pet, but I will come back to the noble Earl with a written answer.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I think it is relevant. If I rent a property in which I am allowed a dog and I have a bitch and she has puppies, I would then have perhaps 10 dogs in the house, although the agreement was that I should have one dog. Do I have to go to the landlord and say that I have nine more dogs, but that it will be on a temporary basis? How does that work?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the issue and I will respond in due course.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have taken part in this debate. I always knew it would be an interesting debate, and so it has proved. I did not know until we had the appearance of Wilberforce the snake that it would be quite so wide-ranging, but that has certainly been the case.
One of the interesting things about this debate is that normally in Committee there is some disagreement with what the Government are trying to do. There has not really been any disagreement today with what the Government are seeking to do here; we are just seeking to make their noble intentions as effective as possible. I am very pleased the Minister responded constructively and positively.
As my noble friend Lord Lexden said, opaque law can never be satisfactory law. The speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Grender, the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord de Clifford, and others have underlined that there are too many uncertainties as things stand. In that most precious of relationships between a human and a pet, there needs to be certainty. This debate has brought that out.
My anxiety is that some of the amendments, including those from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seek to import more loopholes into the Bill and to give landlords greater powers of veto. I am disappointed that my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook has fallen into that trap as well.
I thank the Minister for her comments, which were very constructive and positive. She spoke a number of times about guidance, including on consent and withdrawal of consent. I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to understand the intricacies of the contractual obligation she talked about, but I am pleased to hear that they will be spelled out in accompanying guidance. Would she be prepared to talk to the animal charities involved in this sector about the drafts of that guidance and, similarly, about the guidance on the refusal of consent? Those will clearly be very important documents and those with day-to-day practical experience of the problems that arise in this area would be very good people to consult.
We will all be grateful to the Minister for saying, on the issue of superior landlords, that she will look at the quantum of data. Perhaps she could do that before we reach Report and let the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, have it so we can discuss whether there is any need for further amendments.
Finally, the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has strong support from all sides of the House, and he is absolutely right to bring it forward. The right to own a pet should be universal and not in any way dependent on the type of property someone lives in. I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that she will look further at this and give it consideration before Report. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Howard of Rising
“(5A) Where a landlord has given their consent under subsection (1) they may withdraw their consent at any time if they become aware that the pet in question is a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 or in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable landlords to refuse pets on the grounds that they are a dangerous wild animal.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 121 seeks to probe and address the inadequate definition of “pet” in the Bill, which has already been mentioned by a number of noble Lords during this debate. Part 1, Chapter 1, Clause 12(2) inserts the following definition into Section 45(1) of the Housing Act 1988:
“‘pet’ means an animal kept by a person mainly for … personal interest … companionship … ornamental purposes … or any combination”
of those. My Amendment 121 seeks to probe whether pets that are considered dangerous and/or wild animals under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 or the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should be counted as pets. This might sound like common sense, but I am not convinced that, under the current drafting of the Bill, landlords would not be forced to consider giving consent for unsuitable and, in this case, dangerous animals. These Acts already govern the keeping of dangerous animals, but it is good practice to ensure legal consistency, and it is not clear how they will interact with the Bill before us today.
For example, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 requires accommodation to be
“suitable as regards construction, size, temperature, lighting, ventilation, drainage and cleanliness”.
If a landlord’s property happens to fit the definition in that legislation, does that mean that an animal included therein would be considered a pet by the definition of this Bill? As we will hear in the next group, damage insurance is problematical, as it is for standard pets. Will any insurance provider give cover for the damage that could be caused by a dangerous animal? If the fact that an animal is dangerous and wild, or falls outside the definition of a pet, can be a reasonable ground for refusal, would it not be simpler to make that explicit by reference to an existing definition and list already in legislation? Why should landlords be required to make independent assessments to justify their refusal?
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is another example. It bans the keeping of specific breeds without an exemption certificate and creates offences for dogs that are out of control or that cause injury or death. Again, it is unclear how this existing legislation interacts with the Bill. If the owner of a banned breed has an exemption certificate, would a landlord be able to refuse the animal in their property? Likewise, if a dog had been deemed dangerously out of control or had injured someone, what risk would this pose to the landlord, their property agents and others who need access? What risk would be considered acceptable, if any?
I hope that the Minister can answer these questions and clarify this matter. If she needs to write to me on any of them, I would be very happy to receive her letter, but I would like to be reassured that this amendment and others we will debate today are being considered as they should be. I beg to move.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, what is a pet? That is a central question to everything that we are discussing. Some noble Lords will remember that there once was a parrot—a Norwegian Blue, to be precise—that was very sick. In fact, he was so sick, he was a deceased parrot—at least, that is how his new owner perceived it—and no amount of nailing that dead polly’s feet to the perch could change that. How we miss Monty Python.
Perceptions, rather like recollections, may differ, yet this Bill’s definition of a pet depends almost entirely on perception, and I suspect it is likely to cause quite a few ruffled feathers. Therefore, I have put down two amendments—Amendment 131 and the consequential Amendment 132—to prod and probe a little.
First, as the Chief Whip instructed, I declare my interest as a pet owner. Percy is our rescue cat—a very happy puss that has trained my family exceptionally well. So well that, if ever I were to ask my family who they love more, me or Percy, I would soon be looking for lodgings.
As the Explanatory Notes set out:
“The Bill requires landlords not to unreasonably withhold consent”
for tenants to have pets. Despite the split infinitive, I would have thought that that was the right target area: legislation based on what is reasonable. But the Bill goes further and howls at the moon in trying to define a pet. It does this in a very peculiar manner, by defining a pet not by what it is, but by how it is perceived. It offers three definitions, as my noble friend has already pointed out. A pet is defined as an animal kept, first, for mainly personal interest, secondly, for companionship, and thirdly—it is this that my amendment mostly concerns—mainly for ornamental purposes. That is a definition we should consider getting rid of.
What is a pet kept for ornamental purposes? I will take a calf as an example. Currently, the beautiful pastures around my home in Wylye are filled with any number of calves. They are so cute and cuddly, and my grandchildren always want to take one home. But I think we can agree that a calf is not really a pet; it is a would-be cow. Except, it would seem to fall directly under the Bill’s definition of a pet: first, it is personally interesting to my grandchildren; secondly, it is companionable, particularly so long as one has a bottle of milk handy; and thirdly, it is ornamental. A triple whammy.
I remember Margaret Thatcher once cuddled a calf. I was with her in Suffolk on the election trail in 1979 when she picked up this terrified young animal and embraced it. Did the fact that she found it personally interesting or exceptionally ornamental—and, as it happened, amazingly photogenic—make it a protected pet? Could she have taken it home? Apparently, the Daily Mirror paid the farmer £50 to let it know if the poor thing died before polling day. Can you imagine the headlines? “Maggie Thatcher, calf basher”—but I digress. The problem is that once we try to define what a pet is or is not in the way the Bill attempts, we start with a cat’s cradle of confusion and end up with a dog’s dinner. People nowadays get very protective about their pets, and very litigious; we need to take care.
Traditionally, working animals and pets have been regarded as separate categories, but it is not always clear cut. Take Larry, the Downing Street cat: is he not a working animal that is supposed to keep the place free of vermin? Good luck with that. Ever since the Prime Minister’s claim at his party conference that his main mission in life was to free the sausages—Remember that? It was a magical moment—I suspect that Larry has been working even harder to try to track down all those missing sausages.
However, it is the third category that really has me wondering. Clause 12 defines a pet as an animal that is kept for “mainly … ornamental purposes”. Forgive me, but what on earth does that mean? I am confused. Does it mean, for instance, an XL bully dog? I am told that many owners regard them as extremely attractive. It must be the way they smile, or drool. But does that give a tenant an unequivocal right to keep them? I ask the Minister: does the landlord have no grounds to refuse—even if keeping such animals might well cause fear for others, such their neighbours who have children or who own a small dog or cat? As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising so eloquently pointed out, one pet owner’s rights can become another pet owner’s nightmare.
I should perhaps whimsically point out that for, the purposes of the discussion, I have decided this week to self-identify as a Chihuahua. So, hand on heart and paw on prostate, I say: these definitions are barking mad. I really do not want to end up as breakfast for next door’s bully dog, no matter how cute he looks.
Would it not be enough simply to require both tenant and landlord to be reasonable in the specific circumstances? The Minister keeps coming back to the concept of people being reasonable. That is a much stronger concept, it seems to me, than tying ourselves in knots trying to define what a pet is in the ways that the Bill currently attempts.
Our laws should offer clarity, not confusion. But, no matter how hard we try to nail these definitions to the perch, they will make about as much sense as a dead parrot. So their proper place is not in the Bill but in that great parliamentary litter tray in the sky. I request the Minister to go back and have a much closer look at the definition of a pet.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a landlord of private property. It is becoming clear that the Bill will be a beanfeast for lawyers in the area of landlord-tenant disputes. As my noble friend Lord Dobbs implied, it could well happen with regard to landlord-tenant disputes over pets. My noble friend Lord Howard’s amendment is eminently sensible, and his points about overriding current legislation are very important, as are those on insurance problems in this area.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, was as entertaining as ever in speaking to his amendment. But none of us was here in 1990—here in your Lordships’ House, I mean; obviously, we were around. In 1990, this discussion took place on the definition of a pet under the Environmental Protection Act, which chose not to define a pet specifically. Instead, it focused on the nuisances and environmental harms, regardless of the type of animal. That approach was probably safer because, obviously, for some people a praying mantis could be a pet, and it is certainly a very ornamental creature when you look at it closely—as would be a butterfly.
I have a lot of sympathy with the Government, and I think that we should stick with the idea of companionship, which is in the Bill. But the Environmental Protection Act offers a lesson from that time, one concerned with the effects of an animal’s presence or behaviour and not with whether the animal is defined as a pet. I do not feel very strongly about this issue, but that lesson is there should the Government choose to take it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this engaging debate. I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for moving Amendment 121, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs—as always, he has such a wonderful way of speaking in this Chamber. I cannot add much more to what he said. He is absolutely right.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Dobbs, for their amendments relating to the definition of a pet. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Scott, for their comments on this debate. Even in these two short debates this afternoon, we have seen the benefit that our House can add to legislation, including probing very intensively a definition but also the entertaining nature of the speeches we are privileged to listen to. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, for his entertaining intervention.
Amendment 121 from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to allow landlords to withdraw consent for a pet if it is later found to be a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, or in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Although I of course fully support the principle that animals posing a serious risk to safety should not be kept in rental properties, this amendment is not necessary. The keeping of dangerous wild animals without a licence is already prohibited under the 1976 Act, and the 1991 Act imposes strict controls on specific dog breeds—I presume that includes the XL bullies that were mentioned by the noble Lord. These laws already provide local authorities with sufficient powers, and we would expect a request for a pet that falls foul of that legislation to give landlords a strong case for refusing consent. Local authorities have the powers to act, and the amendment would therefore duplicate existing protections and introduce unnecessary complexity into the Bill. For these reasons, we do not consider the amendment necessary, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it.
Amendment 131, from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, seeks to remove the line in Clause 12 that includes keeping animals for “ornamental purposes” within the definition of a pet. Amendment 132 is consequential to Amendment 131. I understand that these are probing amendments, intended to seek clarity on the scope of the term “pet” as used in the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, I miss Monty Python—I have watched them over and again, I must admit—but I must respectfully resist these amendments. The line in question, referring to animals kept for ornamental purposes, is a deliberate and important part of the definition. The noble Lord will be pleased to learn that it does not refer to dead parrots, but it ensures that the Bill captures a broad and inclusive understanding of what a pet may be, reflecting the wide range of animals that people may choose to keep in their homes for companionship or decorative enjoyment. I am not sure whether Wilberforce the snake was decorative, ornamental or a pet, but he is obviously now enjoying somebody else’s company than his original owner.
Removing this provision could risk narrowing the scope of the definition, creating legal ambiguity and potentially excluding animals that are commonly accepted as pets, such as fish and birds—live ones. To support implementation, the Government will provide guidance, setting out examples of instances where animals are likely to fall into the definition of a pet. I hope that that will help to ensure consistency and clarity for both tenants and landlords, without placing restrictions on primary legislation. It is important to repeat that landlords are required to agree only to reasonable requests; a calf that may grow into a cow is unlikely to be reasonable in a small flat, for example. For these reasons, I do not consider these amendments necessary, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing them.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
As my amendment alluded to, the Government’s definition of a pet is very broad and open to debate, although I believe that the Minister’s remarks were helpful. As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Dobbs, the definition could be stretched to the extreme. How is a landlord or tribunal expected to understand its meaning?
To summarise, the definition of a pet in this Bill poses more questions than it answers, and I hope that the Government can offer some much-needed reassurance on this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove a requirement on tenants to have pet damage insurance.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 127, I shall speak also to Amendments 128, 129 and 130. I remind the Committee of some different interests this time, in that I am a director of Alpha Insurance Analysts, which operates around £1 billion of premiums at Lloyd’s, and I have share ownership in Hiscox Group.
The thrust of everything in this bit of the Bill is all about pets. I am very keen on pets in general being in houses. As I pointed out, pets are usually allowed in my Scottish interest. When I looked at the insurance provisions, I was looking very carefully with a professional eye, and I wanted to try to tweak four separate areas that all needed something. First, there was the proposition that the tenant would buy insurance, then that would be all right. Secondly, there was the proposition that the landlord could buy insurance and bill that back to the tenant. Thirdly, there was the possibility of aligning the England and Wales law with what happens in Scotland, where, of course, I have a lot of experience. Fourthly, there was the knotty issue of the definition of “premium”, over which I have had many arguments in many jurisdictions over many years—and I apologise in advance for disagreeing with counsel on that.
Amendment 127 is on the first of those things in my list. There is no market today for insurance where a tenant goes out privately to buy insurance. There certainly will not have been a single cent of premium written in the UK market up to 31 December last year nor in any of the continental European non-life insurance markets, with which I am extremely familiar. One or two products have appeared on the market that provide some sort of partial cover—and I shall try to describe some of that.
I am very grateful, in saying this, to the department and the people supporting the Minister, because we have had a funny tour around this issue. We even had one exciting moment when an insurer that I had never heard of, which turned out to be an insurance company based in Anguilla, of recent formation, was keen to sell insurance to British people, although of course there would have been no protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or from the insurance ombudsman, let alone all the tax and regulatory problems with an Anguilla insurer trying to settle a claim in the UK.
Leaving aside that exciting insurer, one or two insurers have come along, but they want to insure only against accidental damage, however it is dressed up. When talking about insurers, it is important to understand the difference between the insurance carrier, which takes the bet, and the insurance intermediary, which puts exciting things on the web to try to entice you. These are all insurance intermediaries, and there is only one carrier that is identified at the moment, which is under half the size of the legal minimum for an insurance carrier, if you are forming a new one, and does not appear at all on any of the lists of allowed insurers that major brokers have. It is exceptionally small and very weak.
The problem with the cover of the three policies that appear online at the moment is that they are limited to accidental damage. In one of them, accidental damage is defined as
“unexpected damage which happens suddenly and has not been caused on purpose or inevitably”.
I immediate think that that does not sound like very good cover. The other one goes a lot further. It says that the policy is
“not for damage caused by everyday wear and tear. For example, if a dog scratches at your door every day, this is not covered, while if a pet pulls down curtains that causes damage to a wall this would be covered”.
Of course, that is a vanishingly small percentage of the loss costs likely to be caused by a pet. Most of the losses from pets will be to do with chewing or infestations—I look at my noble friend Lord Trees in the hope that he will tell us all a bit more about infestations later on.
The difficulty of trying to legislate so that a landlord can say to someone, “You can have a pet as long as you buy an insurance policy”, and there being no actual policy of insurance that exists, or no reasonable one, is that it is what is sometimes called an Italian torpedo—a legal trick whereby you started a case in a different jurisdiction to slow everything down, and the initial case never gets decided. It would mean that the landlord could ask the tenant to find insurance that he knew did not exist and the pet would never be allowed into the property. That is not the intention of this Bill, so it would be quite wrong to let this option go forward. That is why Amendment 127 seeks to get rid of that option. It is not a probing amendment—it is a real amendment.
I turn to Amendment 129 next, only because the amendments have appeared a bit out of order. It is a probing amendment, and it covers the second issue on insurance, which is whether the landlord could buy insurance. Here I am much more hopeful. I should point out that this type of insurance also does not exist at the moment, but I have spoken to the underwriting managers of at least two of the big players in the UK markets and left those conversations feeling that it was quite possible that this type of insurance could come into existence—in fact, in reviewing the internet, there is some evidence that it might. It will start with this accidental damage problem, so it is not a complete cover; therefore, landlords might not choose to exercise that option because it does not really exist.
Therefore, I feel it is unfair to ask landlords to go to the market to buy insurance, and they might not want to. The insurance would therefore be a terrible situation, where a landlord is being asked about a pet and the tenant cannot buy the insurance because it does not exist—at least not in a reasonable form—and nor can the landlord because it is at a very early stage. But I felt that should stay on the statute book because I believe that something helpful might come along. I believe also that the type of insurance that will come along will be a small layer just above the deposit that people pay anyway; at the moment, it is a five-week deposit.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, when the Renters (Reform) Bill was originally proposed, Battersea asked landlords what policies or incentives would make them more likely to consider offering pet-friendly properties—that is an important point to bear in mind—and out of all the different policies and incentives, the two most popular were requiring tenants to hold insurance to cover any damage, or changing the Tenant Fees Act to allow the landlord to charge for a deep clean and fumigation at the end of the tenancy. I acknowledge that there are concerns regarding availability of insurance to cover pet damage in line with the requirements currently set out in the Bill. However, having talked to those with expertise in the sector, I believe the insurance market will adapt to new legislation, as it has in the past with cyberinsurance under the Data Protection Act 2018 and professional indemnity insurance for cladding remediation under the Building Safety Act 2022. I think there is already evidence of insurers responding to market demand, with the letting insurance providers Paymentshield and Addept Insurance updating their tenants’ content policies to include pet damage cover. I am aware of other providers that are in the process of—
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
One of the things I read was that Paymentshield is offering accidental damage only; I read out the definition of accidental damage and that is not really any cover at all. I am sorry; I do not know whether the noble Lord was talking to insurance underwriters or brokers, but I can tell him that the underwriting community in the insurance world is absolutely solid on this.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, my general point was that I believe the market would adapt in time, because that is the purpose of legislation—to push that market on. I know there are other insurers that are looking at pet damage insurance products to bring to the marketplace. We will have to see if it happens, but I very much hope that it would. I understand the fears from landlords that pets may damage their properties, but I also do not believe that pet deposits are the solution to this area, because they are unevenly applied and unaffordable to many.
Finally, I just want to make the general point that research has shown that fears around pet damage are often largely unfounded. Again, research that was commissioned by Battersea with the University of Huddersfield showed that more than three out of four landlords did not encounter any damage caused by pets in their rental properties. So there is very low risk, and, alongside evidence showing that pet owners tend to stay longer in their properties, this demonstrates that renting to pet owners can be financially beneficial to landlords in the long run.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I put to the noble Lord this point about the Italian torpedo. I hope he will accept that there is currently no reasonable insurance solution available for a tenant—there is none. So, if a landlord says, “I need you to go out and buy a tenants’ insurance policy”, thinking, sneakily, that as one does not exist, the tenant will look forever and will never be allowed a pet, would that be an acceptable solution for the noble Lord?
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
I go back to the point that the market may not exist at the moment but the legislation is designed to push this market along. I very much hope that by the time the Bill becomes law, that market will have adapted.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
But if the market does not come into being—I made the point about insurance not being available for inevitabilities—we will have created through the Bill a route for landlords to quite simply prevent tenants having pets.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
That is probably a bridge we ought to cross when we come to it.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Black, quoted from the University of Huddersfield’s excellent research, The Financial Impact of Pet Ownership in Rental Properties, which I have read in detail. One of the most surprising things is that there is more non-pet-related damage to properties from non-pet owners, which averaged at £215, than there is pet-related damage from pet owners. But perhaps the more relevant thing to this particular debate is that when there was damage: the tenant’s deposit fully covered the cost 38% of the time; the repair costs exceeded the deposit and the tenant covered the additional costs 18% of the time; and the repair costs exceeded the deposit and were covered by insurance 13% of the time—which is surprising given what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, told us. So, more than 60% of the time, there was no problem at all. Only in a very small percentage of the time did the landlord find themselves out of pocket. The overall findings from this study were that it is a much-exaggerated fear rather than an actual problem.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 127, 128 and 129 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and others. With regard to pets, the main purpose of the Bill is to make it more likely that landlords will accept tenants with pets. That is its purpose, surely, and it is an objective that I fully support, as a veterinarian, particularly for elderly and lonely people, as well as others. The benefits of pet ownership are very well known, with a strong evidence basis. Amendments 127, 128 and 129 would ensure that the purpose of the Bill with regard to pets is not confounded by unintended consequences. The current reality—and we cannot ignore realities, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, does—is that 40% of landlords are currently unwilling to accept tenants with pets.
Another survey that the noble Lord, Lord Black, quoted showed that 27% of landlords who do accept tenants with pets—that is, one-quarter—have experienced problems. So, in order to boost the market for pet-friendly rentals, it is important that landlords are assured that, were there to be negative effects due to pets, there is adequate legal recompense. The Bill recognises this, and the solution it proposes is that the landlord can require a tenant to provide appropriate insurance. But the problem, clearly articulated by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who is, of course, an expert in insurance, is that it appears extremely unlikely that there will be a product on the market which a tenant could buy to insure against the problem—relatively unlikely, perhaps —of damage. If that were the case, as my noble friend started to explain, a landlord could debar a tenant by the simple act of requiring that they provide insurance to cover pet damage, their failure to find which would legitimately allow a landlord to bar them access with a pet to rental accommodation. So it would conflict with the objective of the Bill.
Amendment 127 would remove that possibility. Instead, Amendment 128 would allow an increased deposit arrangement to enable landlords to permit pets, confident in the knowledge that, in the unlikely event of damage, it will be covered by the deposit. Amendments 128 and 129 would ensure that the level of recompense is likely to adequately cover relatively costly measures, such as deep cleaning to remove allergens, referred to earlier, or the elimination of infestation with fleas, which can be a significant problem if it occurs and expensive to remove. I would love to say more about fleas—they are remarkable creatures that can jump amazing distances compared to their size—but I am aware of the constraints on repeating Second Reading speeches, so I will not. I also make the point that a deposit is likely to be a fairer and more acceptable arrangement to a tenant than paying for an insurance policy, because obviously there is no cost unless there has been a problem.
To conclude on these three amendments, I strongly support them and I think they would make it more likely that landlords could be persuaded to offer their property for rent to tenants with a pet than any alternative. I shall just make an additional point that I did raise at Second Reading but which is pertinent to this issue and has wider implications, and that is on assistance dogs. We know that having a pet is very valuable to many people’s physical and mental health, but the case of assistance dogs is very special. These are incredibly valuable animals that can alert to medical emergencies of all sorts, as well as providing physical support for disabled people, hearing support and other things. Yet assistance dogs are not actually officially recognised—there is no list or register of them—and I understand that people with assistance dogs sometimes have problems finding rental accommodation. I raised this at Second Reading, but I hope the noble Baroness will excuse me mentioning it again. She said she would discuss it with officials, and I ask her to consider that again. I strongly support Amendments 127, 128 and 129.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I am delighted to have added my name to Amendments 127, 129 and 130 in this group. I thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for leading on this section with regards to pet insurance and respect his deep knowledge of the insurance market. Amendments 127 and 128 seek to provide an alternative to the pet insurance route for protecting landlords from pet damage, as there is still uncertainty at present as to whether the insurance market will provide a policy that is fit for purpose, as described in the Bill. Amendment 128 would allow for an additional three weeks of deposit to be paid and held. I listened to the Government saying that finding a deposit can be challenging for tenants, especially the low paid. Therefore, these insurance policies, if they can be developed, could be an accessible and appropriate product for tenants.
For some tenants and landlords, the option of paying a three-week deposit could be an alternative, as both parties would know where they stand from the beginning of the tenancy, or when a pet moves into a property. There are further advantages, as the tenant would get their money back if no repairs were required at the end of the tenancy, thereby rewarding tenants for looking after the property. As my noble friend Lord Trees pointed out a minute ago, if tenants pay for an insurance product, they are not rewarded for being good tenants, and the premium paid benefits neither tenant nor landlord. The deposit scheme is allowed in Scotland, so there is some real-life data that can be drawn on to see whether it works for both tenants and landlords. From my noble friend Lord Kinnoull’s experience, it appears to be working.
The deposit option gives flexibility for landlords and tenants in choosing the most appropriate protection for themselves and their circumstances in covering the possible extra costs of housing a pet in a rental property. This is a challenging issue for some landlords and very few currently accept pets. That is why Clause 12 is welcome: it will increase the number of landlords accepting pets—surely giving two methods by which they can protect themselves can only ease the fear and reluctance in accepting a pet.
Amendments 129 and 130, which I also support, would bring clarity on the detail to be included in the proposed insurance products and would clear up some of the confusion with these amendments. Therefore, I hope the Government will listen to these speeches today and consider adding a bit more flexibility to the Bill by accepting these amendments on Report.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support Amendment 128 and declare my interests as a landlord and a former PRS tenant. I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on pet deposits. First, I want to state that I am a dog lover and had dogs as pets in my youth. I was, however, horrified by the description by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, at Second Reading of the potential cost and sustained effort required to deal with flea infestation, and there is other damage that cats and dogs in particular can cause. Carpets, for example, may need to be wholly replaced after some pet tenancies, as I have experienced at considerable additional cost, which was not met by the deposit. As your Lordships have heard, insurance products are currently non-existent or very unsatisfactory, so it makes sense, in my view, to introduce a pet deposit scheme which would make the whole process a lot simpler.
The main point I wish to make is that where a lease bans pets, particularly dogs, this should be respected. As we also heard earlier, not all properties are suitable for dogs, especially large dogs. There has been an exponential rise in dog attacks in the country, especially since the pandemic. In total, there were 31,920 dog attacks in England and Wales over the last year alone— 87 a day. Since 2022, 31 people have been killed by dogs, and there were almost 11,000 hospital admissions for dog bites in England between 2023 and 2024. These figures are truly horrific and are growing. I do not claim to be an expert on this rise, but many have put it down to the surge in dog ownership since the pandemic, poor dog training and an inability of inexperienced owners to control their powerful dogs.
If you had been the victim of a dog attack, you would understand why some seek protection in their home environment, especially blocks of flats. My wife was attacked by a dog in our open gardens. Although dogs are banned under the lease, we made an exception to allow a family with a dog. At the time, my wife was wearing a back brace, having recently fractured her spine. I placed myself between the dog and my wife, while the neighbour took five minutes to come outside and struggled to restrain the aggressive dog. Incidentally, it was not a banned breed.
Those five minutes felt like a long time. Although our neighbour was red-faced and apologetic, it was a serious and frightening incident. For months afterwards, my wife had flashbacks, as it could have been a life-altering experience, like the ones you read about in the newspaper or see on television. In conclusion, where dogs are banned under leases, those leases should be upheld, and where dogs are allowed with discretion, that should also be upheld.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the matter of pet damage insurance is an extremely important one, as it directly addresses the responsibility of the tenant in conjunction with the increased rights that they may be granted under the Bill.
In all our discussions on this question, we have acknowledged that allowing pets into rented properties brings with it a series of risks. There are risks to health in questions around allergies and dangerous animals, risks of damage to the property and risks to the well-being of neighbours and other tenants.
Given this, we believe it is reasonable to grant the landlord the capacity to require the tenant wishing to bring a pet into their property to have pet damage insurance. I have listened very carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I thank him for all the work he has done on this—which I think is really important work—but I am disappointed that there does not yet seem to be a product in the market for this.
However, we have to continue down the insurance route as well as down the route of having deposits. It is important, as is in my amendments, that before this section of the Bill comes into effect, there is a final decision from the Secretary of State on an insurance product that is available. If that is not going to come forward, we will have to relook at the issues that have been brought up by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in Amendments 127 and 128, which, as we have heard, provide an alternative avenue for redress should any damage be caused. This is a flexible addition to the Bill, and discretion is going to be important, but it is important to give people the option here, whether it be through a deposit or through an insurance product which is on the market in the future.
There is concern over the deposit, because it is there for very specific reasons, and when you add a further reason—damage by pets—the amount of deposit may have to be looked at again. The noble Lord opposite brings up the idea of a pet deposit along with the deposit. The principle behind this is that when you have a right to have a pet, you also have responsibilities for that pet. It is correct that landlords should be permitted the ability to claim redress when their properties are damaged, and tenants should be responsible when choosing to have pets.
It is important that we make sure that there is some form of redress for any damage caused, if the landlord wishes. Some landlords will welcome pets without any further insurance or deposit, but where the landlord wishes it, there must be some way for the tenant to have some form of redress at the beginning of the tenancy, in case there is any issue with their pet’s damage or anything else concerning that pet.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments relating to pet insurance and deposits. The noble Lords, Lord Black, Lord Trees, Lord de Clifford and Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, have all contributed to the debate.
Turning first to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I thank the noble Earl very much for his constructive engagement with me and my officials in the department in recent months. The benefit of the noble Earl’s expertise in this area has been very valuable and very much appreciated, so I am grateful to him.
Amendment 127 seeks to remove the requirement for tenants to obtain pet damage insurance. While I completely understand the concerns behind the amendment, respectfully, I disagree with its approach. One of the key barriers to renting with pets is landlords’ concerns over potential property damage, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, outlined. Requiring tenants to have pet damage insurance provides landlords with the reassurance they need and helps foster a more positive attitude towards pet ownership in rental properties—that is the balance between rights and responsibilities that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned. Removing this requirement risks undermining the balance of ensuring that tenants have a fair opportunity to rent with pets, while also protecting landlords from unnecessary financial risk.
It is also important to note that we are seeing some signs that insurance products designed specifically for pet-related damage are emerging in response to the Bill—not just from Anguilla, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, these products will develop, meaning that tenants should have viable options available. This requirement is therefore both reasonable and practical, ensuring responsible pet ownership without placing an undue burden on either tenants or landlords. I emphasise in response to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—
Lord Marlesford (Con)
I will just raise one very simple point, which I thought the Minister was going to deal with. I declare my interests as a Suffolk farmer with houses to let. I am unclear, not being a lawyer: in terms of the liability of a tenant whose premises, or the premises which they occupy, are damaged during a tenancy, is there a distinction between the liability for something that they have done and for something that a pet has done? If there is not a distinction, then presumably the landlord does not have to worry too much about how the damage was done. All that is at stake is what the damage is and what it is going to cost to remedy it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The distinction in this case is just trying to encourage landlords who have previously been fairly resistant to tenants keeping pets that they are able to give that concession to pet owners.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I emphasise that we continue to engage with the insurance industry, and we remain open to further information about the market and views on how it might develop. I apologise that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has not yet had a written response to his query about assistance dogs. I will follow that up and get a response for him.
In terms of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, I want to clarify a point I made in my previous speech. Landlords cannot withdraw their consent to keep a pet in case of anti-social behaviour. However, there are other steps they can take. Landlords can seek to evict anti-social tenants for a broad range of anti-social behaviours under ground 14, which could include behaviour related to noisy, disruptive or aggressive pets.
Landlords can also contact their local council’s anti-social behaviour team and the police if behaviour persists, which can culminate in anti-social behaviour injunctions being granted by the courts. In that instance, that could then ban the tenant in question from keeping a pet. The incident that the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, described was really frightening, and I understand why he would have concerns about that. I hope the action I have described helps to respond to his points.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am a little bit confused as to where we go on this. We are hearing that there is no product at the moment, and there are differing views as to whether there will be a product. The Government are not interested in looking at extra deposits, and I understand the reasoning for that. But if we do not have extra deposits and there is no product, where do we go with this? When does this come into effect if there is no protection for the landlord in the future? I am just confused about the timescale. How long are the Government going to wait for a product to be available?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand those concerns. As I have already mentioned, the department is talking to insurers all the time. We are looking at the messages from them that they are developing new products in anticipation of the Bill going through, and we will keep monitoring that during the passage of the Bill. We do not want to create a delay in one of the Bill’s key objectives, which is facilitating pet ownership. We do not want to put a block or barrier in the way of that, but we understand that we need to keep this dialogue going with the insurance industry to see where we are as the Bill progresses.
Amendment 285 seeks to ensure that tenants have access to specific insurance products to cover pet-related damage before landlords can require such coverage. This is a similar point: the amendment would similarly create an unnecessary delay in giving landlords the confidence to rent to tenants with pets. The insurance options tailored specifically for pet damage exist in limited numbers at the moment. That is because landlords have had the discretion to refuse pets, so they have used that as a way of getting around the insurance issue, and it has led to low demand for such products. We believe that the Bill will change that by providing tenants with a fairer opportunity to rent with pets and giving landlords the reassurance they need. We do not believe that a mandatory delay should be made law, as we hope those new products are coming forward with the Bill.
If Clause 13 is postponed, tenants’ struggle to secure homes just because they have a pet will continue. Once the law is in place and landlords begin accepting more tenants with pets, we think the insurance market will adapt to meet the demand, and delaying Clause 13 would only prolong the struggles of responsible pet owners. Given these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will consider not pressing these amendments. We will continue to monitor this situation and carry on our dialogue with the insurance industry.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry to ask the Minister further questions, but is the Minister saying that landlords will be required to take pets without insurance or any further deposits if there is no product available? If that is the case and a product comes in six months to a year later, will the Bill then allow landlords to ensure that tenants get that insurance product? I am not quite sure how that will work.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
We will be amending the Tenant Fees Act so that landlords will be able to require the tenant to obtain insurance to cover the risk of property damage caused by a pet. Landlords will be able to require tenants to have that insurance.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
The Minister has again referred to my point that we need to change the Tenant Fees Act. Is she saying there is in law a difference in liability for damage done to a rental property by the tenant or their pet? We know that, if they get struck by lightning, it is not their fault, but do they not have a liability for any damage done as a result of their tenancy anyway? In which case, why does any of this matter?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have already answered the noble Lord’s question: the idea of this specific pet insurance is to encourage landlords to accept tenants with pets. That is what the clause is there to do: to try to incentivise and encourage landlords to accept pets as part of the tenancy.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate. I thank those who have contributed to it all round, and I will try to mention everyone. I thought I should start by answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about whether there is a difference in the insurance policy between a pet and a human being. The answer is yes, because the provisions of a standard insurance policy in the UK would present two problems for the pet. The first is a total exclusion for infestation and insects—so the sort of problems the noble Lord, Lord Trees, was talking about would be taken out straight away. Secondly, there is usually a heavy exclusion for gradually operating causes, so that would take out chewing and other things pets might do. For centuries, or at least a century and a bit, there have been policies that are aware of pet damage issues. It is not just a landlord and tenant issue; it is a first-party issue that someone might start claiming for a dog chewing a Sheraton chair. Is that a thing you can claim for on insurance—yes or no? The answer has always been no.
This is the core of the problem, which I will finish on. I did not have the good grace to speak to Amendments 284 and 285, but they are in fact good ways of getting at the very problem I have been describing. I am not sure that I have been clear enough; it is not a question of the market eventually creating something, because it is not insurance if it is inevitable. The difficulty of “first dollar in” protection for a dog chewing something is that it is inevitable that there will be a loss. It is not something that any proper underwriting manager will ever say yes to. Lots of brokers will be very interested in saying yes, because they will see premium volumes and commissions to be earned as well, but underwriting managers will not, and I am therefore extremely negative on the prospects of there ever being a comprehensive policy for a tenant to insure against their pet damaging a flat. That is why I have been concentrating on trying to find other ways of doing this—that are going to be the enabler, which I want, of pets coming into flats.
On Amendment 130, what the Minister has just said is very helpful, in that that can at least be referred to. Although people in the insurance market will carry on knocking spots off each other about the definition of “premium”, the Minister’s helpful words at the Dispatch Box will settle that issue, and we can leave Amendment 130 to one side.
Amendment 129 tries to add something currently missing from the Bill, which is a better definition of what the landlord is able to buy and give the bill to the tenant for. It seems that, at the moment, the landlord could buy £5 million-worth of cover and ask the tenant to pay for it, which would be very expensive. There is more to be discussed on that, and I hope the Minister will agree to meet with me to carry on going through these various insurance issues.
On what the Minister said about the complexities of administering an eight-week deposit versus a five-week one, the great thing about having Scotland next door to us is that we can look over the border and see how complex that has proved to be. In fact, it is perfectly easy to handle. All the various agents who are active in Scotland—the big ones, anyway—are also active in England. I assume that they already have the systems to manage this. I do not feel that the deposit system, which is so successful in Scotland, could not be applied and be successful in England and Wales.
Finishing on Amendment 127, my advice to the House is that we will not get there by having this type of insurance. It would be very unfortunate if this went on to the statute book and it was possible for a landlord to use what I have described as an Italian torpedo approach to prevent people who want to have a pet in their home from doing so, simply by asking for the impossible. Therefore, I look forward to engaging with the Minister and her excellent team again, in the hope that we can find a way forward.
In the absence of anything else, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Janke
“Permission for home adaptations(1) The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows. (2) After section 16 insert—“16A Home adaptations(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy that a landlord must give permission for adaptations where a local council has carried out a Home Assessment and recommends adaptations which constitute reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.(2) A tenant may appeal a landlord’s refusal to give permission for such adaptations.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would ensure that landlords of private and social tenancies provide permission for home adaptations for people who have disabilities where a Home Assessment has been carried out.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 133 in my name and that of Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This amendment would require landlords to grant permission for home adaptations that constitute reasonable adjustments where these have been recommended by local authority assessments.
Disabled individuals in the private rented sector often face significant barriers in accessing essential adaptations that allow them to live safely, independently and with dignity. According to the English Housing Survey for 2022, 21% of private renters live in homes that fail to meet the decent home standards and 16% of private renters with a long-term illness or disability are in homes with at least one category 1 hazard, such as the risk of falls or inadequate heating. These conditions are not only uncomfortable; they can actively endanger health and undermine independence. The Family Resources Survey for 2022-23 reports that 24% of people in the UK are disabled, amounting to approximately 16 million individuals. With such a significant proportion of the population affected, the case for making housing adaptable and accessible is both moral and practical.
We know that many disabled renters face long delays, refusals or restrictive conditions when requesting simple modifications. Even small adjustments such as installing grab rails, ramps or stairlifts can make the difference between a person being able to remain in their home or being forced to move, rely on care or live in unsafe conditions. This amendment seeks to remove those barriers by ensuring that tenants can make necessary changes, subject to the existing checks and balances of local authority assessments. It offers a proportionate, workable solution that respects landlords’ rights while upholding the basic needs of tenants.
The amendment would also help to reduce demand on already stretched social housing by enabling more disabled people to remain in private accommodation that suits their needs. Given that nearly a quarter of the population is disabled, the need for accessible and safe housing is clear and pressing. This amendment offers a practical step to ensure that those who need adaptations are not denied them by process, delay or indifference.
I urge noble Lords to support this amendment in order to make real the promise of equality under the law and to ensure that disabled renters can live in homes that support their independence, health and dignity. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my Amendments 178 and 191, along with Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, highlight some of the challenges that disabled people face living in rented accommodation. Life is hard if you have to live with a disability, and it makes sense if where you live can help you have as much of an active life as possible. When we talk about disabled people, we are not just talking about wheelchair users; we are talking, for example, about people who might react badly to certain colours or intensity of lighting. Step-free access these days ought to be almost automatic, given our ageing population.
The sad reality is that Britain’s housing stock has not been designed with disabled people in mind, and the provision of adaptations for disabled housing is quite scarce. My Amendment 191 would give people reassurance that they can ask about and discuss disability adjustments when looking for somewhere to live, without being disadvantaged. Amendment 178 would take this further and give tenants a right to make minor adaptations for disabilities without needing consent from the landlord.
Taken together, these amendments would support people with disabilities to live healthier, happier lives by ensuring that they have specific rights to meet their needs. I hope that the Minister can take this issue away and look at it, as there are some simple ways forward that will have a huge beneficial impact on disabled people and their families.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I think the objective of the noble Baroness’s amendment is commendable. I worry, however, that if a property is altered, it will be limited by the assessment made by occupational health, within the limitations of local authority budgets and what the cost is estimated to be. In some properties, particularly older ones, these alterations can be very substantial.
The question arises: what happens if the tenant leaves the property and it has to be reinstated? That would be a relatively simple operation for a straight stairway, but not all properties are like that. Installing a lift would be a major structural operation. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could assess what the implications would be when someone left a property and how it would be reinstated. Reinstatement can often be more costly than the installation.
With regard to undertaking minor amendments, it depends on what we mean by minor. If building control consent is not required and people alter a property, they can undermine the structure very simply. It is not difficult—a lot of older properties may not have the same structural integrity as more modern ones. If people can say that a change is only minor, what is the boundary and what are the limitations if we have no definition of what a minor alteration is? If someone starts interfering with the structure of a property without the requirement of building control consent, there will be difficulties ahead, as there can be implications for the adjacent property. If various adaptations are needed in a terraced house, it can affect properties on either side.
Who would pay for the removal of the adaptations in the first place? Although the noble Baroness has tabled a very well-meaning amendment, I fear that, if given an inch, people would take a mile because they would not want to bother with getting the various consents. People could undertake quite substantial and perhaps even risky amendments to property without consent. Again, the question arises: how do we reinstate them afterwards?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their important amendments on disability adaptations. This is a crucial issue, and the Government have a duty to find the correct balance again between ensuring that disability adaptations are available to tenants and considering the significant impact that some provisions could have on our landlords.
Amendment 133, which proposes an obligation for landlords to grant permission for home adaptations following a local authority assessment under the Equality Act 2010, rightly highlights the importance of accessibility. However, we must also consider the practical and financial implications. Landlords, particularly those with smaller portfolios or those who operate on very tight margins, are already contending with a range of rising costs and regulatory pressures. Although the amendment’s intention is clear and commendable, the Government, we believe, must ensure that any new duty is accompanied by adequate support mechanisms so that landlords are not forced to absorb potentially substantial costs that could threaten the viability of their business or the quality of their housing stock.
Amendment 178 would allow tenants to undertake minor adaptations without seeking landlords’ consent. This is not merely a modest proposal—it raises some serious questions. Although “minor adaptation” may sound innocuous, this interpretation is highly subjective. One tenant’s minor change may in reality be a significant alteration that affects a property’s structure, aesthetics or marketability.
We must be clear that even small, cumulative changes can lead to a loss of value, future repair costs or regulatory complications for the landlord. Properties not designed or built to accommodate such modification may be especially vulnerable. This amendment risks creating confusion, undermining landlord confidence and ultimately reducing the availability of homes to rent, particularly in lower-cost segments of the market. Landlords must have clarity, and they must be protected from unintended consequences. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, what happens when the tenant leaves, and who pays for reinstating the property?
Amendment 191, which seeks to prohibit discrimination against prospective tenants requiring adaptations, addresses an issue of genuine concern. We support the principle of tackling discrimination wherever it occurs; however, we must also recognise that landlords will reasonably assess the suitability of their properties and the cost implications of meeting specific needs. To avoid placing landlords in an impossible position, any new obligations must be underpinned by clear guidance and, where necessary, financial support.
I urge the Minister to bring forward some proposals before Report that genuinely balance the rights of disabled tenants with the realities that landlords face. If we are to ensure that homes are both accessible and available for disabled people, we must avoid shifting the full cost burden on to landlords, particularly without due process, oversight or compensation. The aim should be a system that is fair, proportionate and sustainable for all the parties involved.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their amendments relating to home disability adaptations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their comments.
Amendment 133 seeks to require landlords to permit home disability adaptations when these have been recommended in a local authority home assessment. The Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled tenants, but I recognise that such rights are not always easy to enforce in practice. I therefore agree with the noble Baroness that we should take steps to remove barriers that unreasonably prevent disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need.
However, I do not consider this amendment to be the right way to achieve that. In particular, there are significant risks to introducing a new requirement linked to home assessments. These assessments are carried out by local authorities as part of the means-tested disabled facilities grant process. The amendment would therefore create a two-tier system and could make it harder for people who are not eligible for the disabled facilities grant to access adaptations.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we recognise how important those home adaptations are to make sure that older and disabled people live as independently as possible in a safe and suitable environment. I have seen at first hand, as I know she has, the real difference that these adaptations can make. That is why the Government have awarded an £86 million in-year uplift to the disabled facilities grant for 2024-25, bringing the total funding to £711 million.
That increased funding will allow more eligible people to make vital improvements to their home, allowing them to live more independent lives and reducing hospitalisations. The Government have also confirmed that amount for 2025-26. To ensure that the disabled facilities grant is as effective as possible, we also continue to keep different aspects of the grant under review. For example, we are currently reviewing the suitability of the £30,000 upper limit. I have known cases where, because of the scale of the adaptations that are necessary and the impact of inflation on construction work, that needs to be reviewed. The Government are also reviewing the allocations formula for DFG to ensure that funding is aligned with local needs. We will consult during 2025 on a new approach, with a view to implementation as soon as possible after the consultation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That is a very positive response. Can we have that in writing, please, to save us from going through Hansard, as to those further measures that the Government intend to take? Will they be in the Bill or in guidance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will provide in writing all that I have just outlined.
Amendment 178 seeks to allow private rented sector tenants to carry out disability adaptations to their homes without first obtaining consent from their landlord if the cost of these adaptations is below a threshold set in regulation. I agree that the Government should seek to address barriers preventing disabled tenants getting the home adaptations that they require. However, this amendment is not the right way to achieve it. The amendment defines which disability adaptations are classed as minor solely by reference to cost. This would not capture a range of other factors—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—that a responsible landlord would need to consider when deciding whether to permit alterations.
These factors could include interactions with building regulation requirements—a very important set of requirements on landlords—the need for consent from third parties and how easy it will be to return the property to its original condition. As many of these factors will be dependent on the features of each individual property, it would not be possible to define “minor adaptations” in a way that works effectively for all housing in a private rented sector as diverse as ours. Given the challenge in defining which adaptations are minor, it is likely that some disabled tenants would make genuine mistakes, for the best reasons, and carry out adaptations that were not in scope of the legislation. If successfully challenged by landlords in the courts, this could result in negative consequences, such as being ordered to pay damages to remove the adaptation. The risk of this happening could deter tenants from exercising such a right.
This amendment would also create a new right for tenants alongside the existing obligation on landlords under the Equality Act 2010 not to refuse consent for disability-related improvement. That could make the system more confusing and more difficult for tenants to navigate. Therefore, the amendment would not be an effective way of supporting disabled tenants and could even make things worse. The Government are already taking strong action on this through the existing measures in the Bill and the further commitments that I have set out.
Amendment 191 seeks to extend the rental discrimination measures in the Bill to persons requiring home adaptations. We recognise very much the important issue that this amendment raises and agree strongly that people with disabilities should not face discrimination when accessing the private rented sector; nor should they be unreasonably refused the adaptations that they require. We hope that the transformative reforms to the private rented sector delivered through the Bill will make a substantial difference to support disabled tenants. The abolition of Section 21 and the new PRS ombudsman address the two key barriers identified by the 2024 report of the former Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee: retaliatory eviction and access to redress.
Disabled people are, however, already afforded the full protection from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. As part of this, landlords and agents are forbidden from victimising or discriminating against a person based on a disability in relation to the offer of a tenancy, the terms on which a tenancy is offered or their general treatment of that person. Expanding the Bill’s rental discrimination provisions in this manner would create an unnecessary dual system, increasing complexity and causing confusion, leading to an overlap of responsibilities between local authorities and the courts.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Can I just come back on the reinstatement issue? Perhaps there was something in that response in the other place that the Minister referred to which would have covered this. Everybody is at one in wishing to provide people with the best possible circumstances to enjoy their tenancies; if that requires adaptations, so be it. Statistically, it is very important. However, some of these adaptations can be very substantial. If you have a lift, you have to cut the floor out from ground floor to first floor to take the machinery out; structurally you have to leave the lift shaft. That is one example. Bathrooms and stairlifts are others. If you take them away, they leave huge holes. Does the Minister have a response to that? How will it be repaired so that a landlord can resell or relet the property?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the noble Lord’s point about reinstatement. However, the property being adapted will usually extend the length of the tenancy, which is one of the initial objectives. This already happens where a tenant asks for a home adaptation to be carried out. That will usually mean that they will extend the length of their tenancy. If the tenant does decide to move out, the landlord can seek someone else who would benefit from that adaptation. I will come back to the noble Lord regarding his point about any necessary reinstatement costs. Normally, landlords will be able to find another tenant who would benefit from the adaptation that has been made to the property.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, and I look forward to seeing her letter and the various assurances that she has given us today. This amendment stemmed from the fact that refusal by landlords has been a major obstacle in the private sector to disabled people who are trying to get adaptations, and it seems that there are a number of measures within the Bill that will really start to tackle this problem. The Equality Act requirements have not prevented landlords refusing tenants who have requested adaptations.
As the Minister says, the business of reinstatement is not always necessary. I admit that some hoists might need to be reinstated, but there is a huge shortage of rental places available for people with even minor disabilities. Bathroom improvements and stairlifts can be a great benefit and make the property much more in demand, because they are in very short supply. I accept that some reinstatement may well be necessary at some stage, but you need only to look at how much demand there is for these properties before you think that you would necessarily have to reinstate them after somebody with a disability has left. The fact that the tenants have a longer period of tenure as a result is also an important factor.
The point of this amendment was that getting it under the disabled facilities grants, meaning that local councils would have their inspection under some form of supervision, was meant to be a safeguard to ensure that things were not being done in an ad hoc or an unsafe way. I am very pleased to hear that disabled facilities grants are being boosted, because the fact that there has been so little money in them for so long has been a major impediment to getting these improvements. I look forward to reading the Minister’s assurances in the letter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Janke
“Right to request Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) installation(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy to which this section applies that— (a) a tenant may request the installation of Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) at the dwelling-house if the tenant asks to do so in accordance with this section and the landlord consents;(b) such consent is not to be unreasonably refused by the landlord;(c) the landlord is to give or refuse consent in writing on or before the 28th day after the date of the request, except as provided by subsections (2) to (5).(2) Where the landlord reasonably requests further information from the tenant about the proposed FTTP installation on or before the 28th day after the date of the tenant’s request the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent until the 7th day after the date on which the tenant provides any further information that the landlord requests where the following circumstances apply—(a) the installation of FTTP at the dwelling-house would require the landlord to obtain the consent of a superior landlord under the terms of a superior tenancy, and(b) the landlord seeks the consent of the superior landlord on or before the 28th day after the date of the tenant’s request.(3) The landlord may delay giving or refusing consent until the 7th day after the date on which the landlord receives consent or refusal from the superior landlord.(4) Where the landlord and the tenant agree that the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent, the landlord may delay until whatever date is agreed between the landlord and the tenant.(5) Where more than one of subsections (2) to (4) apply, the landlord may delay until the latest date to which the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent under any of the subsections.(6) This section applies to every assured tenancy other than a tenancy of social housing, within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a right for tenants to request Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) installation, similar to the right to request keeping a pet, by ensuring that landlord consent for FTTP installation cannot be unreasonably refused and that decisions are made within a specified timeframe. This provision is intended to reduce delays in broadband infrastructure improvements in rented properties.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 134, I will also speak to Amendment 135. Both are also in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Best. I am grateful to Openreach for raising this issue with me, and to Generation Rent and the Good Things Foundation for their support. These amendments would introduce the right for tenants to directly request a full-fibre broadband installation. Tenants would be able to request from their landlord directly, who would have to decide within a specified timeframe. Landlord consent would not be able to be unreasonably refused.
Broadband was historically delivered through electrical signals in copper phone lines, but this technology faced limitations, including vulnerability to weather and limited information-carrying capabilities. A demand for connecting multiple devices grew. Copper networks have increasingly been replaced with fibre-optic cables, enabling more reliable broadband and faster download speeds for households and businesses across the UK.
Four years ago, less than a quarter of British homes and offices could access full-fibre broadband. Today, around seven in 10 premises, or 20.7 million, have access to full fibre, and gigabit-capable network coverage has increased from 40% in 2021 to 83% last year. This progress has been commendable, but there are still challenges to building this vital infrastructure, which is why I tabled these amendments to resolve an increasingly pressing matter.
Although the provision of ultrafast broadband has been mandated in new builds since 2022, tenants in older residential properties have to rely on freeholder permission to upgrade existing copper to full fibre. This can pose significant challenges to the provision of gigabit-capable broadband to residents, if landlords are difficult to identify or are unresponsive to requests for access.
It is estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of multi-dwelling units across the country whose tenants could be disfranchised from the benefits of gigabit-capable broadband. Although there are existing rights to enter communal areas in flats to repair the ageing copper network, providers cannot use these same rights to upgrade tenants to the latest technology, despite the benefits it brings.
Although the telecommunications code was amended in 2022 to help broadband providers get access to multi-dwelling units by providing a tribunal process, this route is often very ineffective, takes a great deal of time and cost, and results in properties still being bypassed. The law also allows providers to apply to the tribunal only when a tenant has asked for a broadband service, but if the building does not already have a fibre network in place, there is no service available for the tenant to request. As a result, tenants, often in lower-income areas, will be left with slower, outdated broadband options, restricting their ability to access vital public services, work remotely, and access online education.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 134 and 135, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, as has the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood. The amendments seek to address a very real problem, as the noble Baroness described. Some renters are being prevented from getting advanced broadband because their landlord has not given consent for the installation of fibre to the premises, or FTTP. Openreach, by far the biggest provider, estimates that over 900,000 households in private rented accommodation are affected.
Access to fast, reliable broadband is vital to make a GP appointment, to use a bank account, to communicate with friends and family, and to shop online, and it is essential for home working. Today, adequate digital connectivity is almost as important a service as water or electricity. My home was upgraded from a hopelessly unreliable copper network to FTTP broadband, with greatly improved access to all the wonders of the internet. Why would any landlord fail to approve the installation of the necessary digital infrastructure? After all, better broadband would make their property easier to let and increase its value at no cost to the landlord.
It seems that this is not a problem of landlords rejecting requests—for example, because they wrongly fear the process will be disruptive. Rather, it is because the landlord is hard to identify or simply fails to respond. The landlord may be based overseas. They may simply not be bothered. The amendment would overcome this problem by giving the tenant the right to make a request for fibre to the premises—a request which must be considered within a fixed timescale and cannot be unreasonably withheld, just like the new renters’ right to request permission for keeping a pet.
Full-fibre broadband is mandatory for new homes. Landlord consent is likely to be obtained relatively easily from social housing providers, but some private sector renters are missing out unnecessarily. This needs to change.
Meanwhile, as well as representations from Openreach on the need for this amendment, I have heard from two other installers of fibre and the Independent Networks Cooperative Association—INCA. These have expressed some concerns. They fear that avoiding the need for the landlord’s participation in the installation process would give unfair competitive advantage to Openreach, which already has an engagement with the premises through its provision of the old copper wire system from yesteryear. The SME network providers are worried that, because Openreach is best able to install fibre without landlord consent, the amendment could give it more of a monopoly. The smaller providers point to the value of their approach, which involves them forming good relations with landlords: bringing the landlord on board ensures they know where best to drill holes for new cables, install wires across common areas, satisfy building safety regulations, et cetera.
While not addressing the problem of digital exclusion caused by unco-operative or absentee landlords, the case for ensuring a level playing field for competing providers also deserves attention. If the Government are minded to accept this amendment—I hope they will, for the sake of the tenants who can otherwise be denied all the huge benefits of fibre to the premises—new regulatory measures to accompany the amendment need to take on board the SME providers’ perspective.
With these comments, I am delighted to support the amendments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I also support these amendments. I have one small niggle, which I will get to, but I live at the end of a very ropey copper wire system, so I yearn for the day when broadband reaches up into the Midlands—or, as it is known down here, the north.
My understanding is that Openreach, in the areas where it is installing, currently includes a building free of charge in its rollout programme. That could change, and it is not clear whether alternative network providers may charge for installing. The situation is not clear at the moment and is, of course, subject to change. Therefore, would the Minister consider it right to oblige landlords to take on the cost if one is imposed?
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I rise to give my support for Amendments 134 and 135 in the names of my noble friend Lady Janke and the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Best, who, in his usual style, has added some quality dimensions to this discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has given his usual nudge about something we might have forgotten.
In short, these amendments offer a simple, cost-neutral solution to a growing problem. Too many renters are still denied access to fast, reliable broadband, and there is a real risk of growing the digital divide as a result. The ability to work remotely and to access education and vital public services are basic needs in the modern world. Reliable broadband is not a luxury; it is a necessity as fundamental as water or electricity in our lives today, yet over 900,000 households are being left behind. This is often simply because, as has been said clearly, landlords are hard to reach for requests for fibre installation or are just not bothered. These amendments would introduce a clear, fair process, ensuring that tenants could request full-fibre broadband and receive a timely response. This is not about forcing landlords to pay but removing a passive barrier that is harming renters’ access to full-fibre broadband.
It is good to know that these measures are backed by many organisations, such as Generation Rent and the Good Things Foundation, and offer a cost-neutral way for the Government to improve digital inclusion, particularly for low-income renters. Importantly, yes, landlords benefit too, with fibre infrastructure clearly adding a long-term rental value to their properties.
This is a fair and practical step to connect more people and strengthen our digital infrastructure, so we strongly support these amendments—no surprise there—and urge colleagues to do the same. We look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I will say a few words, particularly in response to the comments of my noble friend Lord Cromwell about loading costs on to the landlords. The problem is that, if you are in the countryside, they want to charge a huge amount to get it to you. We have one or two cottages and, to get a fibre cable out to us, we were being quoted £15,000 at one point. We would be connecting about five properties at the end of it—rented properties and another house. The other complication is that, if one of them is a business, for example, there are different rules on what they are allowed to charge. A lot of this is in the original regulations telling BT and the other networks what they had to do, particularly when BT was trying to block other people having access to the houses. There are a lot of unfairnesses in the legislation, which Ofcom never dealt with properly. I am not sure where it has got to now, but there are lots of little wars going on.
It can be very expensive: it is not just a matter of connecting something to a roadside, as it is in the city. If you are going to be running it half a mile or so, you will find that you can be loaded with enormous costs, and that they want five-year leases and so on. Sometimes, you can tell that the price will be slashed soon, because they suddenly make a big sales pitch, trying to get you to take on a five-year commitment to five grand a year; that is the best sign that they are about to roll it out in a couple of years’ time. So things are not quite as simple as they seem.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for bringing Amendments 134 and 135 to the attention of the Committee today. These rightly highlight the growing importance of fibre-to-premises broadband and the many benefits that come with high-speed internet connectivity.
In today’s world, where remote working has become increasingly common and where online applications are used to complete everyday tasks such as banking, a fast, reliable internet connection is essential. Applications that require real-time communication, such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams, not to mention watching the odd video, depend on high-speed connectivity to function effectively. For the working day to run smoothly, a strong and stable connection is essential.
We are all familiar with the dreadful “buffer face”, that puzzled expression we adopt as we wait for our devices to respond. What should be a simple task can become an exercise in frustration, all because of poor internet infrastructure. As many noble Lords have mentioned, a large group of people are excluded because of a lack of fast fibre.
Fibre to the premises is a significant step forward. It is far less susceptible to weather-related interference, and it offers future-proof capabilities. We are supportive of ensuring everyone has access to such high-speed broadband, and it is essential if we are to have a successful, dynamic and modern economy.
However, there is a need to consider some of the complications, as the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, have pointed out. As the noble Earl said, rural broadband is a big issue: while many broadband providers offer contracts with no upfront installation fees, the reality is that some properties require additional work, such as laying new ducts or trenching. For some home owners, this may lead to excess construction charges, which can range from a few hundred to several thousand pounds. How will this be addressed?
While installing in a stand-alone dwelling may be relatively simple, there is the issue of multi-dwelling units such as blocks of flats, which a number of noble Lords have raised. There are significant additional complexities there, such as the potential logistics if every single flat tenant could claim to have their own separate installation; ensuring that the building’s integrity and things such as fire safety are maintained in that building; and the impact on other flat owners and so forth. For multi-dwelling units, this needs to be done on a system basis, working with the owners and the tenants. There is a need to make the process simpler and to ensure landlord engagement.
It is essential that the Government look to address these issues, ensuring that unaffordable costs do not fall unfairly on landlords or tenants and that the complexities of installation in multi-dwelling units are addressed. The Government should actively promote awareness of initiatives that may help to offset these costs and find solutions to complexities. Clear communication and guidance can also help property owners better understand their existing infrastructure and anticipate potential expenses.
The Government should consider how best to promote fast-fibre internet with affordable, practical solutions, looking to address potential costs and to deliver those practical solutions to the more complex multi-dwelling units.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her amendments regarding the right for private rented sector tenants to request the installation of telecommunications apparatus, and the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Cromwell and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments on this group. I completely understand the reason why the noble Baroness raised this important issue.
Digital infrastructure absolutely underpins the UK economy. It is a key driver of productivity and will only grow in importance over the coming decade—there is definitely no going back on this. That is why the Government are committed to delivering nationwide gigabit coverage by 2030, reaching a minimum of 99% of premises in the UK. No one can now deny that digital infrastructure is as vital as all the other utilities we expect to have access to.
As of March this year, just under 87% of premises in the UK can access a gigabit-capable connection. But the Government are very aware of concerns around the speed of deployment in the multiple dwelling units, such as blocks of flats, that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, just referred to.
Amendment 134 would introduce an implied right for tenants to make a request in writing for the installation of fibre to the premises—fibre optic cables. These cables are capable of providing gigabit broadband directly to the home. The amendment would provide that landlords may not unreasonably refuse such a request and that they must respond to the request within 28 days.
Amendment 135 sets out the formalities of such a request and provides circumstances in which it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse it, including where the landlord would be in breach of an agreement with a superior landlord. It also sets out how these provisions may be enforced.
These amendments are intended to reduce delays in deploying broadband infrastructure improvements in rented properties. However, the Government are aware that issues with the speed of deployment in urban areas have related to multiple dwelling units in particular, such as blocks of flats, rather than the rental sector in general. The amendments may not address the problem of slow deployment in multiple dwelling units. For example, leasehold flats in multiple dwelling units that are not rented, which outnumber rented flats within those units, would not be covered by these amendments. Further, leasehold flats in multiple dwelling units that are rented would not necessarily benefit from the right to request fibre to the premises because of the requirement for superior landlord agreement.
We therefore believe that further consideration of how such an intervention should be targeted is required before any intervention is undertaken. We understand that network operators have strongly differing views on whether and how government should intervene here—points mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cromwell—and they have concerns that any such intervention could have unintended consequences. In particular, there are concerns that intervention without proper consideration may impact the telecoms network operator market in such a way that could harm competition and investment and, in fact, slow down deployment rather than speed it up.
Given these matters, we do not consider the amendments to be appropriate. However, I assure noble Lords that that is not to say the Government are turning a blind eye to the issue. We recognise that more could be done to ensure that residents living in blocks of flats are not left behind as the rollout of gigabit broadband continues at pace across the UK. We are receiving positive responses to our work with local authorities and housing associations to facilitate deployment in social housing multiple dwelling units. Officials are also actively considering options to identify what would be the best interventions to facilitate gigabit broadband deployment in privately owned multiple dwelling units. We are actively working on that.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Errol, about the cost to landlords and the potential costs in rural areas of implementing this, I do not have an answer. I will talk to my colleagues in DSIT and come back to the noble Lords on those important points.
I hope that my words provide reassurance to the noble Baroness that the Government are seriously considering what we consider to be a very important issue. I therefore ask that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendments.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
The Minister said, significantly, that the Government are going to connect 99% of premises. That is not enough, looking forwards, because a lot of people sometimes move around, travelling. Nowadays, when you are not in a premises, you rely on broadband connections for satnavs and perhaps doing something remotely because you are travelling but need to connect with work over broadband. We need to cover the whole country, not just premises. That was the big flaw in the earlier work by these operators. I ask the Minister not to make the same mistake again. We should not forget that BT still owns Openreach. Even though it has been legally separated, it is not completed yet. So the Minister should beware of what she is told.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Earl makes an excellent point. Anyone who has travelled on the east coast main line will be incredibly frustrated about the dipping in and out of the broadband signal, and if you go through the Hatfield Tunnel on the A1, you will lose your broadband there as well. So he makes an important point.
The Bill is of course about housing, which is why we are considering the housing aspects of it, but I am sure my colleagues in DSIT are very aware of the absolute need to make sure that we have good broadband connection wherever we are in the country.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I thank the Minister for her comments, and I am very interested to hear how the Government will move forward on this. As they have rejected this amendment, I would be very interested to see what measures will be taken. Whatever reassurances we have in here, there are still large numbers of people who are digitally excluded and, as other Members have said, they are entirely reliant on broadband connection for so many things, whether it is medical appointments, work or for economic reasons. It is a real inequality and a great exclusion if they cannot have reliable connections. I hope that this will be a priority and that the Minister will inform us—perhaps in a letter—about what developments are taking place and by when. She mentioned some dates and I should be interested to see them. With those reassurances, I withdraw the amendment.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 February be approved.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for precision-bred plants in England. They provide the practical and technical detail to implement a new science-based and proportionate regulatory system for precision-bred plants, as set out in the Act.
The territorial application of these regulations is England only and covers the environmental release and marketing of precision-bred plants as well as their use in food and feed in England. This includes a process administered by Defra to confirm that plants are precision bred—not genetically modified—before they can be marketed. It also establishes a food and feed marketing authorisation process administered by the Food Standards Agency which allows products to be placed safely on the market. The regulations also outline details for public registers and enforcement.
The Government recognise that concerns have been raised in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report and in the regret amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, most notably around provision of information and the impacts on the devolved Governments. We agree that these issues are important, and our work to understand and mitigate implications is ongoing. The department recognises that transparency is important and will be establishing public registers to ensure that information about precision-bred organisms authorised for marketing and for use in food and feed is available to consumers, farmers and landowners. We are also looking at ways to enhance this further and have recently closed a public consultation seeking to gather views on how to improve the accessibility of information on these precision-bred plant varieties, including through the labelling of seed and plant reproductive material.
We are also continuing to engage regularly with the devolved Governments on today’s legislation. In addition to monthly meetings at official level and regular ministerial engagement at the interministerial group, Minister Zeichner, as Farming Minister, is organising discussions with his counterparts in the devolved Governments to consider any concerns in more detail. Some of these talks have already begun and we value the progress that is being made. We also note that discussions are now taking place between devolved Governments and key stakeholders across industry on this policy area, and we look forward to hearing updates as this develops.
I believe that we have struck the right balance with an enabling regulatory framework that is proportionate and evidence-based, while providing measures for transparency and regulatory oversight. Today, by passing this secondary legislation, I believe that we have the opportunity to transform and modernise our food system —to make it fit for the future.
The 21st-century agricultural system faces significant challenges. It must provide enough food to meet growing demand while at the same time becoming more sustainable. It must also survive the threat to productivity posed by climate change. Food security is national security. To help us achieve this, we need innovation in fundamental sectors such as plant breeding. Precision breeding would be transformative for this sector, enabling innovative products to be commercialised in years instead of decades—and we do not have decades. Through precision breeding, crops can be developed that are more resilient to climate change, more resilient to pests and diseases, and more beneficial to the environment. In turn, this will increase food production, reduce the need for pesticides and fertilisers, lower emissions and reduce costs for farmers.
However, to capture these benefits, we need a regulatory framework with a sound science base that encourages innovation. The scientific consensus, across key advisory committees and institutes, is that precision-bred organisms pose no greater risk to health or the environment than traditionally bred organisms. The existing legislation carries a significant burden. According to the AgriFood Economics Centre, current regulations add a stifling 74% to the cost of marketing for businesses. This deters investment and limits the type of companies and products that can be brought to market. Countries that have kept pace with the science and introduced regulatory reform have seen significant investment. The Americas have attracted over 80% of venture capital investment in the sector, while only 5% comes to Europe. It is paramount that we act to change this.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations fail to provide consumers, farmers and landowners with sufficient information on genetically modified precision bred organisms, and fail to allow devolved authorities to implement their policy choices in areas where responsibility has been devolved to them.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, for clarity, I express that this is a regret amendment, not a fatal one. That is due in part to an error of mine, but I am choosing to regard this as an opportunity. I know that many Members would not vote for a fatal amendment, but here is an opportunity for noble Lords to show their concerns about this deeply flawed instrument before us. I will listen to the debate before deciding whether to divide the House.
Your Lordships do not have to take my word for the statement that this is a flawed instrument. I am sure that many Members of the House have already seen the 15-page—yes, 15-page—report from our hard-working Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to which the Minister referred. It contains a great many concerns about the basic workability of what is here before us today; these are issues that I will get back to.
In bold on the front page of the committee’s report is a suggestion that
“The House may wish to question the Minister further”
on the concerns raised about
“about the lack of labelling requirements despite apparent strong consumer preferences for mandatory labelling”.
The committee also says that Members may want to ask about the impact on trade and on organic producers. I would also add—and we may hear more—about the impacts on Scotland and Wales.
I am confident these issues will be at the centre of our debate and that the Minister will be pressed on them. Trust in our food system, and trust that the label will tell you what you want to know about what is in the packet, is clearly crucial. We have seen in the US —and, yes, I will use the phrase—“Make America Healthy Again” deployed very often. This is what happens when trust breaks down.
There are already signs of growing concern here in the UK. I point noble Lords to an article in the Independent published yesterday, headlined:
“A mobile app told me my kids’ food isn’t healthy—now I am emptying out my kitchen cabinets”.
The writer comments:
“Like many other mums, I’ve become hooked on it”—
the app—
“mainly to check if the food I feed my kids is any good for them”.
Before I get back to that, and in deference to the fact that many new Members have joined your Lordships’ House since we debated the legislation behind this statutory instrument, I will explain the background. Many will remember, I am sure, the public reaction, the concern, which started in the 1990s, about the possibility of genetically modified organisms getting into the food system in the UK. Public concern here and around the world has not faded. Courts in the Philippines and Kenya, to take just two examples, have recently ruled against GM foods. In January, responding to a Trumpian push to force GMO crops on his country, the Mexican President said:
“We do not want GM … We are a sovereign free country”.
We were told that what is being proposed under the legislation was different and rather than introducing genes from other species, the gene-edited organisms that this covers would allow only genes from other organisms that would have interbred naturally or genes that had been deleted from the original organisms. But that is not really what is happening.
Handily, Rothamsted Research released news in the past month to help me illustrate the point. It had proclaimed success in gene-editing a wheat variety low in the amino acid asparagine, which on cooking can be converted to acrylamide, about which there are concerns. This wheat might be handy for the manufacturers of processed snacks since it is classed as a processing contaminant that legally needs to be monitored.
As with so much of this regulation, we are talking about benefiting biotech companies and food manufacturers, not consumers. But Rothamsted acknowledged to Euronews that it had encountered a snag. Foreign DNA it had introduced into the wheat, not wheat DNA at all, had proved impossible to breed out so this wheat cannot meet the definition of gene-edited and very clearly remains a GMO.
That lines up with an informative—rather technical, I confess—slide that I would be happy to share with any interested noble Lords that Dr Vladimir Nekrasov from Rothamsted presented at a Westminster Forum event on gene-editing that I chaired last week. It identified challenges to gene-editing, including limits to the understanding of the genetic networks controlling key traits in crops, the recalcitrance of some crops to gene-editing, the difficulty of changing multiple genes at the same time, and the difficulty in ensuring that the result is free of transgenes; that is, foreign genes.
In summary, this is not a simple or predictable process. It is not a precision process. As I said in Grand Committee last week, putting the terms engineering and biology together reflects a profound misunderstanding of how life works. Engineering is fine for machines but not for biology. In that debate I pointed to the astonishing new discovery that mitochondria can migrate between cells. In another new discovery this week, phys.org reports:
“Scientists make discovery that upends our beliefs about how cells divide”.
We are messing with systems we do not understand, like a child dismantling a clock and throwing the pieces into a microwave to see what happens.
I hope that explains the legislation—which, unfortunately, already exists—so I turn now to the practical problems of this instrument, many of which were outlined so clearly by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. In the interests of time, I will be brief; I believe other noble Lords will be picking up some of the points I am making. I have already referred to the failure to require labelling of gene-edited crops. The Minister spoke about a register that you might be able to look up online—I think the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee sets out how utterly inadequate that is for the consumer, that mum such as the Independent writer, who is there in the supermarket, wondering what to buy for her children that night.
Method-of-production labelling is common in our food system. It is what allows us to choose free-range eggs, organic milk or fairtrade coffee or tea, or which items are halal or kosher. Indeed, we still do not know how these certifications will regard this gene-editing. Labelling allows consumers to meet their own personal food needs and to shop their values, which is surely the cornerstone of a democratic food system. The other issues—some of which the committee has already covered—for organic farmers and food producers include that gene-edited organisms remain GMOs and must be excluded from their supply chain. This regulation does not allow them to do that.
The Minister spoke about implementing the legislation, but the Government still have not solved the issue that none of these organisms can be sold commercially unless it is first on the national seed list. Will they be a separate listing on the list? This is very much unclear.
I will briefly mention the devolved nations because I have confidence that this issue will be covered very strongly by other noble Lords. I will set out where we are at. An English producer can sell a bag of gene-edited grain or a tomato into Scotland and Wales and the internal market Act means that that cannot be stopped. But once those commodities undergo further processing and become flour or tomato sauce, under Welsh and Scottish law they have to be labelled as GMOs. I really do not see how that is going to be solved.
Going beyond the other nations, in terms of trade issues, a new legal opinion published in the European Union says that not labelling what we are calling PBOs directly contravenes the obligations under the Cartagena protocol—which aims to prevent potential harm to biological diversity caused by the movement of GMOs across international borders—to which the UK is a party.
We could see the EU lay down a phytosanitary marker that says that unlabelled English PBOs will be rejected at the border. It is considering the possibility of bringing in something like these rules—its labels are NGT 1 and NGT 2. I will not go into the details of all of that here, but it has an entirely different classification system from what this regulation introduces. The complications—and I am happy to talk to any noble Lord who would like to discuss this later—are very high.
Finally, I note that while everyone in this legislation and regulation is talking about food crops, we are in fact talking about regulations affecting any plant, including ornamental and wild plants, and how we could be messing with our already much-depleted natural systems. But we are going to hear, and have already heard, from the Minister about feeding the world. I am going to go to Katja Tielbörger, a professor of plant ecology at the University of Tübingen in Germany, who spoke to Euronews about the Rothamsted difficulties. She said:
“We don’t need any new varieties to feed the world. Food security is not an issue of which varieties we have. It’s an issue of how the food is distributed and what is happening with it”.
I am pro food security, pro agroecology and pro working for farmers and consumers and not for multinational food companies and giant agrochemical companies. I am pro a healthy food system, and so I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, it will be no surprise to anyone in the House that I strongly support this statutory instrument. Precision breeding as a method of plant breeding is safer and more precise than the random selection methods of existing traditional breeding. Above all, it is the speeding up of the process of developing new and urgently needed varieties that makes it so important in today’s world.
If you have 15 to 20 years to spare and are dogged enough to pursue your single-issue target with the millions of options available to you from the 200 or 300 hybrids you are breeding every year—95%-plus of which you destroy—you might eventually be able to produce a variety with the vital characteristics you want. But we do not have the time for the 20 or so harvests needed for the random-chance mutations that such traditional breeding provides. We urgently and desperately need to make multifaceted improvements to a whole range of crops.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, just said. I do not intend to repeat the technical aspects of it, but I hope I can deliver the lay man’s common-sense view of it—backed by the science, because that is what we are about.
Precision breeding is not genetic modification, whatever anyone might say. In 1998, I was the Food Safety Minister before the FSA existed, when the campaign was laid against GM foods. In fact, this technique was not available then; if it had been, we would probably not even have tried to go down the road of GM. The American population has been the sitting duck sample of GM food technology for 30 years and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever died from any of the food.
I am also quite critical of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I feel really sad about this, because its report is biased and does not take a full range of evidence. I am not going into further criticism, but I think this report deserves criticism. It is a shame, because they are normally incredibly good.
It is just as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. It has been a long time since I went to Norwich to the John Innes Centre and the other laboratories and saw the amount of time spent on traditional breeding. If you look at it fully, traditional breeding is gene editing, but they did not know that they were doing it. That is the problem: it is randomised, so they are not certain about it. But the products that come out are safe; the science says they are safe and the FSA says they are safe, and that should be good enough for most of us.
I do not hide behind organics. Anyone would think that organic farmers do not use antibiotics or medicines for their animals. They do. The idea that they are completely natural, with no scientific input at all, is absolutely preposterous.
We basically had this debate when we put the legislation through in 2023. The other place probably has not spend as long on it as this House, from the experience I have in both Houses. Most people—including me, before I went into MAFF—are completely ignorant about the breeding of plants: the technology, the randomised nature of it and the hit-and-miss view of it. The time spent on it is enormous, and is happening all the while. The fact is that breeding is taking place on a regular basis, and we do not worry about it. The products are safe. They are not labelled. That is my criticism of the report: if you cannot check that it is different, how can you label it? I would be much keener on having the methods of slaughter of animals labelled, but everybody is against that. That is more practical. In this case, if you cannot tell the difference, how can you possibly label it? It is scientifically preposterous.
I do not deny that there are scientists who take an opposite view. We had this happen 20-odd years ago, when a scientist told us that something was wrong with potatoes and GM technology. He was checking raw potatoes. I think the advice is, basically, do not eat raw potatoes because the chances are they will kill you. There is a real problem here with some odd scientists. The general scientific community—I hope I am not going to be contradicted in a moment—is generally in favour of this system. It is safe, it is an advance on the science, it helps consumers and it helps the environment. I cannot see what the problem is or the need to slow it down.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the published register. I am torn on this matter. I am a scientist by background and, as such, I have welcomed progress that has been made by science, but I believe that, with the immense impact of that progress, we have a responsibility to be extremely careful and to take steps forward only when we are absolutely certain we are doing the right thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, took me back to the early days of devolution in 1999, when the question of GM products was very controversial and caused immense difficulty—not least across the England-Wales border, in north-east Wales and in Cheshire. These are matters that need to be thought through in advance, otherwise we could once again get ourselves in the same sort of mess as we did around that time.
In responding to this debate, can the Minister clarify where exactly the discussions with the devolved Governments have gone? The responsibility for these matters lies with them, in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Minister indicated that discussions were taking place, but by putting it in those terms the implication is that they have not reached a conclusion. Should we in this House be steamrollering an order like this through when that conclusion has not been reached, and many aspects of it may not have even been discussed at all? Why are the Government bringing this before the House before concluding the procedures to which they themselves have signed up—in the context of Wales—with their own Labour Government in Cardiff, who want to have the time to discuss this and come to a conclusion?
Therefore, I welcome the fact that there is a regret amendment, because I believe that we should move down this road if that is the consensus and it is agreed that it is safe, but only when we have gone through the proper procedures. If we are not going through the proper procedures with regard to the constitutional realities in these islands, how can we be sure that we are also going through the other procedures that are vital to the consideration of the substance of these regulations? Therefore, I ask Minister to think again, at least about the timescale, until further thought has been given to this matter.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support these regulations. That should be no surprise to your Lordships, given that I was Secretary of State when we took the primary legislation through this House. I would just remind the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this measure has already been through this House, during which time amendments were tabled on marketing, labelling and so on, to which this House did not agree. Therefore, noble Lords have already had a say in the decision on how to take this technology forward.
I am conscious that there will be challenges about things like the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. I remind your Lordships that in the days when we were part of the European Union, the UK Government certainly listened to the responses and views of the devolved Administrations, but ultimately made determinations based on what was determined across the European Union as a whole, as well as relying on its votes. As a consequence, all that regulation was applied without any say from the House of Lords or the House of Commons at that time. We are now in an odd situation where we are trying to redo the arguments from just a couple of years ago. Those debates were intense, and it was right that they be had; nevertheless, they were had in this place. I am grateful to the Government for taking this forward.
I remind the House that 40% of crops are lost globally every year due to floods, pests and other such events. That is why it is important that agriculture and food security make the best use of our science. Today, we had a Question about the report from the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Climate Change Committee. To my surprise, when it comes climate-resilient agriculture, the Adaptation Sub-Committee does not refer in any way to devices like this, or to how we could improve food security through this technology; it talks more about the use of land and so on. It is important that we embrace technology. The John Innes Centre in Norwich, which has been referred to already, is a particularly good example, but there are others.
As has been well said, gene editing is the acceleration of natural processes. We will see food productivity increase, which is particularly important given the climate incidents we have witnessed on our own shores in just the last few years. That is why drought-resistant and disease-resistant crops that reduce the use of fertilisers are an important part of what we need to do to help biodiversity improve across this country, instead of it remaining in current regrettable state. But it is also important that we respect the United Kingdom Internal Market Act.
I am very conscious there are 40 pages of this legislation. I appreciate that in my time as Secretary of State, I sometimes got a bit frustrated, once we had completed the primary legislation, with how long it took to get on with some of the detail. I commend the officials in the FSA and Defra for proceeding with this. It matters that we get sensible, science-based decisions right, and do not worry too much about—to be candid—the artificial concerns people have when those decisions are accelerated. We are already experiencing artificial intelligence in so many walks of life. There is a lot of concern about that, I accept that, but this is the scientists and our farmers speaking. That is why, if this is forced to a Division, I will be supporting the Government tonight.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support these regulations; I do not regret them. The UK is a leader in these technologies, and exploiting and implementing them will be an integral part of developing our biosciences expertise to help drive economic growth in the UK. But much more than that, critically, they will help us feed not only ourselves in the UK but the world, in the face of a growing population, constantly emerging disease threats and environmental challenges.
I would just like to point out the rather obvious: the fruit, vegetables and crops we grow and consume now are very different from their natural progenitors and have been subject to genetic changes by humans over hundreds of years, through selective processes involving no knowledge of what other genes might be affected. We have been eating genetically modified food for years and years.
Historically, the world, and especially populations in some of the poorest countries of the world, benefited from the green revolution in the decades after the Second World War, when varieties of wheat and rice in particular were improved such that many people could be fed adequately in those countries. Again, that was achieved by traditional methods. But the modern techniques enable us to make changes extremely quickly, and with incredibly sustainable and environmentally friendly means, to benefit humankind by reducing parasiticides, chemicals, fertilisers and even water—and by reducing food waste. So I find it difficult to understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and our colleagues in the Green Party oppose them.
I have confidence in our molecular biologists and our plant scientists—and these regulations. For these reasons, I support the Government strongly, but I urge them to press ahead with similar enabling regulations to permit precision-breeding technologies in animals. They offer, for example, the prospect of creating avian flu-resistant chickens, which would not only prevent disease in chickens but could reduce the possibility of spillover infections into humans of, for instance, the highly pathogenic avian influenza strain H5N1. Doing that has the potential to prevent the possible adaptation to human-to-human transmission. So I strongly support these regulations for plants, and I urge the Government to consider bringing similar enabling regulations for animals to this House as soon as possible.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, my career has been in the communication of science and evidence, helping to give people the information that they need and want to make decisions. There have been 25 years of studies on the communication of genetic modification and all these techniques. Some of them were done by the FSA, which neatly summarises the decades of research, saying that consumers
“saw a range of risks and benefits to PB food but on balance consumers thought the benefits outweighed the risks if properly regulated … they trust the FSA to regulate PB food”—
but they
“wanted labelling to enable them to make choices at the point of purchase”.
The FSA says:
“The power to decide on the mandatory labelling of PBOs for non-safety related purposes in England sits with … Defra. FSA officials have shared results of the consumer research and public consultation with Defra”.
I am really concerned about the lack of labelling here, not because it is a safety issue but because going against what consumers want carries risks. Defra responded:
“Based on the scientific advice that the risk associated with precision bred plants is no greater than for traditionally bred counterparts, we do not consider that mandatory labelling focused on the breeding technology or process used is appropriate”.
I have heard those arguments echoed by noble Lords today already. But the problem with this is that a lot of people’s concerns about this technology are not safety based, and ignoring the fact that people have other concerns, which they feel are not being listened to, might create a public backlash to this technology.
Often, people feel that something will not be fair here. They are worried about this benefiting the big players and the rich over the smaller players or the poor in the world. Defra’s response, focusing only on food safety, does not even make sense because, as we have heard, labels on food are often about things that are not direct food safety. Labelling of country of origin is mandated, for example. This allows consumers to make decisions on things they want to decide on when they are buying things at the point of sale.
I worry that, if the Government continue on this path of not having mandatory labelling, organic producers, who cannot allow gene-edited material into their supply chains, will have to take the responsibility to do all that tracing and labelling of products themselves. It will be very difficult, as we all know and have already heard, to trace a product all the way from a register—a variety—right through the supply chain. So, if people are not able to do that work or if it will be very expensive, how is the organic labelling supposed to work and how are consumers supposed to make a choice?
If we dig down into the FSA’s material on labelling further, we find a paragraph that says that labelling
“is likely to add extra costs. Providing this additional verification and assurance for all PB food would add extra cost to the whole PB food market, making it less affordable, reducing the incentives for food businesses to innovate and bring new products to market”.
That is the sort of phrase—“incentives for food businesses”—that is likely to trigger the sentiment that we have already experienced around genetic modification, and around the fear that the Government are pandering to big multinational companies, allowing their profits to override concerns about the environment or small businesses such as small farms.
I have a positive solution here for the Government. Rather than making organic and small brands, usually SMEs, label their products as “GM free” or choose whatever label they want—thereby causing resentment among the public about the costs to small businesses and worries about the lack of transparency—it would be far better for gene-edited products to be clearly labelled with what modification has been made to them and why. The Royal Society mentioned this in its consultation response. For example, labels could say: “Genetically enhanced to contain more vitamin C”. This would give people an understanding of the potential benefits and would let them know, and reassure them, that things have been traced through. To respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, if something has been edited and it has shown stability through the generations, it does not matter how many generations later you are: that edited gene is present in that product—and it is there for a reason. This is why people are doing this work: we want these beneficial genes.
Giving people that understanding, through labelling, that it has been enhanced to do whatever it has been enhanced to do allows people to make an informed consumer choice, and it minimises the costs and places them fairly on the people doing the gene editing. I beg the Minister to reconsider on this issue. She should listen to people’s concerns; they are not irrational or misunderstanding science—it is about establishing trust and about your priorities and ensuring that they are the same as the public’s priorities. If you do not act in a trustworthy manner, you cannot expect people to trust you. Once you have lost trust, we know what happens: we have been there before on this issue.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, given my experience with polling, I wish to focus on one particular statement made by Defra which underpins this Statutory Instrument. In the de minimis impact assessment, it says that polling commissioned by Defra, from YouGov in 2022, found that
“over half (57%) of respondents thought the use of gene editing in crops/plants for food production was acceptable, 16% were undecided, while 27% thought the use was unacceptable”.
It is a little unfortunate that, as well as initially not having published the impact assessment online but only making it available on request, the department also initially seemed reluctant to share further details of that polling. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report on this noted:
“Defra has not published the survey”,
and that remained the case even after the committee asked for information about it.
As a result, I contacted the pollster directly and pointed out that, under its own industry regulation, it appeared to be required to publish the poll, which I am glad to say that it did—and to be fair I note that Defra has since added a link to the details of the poll to the impact assessment. But this sequence suggests an unfortunate reluctance to be as transparent as possible about the evidence being used for decision-making. Why should the details of a poll, paid for by the taxpayer and being used to justify legislation being put to Parliament, be obscured in that way?
Now that we have the details of the poll, they pose further questions. In the poll, a full 52% said that they had not even heard of this technology. Moreover, of the 48% who had heard of it, only 3% said they were “very well informed” about it. As that is 3% of the 48%, it means that overall only 1.5% said that they were very well informed about the topic that they were being asked to give their views on.
The specific question which Defra cited, whose wording we now know despite that earlier reluctance, is not an awful question, by any means, but its wording is problematic, given how Defra has chosen to use its results. The question wording provides positives about PBOs without providing any mention of possible drawbacks. There is an obvious and clear risk of skewing answers, if you ask a question on a topic about which only 1.5% say they are well informed and in that question provide only benefits and mention no possible drawbacks.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will address both these points. First, why was there the initial reluctance to publish full details of the poll? Secondly, can I press the Minister on whether a question in a poll where only 1.5% of people say that they are well informed of the topic, and with wording that provides only positives for the policy, really provides the solid evidence that the impact assessment presents it as being?
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I would briefly like to support the statutory instrument before us. There have been very many good speeches and some that I disagree with, which are fighting battles that we have already fought, discussed at length and voted on—and here we are still raising them—and then people bring in the red herring of genetically modified foods, which is not what we are talking about at all.
There has been quite a lot about labelling. I repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said. All the food that we eat now has been genetically altered. It is not labelled—there was no labelling on Golden Promise, that wonderful barley in the 1950s. That started life in a nuclear reactor subjected to gamma rays; there has been no labelling about that. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, by the time it gets into the food chain, it is a very different plant from what originally happened.
I believe that the Government have absolutely got it right and have struck the right balance. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, says that she wants healthy foods; we all want healthy foods. But the food that we are eating, which is healthy, is all genetically modified. If the noble Baroness wants really healthy food, she should go back to basics, when mankind first appeared on the planet—she would be dead of starvation. She would not have a hope.
I wish also to support the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in asking the Government to move forward on the animal front, too. These regulations are hugely important for farmers and consumers and for feeding the world’s population in the years to come.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to intervene briefly just to agree with my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I will not repeat their points, but I think it is important for us to ask the question of whether it is right to use a debate on statutory instruments to try to revisit arguments that were, as far as I am concerned, thoroughly discussed during the passage of the originating legislation. Likewise, perhaps the Secondary Legislation Committee should not have treated people raising concerns with the committee as a basis for asking questions to the Minister. The committee should have examined some of those questions itself.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly and in so doing declare my interest as a scientific adviser to Marks & Spencer. I do not want to repeat what has been said, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that much of the debate this evening has been a repetition of what we heard in Committee and on Report of the primary legislation.
However, I just want to recap on the question of mandatory labelling, which has cropped up in a number of noble Lords’ contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made the point that it would be very difficult to enforce mandatory labelling because you cannot tell the difference. That is the whole point: precision-bred organisms, as defined in the Bill, are organisms that could be produced by conventional breeding. So, if I were an enforcer, I would not know where to start. My noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington made the point that in due course, these gene-edited, precision-bred products will be pervasive in the food chain. Once there is a wheat that could grow without application of pesticides or could grow more effectively in our climate, it will become pervasive in the food chain. So where does the labelling start and end?
My third point, which was made by my noble friend Lady Freeman, is that it may be up to retailers, on a non-mandatory basis, to label the benefits. So: “Here is a tomato that is better for you”—and it may be labelled like that. It is not the process but the end product that matters. But if we insist on the process, and I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, we should be equally willing to put labels on conventionally bred organisms—apples, bread or other products—that says, “This product has been produced by bombarding gametes with nuclear radiation”. That is a process: it is the equivalent of gene editing but on the other side of the fence.
My final point is about cross-contamination. If I were a farmer producing gene-edited wheat, I would be really worried about cross-contamination from the neighbouring organic farmer. I would want guarantees that that organic farm was not going to contaminate my gene-edited crop. At the same time, the organic farmer is looking at me and saying, “I don’t want his stuff contaminating my crop”. It is in the interests of both sides to figure out ways of reducing or minimising the risks of cross-contamination. So it is not a one-way street, and I strongly support this secondary legislation.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I shall intervene very briefly on the issue that was highlighted in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report on the impact on the UK internal market. As we have heard, products of precision breeding that are approved for sale in England can be sold into Scotland and Wales, and we have had a bit of discussion on that, but at paragraph 47, the committee said:
“In relation to Northern Ireland, Defra explained: ‘Under the Windsor Framework, mutual recognition does not apply to precision bred organism legislation. Therefore, precision bred products must comply with GM legislation before it can be sold in Northern Ireland’.”
At paragraph 48, it said that
“because PBOs are currently not recognised in the EU and therefore in NI”—
since we are under EU law and jurisdiction, despite Brexit—
“producers with PBO authorisation in England will have to label their products as GMO for trade with NI or the EU. This is a matter of concern”.
It talks about the submissions that were made raising fundamental questions about the ability to trade with our EU neighbours. Therefore, I ask the Minister when she comes to reply just to explain and clarify the position of Northern Ireland. What is the impact on Northern Ireland of this particular situation that Northern Ireland finds itself in, compared even to Scotland and Wales?
The fact is that these issues, as the committee says at paragraph 49, could not be addressed in any detail whatever through a de minimis impact assessment. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, discussions are happening with the devolved Administrations. I would be very interested to hear what stage they are at. What discussion is happening with the Northern Ireland DAERA Minister? I have certainly not heard anything being reported in the Northern Ireland Assembly on this matter, so I would be grateful if the Minister could just clarify those very important issues, which have been highlighted in the report, with regard to Northern Ireland.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly on this issue, mainly because I followed the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, into that portfolio in MAFF, which was something of a poisoned chalice at the time, and lived through some of the very bitter and divisive debates around GMOs. I work often and very closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I think I did not agree with almost anything that she said this evening. At the time, a quarter of a century ago, the debate was almost impossible to have with any clarity or without high emotion, and that was terribly destructive on all sorts of levels. In particular—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said this, and I think he was so right—that somehow a technology in itself became something that people either believed in or did not believe in, instead of looking at the application of that technology, what its effects were, whether those effects should be allowed but people should be aware of them, or whether they had no traceable consequences, and therefore labelling was in some ways itself dishonest.
The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, made a very interesting speech about trust, and I agree with her. However, there is a problem if we pretend that there is something that can be identified and that ought to be flagged up, against the advice of the FSA, the department and all those who spend years of their lives looking at these issues, because 1.5% of respondents to the survey, when asked specifically whether this is something they would like to be informed about, say that they think that is a good idea. We could put the most enormous list of things that 1.5% of the population would be interested in being informed about when they buy something. It is a really interesting and important debate, but I do not believe that it is relevant to this subject.
All I will say is that I formed my view on this issue not only on those rational, scientific grounds, but because I went to the John Innes Centre very early on in my ministerial job. There, I met young scientists and agronomists from Africa, who were so enthused about and grateful for the opportunity to spend time in that scientific institution, because they thought of the relevance that this work could have for their populations and their agriculture.
I went back to John Innes a few months ago with the Action Against Hunger group. That same commitment, not to the agro-industry conglomerates nor to business, but to the improvement of crops that will help the world—and help agriculture in this country—and which could have such potential, was still there. They had kept the faith over those 25 difficult years when we did not make progress, so I am absolutely delighted to support these regulations tonight.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I will make just a brief contribution. It is nice to be able to enter a debate where we are not confusing genetically modified organisms with gene editing; that has been the problem in the past.
I think the Government have got it right. We have been around the labelling track and seen how practically impossible that is. They have got it right because there is a balance to be struck, but if we are not careful, the perfect will be the enemy of the good, and we know this is good for so many different reasons—some of which were outlined by the previous speakers.
I welcome the Government’s approach. It is right, it is evidence-based and it is designed to take us on a path which will improve food security in this country and throughout the world.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support the aims of this statutory instrument but welcome the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in her regret amendment.
The Liberal Democrats have always made it clear from these Benches that we are not anti-science and support the idea of encouraging a science-based approach to technologies such as gene editing for precision breeding. We believe that such methods can be helpful in addressing challenges such as climate change, reducing the need for pesticides and fertilisers, and in mitigation against disease and pest issues for food and food crops.
We recognise, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, the scientific consensus from bodies such as ACRE and the European Food Safety Authority—which has not been mentioned—that these organisms pose no greater risk to health or the environment than traditionally bred counterparts.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for their fascinating historical context and insight, and especially for the important information about when not to eat potatoes, which I will take with me.
However, the point of a regulatory process is to manage both the benefits and risks in an appropriate way. While the existing legislation carries a significant burden, these draft regulations raise some questions. They appear to take away some of the safeguards that apply to other genetically modified organisms, such as mandatory risk assessments, public notice, traceability, and environmental monitoring.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument enacts policy from the ground-breaking Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, brought in by the previous Conservative Government in 2023. It is a fantastic innovation, which we should welcome. This legislation permits us to use safe science to speed up what nature has been doing for millennia and plant breeders for 100 years or so. Britain has used its Brexit freedoms to bring in the well-tried and tested procedure of gene editing, and we now see the EU considering following behind it.
I also commend my old friends from the FSA for their simplified regulatory regime for marketing precision-bred plants and a proportionate regulatory regime for precision-bred animals to ensure that animal welfare is safeguarded. I am proud to say that I was on the board of the FSA when we agreed the regulatory regime, and we took into account every representation made, including consumer concerns.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and a few others in the other place attempted to muddy the waters when the Bill went through by claiming that gene editing is the same as genetic modification, but that argument was overwhelmingly rejected as bogus by all major parties in the Commons and Lords, and by Cross-Benchers. Parliament, especially this House, debated this in detail and rejected the ideas produced by the noble Baroness tonight. I therefore deplore the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness —she is entitled to table it—in particular the completely misleading words
“genetically modified precision bred organisms”.
I do not want the Whip on duty to report this to the Chief Whip, but I am tempted to say that I agree entirely with every word of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that it is my policy as well, and sit down and say no more. But I had better stick to my script.
Gene editing simply makes changes that could occur through traditional breeding methods in plants or animals. It takes about eight years to produce a new variety of strawberry, 10 to 15 years for a new variety of potato, and about 25 years for a new variety of apple. Essentially, gene editing produces a natural but faster process. In precision breeding, there is no foreign DNA. All the genes being edited belong to the species.
I say to the noble Baroness that if Rothamsted has found a wheat with a GMO in it, that is its problem. It will not be approved by Defra or the ACNFP, so there is no threat to consumers. As Professor Cristóbal Uauy of the excellent John Innes Centre, has said, all crop breeding relies on the creation and selection of genetic changes to produce beneficial traits. Precision breeding is a way of creating the same genetic changes that could have been made through traditional breeding methods, but much faster and more precisely. All new varieties are subject to strict standards, and this will be the same for precision breeding. The new regulatory framework maintains protection for public health and the environment, allowing scientific advances that support sustainable agriculture to be brought safely to market with consumer confidence, offering enormous benefit to farmers, the public and the environment.
I reiterate that we warmly welcome the Government’s decision to follow Conservative policy and lay these regulations. We should acknowledge that genetic editing enables precise improvements to crops, making them more resistant to pests and diseases, reducing the need for harmful pesticides and increasing tolerance to extreme weather conditions such as drought and floods. These advances help ensure a stable food supply, despite environmental challenges. This increased resilience, as other noble Lords have said, is vital for enhancing food security not only here in the UK but in other countries where farming communities are especially vulnerable to challenging climates. With stronger, healthier crops, farmers can produce more consistent harvests with fewer resources, lowering their reliance on pesticides and fertilisers, which are often expensive and environmentally damaging.
As a result, gene editing supports more sustainable and efficient agriculture. By investing in this technology, we can help ensure that future generations have access to nutritious food. Genetic editing, particularly using tools such as CRISPR, involves making precise, targeted changes to an organism’s existing DNA without adding foreign DNA. It is often used to fix genetic defects and enhance natural traits.
I understand that some of the things being worked on are banana trees resistant to Panama disease and, as the Minister said, bananas which do not go brown in hours. Personally, I would love to find in a supermarket bananas which are yellow instead of the horrible bright green things we get these days, which are unripe and inedible—but that is an aside. People are working on strawberries and tomatoes which will be mildew resistant, wheat which will be able to grow in hotter, drier climates, and broccoli with enhanced glucosinolates —whatever they are—that help prevent heart disease, apparently.
Work is going on to eliminate magnaporthe grisea—rice blast disease—which destroys enough rice crops to feed 60 million people per annum. Gene editing will give us tomatoes with enhanced vitamin D. One day, I hope, we will get tomatoes which are properly ripe and sweet in the supermarket; they are picked when they are bright green and unripe, stored at 12 degrees and then zapped with ethylene, which turns them red. That is another benefit we may get in future.
Precision breeding is not an alternative to conventional breeding. We can get all the benefits I have just described with conventional breeding if we are prepared to spend 20 to 30 years tinkering about with cross-breeding techniques and rejecting 95% of the failures. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, these products will not be on our shelves next year or the year after, since they will have to go through the strict testing regime and the final Food Standards Agency regulatory regime. There are 55 clauses and five schedules—yes, the regulations are complex, but we have to demonstrate to consumers that we have built in all the necessary safety features, which I believe the Government have.
I understand that potential UK developers are taking it carefully and slowly, and that must be the right approach to reassure the public. I am also told that these developers are small start-up companies, not the huge agrochemical companies of the world—the Cargills or whatever. The FSA and its expert scientific committees always adopt a strict precautionary approach. If they are satisfied with the inherent safety of any gene-edited product approved and placed on the new register, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is very safe indeed.
Talking of dollars, I want an assurance from the Minister that if we do a trade deal with the USA and it involves food, we will not permit any product that is produced to lower welfare standards than ours or treated with drugs or chemicals that we have banned. That also means that we should not permit any US gene-edited products to enter our shops without their going through the whole safety and environmental testing regime we have invented in this Act and these regulations. No matter how safe the Americans may think they are, we have to reassure our consumers that we are checking them out too.
Since gene-edited species have genes that are no different from species that have been created slowly, labelling is also nonsensical, as nearly every other noble Lord has pointed out. When I cannot get English apples I buy those delicious Gala apples, which were invented by a Mr Kidd in New Zealand 90 years ago. Since then, Gala apples have been cross-bred and tweaked conventionally up to 36 times. If we label any new gene-edited version, logically we would have to label the other 36 variations as well. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is right, as is the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: Parliament rejected calls for labelling, and our expert scientists pointed out that it is impossible to label something as different if it is actually just the same as the other varieties of the same species. That was beautifully and bluntly put by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his usual style. We all laughed.
Let us be honest: those who call for labelling simply want to discredit gene editing by trying to show that the product is somehow different; they claim that it is actually genetic modification by the back door and somehow dangerous. Labelling, rightly, will not happen. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was also right: if you ask consumers 100 questions on different things that they would like labelled, there will always be some who say, “Yes, we’d like that label”, and we would have to put 200 different things on the label. We all have our own personal fetishes about what we would like to see on food labels. If any Government tried to apply all of them, the label would be about 3 feet long.
I have more bad news, I am afraid, for the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. A survey conducted by the FSA showed that 65% of the population would eat a precision-bred product if it had health benefits, 64% would eat it if it was better for the environment, 64% if it was safer for people with allergies, 62% if it tasted better, 61% if it was cheaper and 60% if it was more resilient to changing climates. Consumers are onside, provided that we follow the safety regime in these regulations.
Ultimately, as was so neatly explained by Professor Stephen Penfield of the John Innes Centre:
“The resilience of the UK’s food supply depends on our farmers and growers being able to sustainably and reliably grow their crops”.
This legislation unlocks agricultural innovation, accelerating the development of new crop varieties with higher yields and enhanced pest and disease resistance, enabling farmers to reduce the environmental impact of their agricultural practices.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your contributions and comments in what has been a very interesting debate and, in most cases, for your Lordships’ support for the regulations. We have covered a bit of old ground as well.
I want to take a moment to reflect on the importance of implementing this legislation. Without it, the potential of precision breeding cannot be realised. The existing legislation carries a significant burden, limiting which companies can bring products to market and which crop species and traits we can benefit from. Our understanding of the science has advanced. It is not proportionate to apply the existing legislation to plants produced by modern biotechnologies when the overwhelming scientific advice is that they pose no greater risk than traditionally bred varieties. The secondary legislation that we have been discussing today will change this, providing a science-based approach that is proportionate to the level of risk. As my noble friend Lord Young said, we are taking an evidence-based, balanced approach.
I recognise, however, that there have been concerns and issues raised, so I will turn to these now. Devolved Governments were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Dodds. We recognise the valid concerns that noble Lords raise on the issue of divergence within the UK, which is why we are continuing, as the noble Lord said, to regularly engage with the devolved Governments. My colleague in the other place, Minister Zeichner, has recently been speaking to our devolved Governments and has invited them to discuss the issues in more detail. This work will build on the regular monthly meetings that we already have with devolved Governments.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised the issues of progress and timing. We are making good progress in discussions. As I have said, the devolved Governments are considering their positions and holding discussions with the key stakeholders that are impacted. We wanted to crack on: we do not have the time to wait to realise the potential benefits. We have, as the noble Lords have said, gone through this in a very long debate on the legislation, but we recognise the importance of working closely with the devolved Governments.
On Northern Ireland, which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised, I want to assure noble Lords that we recognise that this is an important issue, and we continue to engage with stakeholders and officials in Northern Ireland properly to understand the potential short-term and long-term impacts. That includes recent engagement with Minister Muir— Daniel Zeichner met him to discuss specifically the implications of precision breeding. We are also engaging with the EU at the UK-EU Agri-Food Structure Group on the potential implications of its proposed regulatory framework for Northern Ireland.
The impact on the organic sector was raised by a number of noble Lords. This is one of the areas where we have a lot of work ongoing. Our engagement with the industry has suggested that the first products that would come to market would not undergo significant further processing; so, they can be kept separate from traditionally bred material, which would mean that the exposure of organic production to precision-bred material would be very limited in the short term.
However, Defra is working closely with the organic sector to prepare for the medium-term and longer-term impacts by discussing non-legislative options for supply chain coexistence, including facilitating discussions to establish which measures currently used by industry could be used by farmers to enable coexistence between precision-bred and non-precision-bred crop production. That is in line with how things are approached internationally. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, talked about cross-contamination and the importance of getting this right. Defra is also working with the organic sector to look at any other further potential issues in the wider supply chain.
Labelling came up a lot; many noble Lords talked about it. Obviously, it was a key area of debate during the passage of the Act, and I felt that we were revisiting that to a certain extent. As noble Lords have said, the Food Standards Agency Board concluded there was no justification for the provision of labelling on grounds of consumer safety, since there was no scientific evidence that precision-bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms. Because this was not considered to be a safety issue, mandatory labelling to indicate the process does not align with the principles behind the policy and would also raise costs for both business and consumers.
Methods of production are normally voluntarily labelled and can be catered for by the market if there is the demand; that follows the approach taken by many partners abroad, including the current EU regulatory proposal. However, I think we would support the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that voluntary labelling of benefits could well be very helpful. We have tried to get the right balance here. However, out of interest for your Lordships, there are discussions within Defra at the moment about how labelling for consumers could be improved. This is something we are looking at.
The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, mentioned consumer views and transparency. The FSA regularly gathers consumer views on a wide range of topics, and the most recent data shows that the price of food remains the top concern for consumers, alongside food poverty, food inequality, sustainability and the healthiness of the food being eaten. The FSA continues to undertake regular polling and insights to track public attitudes. We know that public levels of understanding are low, but public sentiment is more in favour.
While I am on polling, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, mentioned the YouGov polling and why it was not published. It was carried out by YouGov to look at public perception. All three polls were designed for internal use to enable us to track whether our communications around the Act had been effective. It has now been published and can be found on the Government’s website.
Plant varieties and seeds were mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Plant varieties of the main agriculture and vegetable crops must be registered on the Great Britain or Northern Ireland variety lists before seeds of the varieties can be marketed. To be listed, a new plant variety must undergo testing to confirm that it is new and an improvement on varieties that are already available to the market. As the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 removes precision-bred organisms from genetically modified organism regulations and requirements applicable in England only, a precision-bred plant variety list for England is proposed in addition to the existing variety lists.
The EU position was raised just now by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I am sure that he will not be surprised to know that I cannot comment on the EU reset discussions. Among other noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in particular, talked about the EU Commission’s proposal for the regulation of plants—the NGTs, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. We are monitoring the EU’s position closely and have noted that there has recently been progress in the European Council on the draft NGT proposal. It is quite similar in aim to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 that we have been talking about today, but it is clearly going to take some time before new legislation is implemented in the EU.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that all products from the United States will need to go through the regulatory system in order to be placed on the market.
Environmental and health and safety risks were talked about. This is understandable given the controversy around genetically modified organisms in the UK historically, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lord Rooker. This is why it is so important to take an evidence-based approach and to work with experts as we develop the policy. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, made the point so strongly in his contribution: the scientific evidence is clear. The risk that a precision-bred plant poses to the environment and health is dependent on its characteristics rather than the technique used to develop it.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned Africa and the impacts of climate change. The purpose of the Act was to encourage investment in research and development and innovation in agriculture, which has huge potential for climate change and for developing countries, such as those in Africa, which need to move forward in agriculture. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey —in her very important speech, with her experience from when this was first developed—talked about the importance of climate-resilient agriculture, which this will be able to support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned safety of food and feed. I reassure Members that the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes advised that
“There is no evidence that precision-bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms”.
The further movement of the Act towards including animals as well as plants was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. As noble Lords are aware, the scope of the regulations is just for plants, but we recognise that there is strong support in relation to animals and that Members are keen to know more about the Government’s plans and approach, and any potential timelines. To inform noble Lords, we are currently continuing research on this but, while it is going forward, we will not be bringing forward any further legislation on animals.
The final question was from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who talked about the Cartagena protocol. We remain committed to our international obligations and the protocol. Our proposal is consistent with our obligations as a signatory.
In my opening speech, I outlined the challenges we currently face in the food system, and recent world events really have shone a spotlight on the urgency of addressing these. We must take advantage of the opportunities presented by new technologies and advancements in scientific understanding, and we cannot afford to inhibit innovation through having outdated regulations. Harnessing innovation in precision breeding can help us to achieve several priorities: bolstering food security and championing British farming, helping to mitigate and adapt to climate pressures, and driving the Government’s missions on growth and health. The growth potential is evident, and we have the opportunity to be right at the forefront. Voting to approve the regulations today, if the noble Baroness decides to call a vote, is the only way to implement the Act in relation to plants and to realise the potential benefits of precision breeding for farmers, consumers and the environment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and, indeed, thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I apologise to those who said it would not take more than an hour—I am sorry about that.
First of all, I thank the Minister for saying that the issues around the organic sector need a lot of work. I am pleased that she has acknowledged that there is a real issue there and that work needs to be done.
I am also pleased that the Minister, reflecting on the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Dodds, acknowledged that there are big issues that need to be worked through with the devolved Administrations.
I make no apologies for returning to the issue of labelling, and I point out that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also returned to the issue of labelling. We heard, in a very powerful contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, that this is not just about issues of safety or the technology; it is about public confidence. That was one of the reasons why I led with that in my introduction to the regret amendment.
I note particularly the comment made by the Minister in response to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that the Government do not have any plans to take this forward with animals. I point out that the Minister herself tabled an amendment when we debated this under the previous Government to take animals out of the Act altogether. I very much hope that she and the new Government will stick to that position.
I highlight in particular the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pack. I am honoured that this was his first post-maiden speech. It will be considerably more significant than most such speeches because any government department will have to look very carefully at its future use of polling and the kind of transparency it uses in polling. In saying that, when I reflect on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I think he was using polling that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, had pointed out issues with.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and others—I give credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman —spoke of their concern about the situation of Africa, with its young and fast-growing population et cetera. But I point out that only 11 of 54 African nations have approved GM crops. For example, 2023 was the UN’s International Year of Millets. Many traditional existing crops in Africa that were swept aside in the colonial era have huge potential for public health, drought resistance and all the other characteristics that already exist.
The noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Blencathra, and others, said we are not talking about genetically modified organisms. The Act specifically defines precision breeding as genetic modification and then creates specific regulatory exemptions around it. There is no question, legally or scientifically, that PBOs are genetically modified.
With regard to identifying so-called PBOs, the FSA ordered a literature review by an adviser to the Government Chemist that made it very clear that it is possible—and it should be done—to create methods to detect organisms that have been genetically modified in this way. Since it has come up quite a lot, radiation breeding is not used anymore.
However, I can count and, on that basis, with reluctance, I have no alternative but to withdraw my amendment.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Member’s explanatory statement
This limits the exception to providing a written statement of terms to cases where there has been an implied surrender and re-grant of a previous assured tenancy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I will start with government Amendments 136, 138 and 139. These amendments make provision for the requirement to provide a written statement of terms for tenancies that become assured after they have begun. A tenancy may become assured during its lifetime for a range of reasons; for example, because it becomes the tenant’s principal home, or rent becomes payable on the property.
Where this happens, landlords should be able to comply with the requirement to provide a written statement of terms. These amendments will therefore require landlords to provide a written statement of terms within 28 days of the tenancy becoming assured. Without this, landlords would be left in limbo, unable to comply with the duties in new Section 16D of the Housing Act 1988 to provide a written statement of terms at the outset of a tenancy, leaving them liable to penalties. It would also leave a tenant without the written statement of terms, a key benefit of the new system, despite their tenancy having become assured. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
In view of the time that we have lost—and I must say publicly that I regret the pressure that we are putting ourselves under—I will just say that it is essential that written statements are mandated to help people resolve conflicts and provide evidence if disputes go to court. What these must contain, which is the essence of Amendment 140 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is clearly important and needs to be widely known.
There is quite a lot in the Bill that we feel needs to be widely known, and we have all had concerns about the level of knowledge. All I will say, with my tongue in my cheek for things down the road, is that that is all the more reason to regulate those who act for landlords—such as letting agents—to make sure that they act professionally and inform their tenants correctly.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Clause 14 aims to strengthen the transparency of rental agreements by requiring landlords to provide written terms at the outset of a tenancy. This is a welcome step towards ensuring that tenants are fully informed about their rights and obligations, and that landlords are held to account for the terms they offer.
Amendment 140, in my name, recognises that legislation alone is not enough. We must ensure that tenants, landlords and, indeed, any third-party contractors involved are informed and empowered. By requiring the Secretary of State to issue clear, accessible guidance, we help to make these rights and duties real and usable in practice. Without such guidance, even the most well-intentioned legislation risks becoming an abstract concept rather than a meaningful tool for change. This is why it is crucial that the Government take proactive steps to ensure that everyone involved in the rental process understands their roles and their responsibilities.
Amendments 136, 138 and 139, tabled by the Minister, seek to refine the process through which written statements of terms are provided. The intention, as I understand it, is to ensure that landlords are held to account for providing these terms in a timely manner, which is certainly a step in the right direction. However, we must be careful to consider whether the amendments fully take into account the diverse needs and circumstances of both tenants and landlords.
The Government have a clear opportunity here to provide a system that is not only fair and transparent but also practical and achievable for all those involved. We must ensure that these provisions do not overburden landlords with an administration task but, at the same time, protect the rights of tenants by providing them with the necessary information to make informed decisions about their tenancies. While the intention is to create more transparency, it is equally important, we feel, that we do not add unnecessary complexity or red tape that could inadvertently discourage smaller landlords or make the rental process more cumbersome.
In light of these considerations, I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions. First, is the Minister confident that the 28-day requirement for landlords to provide written statements will not lead to confusion or delays? This timeline, while designed to allow time for landlords to issue the statements, may in practice create gaps in communication, potentially leaving tenants in a state of uncertainty about their rights and obligations. How do the Government intend to mitigate these potential delays?
Furthermore, how do the Government plan to ensure that smaller landlords, who may not have the dedicated administration teams, will be able to comply with these provisions without facing excessive burdens? Small landlords, who often play a crucial role in our rental market, could face challenges in keeping up with increased administration requirements without support or resources. We must be mindful not inadvertently to create barriers that make it harder for these landlords to continue offering tenancies.
In conclusion, while we acknowledge the Government’s intention to improve transparency in tenancy agreements and better protect tenants, we must consider the real-world impact of these changes. We must ensure that reforms are workable for both tenants and landlords, without increasing the complexities of the rental process or creating unnecessary barriers to housing. The amendments, while positive in some respects, do not fully address the practical challenges landlords and tenants face. Is the Minister confident that these provisions will not place undue burdens on landlords, especially those at the smaller end of the market, and that they will effectively protect tenants’ rights without creating new avenues for confusion and non-compliance? The legislation must strike a balance that promotes fairness and transparency while also being workable for all parties involved.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have just a brief response to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott; I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments.
Amendment 140 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the new duty to provide tenants with a written statement of terms before a tenancy is entered into. We are already committed to supporting tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. I accept the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made about agents; I think we will come to that later.
We are engaging with stakeholders in developing the requirements for the written statement of term and are aware of how important it is for the sector to understand the duty. In response to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about small landlords and whether the 28-day period is reasonable, I am sure that will come out during our discussions with the sector. Because we are working that way, I am confident that we will be able to work through any pressures it may be concerned about. To help landlords and tenants, we will be providing a full suite of guidance, so these groups know exactly what the changes mean for them. For those reasons, I ask that Amendment 140 not be pressed.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook seek to limit the financial penalties by local authorities and probe the process on which non-judicial process is sought. Although it is right that those who deliberately flout the rules face financial penalties, it is also right that these financial penalties should be proportionate and applied fairly. Are fines of up to £40,000 reasonable? In many cases, they could be the equivalent of several years of rental income. We need a system that is balanced and just for both the tenant and the landlord.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 153, 201, 217 and 241, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who cannot attend the Committee today. I know the whole Committee will join me in wishing him well. These amendments seek to limit the financial penalty that local authorities can impose for offences under these clauses. In the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, I will briefly set out my reasons for supporting his amendments in this group.
I should declare an interest that, as a practising solicitor for over 50 years, I am always concerned about penalties that are outside the judicial process, but my concern increases when the level of financial penalty is as high as is proposed. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that the level of financial penalty set by the Bill is extremely high. A financial penalty of £40,000 would be ruinous for most landlords. According to the Government’s own Property Rental Income Statistics: 2024, the
“average income from UK property remained relatively stable at around £17,000 between 2018 to 2019 and 2022 to 2023”.
Therefore, a £40,000 penalty would, in effect, represent more than double the rental income of an average property.
In certain egregious cases, a penalty of that severity may seem appropriate, but those cases can be dealt with by the courts. We must ask ourselves what effect this new level of financial penalty that can be imposed by local authorities will have on landlords today. We have serious concerns that the risk of a large financial penalty being imposed may encourage existing landlords to leave the sector and discourage new landlords from entering it. A more reasonable level of financial penalty would prevent that chilling effect.
I have carefully heard the words of my noble friend Lord Jamieson on the Front Bench, and I know that my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, also on the Front Bench, will surely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on this and consider the warning that we have given. Of course we accept that the Government will have their Bill, which should be effective in delivering its objectives, but we are seriously concerned and worried about the impact that these excessive financial penalties will have on the rental market.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, so well. I spoke to the noble and learned Lord about these amendments before his illness, and I was going to pass on only two or three comments that I recall he made to me.
The £40,000 is a life-changing amount of money—I think that was the way he put it. The reason I have my iPad here is that he referred to the civil penalties under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, on which the MHCLG has issued a very helpful note. It is so complex that local authorities needed a 20-page note to tell them how to implement this. The maximum under that Act is £30,000, and I do not see why we have suddenly gone to a £40,000 world. The £30,000 was reserved for a relatively small number of offences, and each involved knowingly doing something truly evil and wrong. I feel that that, as a principle, is conceded, as it were, even though £30,000 is a bit rich. Therefore, I agree on the £40,000; I do not understand why we have had to go up from £30,000. With the next group, we will come to the issue of knowing and recklessness, which is deeply serious as well.
I will pause briefly on some of the amendments. Amendment 153 refers to a schedule. This is one of the ones where it is up to £40,000 currently. It refers to a very complex schedule—yet there is a recklessness trigger for a fine of up to £40,000. It seemed to me that that was not as serious as some of the things that are a £30,000 offence under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. So I was dubious about whether that was truly worthy of a £30,000 lump. I therefore agree very much with the £7,000, which is where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, had come to.
On Amendment 241, there are a couple of things here that trigger the £40,000. Again, recklessness is for mistakes made in giving data to the new database. When people give data to databases, it is inevitably quite boring, and things can go wrong. Recklessness is an incredibly difficult thing to cope with, as we will discuss next, no doubt. So I felt, again, that this was very different from the £30,000 triggers under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I felt that there was a strong case for moving the maximum down to £7,000. I am going to stop there in the analysis, because it was better done by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but that line of thinking—bringing it down to £7,000 from £40,000—was intended to improve standards of justice because, if people have been truly evil and truly wrong, the courts are there for that. They are made for that, and they can be a lot heavier with people. But, for local authorities, roughly £7,000 per offence—it could be multiple offences, of course—or 50% of an average year’s rental income, would be proportionate.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I have spent some time looking at this and I have listened very carefully to the amendments in this clause from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, as well as listening to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
I am neither a lawyer nor a solicitor, but we are troubled by Amendment 144 in particular, as it would in effect delete all of the new Section 16I of the Housing Act 1988, inserted by Clause 18. In doing so, it would remove the ability of local housing authorities to issue civil penalties for a range of offences, pushing them into the courts. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I think that there probably is a debate about what should be pushed back to the courts, but in general I see a legitimate role for local authorities to issue penalty notices. I also feel that in much of the Bill we have talked about the courts’ capacity to deal with things, so I would be a little reluctant to increase the burden on the courts, which we are already arguing are stretched.
I would also be interested in hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, why Clause 15 of the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill gave similar powers to the local housing authorities as in Clause 17 of this Bill, albeit with a much lower maximum fine. To us, the proposal undermines the regime in the Bill that empowers local housing authorities to issue civil penalty notices. It is part of the tools in the box to give local authorities more powers to enforce across the many and various sections of the Bill. If the one objective of the Bill is to raise standards and root out rogue landlords, the Bill is right to give greater powers to local authorities to do so and raise the level of fines that can be imposed to be an effective deterrent.
At this point, when the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, very nicely pointed out the one person who has inherited and the this and the that—I do not think that those landlords need to be worried at all about this measure, as they are not the people whom the Bill is aimed at. In fact, there is a tiny degree of scaremongering in this. As I understand the aim, and I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, we are looking at the bottom end of the market. The answer to the landlords mentioned in the list cited by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is, “If it is so ruinous to you, don’t do it—don’t do the thing that will result in that fine being imposed”. I am absolutely certain that the majority of good landlords would go nowhere near it—but actually, as the noble Earl said, some of our worst landlords do terrible things. It is very often a shock to talk to the people who deal with bailiffs, evictions and all that, to actually see the conditions that some landlords will subject human beings to. But it is a legitimate argument to talk about what should go to the courts or not as a result of what we have been talking about.
Amendments in this group seeking to reduce the amount that a local authority can charge in civil penalties will be generally resisted by ourselves, precisely because this Bill enables these fines to be used as revenue to provide resources for a strong and effective enforcement service. The capacity and capability of local authorities to carry out positive enforcement is a serious matter—and, of course, we will cover that in the next group. Councils keep the fines that they impose, whereas fines from the courts go to the Treasury, although it must be said that the LGA is still concerned that there will be a funding gap, the amount of which is going to be fairly speculative at this stage, which makes the reasons for wide-ranging reviews, which we will discuss in later groups, to be imperative. Perhaps the Minister could give us some reassurances on funding.
Amendment 144 removes the power of local housing authorities to enforce several provisions in the Bill that we strongly agree with, such as purporting to end a tenancy by serving a notice to quit orally or serving a purported notice of possession—in other words, not using the Section 8 process. In other words, it is conning a tenant that they have to leave. Councils must have the right to enforce this, as it goes to the heart of the Bill.
Amendment 144 therefore reduces the powers of local housing authorities to enforce, and Amendments 146 and 154 go on to reduce the penalties that can be imposed, which we opposed. Amendments 147 and 155, as well as all the amendments from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Etherton and Lord Keen, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, are an interesting variation on that theme, using rental payment as a measure of the penalty. I can see some logic in that, given that rents vary enormously depending on the property. But two months’ rent in a small house in Lancashire might well be several hundred pounds, whereas a similar property in Hertfordshire might be several thousand. There is a fairness of argument there, which is probably why there is a range of fines the authority can use, and I am sure the noble Baroness will enlighten us.
Finally, we can agree on Amendment 157. The burden on local authorities cannot be understated, and therefore it should be contingent on the Government to specifically look at this aspect and not just rely on the LGA and others to point it out. We are not convinced that it needs to be in the Bill, but it should be a genuine commitment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving those amendments. I send my get-well wishes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, as well, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for moving the noble and learned Lord’s amendments. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for taking part in the debate.
It might help if I start with a brief bit of context. We are taking a clear escalatory approach to civil penalties here. Across the Bill, less serious, one-off breaches will be subject only to the maximum penalty of £7,000. Only if landlords persist in not signing up to the database or the ombudsman will they become liable for a civil penalty of up to £40,000—and that is the maximum. Where landlords continue to fail to remedy unacceptable conditions in a property, they may be faced with a civil penalty of up to £40,000 or indeed criminal prosecution. Where there is evidence that landlords and letting agents continue to discriminate in the letting process, they can face multiple fines. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, good landlords—there are many of them—will not be subject to any of these fines because they do not commit the offences that would lead to those fines. The answer is to follow the outlines in the Bill and then there will not be any need for landlords to be fined.
Amendment 144 would remove the ability of local authorities to impose financial penalties for non-compliance with the tenancy requirements where this is not a criminal offence. Effective enforcement against landlords who flout the rules is a key part of ensuring that our reforms deliver their full benefits. Across the provisions in the Bill, as I said, we have taken a consistent, proportionate and escalating approach to penalties. The civil penalties of up to £7,000 for less serious or first-time non-compliance is an important part of that approach. Removing the ability of local authorities to impose civil penalties for non-criminal breaches of the tenancy requirement would create a gap. How would landlords who, for example, failed to issue tenants with a written tenancy agreement or ended a tenancy illegally be held to account? Transferring responsibility for determining fines for these breaches to the courts would be a poor alternative and, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, it would unnecessarily increase pressures on the courts. We have had many debates about that in this House in response to other areas in the Bill. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the capacity of local authorities to deal with this, local authorities have significant experience of imposing civil penalties. I do not see a good reason for excluding breaches of the tenancy requirements from this well-established practice.
Amendments 137, 141, 149 to 151, 156, 158 to 164, 293 and 294 are consequential on Amendment 144 and remove references to new Section 16I of the Housing Act 1988, which Amendment 144 would delete. Amendment 146 would reduce the maximum penalty for a breach of the tenancy requirements from £7,000 to £5,000. Amendment 147 would, in the alternative, set the maximum penalty for a breach of the tenancy requirements at two months’ rent. Amendment 154 would reduce the maximum financial penalty for tenancy offences from £40,000 to £30,000. Amendment 155 would set the maximum penalty for tenancy offences at 12 months’ rent. Amendments 153, 201, 217 and 241 would reduce the maximum civil penalties for offences in relation to tenancy reform, illegal eviction, the database and the ombudsman from £40,000 to £7,000.
Civil penalties need to be set at a level that provides an appropriate punishment and acts as an effective deterrent to future non-compliance. To respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the level of the fines, we have set the maximum civil penalty for offences across the Bill at £40,000. This mirrors existing maximum civil penalties for offences under the Housing Act 2004, which are currently £30,000, but this takes account of inflation since those came into force. We intend also to increase the Housing Act 2004 maximum penalties to £40,000, via regulations, to reflect those changes in the value of money. The £7,000 maximum penalty for breaches represents a similar percentage uprating to reflect inflation, compared with a maximum fine level of £5,000 for less serious non-compliance in other housing legislation; for example, the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
Increasing maximum fine levels to reflect inflation ensures that the deterrent effect of the penalties is maintained. However, I emphasise that these are maximum levels: they will not be the normal penalty level. Local authorities will need to look at the particular circumstances of each instance of non-compliance. They will need to take account of aggravating or mitigating factors and arrive at the final penalty in line with their policy. When considering whether to issue a civil penalty, local authorities are required to issue a notice of intent, allowing time for landlords to make representations. The local authority will need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord has committed an offence. If the landlord disagrees with the imposition or amount of the penalty, they will of course be able to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
On a point of clarification, if I may, the Minister has made it very clear that there will be a range of fines that a local authority will be able to impose, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out earlier, with the 2016 Act, there was—I am not sure that I would say very clear, but let us call it very extensive—guidance on what would constitute a fine, with what burdens of proof, and whether it was knowingly reckless or unintentional. Is it the intention of the Government to provide very clear guidance to councils as to what level of fines they should impose related to what level of offence and so forth?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Of course, local authorities will need to have a clear rationale for why they have set a civil penalty at a particular level and apply aggravating and mitigating factors to that, but local authorities need to be able to pursue penalties that are high enough to deter landlords from committing offences, but not so high that they are unfair. I take his point about guidance, and I will come back to him on that point, if that is okay.
Setting maximum penalty levels by reference to rent received on a property introduces unnecessary complexity and runs counter to well established practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked whether it could be set at levels of rent. Local authorities may take account of local rent levels when arriving at the final penalty. It is clearer and simpler, though, for the maximum to be prescribed and be the same wherever in England the same breach or offence is committed.
Amendment 157 would require the Secretary of State to make an annual statement to Parliament of the funding provided to local housing authorities to support their enforcement of the tenancy requirements. To respond to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the cost to local authorities, we recognise that the enforcement duties we are placing on local housing authorities in the Bill represent an additional net cost. In accordance with the new burdens doctrine, we will ensure that additional burdens created by the new system are funded. We will set out the funding we are making available to meet those new burdens in due course.
We expect enforcing the new tenancy requirements to be a significant part of the additional costs on local authorities. Local authorities will, though, have flexibility on how they use the funding provided—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—and we do not intend to specify the detail of what it should be used for.
For the reasons I have set out, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this group. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for bringing amendments to this House. I also wish him all the best for his recovery. These amendments, while similar in spirit to ours, would go even further in addressing the limits placed on local housing authorities. The noble and learned Lord is right to highlight both the challenges faced by local authorities and the significant scale of the proposed fines.
As there appeared to be a little bit of confusion, let us be absolutely clear: we need powers to hold to account rogue landlords who deliberately and maliciously break the rules to the detriment of tenants. That is something we can all agree on. However, we need a system that is fair and proportionate and does not ensnare essentially innocent landlords who inadvertently —or not maliciously—fall foul of the rules. They need to be encouraged to stay in the rental game.
As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, we need more rental homes, we need people to stay in the rental market and we need more people to come into it. We need to be very wary of coming up with systems where they fear very significant fines that they may perceive as arbitrary. Hence, I was very keen to get clear guidance from the Minister about how these fines would be placed and at what levels. I look forward to hearing further from her on this. I also appreciated what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said around the 2016 Act and the importance of guidance on that.
I thank the Minister for her reply and the commitment to share some reasoning for the figures that the Government have arrived at and some guidance— it appeared she would, anyway. Without insight into the rationale for the figures selected and the thresholds imposed, we are left to critique in the dark. For scrutiny to be effective and informed, the Government must provide not just partial explanations but a full and transparent account of how these conclusions were reached. Only then can Parliament properly fulfil its role in holding the Executive to account. I hope that the Minister will enable us to do this by sharing some of the Government’s reasoning and further guidance on how those fines will be brought forward.
Getting penalties right is not a technical detail; it is fundamental to the fairness and effectiveness of a system designed to remedy an offence. Significant fines and penalties for rogue landlords are appropriate and proportionate. However, as I said earlier, significant fines for someone who unintentionally falls foul of the law would be inappropriate. We need to be careful and calibrated to ensure that they deter offences but do not distort the functionality of the housing market. Although we want to address rogue landlords, we also want a thriving rental market and to avoid deterring good landlords who might perceive a significant risk of large, arbitrary fines.
I will finish with this message: a well-designed penalty framework should uphold the law, encourage compliance and support the functioning of housing authorities. The success of this legislation depends not just on good intentions but on practical deliverability, balanced implementation and trust from those who must operate within it.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can I just ask him: did he really feel, in his time as chair of the Local Government Association and leader of a reputable authority, that local authorities were dishing out fines willy-nilly or were disproportionate in their measures when they were considering things? I found the opposite—there were times when I wished we would be a bit tougher and stronger and go a bit further. I do not recognise this picture that the noble Lord is painting: that landlords might perceive that it is terrible and feel bad about it. I genuinely believe that most good landlords have nowt to fear—it is not those that the Bill is gunning for. We have a duty to convey that message and not to make good landlords feel threatened by the fact that there is an escalation in fees.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness very much. She is absolutely right: most councils in this country are very good and proportionate and do not levy fines—or whatever—willy-nilly. I absolutely agree with that. However, it is very much in the eye of the beholder, and we need to do everything we can to encourage a successful and thriving rental market with good landlords. Within that, one needs to think what that single-, two- or three-home landlord will look at. They will see the potential risk of £40,000, and it is perception. I absolutely concur that councils act appropriately in many instances, but if a landlord feels that there is a risk, and particularly when that risk can be two, three, or, in some cases in the north of England, four years’ rent, they may just say, “I do not want to take that risk, I will sell my property”. That is one less house for somebody to rent and one more person on a council’s housing waiting list.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I am sorry, but I have to challenge that because the opposite to that is true. I think most good landlords are actually waiting for this to come into place because it damages their reputation when we have rogue landlords who cause their tenants the sorts of problems we are talking about. You will not come across the penalty regime unless you are the sort of landlord that causes your tenant problems. It is those landlords we want the Bill to impact.
Just to clarify the point on guidance, we will be issuing revised guidance on setting financial penalties to provide a national framework for local housing authorities. That will help to ensure the consistent approach which takes account of the seriousness of the offence and harm caused to the tenant and will help reduce the likelihood of reductions on appeal.
I want to be absolutely clear that this whole enforcement regime is aimed at those bad landlords we have heard too much about. Landlords want us to do this: they want to see that those people who do not do the job properly get an appropriate penalty for it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Can I just ask a point of clarification? The Minister talked about publishing guidance. Will that be available before Report so that we can consider the Bill in that context?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will come back to the noble Lord on that point.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to clause 14 in the Minister’s name amending section 16D of the Housing Act 1988 to insert new subsection (6A).
“(6A) In any other case where a tenancy becomes a tenancy to which this section applies, the statement under subsection (2) must be given within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the tenancy becomes an assured tenancy.”Member’s explanatory statement
Where an existing tenancy becomes an assured tenancy, this amendment requires a landlord to provide a written statement of terms within 28 days rather than being required to provide such a statement before the tenancy is entered into.