Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Aid must be restored to Gaza. It should never be used as a political tool, and Israel is bound under international law to allow the unhindered passage of humanitarian aid. The UK has jointly called an urgent session of the UN Security Council this afternoon to address the dire situation in Gaza.
Sarah Smith
The current intentional blockade of food, water and medicine by the Israeli Government is preventing life-sustaining supplies from reaching thousands of children, who the Minister knows are most vulnerable to malnutrition and premature death. Save the Children estimates that over 65,000 children are suffering. What decisive action are the Government taking beyond the E3 statement to make it clear to the Government of Israel that their siege in Gaza must end immediately and that a humanitarian aid system cannot be replaced with a military-controlled one? Will he consider sanctions and the cessation of arms and rule out any trade deal, as children should not pay the price for the inaction of the international community?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right to raise the plight of children in Gaza and, indeed, all those suffering from the lack of aid and the continued conflict. This Government have been clear that the ceasefire must be restored. Since the E3 statement, which she mentions, we have taken the decision jointly with our partners to call an urgent session of the UN Security Council, given the gravity of the situation.
Joe Morris
The looming famine in Gaza is not a natural disaster; it is a direct result of the deterioration of the ceasefire agreement. It is deeply concerning that this is putting the entire population of Gaza at critical risk of food insecurity and potential famine. Can the Minister assure me that this Government are supporting every possible opportunity to get vital resources and humanitarian aid into the region?
Mr Falconer
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are doing everything we can to ensure that aid gets in, that hostages are released, that Hamas are no longer in charge of Gaza, and that we get the ceasefire and path to a two-state solution that we so desperately need.
Paul Waugh
The UN’s Philippe Lazzarini is right, isn’t he, to say today that Israel is committing a “massive atrocity” by blocking aid to the children of Gaza? As well as the urgent need for aid, the Palestinian people need more trade with countries like the UK. Will the Minister explain how my constituents in Rochdale can buy more Palestinian goods, such as olive oil, herbs and dates, and support tech companies and the many co-operatives that operate in the west bank and in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
I know that Rochdale is the home of the co-operative movement in this country and that there are many co-operatives in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as well. On 20 April, we signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority. That includes pursuing further co-operation in exactly the areas he describes, including economic development and trade.
David Chadwick
Gaza faces imminent famine due to the Israeli Government’s blockade, and over 2 million people face catastrophic hunger levels. What action are the UK Government taking to lift the blockade and secure the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza?
Mr Falconer
This Government have a clear position on the vital importance of aid returning to Gaza. That is why we are calling an urgent session of the UN Security Council this afternoon. It is why the Foreign Secretary has made these points repeatedly and clearly to his Israeli counterparts, as indeed have I.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
How long will the UK walk by on the other side as Palestinian children bleed and starve to death? Is it not time that this Government, and indeed His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, show that they are supportive of Israel, but that that support does not necessarily mean they are supportive of a particular Government—in this case, the racist, brutal regime of Netanyahu?
Mr Falconer
Let us not forget what this Government have done. We restored funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency after the Conservatives froze it. We suspended arms export licences whereas the Conservatives did not take action. We have provided £129 million in humanitarian assistance to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We are not on the other side of the road. I welcome the right hon. Member’s strong views on this; I found his intervention last week very powerful indeed. There is no one on the Labour Benches who does not understand the gravity of the situation. That is why we invited the Palestinian Prime Minister, why we signed the memorandum of understanding, and why we are calling an urgent session of the Security Council. This Government will not be on the other side of the road from Palestinian suffering.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Last week the United Nations issued a report describing the situation in Gaza as
“one of the most ostentatious and merciless manifestations of the desecration of human life and dignity”.
The Government have always insisted that it is not for them but for the courts to determine what is and what is not a genocide, but the Minister will know that the genocide convention also puts a legal obligation on states to act to prevent a genocide. Does he believe that the UK has fulfilled its legal obligation under that convention to prevent a genocide in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
As I said to the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), we are taking action—not just rhetoric, but action—to try to address the situation in Gaza. That includes calling the Security Council to an urgent session this afternoon, alongside our partners. We will continue to take the action that we think is needed to ensure that the people of Gaza get what they need.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
We hear about the actions that the Government are taking, but unfortunately none of them are leading to the prevention of the starvation and killing of innocent civilians. The latest numbers, which are only an estimate, show that over 60 children have died of starvation according to official records. We do not know how many have died but have not yet been recorded. There is one step that the Government have not taken. I welcome the aid, but when it stands on the other side of a crossing and cannot get to the people who need it, it is useless. Some 10 or 11 months ago, aid was airdropped into Gaza. Why are the Government not airdropping aid or providing it by sea, and will they condemn the bombing on 2 May of the freedom flotilla, which went to provide aid?
Mr Falconer
As I think the House knows, I am familiar with the impediments to getting aid into Gaza—I went to the Gaza-Egypt border to see the restrictions for myself. We have made these points in public and in private, and we will continue to do so. We are talking to our Jordanian partners and others—many in the region understandably have real concerns about the lack of aid getting in. Although we are considering, with Jordan and others, what the alternatives may be, I must be plain with the House: there is no alternative to a land route if aid is to get in at the scale that is required, so we must be clear with the Israeli Government and all partners in the region that opening those crossings is critical.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Mr Lazzarini has said that children in Gaza are more likely to die of starvation than of an act of violence. What does my hon. Friend expect from this afternoon’s session at the UN? What specifically will be asked for that would move the situation on? Israel cannot be allowed to continue using food as a weapon of war.
Mr Falconer
I think I was clear about the Government’s expectations in my previous answer. Those expectations are grounded in Israel’s international legal obligations. Ultimately, this is a week of diplomacy: the President of the United States will be in the region, and we will raise these issues in the Security Council. I hope that diplomacy will be able to make progress towards a ceasefire and the restoration of aid.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Gaza has been starved of humanitarian aid for over 70 days now. Ministers have repeatedly expressed their disappointment, but there is no evidence that the Israeli Government are listening or have any intention of reopening the supply routes. In March, the Foreign Secretary withdrew his assessment that the blockade is a breach of international law. Will the Minister state how many days the blockade must continue before the Government recognise it as a breach of international law? To make clear the UK’s support for Palestine’s right to self-determination and opposition to the extremist policy of annexation by force, will the Government commit to working with France towards the joint recognition of the state of Palestine at the conference next month?
Mr Falconer
The Foreign Secretary has been clear repeatedly, as have all Ministers from the Dispatch Box, that it is the long-standing policy of British Governments that we do not make legal determinations. We made an assessment when we arrived that there was a real risk of serious breaches of international humanitarian law, and that continues to be our finding. Given the events that many in this House have rightly raised, we continue to make those assessments and include all those events in them.
On the French-Saudi conference in June, we continue to talk with all our partners. As I said in my previous answer, this is a period for diplomacy. A ceasefire is desperately needed, and it is diplomacy that will get us through to the next stage.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
The UK welcomes the commitments made by India and Pakistan to pause any further military action. Given our strong and close relationships with both countries, the UK stands ready to work with both sides to make a lasting ceasefire a reality.
Mr Frith
On Saturday, I met constituents in Bury North with deep family roots in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, including relatives in Mirpur, Kotli, Bhimber, Lahore and Gujrat. There is growing anxiety within this community in Bury about the potential for the conflict to escalate once again. While I praise the efforts of the British Government in securing a ceasefire, given the UK’s historic ties to the region, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Government will continue their diplomatic efforts and dialogue to ensure lasting peace, including the vital protection of water access under the Indus waters treaty, which must not be weaponised in any escalation?
Mr Lammy
We do recognise and understand that the situation in India and Pakistan is deeply unsettling for over 3 million British nationals who stem from those two countries, with which we have deep relationships. I have spoken to my Indian and Pakistani counterparts four times since this crisis began, and I stay in close touch with Secretary of State Rubio and my counterparts in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in particular—nations that have relationships with both countries. We will do all we can, and we encourage both India and Pakistan to maintain their commitment to hard-won areas of diplomatic co-operation, such as the Indus waters treaty.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Following the terrorist attack on 22 April, India and Pakistan engaged in military activity, and India hit nine terrorist bases. Now that there is a fragile peace, which is still being negotiated today, what efforts is the Foreign Secretary making to ensure that the terrorist bases are removed from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir?
Mr Lammy
Let me be clear that the horrendous terrorism we saw—26 nationals stripped and shot—was horrific, and we condemn it. We will continue to work with close partners to deal with this terrorist threat. The hon. Gentleman is right: all of us have to lean in and ensure that we are supporting efforts on both sides to deal with horrendous terrorism. That is what, in the end, will maintain an enduring peace.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The reality remains that the international community has failed to act on the plight of the Kashmiris for over seven decades. From the revocation of articles 370 and 35A, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special status, to the mass arrests and political repression in one of the most militarised zones in the world, the attacks on Kashmiri human rights and civil liberties are intolerable. If we are serious about human rights and long-term peace and stability in the region, the central issue of Kashmir cannot be ignored any longer and must now get the attention it deserves. Will the Secretary of State today reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the birthright to self-determination of the sons and daughters of Kashmir?
Mr Lammy
Let me once again condemn the terrorism we saw that began this crisis and remind the House that since 1947 there have been six conflicts and three wars between these two great countries. The long-standing position of the UK is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account of course, as my hon. Friend suggests, the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
My constituents in Woking, particularly those of Indian and Pakistani descent, welcome the ceasefire. Will the Foreign Secretary urge both countries to accept that the solution to the Kashmir question is self-determination, not further violence?
Mr Lammy
As I have said, it is absolutely for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, and of course it must in the end take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. But all of us have a responsibility to condemn terrorism wherever it occurs: 26 innocent people being stripped and shot is intolerable and of course we condemn it.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
We all welcome the easing of tensions between India and Pakistan over the weekend, and our thoughts continue to be with those affected by this shocking terrorist atrocity. The House will be aware of the ongoing presence of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan, and that should be a concern for all of us. Last week at the Dispatch Box, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), commented that he had held discussions with his Pakistani counterpart on this very issue. What further discussions have taken place to secure commitments from the Pakistani Government that they will dismantle terrorist infrastructure, and what role will Britain play in supporting the removal of terrorist threats within Pakistan, because that is what will improve stability and security in the region?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, and may I share my reflections over the last few days? We do need proper communication between India and Pakistan, and that must happen not just on military channels but on political channels. She will recognise that on this occasion, those communications are poor. We do need confidence-building measures and to ensure that we are dealing with terrorism where it acts, and of course the United Kingdom will lean in to that. Above all, we need dialogue. The international community can play a role, particularly where countries have relations with both countries. That is why we have been talking to the United States, that is why we have been talking to Saudi, and that is why we are working with the UAE.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
The UK is supportive of US efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran. We have encouraged Iran to engage with President Trump’s efforts in good faith and to find a diplomatic solution. Since the beginning of May, I have raised Iran with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the special envoy to the middle east, Steve Witkoff. We have discussed the range of threats that Iran poses to the UK and our partners.
John Cooper
The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is the terrorism export wing of the despotic regime in Tehran. Why are we not joining the Americans in proscribing this organisation when we did proscribe the Wagner organisation in Russia? Is it possibly because the Americans are pressuring us to continue our tenuous diplomatic links with Tehran?
Mr Lammy
I remind the hon. Gentleman that on 4 March the UK specified Iran under the foreign influence registration scheme, which targets those who undertake malign activity in the UK. Of course we keep proscription under review. We are looking closely at the area of state threats; that is traditionally very different from the sorts of cells and terrorist communities that we do proscribe. That is why the Government continue to look at this area very carefully.
David Reed
Our United Kingdom and the United States are aligned in the view that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a serious threat to global stability. With nuclear negotiations currently under way between the US and Iran, can the Secretary of State inform the House what outcome his Department would consider to be a success from a British perspective? Crucially, does he have a contingency plan if those talks fail to produce an acceptable result?
Mr Lammy
Iran is now producing roughly one significant quantity of highly enriched uranium every six weeks. That is 40 times above the limit in the joint comprehensive plan of action—the deal that we struck with Iran, which I have in front of me. I am really crystal clear about this. Iran must never develop a nuclear weapon; it must reverse its escalations—we have seen that in its enrichment programme; it must not carry out any critical weaponisation work; and these terms have to be fully verifiable. Unless we get that, we will see a snapback of the sanctions regime that we struck with it 10 years ago.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The regime in Tehran is responsible for so much of the appalling bloodshed and conflict in the middle east. It poses a direct threat to Britain and on British soil, as we have seen from the recent arrests of Iranian nationals in counter-terrorism operations. Has the Foreign Secretary summoned the Iranian ambassador to express concerns and to explain what has been going on on British soil? What discussions have taken place with our allies in addition to the nuclear talks that he has just referred to? What is the position of our partners in the region on the very specific threats that Iran is posing and demonstrating with its dissidents on UK soil? When will the Government come forward with a comprehensive and clear strategy on dealing with Iran?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Lady is right. On 3 May, counter-terrorism police arrested eight individuals, including seven Iranian nationals, as part of two separate police investigations. Of course the Minister responsible for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has spoken to the Israeli ambassador. As I said, on 4 March we put Iran on the foreign influence registration scheme. We keep proscription under review. We are fully engaged with our E3 partners, and we are very pleased that Germany now has a Government so that we can work with them together on the JCPOA and snapback, and of course we are speaking to Steve Witkoff.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
The UK is a principled humanitarian donor. We prioritise giving humanitarian assistance to people in greatest need, which includes protecting the most vulnerable by supporting access to education in emergencies and crises. Decisions on future budgets are subject to the ongoing spending review and resource allocation processes.
Kirith Entwistle
According to the Education and Development Forum, planned cuts to the official development assistance budget could slash UK aid for education by more than 70% by 2027 compared with 2019 levels. In Gaza, where 95% of schools are damaged and 650,000 children go without formal education, UK-backed programmes will be vital in restoring hope, providing stability and equipping children with the skills to rebuild. Does the Minister agree that education aid must be protected, particularly in crisis responses such as in Gaza?
Catherine West
As the Prime Minister set out, the UK will continue to play a leading humanitarian role, including in Gaza, where children must be allowed to return to school in safety. Through our global funding, the UK enables thousands of children to gain access to essential education services, supporting recovery from the trauma of war and building skills and hope for the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the past, the Minister has spoken very positively about education. What assessment has been made of the potential progress that could be made in reducing youth radicalisation by allocating aid to education programmes, as we have witnessed over the years a number of young people being brainwashed online by extremist groups?
Catherine West
We have an excellent programme called Education Cannot Wait, which in 2024 provided £12 million in first emergency response grants covering not just the educational needs but the psychosocial needs of those affected by conflict and trauma.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
We know that education can make a real difference to a girl’s life chances, which is why the last Conservative Government committed to ensuring that every girl has access to quality education. However, we will now be spending less on development, so can the Minister give clarity on the commitments that the Government are making to support women and girls over the next few years? Which programmes will be kept and which will be cut, and how much will be invested in those programmes?
Catherine West
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s humanitarian framework sets out our long-term approach through three policy priorities: providing humanitarian assistance for those in greatest need; protecting people at risk in conflict and crises; and preventing and anticipating future shocks and building resilience. When it comes to building resilience, the people most at risk are often women and young girls who fail to have access to education. The indices of educational attainment will be the basis on which many of these decisions are made.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We are committed to strengthening support for British nationals abroad, including introducing a right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations. The Department is considering a package of measures, which we will announce in due course, alongside options for stakeholder consultations.
Christine Jardine
Every year, an estimated 5,000 British citizens are arrested abroad, many of them under false pretences. Many are used as hostages and denied access to legal representation, and their families are left without information, not knowing what has happened to them. High-profile cases at the moment include those of Alaa Abd el-Fattah in Egypt and of Jagtar Singh Johal in India. None of these people has an automatic right to support, as is the case with other countries such as the United States, so can the Minister give us more details about exactly what the consular assistance will be and whether it will be automatic for everyone?
Mr Falconer
The safety and security of British nationals overseas is a top priority for the Government. This is a complex area of policy—the hon. Lady has described the wide range of different consular cases that the Foreign Office responds to, from kidnap cases to more routine cases. As I set out to the Foreign Affairs Committee, given the complexity of these issues we will come back to Parliament in due course with options for consultation.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I remind the Government that their manifesto promised a legal right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations. The Government have now been in power for close on a year. This is not something that should take a big shove; surely, we should do it straight away. Surely such assistance should be a legal right. People including Ryan Cornelius and Jimmy Lai are still being held. Ryan Cornelius has been held illegally for 17 years, which the UN has criticised as a human rights violation. For ages we did not send anybody to see him; surely now we must act and call out these regimes. The first place to start is by giving those people the absolute right to consular assistance.
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and his commitment to these issues. Were it only so that passing a right in this place would secure the release of the people whose cases have been raised. In every case that has been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), the people concerned do receive consular assistance. I have met the families of Ryan Cornelius and Alaa Abd el-Fattah; they both remain very much in our minds. It is important that we get the rights correct. These are complex cases, and we are bound not just by what we decide in Parliament, but by the relevant conventions and diplomatic norms. We will take action to try to preserve the safety of British nationals overseas, but it is right that we take our time to ensure that we get it correct.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is at times of crisis that British nationals abroad need consular services the most. I share many of my constituents’ concerns about the violence in India, Pakistan and Kashmir, including those of a 12-year-old boy who contacted me yesterday about his aunt and uncle who are stranded in Pakistan, as is one of my lovely neighbours. Although airspace has now been opened, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all British residents have access to consular services and are able to return to the UK as soon as possible?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her constituents, including at all hours throughout the weekend, and I recognise her commitment and the commitment of many others in this House. The Foreign Secretary set out in a “dear colleagues” letter the details for ensuring that MPs are able to contact the Foreign Office in a timely way, and I encourage all those watching at home to sign up to our travel advice and to keep watching it carefully.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
One British citizen denied consular access is Jimmy Lai, who faces life in prison for exercising the rights guaranteed to him under the joint declaration between the United Kingdom and China. My hon. Friend will have seen reports that America intended to raise the case of Jimmy Lai during its recent talks with China in Geneva. What steps can the Government take to capitalise on America’s renewed interest in his case so that we can secure his freedom?
Mr Falconer
We continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Jimmy Lai immediately. As my hon. Friend would expect, I will not comment overmuch on the actions of other states, but I will say that the Prime Minister has raised this matter directly with the relevant authorities, as have the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor and many others.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Last week I travelled with European partners to Lviv at the invitation of Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, and yesterday I hosted, for the first time in London, Foreign Ministers from the Weimar+ group of key European allies to discuss our joint efforts to strengthen European security and secure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.
John Milne
Last weekend the Prime Minister said that the UK would do all that it could to support Ukraine. If that is the case, why do the Government continue to prevaricate over seizing billions of pounds in frozen assets held in UK banks, which could be used to build Ukraine defences? The longer we delay, the more likely it is that those funds will become wrapped up in other negotiations and we will lose the chance altogether.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue, but it is not an issue on which the Government should act unilaterally. It is a multilateral issue on which we should act with our G7 partners and our European partners, recognising that some partners in Europe are hugely exposed. The best way in which to move forward is to pool those assets, and discussions on that are ongoing.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Yale University humanitarian research lab was doing incredible work in tracking the 19,546 Ukraine children who have been stolen by Russia, but then became a victim of the cuts being made by the Department of Government Efficiency. Following international outrage, its work was preserved and given a reprieve for six weeks, a period that ended on 8 May. Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the data collected by the university has been secured and transferred to Europol, or that its funding is secure for the longer term?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for continually raising this matter. We are an active member of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, and we fund the Bring Kids Back UA and Save Ukraine campaigns. We have raised this issue internationally, and I am proud to have worked on it with Mrs Zelensky. I will write to the hon. Lady as soon as I can to update her on the funding.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The sustainable success of Ukraine and its self-defence hinges very much on the appetite of the President of the United States of America. What steps are the Foreign Secretary, his Ministers and his officials taking to ensure that the President remains committed to defending the territorial integrity of not just his own nation but all nations, and will the Foreign Secretary ensure that the White House understands that allowing an aggressor to prosper in this case will encourage other aggressors to invade their neighbours in the future?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the experience and the strength with which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. He will have noted that the Prime Minister was in Kyiv recently with President Zelensky and other European partners, and that they engaged with President Trump there. We welcome the desire to secure an enduring peace, but it seems to me that engaging in those talks will require a ceasefire. It is Putin who is prevaricating, it is Putin who is obfuscating, and we must call that out with our long experience of scrutinising that particular individual.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
We all hope the mooted peace talks between Russia and Ukraine on ending Russia’s illegal invasion take place as quickly as possible, to stop the killing and save lives. Accountability is important, so will the Foreign Secretary outline his position on Russian war crimes and on how justice can be done?
Mr Lammy
I was very pleased to be with other European Foreign Ministers in Lviv to support the special tribunal and be crystal clear that those who have prosecuted this war must attest and be accountable for their actions.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Ukrainians continue bravely to resist Russia’s war machine, yet President Trump continues to indulge in the fantasy that Putin is serious about peace. The UK needs to maintain clear leadership in the face of Trump’s unreliability. In the Foreign Secretary’s response to me in March, he said that the UK wanted to pursue the seizure of frozen Russian assets, but that Belgium and Germany were blockers. I listened carefully to the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne), and he spoke about multilateralism. What conversations on this issue has he had with his counterparts in Belgium and Germany since March, and when will the point come when the UK shows leadership, calls time and leads from the front by seizing Russian assets?
Mr Lammy
I have had detailed talks with my Belgian counterpart—not just at Foreign Minister level, but technical talks that have involved our officials. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands multilateralism. He will recognise that the new German Government have only been in power for a matter of days. I was able to discuss this issue yesterday with my German counterpart but, with all grace, I am allowing him to spend some time getting into the detail of the issue.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
As the Foreign Secretary said in his Kew lecture, we are completely committed to ratifying the marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction agreement. Primary legislation is required to give effect to our obligations under the agreement, and legislation to implement the agreement will be introduced as soon as the legislative timetable allows.
Anna Gelderd
The UK has led world-class conservation efforts, and this Government have rightly committed to the landmark high seas treaty, but we must act now, as without ratification the UK risks losing its place in shaping this vital treaty’s implementation and future direction. Can the Minister confirm when legislation to ratify the agreement will be introduced, or provide a clear timetable? If we want to stay at the table, we must claim our seat.
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is quite right to push the Government on this issue, and the FCDO will redouble our efforts in this place to make sure that we do the necessary work to conclude the legal process.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The UK is a world leader in protecting marine environments, particularly around the British Overseas Territories, but tragically that reputation will be trashed when Labour surrenders to Mauritius one of the most important marine protected areas around the British Indian Ocean Territory. While Mauritian fisheries Ministers have been pledging to issue fishing and trawler licences for those waters, Labour Ministers have given no assurances about future protections, and have just made vague comments on working with Mauritius on a new MPA. Can the Minister state if the proposed treaty will have any guaranteed protections in place? Will she confirm what was said in a legal letter to British Chagossians—that their right of return is not guaranteed? Surely that would be a total betrayal.
Catherine West
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. Following the trip that he and I did together when we were both on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am sure he is aware that the marine protected area will continue and that the environment has been at the heart of the negotiations. Indeed, he must remember that, because when he was the chair of the Chagos Islands all-party parliamentary group, he began the debate with the Mauritians, so I am sure he is in a very good position to ask any further questions that he may like to ask of the Mauritians.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
This Government are resolutely committed to development, but we recognise that we must do it differently. We will ensure that the aid budget delivers value for money and has impact globally. Supporting and growing economies will be at the heart of how we spend ODA going forward, and further decisions on the ODA budget, including specific programmes, are subject to the spending review and resource allocation processes.
Damian Hinds
These severely constrained budgets call for thinking smarter, not simply smaller, so what work are the Government doing with the World Bank and other international institutions to make sure that UK development spend is fully leveraged so that every penny is as effective as possible?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Member raises a very important point, and we of course continue to engage closely with our partners at the World Bank and other multilateral development institutions. Multilateral co-operation allows a global scale of investment and delivery that outstrips what countries can achieve alone. We are also looking at other ways, including through the important work of British International Investment and other bodies, so we are going to look across the board and multilaterally to increase our impact.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 says the Government must have due regard to spending aid in a way that contributes to gender equality. Following on from the earlier question, will the Minister confirm that supporting women and girls is a ministerial priority and that we will continue funding vital programmes that support women and girls in many areas?
Stephen Doughty
It certainly is, and women and girls will remain at the heart of our programming. I can assure my hon. Friend that equality impact assessments are an essential part of how we make decisions on ODA allocations. Indeed, Minister Chapman will be appearing before the International Development Committee later today, and I think she will be setting out our approach to the equality impact assessment and other processes.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Will the Minister ensure that Britain properly replenishes Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, a brilliant programme that has benefited so much from British leadership as well as taxpayers’ money? When making his decision on how big that replenishment should be, will he remember that the polling shows that 83% of our constituents think this is a brilliant use of taxpayers’ money and that we should support it?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman and I have engaged on these issues for a long time, and he knows that I recognise the importance of Gavi’s work and that of other bodies such as the Global Fund. We are proud to have supported Gavi to vaccinate over 1 billion children, saving 18 million lives and generating $250 billion in economic benefits. We are considering our next investments as part of the spending review process, and we look forward to the June event.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The reduction to 0.3% will require painful decisions, but there are innovative financing mechanisms on which Britain could lead—for example, increasing special drawing rights, using the exchange equalisation account, guarantees and debt relief. Can the Minister commit to working with the Treasury to look at all these non-ODA instruments in which Britain could show leadership and fund our development programmes?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely can make that commitment. I will not go into any individual item on my hon. Friend’s list of suggestions, but as I said in an earlier answer, we are looking at all measures by which we can support development and economic growth globally, working with multilateral partners.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
I was honoured to attend the VE Day military procession, reception and service of remembrance alongside the Prime Minister and His Majesty the King last week. The events were a fitting tribute to the hundreds of thousands of men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice during the second world war.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Victory in Europe celebrations in Suffolk Coastal last week were a poignant reminder of the need to continue to press for peace today both in Ukraine and in securing an end to the war in Palestine. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that the lessons of world war two must not be forgotten as innocent civilians continue to face violence and warfare here in Europe and in the middle east?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important to put on the record that the Commonwealth played a tremendous part in the second world war. Our European partners played an important part, and Europe benefited greatly from the sacrifices made to fight fascism. Wherever we see tyranny, we must continue to stand up for the rights of innocent people, and I was proud to spend the next day in Lviv standing with those who are fighting today.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The centenary of the second world war is way into the future, but will the Foreign Secretary ensure that the UK does not repeat the mistakes of the past when we were rather late coming to the party with the international commemoration of the centenary of the great war? Will he say when we will engage with international partners to start preparing for the centenary of the second world war, and will his Department, the Cabinet Office or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport take the lead?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Member asks an important question. Entering my 25th year in Parliament, I am not sure that I will still be in Parliament on that occasion. However, he is right that we commemorate that appropriately, so I will ask the necessary questions in the coming days and update him.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
We cannot address the urgency of the climate and nature crisis without co-ordinated global action. We are supporting nature restoration and resilience in many important ways, including by protecting and restoring forests, working with indigenous people in the Amazon and Congo basins, and supporting vulnerable coastal communities and ecosystems.
Katie White
Last week marked the 99th birthday of Sir David Attenborough and the release of his powerful new film, “Ocean”. I encourage all Members to watch it. It makes a compelling case for ocean protection as essential to tackling climate change and restoring nature. With the 2025 UN ocean conference in France fast approaching, will my hon. Friend ensure the UK arrives in the strongest position for that conference by ratifying the high seas treaty and delivering our domestic nature restoration goals through measures, including ending bottom trawling in marine protected areas?
Catherine West
Let me wish a belated happy birthday to Sir David. His advocacy for the natural world is truly inspirational. We are committed to ratifying the agreement, and we will introduce legislation to implement it as soon as the legislative timetable allows.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The Government are committed to securing Alaa’s release, and we continue to raise his case at the highest levels of the Egyptian Government. The Foreign Secretary has raised the case on multiple occasions, as have I. The national security adviser has also raised this case, as has the Prime Minister.
Siân Berry
I thank the Minister for his response. Members of the family of Alaa Abd el-Fattah are again in the Gallery today, and his mother Laila has now not taken food for seven months. I met her again recently and she is so frail now. Does the Minister agree that Alaa’s arbitrary detention, long after his sentence ended, continues in violation of the Vienna convention, and that there must be consequences for Egypt, including international legal options and new travel advice, given the evident dangers to British nationals detained in Egypt?
Mr Falconer
I would also like to pay tribute to the fortitude and bravery of Alaa’s family, both those in the Gallery and, of course, Laila, whom I have met on a number of occasions and the Prime Minister has met, too. We consider Alaa a British national. He holds both British and Egyptian nationality. We have been clear on that point, even though it is disputed by the Egyptian Government. We are committed to continuing to work on this case.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
The UN ocean conference is an important moment for protecting the ocean and progress towards UN sustainable development goal 14, “Life Below Water”. The UK is attending and actively involved in negotiating the political declaration for the conference.
Sarah Champion
Sir David Attenborough’s latest film, “Ocean” revealed the shocking devastation caused by bottom trawling and asked the Government to take action at the UN conference in just four weeks. Will the Government use the conference to announce a ban on all bottom trawling in marine protected areas? Why has the Minister still not set out when we will ratify the ocean treaty, which will keep our small island developing states and overseas territories safe?
Catherine West
The climate and ocean adaptation and sustainable transition programme is improving vulnerable coastal communities’ resilience to climate change, including: protecting and restoring coastal habitats; supporting nature-based solutions; improving small-scale fisheries management; and, the issue my hon. Friend raises, the use of bottom-towed gear over rock and reef habitats in 13 Marine Management Organisation areas.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Through agile diplomacy, the Government are striking new deals in the national interest, with trade agreements with the United States and India, the first ever UK-EU summit next week and intense efforts to deal with conflicts around the world. Yesterday, I hosted the Weimar+ group of European leaders in support of Ukraine. Last week, I pressed for the welcome ceasefire between India and Pakistan. And every day I am striving to stop the killing in Gaza, so we can get the remaining hostages, like Edan Alexander, home and aid to civilians.
Edward Morello
The Foreign Affairs Committee recently heard from the Falkland Islands Government about the urgent need for the UK Government to use the EU-UK reset as an opportunity to remove the detrimental post-Brexit tariffs on Falklands exports. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his Department and European counterparts to address those tariffs for a new trade arrangement for the Falkland Islands?
Mr Lammy
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are always seeking to reduce tariff burdens for our overseas territories, and we are in ongoing discussions with the European Union in particular.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
My hon. Friend has long been an advocate on these issues. We emphasise the necessity of demonstrating commitment to the protection of human rights in all our engagements with the Syrian Government. Our public statements have also made it clear that civilians must be protected from violence, and those responsible held to account. The protection of all civilians and their full inclusion in the transition process is vital for peace in Syria.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Can the Foreign Secretary explain specifically what the UK is getting in return from China, having been China’s biggest cheerleader in Europe? Has China committed to stop threatening people on British soil? Has he received any new commitments from China on its adherence to the Sino-British declaration to uphold freedoms in Hong Kong, particularly with all the pernicious and malicious Chinese activities in the United Kingdom?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her questions. The important starting point on China is to be consistent and not to have four or five different China policies, which is what we had under the previous Government. We have been clear that there are areas where we will co-operate with China, but she knows that we challenge China every time we meet on Hong Kong and on Jimmy Lai. She also knows there are areas where we are absolutely clear that we will compete with China. We will be coming forward with our China audit shortly, and we can have a wider discussion then.
Priti Patel
We have hearing about and waiting for the China audit for some time. China has repeatedly failed to take action to stop fuelling Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine—we saw President Xi standing side by side with Putin in Moscow just days ago. Will the Foreign Secretary provide details on the discussions that have taken place with President Zelensky over his forthcoming visit to Turkey, and what direct support is Britain giving for any discussions he will have with Putin to ensure that any peace is secured and won on Ukraine’s terms, in such a way that respects fundamental basic freedoms and the principle that aggressors should never, ever win?
Mr Lammy
On 22 April, I raised concerns with my Chinese counterpart on China’s supply of equipment to Russia and on the relationship with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—North Korea—and Russia and Iran. The right hon. Lady will know that I sanctioned Chinese entities that were supplying dual-use technology to the Russians, killing Ukrainians.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for transmitting his constituents’ concerns, which I know are felt widely across this House. I can confirm that our permanent representative in New York will be expressing the full force of our views, as we heard earlier in this session.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely assured on that latter point. I spoke to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar just this morning. We have been working closely with him and, indeed, with our EU and Spanish counterparts, and all sides agree on the importance of concluding a treaty as soon as possible. We are working closely with all the parties in that regard, and we will only conclude an agreement that protects sovereignty and UK military autonomy, provides certainty for the people of Gibraltar and secures their future prosperity. We will endeavour to achieve that in due course.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Mr Falconer
The entirety of Hezbollah has been proscribed in the UK since 2019. Raising money for terrorist organisations is a criminal offence. This Government will continue to take robust action against those suspected of raising money for terrorist organisations in the middle east and around the world.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Mr Falconer
We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state at a time that has the most impact in achieving a reality most conducive to long-term peace in the region, and we continue to talk to our partners about that. The other issues that the hon. Member raised have already been discussed in this session.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
The British Council has no greater champions than Labour Ministers on the Front Bench. It does a fantastic job to promote the UK abroad. Across this House, we love the British Council.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that this Government are totally opposed to the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza and are four-square behind restoring the ceasefire?
Mr Falconer
As I said last week, we are opposed to an expansion of Israel’s military operation. I was also asked about the Israeli Finance Minister’s comments about the destruction of Gaza—comments that I had not seen at the time. I have since seen them and I condemn them.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
On Sunday, I had the honour of meeting Emily Damari. She told me about her good friends, Ziv and Gali Berman, who remain in captivity. It is so clear to me that no hostage will be free until all hostages are free. Hamas footage at the weekend serves only to deliver more torment to the families. Will the Minister set out, before the 600 day-anniversary later this month of the 7 October attacks, the steps he will be taking to ensure humanitarian access for those hostages?
Mr Lammy
I welcome the release of Edan Alexander after an agonising 583 days in captivity, and I thank Qatar and Egypt for their support. We urge all parties to seize this opportunity to re-engage with negotiations and return to a ceasefire. That is what will see the return of those hostages. When I discussed this with Secretary of State Rubio and, indeed, with partners in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, I urged them to raise those issues with the President this week.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is a pattern emerging where the Trump Administration take initially extreme positions on international trade and foreign policy and then quickly re-adjust to more realistic and sensible policies? What opportunities does that give for British diplomacy?
Mr Lammy
In many ways, that question is better put to President Trump and I do not want to speak for him. None the less, I am pleased that the United Kingdom was the first country to strike a trade agreement with the United States. Many international partners are now ringing us up to ask us how we did it.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I know that a lot is going on, but the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty is important. It is about our blue planet and our oceans, in which we used to have a leadership position. When we were leading it, 115 countries signed that treaty, but it needs to be ratified as well, and very few countries are ratifying it, including Britain. When we asked the Government about it, they said that it was because they did not have enough time. Have they dropped the ball, is there a Bill, will we ratify it, and will we ratify it before the UN Oceans Conference?
Catherine West
We will redouble our efforts to get into the legislative queue and do all that is necessary to maintain our leadership in this important area.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Today we welcome the release of Edan Alexander, the latest hostage freed by Hamas, after over 500 days in captivity. The fact that they still have people in captivity is disgraceful and barbaric and puts into perspective the fact that the group Kneecap are being platformed in Croydon, after they shouted support for Hamas from a stage. What pressure are the Government putting on the Palestinian authorities to ensure that the remaining hostages are returned to their families as they should be? They should never have been taken in the first place.
Mr Falconer
We continue, with all our partners, to call for the immediate release of all hostages. I think particularly of Avinatan Or, who has a British mother and who is still in captivity under who knows what conditions. We will continue to press for the release of all hostages.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On 15 May we will commemorate the 77th anniversary of the 1948 Nakba, which saw hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced from their homes and dispossessed, and it still continues today. I pay tribute to Ministers for the diplomacy they are engaged in and for the recent memorandum of understanding that was agreed with Palestine, but the children of Gaza cannot wait weeks and months. They need food and water now. What more can we do?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to raise these issues. We have a meeting of the UN Security Council this afternoon. It was important that I spoke to colleagues in Saudi Arabia and the UAE the weekend before last about these issues and with partners in the region, particularly as President Trump visits. I am very concerned following a meeting with my German counterpart about Israeli decisions to reduce the number of distribution points, and we will be making these representations very actively over the coming days.
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
It is not often in this House that we recognise a former civil servant, but before we proceed to the next business I would like to pay tribute to Sir Roy Stone, who died yesterday. It feels far too soon, given that he only retired from his role as principal private secretary to the Government Chief Whip in 2021 —a role he held for more than 20 years, serving 13 Chief Whips, and in turn this office, with great distinction. Working in No. 10 before he joined the Whips Office, Roy served every Prime Minister from Margaret Thatcher to Boris Johnson. He was virtually invisible outside this place, but those who were involved in this tricky business of keeping the parliamentary machinery running smoothly all knew him well.
Roy was, despite the sometimes fearsome reputation of the Whips Office, a kind and generous man, loyal to his principles as well as to his political masters. He was highly respected and held in great affection by those in the civil service and with whom he worked closely. There are many Members and staff in all parts of both Houses who worked with him and benefited from his advice and guidance. I know that they will be deeply saddened by this news. As we know, the usual channels is not something we ever discuss. That just shows the great man we are talking about. I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending our condolences to Roy’s family: his wife Dawn, daughter Hannah and son Elliott.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Alan Campbell)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is by convention unusual for the Government Chief Whip to address the House. It is also by convention forbidden to refer by name to those who hold the office of principal private secretary to the Government Chief Whip. It is a measure of Sir Roy’s service that today we lay those conventions aside.
Sir Roy was the literal embodiment of the usual channels for more than two decades, ensuring each day that while the Government got their business, the Opposition were able to scrutinise their work. As I look back on what were, on occasions, tumultuous times in this place, Sir Roy was, with skill and integrity, the constant that held things together. Trust was placed in him and his wise counsel was sought over many years.
I send my deep condolences on behalf of the Government to his family, friends and the many staff who worked with him. Such was Sir Roy Stone’s diligence and long service that one could be forgiven for thinking that work was his main concern, but I know from speaking to him that his main priority was always his family, of whom he was tremendously proud. They should be equally proud of him. My thoughts are with them at this difficult time.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You have said much that was true and good, and it is hard to improve on what you said as well as the Chief Whip, but may I add a few words? Roy Stone went into the civil service at the age of 16 and served his entire life there and in this House. Twelve Chief Whips across extraordinary moments were the beneficiaries of his sage counsel and advice.
I think the House will be aware that there were several occasions on which I was able to benefit from his advice in somewhat tumultuous times, having offended various senior politicians. I did not always get a meeting with the Chief Whip with coffee—as hon. Members know, that is the key test—but Sir Roy and his team were the models of professional expertise, diligence, discretion, care and candid advice throughout. The fact that he has been taken from us so quickly, so prematurely and so early into his long-deserved retirement is, I am sure, a source of the utmost sadness for every Member of this House. I am sure that I speak for all members of His Majesty’s Opposition. We will remember him with great fondness for a very long time.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have to admit to shedding a tear last night when I heard the news of Sir Roy’s passing. Within nine months of joining the House in 2019, I became the Chief Whip of a small group of 11, and he treated me and my party with the utmost respect. He was the first person to refer to me as “chief”—sadly, my family have not picked up that term—which showed the respect he had for the House, MPs and the parties they represent.
I valued his counsel. We sometimes take the daily business for granted, but it is testament to the work of the usual channels and the Government Whips Office that we end up with the business and debates we have in this place.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is sitting with me. When Sir Roy left his role and the House in 2021, we took him for dinner at the Liberal Club. I will just say that the club’s standards of service were exactly what my right hon. Friend and I expected them to be; I will say no more on that.
Sir Roy was the epitome of the best of the civil service. We had good conversations, but it is fair to say that no confidences were betrayed. I am very saddened to hear of his loss. My thoughts and my party’s thoughts are with his family.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In his role in the usual channels, Sir Roy Stone had a unique influence in this place, as we have heard, working for decades for the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the Opposition, providing advice to both and protecting the confidences of both, but answering honestly to each. Those in the usual channels hold the only role in government that means working for both the Government and the Opposition; Roy managed the Whips Offices for both. The British public see adversarial politics and parties in this Chamber, but for decades, Roy and his teams organised and co-ordinated legislation, debates, recesses, statements and urgent questions and managed the relationship between the parties. Woe betide any Chief Whip who tried to change Roy’s recess schedule, which was almost always in tandem with the Kent school holiday breaks.
Every political science course in the country should have dedicated modules on the usual channels and Sir Roy Stone. Roy’s dominance of this behind-the-scenes role made him one of the most impactful and consequential civil servants of his time. Despite being fair to all sides, he was political to his core, not least during the hung Parliament and Brexit. During that time, he was passionate about and focused on supporting the Government to deliver on the referendum, and was increasingly frustrated with us politicians, and in particular me, for failing to deliver a meaningful vote.
Roy loved his central role in this place, and had the respect, if not always the agreement, of everyone, politician and civil servant alike. Despite all the stresses and strains in that most demanding period of parliamentary history, which is when I worked with him, what shone out was the love for and commitment to his family: his brother, who was ill with cancer during the Brexit years; and his wife Dawn and children Hannah and Elliott. In particular, there was pride in Elliott’s commitment to the RAF, in which he was a cadet, and of which he is now a full-time member. A patriot at work, a patriot at home. Rest in peace, Sir Roy Stone.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Roy was political to his core. He loved this place more than anyone could possibly imagine. He regularly got quite frustrated with Governments and Prime Ministers. I will always remember arriving at the office on my first day as Chief Whip, and seeing his look of frustration and irritation, which said, “Who on earth have they sent me now? He’s never been in the Whips Office.”
I remember Roy sitting me down and explaining that he worked for me 51% of the time and for the Opposition the other 49%. I wanted him to shift the dial a little more in my favour, but he was never going to do that. I asked him, rather naively, what I should read, and whether it was worth picking up “Erskine May”. He looked at me and said, “Chief, only strange people and Clerks read ‘Erskine May’.” Yet there was a not a page in “Erskine May” that he did not know.
Roy started as an apprentice in the Ministry of Defence, worked his way through to No. 10 Downing Street and got briefings ready for Prime Ministers, and then went into the Whips Office. All that equipped him to understand raw politics. As anyone who has been Chief Whip will know, it is deputies, not Chief Whips, who whip their party; Chief Whips have to manage the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. They are there to save the Government from doing incredibly stupid things to themselves every single day—or that was the case in my day. I have a feeling that might not have changed that much.
I would sometimes come into the office and Roy’s eyes would roll; he had heard the news about the latest decision emanating from No. 10. Yet he would always sit down, talk through the problem and give solutions—a potential way out of the awful mess that you found yourself in. I particularly recall the day after the 2017 general election. For those who were not here, it had not gone quite as well as we had hoped. I arrived at the beautiful Chief Whips Office in Downing Street and Roy, who was as good with his Anglo-Saxon words as any man—I will not say the word he used, but it rhymed with “clucking”—said, “Well, you clucking screwed that one up, didn’t you? What are you going to do?” At the time, the Prime Minister was in shock and not really doing an awful lot, and it fell to the Whips Office to work out how we took things forward. Sitting down with Roy to work things out was essential to our putting together a deal with the Democratic Unionist party—a deal that made sure that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) did not have the opportunity to form a Government in 2017, or since.
Roy lived and breathed politics, but also cared about nothing more than his family. I would hear him talk with such pride about his daughter at university, and about his son, whom he took to countless events related to swimming, and then to the RAF. Altogether, Roy was a good friend. Just a few weeks ago, I was sitting down with him, having a cup of coffee and talking about his family. We talked about the difficult times, but also the amazing times. He will be so missed.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to pass on the sincere condolences of the Scottish National party to the family and friends of Roy Stone, and I really hope that they take comfort from today’s proceedings. We speak of Roy in such terms not just because we respected him, but because we liked him. He was a likeable guy who was great company and such fun to be with.
I will never forget the kindness that Roy showed me as a new Member of this House, and as a recently installed Chief Whip who did not have a clue about House business or procedure. He patiently ran through how the House worked; getting a lesson from Roy Stone on parliamentary procedure is something that I will never forget. I was representing a group of five, and Roy had time for us all. The SNP finally got access to the usual channels when we became the third party in the House, and I was able to observe how effectively he did his work. I will never be in government, unlike others who are paying tribute today, but I saw how seamlessly Roy was able to serve Governments of different hues, and how the ship of state sailed on under his stewardship and command. Roy was the absolute epitome of public service and commitment to this House, which he loved, and we will all miss him dearly.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing this quite exceptional but fitting tribute, which I am sure will give some comfort to Sir Roy’s wife Dawn and his children, Hannah and Elliott. It was my privilege to work with Sir Roy during the first three and a half years of the coalition Government. Coalition government had never been done in this country in modern peacetime. The coalition required service to not one party but two in government, and for Sir Roy, it was a time of change and challenges, but they were all challenges that he took impeccably in his stride. There are many anecdotes that I could tell you, Mr Speaker, but unfortunately, too many of those who were involved are still alive, and there are limits to how far one can push parliamentary privilege.
The genius of Sir Roy Stone was that he never betrayed any personal political view. That was how he was able to serve Governments of all stripes. The dignity of Parliament and of the business of government really mattered to him. There was only one occasion when I saw Sir Roy’s mask slip. It was the early days of the coalition Government. The Liberal Democrat Whips Office was in the business of babysitting, and on this occasion it involved an actual baby; it was not the normal babysitting that the Whips Office is called on to do. Inevitably, as happens with babies, there was a need for a nappy to be changed. I took the baby—I think it was Jenny Willott’s son, Toby—into my office, and I had laid him on the sofa and was changing his nappy when Sir Roy Stone appeared in the doorway. One glimpse at his face told me that this scene realised his worst fears about having Liberal Democrats in government.
Sir Roy cared about both Government and Parliament, and being able to serve both requires very distinctive and particular talents. It was a privilege to work with him and to have the benefit of those talents. For those who mourn him, especially his family, the recognition of those talents should be an enduring comfort.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I first knew Sir Roy Stone when I became leader of my group after the 2017 general election. He did, in fact, pass views on the Chief Whips of the time, but I think they are probably best kept to myself for now, because some of them are in the Chamber. He was immensely supportive, and as the leader of a very small group, I learned so much from him. It was the first time that the group had had meetings with the Chief Whip. I speak on behalf of a small party, and Sir Roy’s respect for Parliament, and for the presence of small parties in it, was evident. He felt that we had a role to play, and he enabled us to play that role very effectively.
My lasting memory of Sir Roy was from just after he left. A member of staff, Fflur Elin, could play the harp. Sir Roy found that out, and nothing would do but for Fflur to bring in said harp to play for him. It has been an honour to know him, and people’s recollections of him today tell me that he had immense influence on all of us here.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, I want to convey to the family of Sir Roy Stone our deepest condolences at this time of tragedy and grief. To serve under a number of Prime Ministers and Chief Whips is no easy task, but he was always fair and impartial. He contributed loyally and with great wisdom. I would not like to say anything against any of the Chief Whips in my party, but I have probably challenged them all, and to be perfectly honest, I probably still do. Sir Roy’s advice was much sought after and liberally given. He set a standard for others to follow, and to admire from a distance. It is always good to cite the Bible at these times; he has run the race, he has fought the good fight and there are many crowns laid up for him in heaven. Thank you, Sir Roy, and God bless all the family at this time.
Mr Speaker
These really have been fitting tributes to Sir Roy Stone. He will always be in our thoughts and memories because of what he did for this House. I know that the Clerks feel the same way.
Mansion House Accord
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the Mansion House accord.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
Mr Speaker, I would like to associate myself with your tribute and those of other Members to Sir Roy Stone, who was a true public servant, and a servant of this House.
Pensions matter. They underpin not just the retirement that we all look forward to, but the investment on which our future prosperity depends. This morning, 17 workplace pension scheme providers, between them managing about 90% of active savers’ defined contribution pensions, signed the Mansion House accord. The accord was proposed and developed by the industry, specifically by the Lord Mayor, the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association and the Association of British Insurers, and builds on the work of the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who is in his place.
Signatories to the accord have pledged to invest 10% of their main default funds in private assets by 2030. These are productive assets that boost the economy, such as infrastructure. At least 5% will be for UK assets. This investment could support better outcomes for savers and deliver growth finance to Britain’s world-leading science and technology businesses. It could also support clean energy developments across the country, delivering greater energy security and jobs.
The shift towards greater investment in private assets is a journey that the sector is already on, because everyone recognises that UK defined contribution schemes stand out relative to their international peers for how little they invest in those areas. This is right for savers because it is in their interests for pension funds to hold a diverse range of assets, and it is in Britain’s interests. This Government want to see higher investment levels in the UK. We cannot continue with the lowest business investment in the G7, as we managed under the previous Administration. Supply of capital is part of that—and today’s agreement is expected to release £25 billion of additional investment into the UK economy by 2030—but so is the supply of projects to invest in: the pipeline. Our job as a Government is to support the depth and visibility of that pipeline, and that is why we are getting this country building once again.
The accord is an industry-led agreement—nevertheless, I hugely welcome it. The pensions industry’s decision to invest in more productive assets, from growing companies to infrastructure, will support better outcomes for savers and faster growth for Britain. In the coming weeks, the Government will publish the conclusions of the pensions investment review to support the move to bigger and better pension schemes. We will implement the review’s reforms, and others to improve returns for savers, in the forthcoming pension schemes Bill, which I look forward to presenting to the House.
Sir Mel Stride
May I start by associating myself with the very fine tributes made to Sir Roy Stone? My condolences go to his family.
No response from the Chancellor, we see, but I thank the Minister for his statement. The retirement incomes of millions of UK savers rely on the careful management of pension funds. Those pension providers have a fiduciary duty to act in the best financial interests of their members. We on the Conservative Benches support efforts to ensure pension funds are investing in assets that can both increase UK productivity and growth, and deliver stronger, stable returns for investors and savers. Indeed, that was the purpose of the first Mansion House compact, which was brokered by the last Conservative Government.
As we well know, Labour Ministers have a habit of thinking they know best what to do with other people’s money, but it should ultimately be the responsibility of the providers, which have been entrusted by savers with their money, to make investment decisions. Reports that the Government intend to take new powers to mandate pension funds to allocate minimum amounts to specific classes of assets should be a matter of great concern to this House. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to take such legislative powers in the pensions Bill later this year? If he cannot rule out making such a move, can he explain what it would mean for the existing fiduciary duties set out in legislation?
Major players in the industry, including Scottish Widows, have reportedly refused to take part in the latest iteration of the Mansion House compact. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why that is, what discussions he and other Ministers have had with Scottish Widows and others that have chosen not to take part, and what concerns they have raised?
Let me be clear: we on the Conservative Benches want a pensions industry that is investing in growing UK businesses, infrastructure, housing and all those elements that drive a healthier economy, but it also has to be for the benefit of savers. Of course, the risks in this case would be borne entirely by private sector workers, while public sector workers would be protected. Finally, we are clear that pension savings should never be there to dig a Chancellor out of the economic hole that she has made.
Torsten Bell
I will directly address two questions and then come to the overall tone of the shadow Chancellor’s remarks. There has been a debate across this House and in the wider industry about mandation, including on UK equities. It has been led by Conservative peers in the House of Lords—Baroness Altmann has called for exactly that—and by some Members in this House, including the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on the Conservative Benches. What we are setting out a voluntary agreement led by the industry. On the industry consensus behind the accord, 90% of the defined contribution industry, by active savers, have signed up this morning—and all providers, including those that did not sign up today, are committed to the idea of more investment in private assets.
More generally, the shadow Chancellor’s tone is disappointing. The truth is that he is a lonely figure. There is a wide consensus about the direction of travel to invest more in private assets, as Canadian and Australian pension funds do, and today’s accord is industry led; it sets benchmarks agreed by the industry, and in fact many industry players want to go further. There should be cross-party consensus. At the event this morning, the Chancellor spelt out that this work builds on the work of her predecessor in supporting the 2023 Mansion House compact. The shadow Chancellor will remember that compact because it was signed under a Conservative Government when he was the Work and Pensions Secretary—he was in the press release, championing it. He was right then, and he is letting himself down now.
I have some news: a response to the accord has just come in from Guy Opperman. Hon. Members will remember him, because he was the Conservative former Member for Hexham and the only Pensions Minister in the last Government to last more than five minutes; he was in post for five years. What did he say about this morning’s accord? He said that it is a “good thing” and “should be welcomed”—he is not wrong.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a trustee of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. The points about fiduciary duty have been made. Given that fund managers will need time to pool together funds that reflect the Government’s wishes and the voluntary accord, when does the Minister expect it to kick in? At that point, might he consider mandation?
Torsten Bell
The decision by the industry, reflecting the question that the Chair of the Select Committee raises about pace of change, is that the targets for asset allocation are for 2030.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Liberal Democrats cautiously welcome the response from the Minister. Clearly, ensuring that people have a good return on their investments is essential, but we welcome this step change where we are looking at investment within the United Kingdom within the appropriate parameters. Would the Minister unpick for us what core lessons he has learned from Australia and Canada, which have already embarked on this path? Also, it has long been a long-term investment opportunity for many in the pensions industry to invest in rental opportunities. How can we drive the opportunities in the social rented sector through the accord?
Finally, the Minister rightly talks about a pipeline of opportunity. Our fear is that these might only be large opportunities, such as the redevelopment of an airport, when many of our communities are worried by the collapse of our town centres; there could be buckets of opportunity highlighted there, which could be driven by appropriate investment through sources like this.
Torsten Bell
It is characteristically bold of the Liberal Democrats to cautiously welcome these measures. However, the hon. Member is right to raise the question of Australia and Canada. We look across at places with similar pension schemes to those in the UK, and the levels of private asset allocation in those schemes is far higher than we see here in the UK, so he is absolutely right on that front.
On the two specific points the hon. Member raises, I agree on investment in the social rented sector. Many of our pension funds are already doing that, and I know that other major ones will be making announcements in that area in the months ahead. He also raises the breadth of investment opportunity. He is absolutely right that there are large, national-level projects, but there are also many more local projects. Where those are financed by the private sector, pension schemes may want to look at them as well.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Will the Minister spell out how this deal provides real change for constituents across the country, and what it means for infrastructure projects, especially housing?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no way that Britain can return to growth unless it starts investing in its future again, rather than living in its past, which is, if we are honest, what we have been doing in recent years. This is part of a much wider story. I hope that there is cross-party consensus—there is certainly consensus across the pensions industry, and among most economists who look at the UK economy—that we need to move to a higher investment level. The finance for that is one thing; some comes from abroad and some comes in domestically, but it also needs to come from our pension schemes.
Obviously, it is for the public sector to play its part, but we should be careful in distinguishing this. The Government are doing our bit on public investment levels, with £113 billion extra of public investment compared with the plans inherited from the Conservative Government. That is doing a lot of the work to move us to the higher investment equilibrium, but there are lots of projects, and in the end most investment happens in the private sector. That is where I welcome the progress made by the pensions industry today.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
I thank the Minister for building on the work of the Mansion House reforms that I introduced two years ago. Westminster works best when Governments do not automatically tear up the work of their predecessors. Who knows, with this constructive attitude, we may see some tax cuts in the autumn Budget.
Does the Minister agree that there is a circularity in the argument that the reason pension funds do not invest in the UK is because returns are lower here? In Australia and America, the stock markets can depend on more than 40% of pension fund assets investing domestically to create bigger returns, compared with just 4% in the UK. Does he agree that if we are really to make these reforms fly, we will need to involve the 28,000 defined benefit schemes as well as the 4,000 defined contribution schemes?
Torsten Bell
That is more like it! That is what we want to hear from the Conservatives. The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that progress was made under the previous Administration. I have made that clear, and the Chancellor made that very clear this morning, as I said. I have discussed with many leading members of the pensions industry the fact that we are explicitly building on the progress that the right hon. Gentleman made, rather than throwing any babies out with the bathwater—even after they have had their nappies changed by the previous Lib Dem Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael).
I very grateful to the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) for the tone of his question. He is also right to highlight the lack of UK bias in some of our pension schemes. We see that right across asset classes, and it is not in the interests of the country in the longer term. As he knows, the focus today is on private assets, but we do need to think more broadly. What are we all after? We are after well-functioning capital markets, both public and private, and these reforms will make a big difference in that regard. I am not saying that there is not more to be done; I am sure that there is, and that he will continue to play an active part in those debates.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee inquiry into the innovation and growth of the regions has repeatedly heard evidence that the lack of access to investment, particularly outside London and the south-east, is a barrier to scaling up our fantastic science and tech start-ups, so I welcome the commitments to put more of our pensions and savings into the productive economy—and I am rather surprised by the response of the shadow Chancellor. Will the Minister say a little more about how these commitments will support growth through innovation?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has long talked about both the issues that she raises: the regional balance of investment and the ability of growing firms to get hold of growth finance. The latter is a long-standing problem in the UK economy, and today’s accord will help to address it. Although we talk about private assets and investment helping with infrastructure, it is also about providing growth capital to a wider range of firms. Obviously, the onus is on us and private asset managers to provide ways for pension funds to direct capital. Those are often small-ticket items, and pension funds will need them to be aggregated up to a higher level. That is exactly the work of the British Business Bank, which I know she has engaged with through the Select Committee. On both points, she is 100% right.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Undoubtedly, the City of London is not in the best possible place when it comes to where it is investing and the amount invested in UK equities. When I was a Minister, we had the Hill review, the Kent review, the Austin review and the capital markets review. Everything was done to seek to open up the City to more initial public offerings and more momentum. This systemic undervaluing of UK equities, and therefore the lack of investment in them, needs to be set alongside the fact that billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is used to enrich the size of pension schemes through tax reliefs. I urge the Minister to continue engaging with the City. I welcome the voluntary commitments given, but we must come to the point where the risk-aversion of DB schemes is called out, considering the amount of taxpayers’ money that is effectively going into them. Will the Minister continue to look carefully at the options available, given that the previous Government sought—and his Government will no doubt continue to seek—to meet them wherever possible?
Torsten Bell
I always enjoy discussing these things with the right hon. Member, as we have done over recent months. He offers a recognition of the challenge facing the country, and in focusing on what we can do to start changing things, he takes a much better position than that adopted by his Front Benchers.
I recognise the right hon. Member’s point about risk-aversion. There is a need for more innovation in our pension landscape more generally—that is one of the areas in which I am glad to see progress. I take a slightly more positive view than he does on the consensus that things need to change. We are seeing that in the pensions industry more generally, partly in relation to investing in a wider range of assets, as well as in embracing the agenda that we are setting out for a smaller number of bigger pension funds that are able to take different kinds of risks.
The right hon. Member asks specifically about public equities. My view is that the accord from the industry today will support that by funding a pipeline of companies that can grow to the level at which they can list publicly. Also, private assets will include private shares, including the alternative investment market and others. I think the picture is slightly more positive than the one he paints, but I am not hiding from the wider question he raises about capital markets. The UK Government, the Chancellor and my colleague the City Minister are focused on that—he will have heard their words on ISA reform and the rest of it. I look forward to further conversations on that.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
How will my hon. Friend bring together UK pension schemes and local and regional governments in order to invest in local infrastructure projects, given that European and global pension schemes invest when UK pensions schemes too often do not?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend asks a great and important question. We will have more to say on this in the months ahead as we come forward with the final report of the pensions investment review and the pension schemes Bill. Some local government pension schemes have a track record of investing locally, but we need to see that at scale, and we need to see it crowding in private investment, including perhaps from private pension funds. That is exactly what our package of reforms, combined with the industry’s work with the accord today, will help us to deliver. He is absolutely right to push us on that, as I am sure he will continue to do in the months ahead given his record in previous roles. We want higher investment levels, not just in some parts but in all parts of the country.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Over the past 10 years, the Dow Jones has grown by 133%, the German DAX by 115% and the Nikkei by 87%, while the FTSE 100 has grown by 23%. It is against that backdrop that there is concern about investment in the United Kingdom. As other Members have said, given the fiduciary duty on asset managers, would they not be investing in the UK anyway if they thought that they were going to get the best return for their policyholders? If they were not already doing so, what has changed to ensure that that fiduciary duty is upheld as asset managers are coerced by the Chancellor to invest in markets that they would not otherwise have invested in?
Torsten Bell
Clearly, the hon. Member has not even read the accord. It talks about private assets. [Interruption.] No, the accord is about private assets while he mentions public assets. He also adopts the very market fundamentalist view that there is no role for Government at all, which is odd given what I hear him talk about in the Chamber day in, day out. Lastly, he also adopts extreme pessimism about the future of the country. I am much more positive about Britain than he is; that is not surprising, because his job is to pull it apart.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
In its first six months, the National Wealth Fund, based in Leeds, has fuelled almost 10,000 jobs and unlocked £1.8 billion of private investment. Can the Minister confirm that this deal will equal more investment in British businesses?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for Leeds and for Britain every single week in this Chamber, and everything she said is completely right. The job of the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank is to work with our nations and regions to ensure that projects can be de-risked and supported and that a wide range of private investors can come in behind that and make sure change actually happens, so that this becomes a country that invests in its future once again.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
At a time when we have been commemorating a significant anniversary of VE Day, does the Minister share my concern that certain large pension firms are refusing to invest in profitable defence industries on spurious ethical grounds? Is that something that his pensions investment review might care to investigate?
Torsten Bell
I hear the point the right hon. Gentleman raises, and we have had those debates in this Chamber in recent months. The UK Government are doing what they need to do to invest in our security and defence and to support our defence industry more generally. We have made it very clear that private investment in those sectors is the right thing to do for our national security and our national economic growth. So far today, there have been calls for mandation and calls to oppose any mandation. There are choices available within pension funds for savers. The vast majority of funds—I think it is 99% within the National Employment Savings Trust, for example—invest in the broad defaults and do invest in the likes of defence companies.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the statement. One of the most woeful things about our national story has been the lack of investment in infrastructure, but that story is not just about GDP and productivity at a national level; it is also about places. In Peterborough, the lack of investment over the last decade has been woeful. I know that the public sector cannot do it all itself. While I put on record my thanks to the Department for Transport for this week announcing business case approval and funding for our station regeneration project, can the Minister explain how this policy will help investment in places like mine? Does it truly meet the definition of “further and faster”?
Torsten Bell
I am sure that Ministers in the Department for Transport will have heard my hon. Friend’s words and that his buttering up will have the desired effect over the years to come. He is right to highlight the synergies between public and private investment. We need to see higher levels of public investment, which is why this Government are putting in place £113 billion over these five years. That is being done because it will deliver real, tangible progress that people can see in their streets. Why do people think Britain went backward over the last 15 years? There are lots of reasons, but high up the list is visible potholes on every single road in Britain. We are turning that around as we speak. That wider investment also gives confidence to the private sector, and we see that across the piece—wherever we are delivering regeneration projects with public sector investment supporting them, it crowds in private investment in exactly the way my hon. Friend sets out.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Before I was elected to this place, I was a trustee of one of the large public pension funds, and a lot of the correspondence I received was from retired social workers who were quite grumpy about their funds being invested in extractive industry companies listed in London. We know that more young people will opt in to invest if they are comfortable with what their pension fund is investing in. What more can the Government do to engage with the industry but also with young savers to ensure there are pension options that reflect their investment preferences?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Lady is right to say that we see higher engagement levels among young people today in investing more broadly. Whenever I go into a school sixth form, a surprising volume of the questions are not, unfortunately for me, on what the Government are doing and how we will bring inequality down and get growth up, but are instead, “How do we make a lot of money quite quickly?” We should support that level of engagement and active investment.
On the hon. Lady’s specific point, schemes are required to set out their policy and approach, and many pension schemes provide members with options for how they wish their funds to be invested. Nothing that has been set out today on the accord gets in the way of those approaches that are already in place.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Mansion House accord and the Minister’s statement. During the last Parliament, I had the pleasure of taking part in a cross-party visit with the then hon. Member for Hexham to see a solar farm that was funded by pension investment. It is a wonderful scheme close to the M4 and my constituency. Could the Minister say a little more about how this announcement will support much broader investment in the green transition, both in the south of England and across the country?
Torsten Bell
I have benefited from conversations with my hon. Friend about this topic, given his previous experience. He is completely right to set out that one of the large reasons—although not the only one—why we need to move to being a higher investment country is that our energy infrastructure has to be upgraded, and fast, if we are going to give this country the energy security it needs. He mentioned solar. This Government signed off in a matter of days and weeks a string of solar farms that needed to be invested in and that had been sitting on Ministers’ desks for year after year. More broadly, when the Leader of the Opposition stands up and says, “We don’t want to see this progress on net zero,” what she is really doing is putting up a sign across Britain saying, “Closed for business.”
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Some 5,500 defined-benefit schemes have £1.6 trillion-worth of assets. The trouble is that the regulatory environment is skewed toward buying an insurance policy at the end of that journey. In order to change the way in which trustees and fund managers invest, the Minister has to change the end state. What discussions has he had with the Pensions Regulator and the Association of British Insurers about changing that particular game?
Torsten Bell
We have discussed some of these issues in the past, and I look forward to the conversations that I am sure we will have in future, not least around the pension schemes Bill. It is true that for many in the industry, buy-out of their defined-benefit scheme is the end point they are looking to reach, and the number that can reach that point has risen significantly in the recent past as more schemes have moved into surplus. Our job is to provide a range of options for those DB schemes. We have discussed the superfund regime that we will bring forward regulations on through the pension schemes Bill. We have also talked in the last few months about the role of surplus release, which can benefit both employers who want to make investments but also scheme members. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that there are a range of options available to schemes, and they can take the one that is in the best interests of their members.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Mansion House accord is clearly a welcome step in aligning the UK’s pool of domestic pension capital with long-term growth, greater economic sovereignty and financial security in retirement. For this to succeed, we need greater clarity in who is stepping up, so can the Minister update the House on what discussions he is having with the industry about how firms intend to report progress under the accord in a clear and transparent way?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is completely right, but I would use a slightly more optimistic tone. It is now the settled consensus of the entire defined-contribution industry that this is the direction we need to move in. Almost every single scheme is moving to thinking about how they will invest in a wider range of private assets. Many of them are looking to go further than the benchmark set out in the accord today. They want to do that because it is in their savers’ interests. It diversifies their assets and, over the longer term, leads to higher returns on average. The exact amount of those returns will obviously depend, but studies show that it ranges from 2% to 12% higher returns. It is absolutely in savers’ interests, and I think there is a broad consensus about doing that.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that we need to make sure that change happens. We will come forward in the pension schemes Bill with more details about how these developments will be monitored to make sure that change is delivered, because in the end, what the British people want to see is less talking about this and more actual investment.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Pension funds are, by definition, long-term capital and are therefore particularly well suited to being invested in long-term infrastructure. British pension funds investing in British infrastructure should be welcomed by us all, but I would caution against any specific mandating within sectors, which I fear may lead to lower performance. The thing about private markets is that they have almost no transparency in terms of valuation and liquidity. I urge the Government to encourage the pension funds voluntarily to be more open about how they value these private investments, to ensure greater confidence.
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for what I think is his support for the accord—
Torsten Bell
He is nodding, so I will take that as support. He will worry that he sounds dangerously like a Liberal Democrat when he sits on the fence as much as he just did. At least the shadow Chancellor has the guts to say he opposes it, because he thinks that that is simple politics to get him through the day. I am glad to see that the hon. Member has not learned enough, and I hope he enjoys the fence sitting while it lasts.
The hon. Member is right to say that schemes will want to be transparent about their asset allocation, partly so that savers can see what is going on, but also, to refer back to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson), so that the country as a whole can see that progress is being made.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
It was a disappointing but unsurprising response from the Conservative Front Bench, and similarly from the SNP, to talk our country down. I congratulate those in the City on this announcement, which will mean new funding for companies across the UK, driving growth. Will the Minister set out what this means for constituents such as mine in Central Ayrshire and across Scotland?
Torsten Bell
That was a characteristically punchy and accurate contribution by my hon. Friend, and that is the difference between this Government and some of the Opposition parties: we want to see Britain succeed. We are investing in Britain’s success, and in the long run it will be higher investment, higher growth and higher wages that will turn round the long 15 years of stagnation.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Daily Mail has said in its coverage of the accord today that industry leaders have warned that the Government must deliver a pipeline of investment opportunities to meet the new targets. What faith can savers have that this Government can deliver on that given that they touted GB Energy as a fantastic investment vehicle when in fact it is a damp squib?
Torsten Bell
Savers can have lots of confidence, because the pipeline is already being delivered: solar farms approved; onshore wind happening after being banned for years under the Conservatives; the national grid actually being built out for once; homes being built right across this country, and being opposed by Conservative MPs right across this country. The pipeline is happening, because this country is building once again.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome the agreement that has been reached today. Does the Minister agree that the pension funds are able to make those ambitious commitments only because of the improved investment environment that this Labour Government are nurturing through economic stability—economic stability that is vital to protect working people, including those in Paisley and Renfrewshire South?
Torsten Bell
Exactly; that is what is going on. I speak to pension funds every week who say they are looking to increase their allocation of UK assets because political stability has been delivered—because Liz Truss has been exited from this building. I speak to Australian and Canadian pension funds as well who are saying that they want to open an office in the UK because political and economic stability has arrived.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Increased investment in the United Kingdom is always welcome. Will the Minister confirm that this Government will never interfere in the fiduciary duty of pension trustees to get the best return for their members?
Torsten Bell
The job of pension trustees is absolutely to deliver for their savers and the accord today is delivering exactly that, making sure that we have diversity of asset allocations in our pension schemes. So the answer to the hon. Member’s question is yes.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The shadow Chancellor spoke about public sector workers benefiting from this kind of investment. Before I came to the House, I was the chair of the Cornwall local government pension scheme, which very successfully invested 7.5% in local and social impact investments—in local renewables and local affordable housing. Will the Minister ensure that more of that happens in the future?
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We should focus on the accord today, but the LGPS is a very important part of our pensions landscape; there are £400 billion-worth of assets under management, rising to £1 trillion-worth over the next two decades. It is right that we build on the LGPS track record of local investment to make sure that we get the absolute best value for that investment both for taxpayers in local areas and for local communities. That is exactly what our reforms will do—we will be coming forward with the final details in the pension investment review final report in the coming weeks—to make sure that we have bigger, professional, well-governed and locally investing pension pools.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his positive answers to the questions that have been posed from all parts of the Chamber today. While it is encouraging to see 17 workplace pension providers investing 10% in private assets, it is disappointing that Scottish Widows, for example, is refusing to sign up. What further can be done to ensure that investment will be focused not simply on London firms, as others have referred to, but throughout the United Kingdom, including the tremendous potential in Northern Ireland?
Torsten Bell
Some 90% of the industry, by active saver numbers, have signed up to the accord today, and the small number of large providers who have not signed up are supportive of the move towards greater private investment. There is a very broad consensus across the industry that this is the right way to go. Unrelated to that, but much more importantly, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to see that investment right across the country, including in Northern Ireland and in his own constituency.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I welcome the accord and the Minister’s words. People in Dartford are awaiting further news of a funding package for the lower Thames crossing, which the Government consented recently and is incredibly welcome to residents there. Does the Minister agree that this is just the sort of shovel-ready infrastructure project which pension funds could invest in both for the benefit of their savers and to drive economic growth for constituents including my residents?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The lower Thames crossing has been consented, and it is another example of this Government getting on with getting the country building again, and when we come to the spending review—[Interruption.] If I were in the Conservative party, I would not be talking about the lower Thames crossing; I really would not be. The regime for planning that the Conservatives put in place meant that hundreds of millions of pounds have been taken to build precisely diddly squat. This Government have given consent, and we will be setting out in the coming months the provision for that scheme to go ahead.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and Treasury colleagues on helping to deliver such an important agreement. The accord will unlock up to £25 billion of additional capital. It is a huge vote of confidence in the Government’s demand-side reform agenda to get Britain building and in our economic strategy, providing stability. What steps will the Government take to help make sure that investment is ramped up as quickly as possible, and to ensure that regulators help encourage investment of pension funds directly in real economic assets, for instance by looking at changes to the matching adjustment?
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is nice to hear the positivity coming from him and other Members in this House who believe that Britain can do better than the last 15 absolutely terrible years. The investments we will be making, delivering on the supply of capital with the likes of the reforms today, while allowing building for housing, transport projects and the rest, are exactly what will make the difference in the longer term.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Innovation is one of Britain’s great strengths, with fast-growing firms driving over £1 trillion into the UK economy and supporting 3.2 million jobs. However, many of those firms, many of which are based in my constituency, still face stubborn barriers to scaling up, particularly around accessing long-term finance. How will the Mansion House accord help channel greater investment from pension funds into those scale-ups to help them grow?
Torsten Bell
Innovation is one of the ways in which we drive higher productivity, which is the only lasting way, alongside higher levels of investment, that we will see higher wages for all of our constituents, which is what everyone on both sides of this House wants. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a long-lasting barrier to scaling up for our innovative companies right across sectors. That point was raised earlier by the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). Specifically, we need our pension funds to invest in a wider range of private assets, and that will include through venture capital, which is how we make sure that we provide that growth financing that we all need to see. That is for the private sector to do, as has been mentioned, but it is our job to support that, and that is what the British Business Bank, drawing on some of the work put in place by the previous Government but now being scaled up, is seeking to do.
Point of Order
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 20 March the Foreign Secretary said in relation to the conflict in Gaza:
“There are atrocities on both sides”.—[Official Report, 20 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 529.]
On 24 March, I wrote to the Attorney General asking how and when His Majesty’s Government arrived at that determination. I further asked the Attorney General about the legal implications of the UK selling weapons to Israel directly or indirectly, and whether he believed it legal to supply those weapons when the Government had decreed that Israel was guilty of atrocity crime. On 8 April I received a letter from the Attorney General’s Office saying that he did not consider this to be his responsibility and that my letter had been passed to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It is now 13 May, seven weeks after I first wrote to the Attorney General, and I still have had no reply.
This is not new, Madam Deputy Speaker. The record will show that I had to raise a similar point of order in November, when neither the FCDO nor the Attorney General’s Office responded to my letter about the Foreign Secretary’s interpretation of the genocide convention. Can you advise me on how I can get a reply to my questions, and how we as Back Benchers can have confidence that the Government will answer Members’ questions, even those that they wish had not been asked?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Due to the hon. Member’s experience, I think he will know that the matter is not down to the Chair. He will appreciate that Mr Speaker respects timely responses to correspondence and requests for answers to questions from Back Benchers. There is no doubt that not only has the hon. Member put his point on the record, but those on the Treasury Front Bench will relay that swiftly to the appropriate Department.
A34 Slip Road Safety (East Ilsley and Beedon)
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a review of the safety of the A34 slip roads at East Ilsley and Beedon; and to require the publication of plans to address any deficiencies in safety identified by that review.
My constituency is home to some beautiful rural villages, and East Ilsley and Beedon, nestled in the North Wessex downs, are prime examples. Both villages are named in the Domesday Book of 1086, and for centuries they have been home to west Berkshire families. Both have beautiful grade I listed churches, rich agricultural traditions and a vibrant community. Many residents of these idyllic villages use the A34 every day to get to work, take their children to school and travel to Reading, Oxford, Swindon and beyond. However, to get on to the A34, they first have to make a perilous journey down what must be some of England’s most dangerous slip roads.
The slip roads, especially southbound at East Ilsley and northbound at Beedon, are intimidating and dangerous even for experienced drivers. National Highways data shows that in the five years up to 2023, tragically there were multiple fatalities and many serious accidents at these slip roads, and my constituents tell me of many more near misses. In fact, 91% of the nearly 500 people who filled out my survey on the slip roads had personally experienced issues on them, and 96% agreed that they were dangerous.
In the words of my constituent Jenny, the
“lack of visibility is treacherous and the slip roads are way too short.”
My constituent Coreen told me that using the slip roads feels like “dicing with death”, especially in the winter months when it is dark and raining. Jo and Steve told me that they often have to brake to a stop on the slip road, as there are no spaces in the near side lane to enter the flow of traffic. Even as an experienced driver, Paul finds the slip roads to be the most stressful part of any journey. Helena feels concerned for her children’s safety, as they use the slip roads to commute to work. Nicola’s son sadly experienced a four-car pile-up due to the lack of visibility.
My constituents should not feel afraid when commuting to work or every time that their child drives into town, and residents feel that the situation is only worsening. My constituent Arabella told me that the roads are getting more dangerous as the traffic on the A34 increases. That volume of traffic, including HGVs, is rerouted through the narrow rural lanes of small villages when accidents lead to road closures. Instead of “dicing with death”, in the words of my constituent, many residents are choosing to avoid the slip roads at East Ilsley and Beedon and instead join the A34 at Chieveley or West Ilsley, adding significant amounts of time to their journeys and increasing traffic on our rural lanes. Others are thinking about leaving the villages altogether. My constituent Nick is one of those people; he is too concerned about the risk to his young family.
The human impact of these slip roads is my primary concern, but there is also a knock-on effect on economic growth. The A34 is an economically significant road, connecting the major ports of the south-east with industrial heartlands in the midlands. Every time there is an accident, the knock-on disruption not only prevents people from getting to work on time, but impacts the businesses relying on those deliveries. The situation is clearly unsustainable, and something must be done.
After raising the issue in Parliament in February with the Roads Minister, who I am delighted to see in her place today, and meeting the National Highways regional director to discuss my survey findings, I took the National Highways route manager on a site visit to East Ilsley and Beedon to experience the issue at first hand. We spent the morning having to accelerate along the slip roads, grappling with short bends and blind spots and dodging HGVs. It was patently obvious to everyone in the car that my constituents are right to be alarmed.
I am proud that this Labour Government are committed to improving the safety of England’s roads. We are delivering the first road safety strategy in over a decade and have provided £4.8 billion of funding for National Highways for the next year. I welcome the fact that National Highways will invest in safety measures in the short term.
I know that this Government’s commitment to road safety can deliver tangible change for the people of west Berkshire’s villages, and the slip roads at East Ilsley and Beedon urgently need significant safety improvements. That is why I am delighted to present this Bill to urge the Government to provide for a comprehensive review of the safety of these dangerous slip roads and ensure that the necessary improvements are made as soon as possible. National Highways has already recommended a review, known as the “A34 Improvements North and South of Oxford” study. I want to see this delivered quickly, alongside any necessary improvements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear that her Department is focused on improving safety for road users, and I look forward to working with her to make that a reality for my constituents.
Before I finish, I must note that I am not the only person who has taken on this issue. I pay tribute to all those who have made the case for change. They include, but are not limited to, local residents; the A34 Action Group; my neighbouring MPs and the sponsors of this Bill, the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr Dillon) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover); and our predecessors, including Laura Farris and Lord Benyon. This has been a truly cross-party endeavour, and I am grateful for the support of colleagues from across the political spectrum. We all want the same thing—a safer A34—and by taking on this campaign, I am building on their excellent work.
When my constituent Barbora’s car broke down in Southampton, she called the AA. Once she told them that she was from East Ilsley, they immediately knew and said, “That’s the village with the dangerous slip roads, isn’t it?” I want East Ilsley and Beedon to be known for their tight-knit communities, beautiful scenery and unique heritage, not for how dangerous their slip roads are. By securing a comprehensive review and delivering the right safety measures, we can make these slip roads safe for local people and make a big difference for our community.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Lee Dillon, Olly Glover and Olivia Bailey present the Bill.
Olivia Bailey accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June, and to be printed (Bill 236).
UK-EU Summit
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 104 / Noes: 402 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 321 / Noes: 102 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (a) in the name of the Prime Minister.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises that the Conservative Party stands by the result of the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union (EU); calls on the Government to stand by that decision at the summit with the EU on 19 May 2025, to put the national interest first and not to row back on Brexit, for example by re-introducing free movement through a EU youth mobility scheme, accepting compulsory asylum transfers, creating dynamic alignment between the UK and the EU, by submitting the UK to further oversight from the European Court of Justice or by joining the EU’s carbon tax scheme which will lead to higher energy bills; further calls on the Government to stand by the will of the British people by ensuring that no new money is paid to the EU, that there is no reduction in UK fishing rights, that NATO remains the foundation of European security and that the UK can continue to undertake strategic and defence agreements with non-EU partners; and also calls on the Government to put the negotiated outcome to a vote in the House of Commons.
It gives me enormous pleasure to open this debate on one of the subjects that has been central to this House since I was first elected in 2017. It is a debate that is necessary this week, because we know that next week, the EU and this Government are going to meet in London to discuss the next steps in our arrangements. Before that agreement is reached, it is important that this House receives some clarity on what this Government are fighting for, what they stand for and what their red lines are, because even at this late stage, this House is unaware of the Government’s intentions.
I do not know whether you remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there was a very good TV programme in the 1980s called “Quantum Leap”. In it, an American scientist, Dr Samuel Butler—[Hon. Members: “Beckett!”] I stand corrected, and I apologise to the House. Dr Beckett stepped into the quantum leap accelerator and vanished, and awoke to find himself in strange new forms that were not his own. Every time the Prime Minister speaks, I think, “Which body has he leapt into now?” Is it the Prime Minister who spent his early life chastising all immigration law on the grounds that it was racist, or the Prime Minister who has a new-found love of strict immigration rules? Is it the Prime Minister who promised to protect winter fuel payments, or the one who immediately cast them away? Is it the Prime Minister who promised to protect farmers, but immediately did the opposite; the Prime Minister who said he knew what a woman was, but then changed his mind; or the Prime Minister who said he would not put taxes on working people, but then promptly did?
The Prime Minister does not know what he stands for or which way he looks, and that is a very difficult thing in negotiations. Our position is simple: there can be no going back. The Conservative party fought long and hard to take control of our laws, our borders and our money, and with those powers, we succeeded in securing 70 new trade deals and the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe. The naysayers, gloomsters and dismal voices on the Opposition Benches said that it would come to nothing, but in 2015, UK trade—[Interruption.] I look forward to correcting the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), who chunters from a sedentary position.
Alex Burghart
No.
In 2015, UK international trade stood at just over £1 trillion a year, but by 2023, it stood at £1.6 trillion a year—all in spite of Brexit. Our concern is that this Government have proven themselves to be really terrible negotiators. We have previously heard the Administration talk about the need for ruthless pragmatism; one can only wonder whether that is the same ruthless pragmatism that gave us the Chagos deal. When I was a history teacher, we used to say that the worst deal in history was the one that the Lenape people of north-east America did with the Dutch settlers. As the House will recall, they gave away Manhattan island for 60 guilders and a handful of beads, but at least they got 60 guilders and a handful of beads—they did not spend £18 billion of their own money on giving away their territory, as this Government have.
I wonder whether it is the same ruthless pragmatism that immediately gave out £9.4 billion in above-inflation pay rises to the unionised sectors in return for nothing at all—no agreements on productivity or reform. Is it the same ruthless pragmatism that gave us the collapse of the £450 million AstraZeneca deal, the botched steel mess that we all had to return during recess for, or the missed opportunities of the US tariff arrangement the other day? Our concern, of course, is that this will happen again.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I wish I could say that I was enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but that would be stretching it a bit too far. I do not know why he is presenting all these faux disagreements; does he not appreciate that the Government are as hard Brexiteers as he is? How much damage does this Brexit have to do before both parties decide that it is far too much, and start to look at it seriously?
Alex Burghart
I always have respect and time for the hon. Gentleman’s wisdom, but I feel I must correct him. The Government are not hard Brexiteers—they are just Brexiteers today. Tomorrow, who knows? What we know is that they were against leaving the EU, and then they changed their minds. Those people who change their minds on such fundamental issues may well change them back—they may well turn on a sixpence and do it again.
The fact of the matter is that the Government have entered these negotiations with no clear objectives, and with red lines so thin and washed-out that they can be quickly discarded. However, today is an opportunity for the Labour party to come clean about what it wants and what it is doing, because Labour Members will have to vote on our motion, which sets out our red lines. Those red lines are very clear and precise, and in keeping with the will of the British people.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The hon. Member talks about the official Opposition’s motion being precise, but that is factually incorrect, in that the motion conflates freedom of movement with youth mobility. If youth mobility is good enough for Australia, Canada and Uruguay, it does not run against the red lines regarding freedom of movement. Does the hon. Member not understand that?
Alex Burghart
It is freedom of movement for young people, is it not? What we are asking for today is for the Labour party to set out what its clear position is. In a moment, I will explain why that is very important.
The fact is that up until this point, we have seen chaos in these negotiations. That will be easy for the Labour party to understand, because on 24 February, we heard the Home Secretary rule out a youth mobility deal—the Government were not going to do it and were not looking into it. At the beginning of March, though, the Postmaster General suggested in a Westminster Hall debate that he was open to such a deal, but then on 24 April, the Postmaster General ruled it out again. [Interruption.] I mean the Paymaster General—would the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) like to be Postmaster General? Okay, Paymaster General it is. He ruled it out on 24 April, but then at the beginning of May, he once again ruled it in.
This does not end with the youth mobility scheme. On 23 January, Labour Ministers ruled out joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean area. Three days later, the Chancellor said that the Government were looking at it, and then on 3 February, the Government ruled it out again. The Government do not know what they are doing; they do not know what they want to achieve, have no objectives, and have very blurred red lines. There is an emerging sense that this will be a good deal—a good deal for the EU, in which the balance of benefits will run against the UK. Despite the fact that the Government do not wish to give a running commentary —they are content to give a running commentary to the press—it seems that the EU’s demands are being met in this negotiation, but because the UK has no demands, its demands cannot be met.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman has referred to “Quantum Leap”. The point about Sam Beckett is that he kept leaping back into the past, because he could not cope with the future—that does seem rather apposite. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with many Labour Members that one of the important things about next Monday is that we will be able to move forward on the security and defence partnership. Given the threat posed by President Putin, can the hon. Gentleman put aside his blindness to the benefits to this country of co-operating with Europe and at least agree that that partnership would be a good thing to secure?
Alex Burghart
I am glad to be the one to break it to the hon. Lady that we already co-operate with Europe on defence, and have done so for a very long time. She will know that the cornerstone of our defence is—and always has been, since the second world war—NATO. Now is an apt moment to remember that, because today is the 85th anniversary of the first speech that Sir Winston Churchill made as Prime Minister, given from that Dispatch Box, or, rather, from the Dispatch Box that was there before the Chamber was bombed. It was his “blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech.
It is obviously incredibly important that we co-operate with our European partners on defence, but that is why we do. We spend 2.5% of GDP on defence—and the Opposition would like to spend 3%, and more—largely to help defend Europe, and we know of no reason, because the Government have not given one, why NATO is insufficient for that task.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
British firms are calling for co-operation with our European allies so that there is investment in increased defence spending across Europe, including in my constituency. What would the shadow Minister say to them? The Government are calling for a security deal. Does he not agree that we need one with the EU?
Alex Burghart
I would say that if the terms of the deal are that the UK must pay to have access to that fund, we must ask very serious questions of our European allies about why we should have to contribute when we are already committed to their security. If the Government choose to go down that route, it is for the Government to explain why that should be the case.
The truth is that NATO must continue to be the cornerstone of our defence, but over the weekend there were reports in The Sunday Times that the EU might be inserted into our chain of command, which would be a very significant change.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Absolute nonsense.
Alex Burghart
From a sedentary position, the Paymaster General says that that is absolute nonsense. I am pleased to hear it, but the right hon. Gentleman has not yet had an opportunity to tell the House that. It was clear that someone in the Government, or within the EU, was briefing journalists over the weekend that this might be true. [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Gentleman needs to take responsibility for his special advisers. If there is to be a defence pact, it is for the Government to explain why it would make us safer.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
One thing puzzles me slightly about the position taken by the Government, which is a bit like that on the Chagos islands: we already owned them, but we entered a negotiation to give them away and rent them back. In this instance, Europe threatens us that we cannot talk about other matters until we sign up to this defence deal, but we already have a defence deal and we already co-operate: we have built weapons with France, Sweden and various other countries. Rather than what they would lose, what is it that we gain?
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend has a great deal of experience of these matters, and he has made a series of very important points, but it is for the Government to explain why this would be in the interests of the UK. The summit is taking place next week, and so far the Government have not done so.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Given that the last Government reduced our Army to a size not seen since the Napoleonic era, we should take no lectures on defence from Opposition Members. The people who will benefit from this are the defence contractors in my constituency who have been struggling to sell their components to the EU since Brexit and have had to cancel contracts, which has been affecting jobs all over the west midlands.
Alex Burghart
When I first arrived in the House, the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party was advocating leaving NATO and giving up Trident, so I will take no lectures from those on his side of the House. My party is committed to 3% defence spending, and I think that those defence contractors in his constituency would very much like to see a Conservative Government spend some of that money in his patch.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend care to disabuse Labour Members who seem to be under the impression that whatever amount we put in, somehow our defence contractors in the UK will get more out of the fund than we are contributing? The history of defence procurement in Europe is that France and Germany invariably make sure that they get more out of it than they put in, and we are always the losers. I do not think we will suddenly become winners when we are not a member of the EU.
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend’s experience in these matters speaks volumes. The truth is that we must be absolutely certain that this will not be just another scheme for funnelling money into French defence companies while keeping it away from defence companies in other jurisdictions.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my hope that in next week’s negotiations the Government will make it abundantly clear to our European partners that for decades this country’s contribution to our collective defence has been well above the level that our economy, our population or our size would dictate, and that Europe has benefited from that? While I am in no way recommending a Trumpian approach to these matters, it is nevertheless important for the Government to make clear to our interlocutors the scale of our contribution to collective defence.
Alex Burghart
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that the UK has made a disproportionate, but necessary, contribution to European defence for many decades. I think that we were right to do so, and I would support our doing so into the future, but it is only right for our friends to recognise that contribution and to treat us not as an external power coming to parlay, but rather as a close and long-term friend whose loyalty has already been proved many times over.
It would also be good today to have clarification from the Government of their position on EU lawmaking. I was lucky enough to have a call with my friend Sir William Cash this morning. It was an unusually brief call, lasting only 20 minutes. [Laughter.] Sir Bill put it very clearly to me: he said that in any new arrangement with the EU it was important for us to see no EU lawmaking, no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice and no attempt to reapply the principles of EU law in our courts, because one principle of our departure from the EU was that we would take back control of our money, our borders and our laws.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The hon. Member is right to say that there must be no further surrender to EU law, but, in the same vein, is there not a need to recover the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom? I represent a part of the United Kingdom where in 300 areas of law it is not this House but a foreign Parliament that makes the laws. Should the starting point of a reset not be recovering the integrity of this Parliament in the territory of this United Kingdom?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point. It is one that he has made often in the House, and I look forward to his making it to the Minister in a few moments’ time.
On the subject of fish, we are clear about the fact that there should be no multi-year deal, because that would reduce the UK’s leverage in future negotiations with the EU. We should have 12 nautical miles of exclusive access. That is what our fishermen want, and it is what the Conservative party supports. There should also be fair distribution of quota schemes, and no trade barriers during disputes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has made the position very clear. This is an opportunity to defend the UK’s fishermen, and to build on the deal that we had previously from the Brexit negotiations. We should not be giving up the freedom of our fishermen.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
It is important to remember the history here. There was no common fisheries policy until the prospect of Britain’s joining the common market arose, and then those countries created one simply so that they could rip us off.
Alex Burghart
Ain’t that the truth! Here is an opportunity for the Government to give guarantees and securities to our fishermen.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The hon. Member is talking about fishing rights. Under his Government, the UK catch suddenly dropped by 80%. Will he now apologise for the damage that he and his party did to the UK fishing industry?
Alex Burghart
We are the party that took fishermen out of the common fisheries policy, which is something that fishing communities wanted. We very much hope that this Government will not concede the rights that were hard won in those negotiations.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I wonder whether the shadow Minister has quantum leapt into a body in which Brexit has been a huge success. Could he say either way?
Alex Burghart
If the hon. Gentleman had heard my opening remarks, he would have heard that in 2015, the volume of UK trade was just over £1 trillion. By 2023, despite Brexit, that had gone up to £1.6 trillion. Sometimes the people who were on the other side of the argument, many of whom had understandable concerns—we were making a big constitutional change that had not been made in over 40 years—seem trapped in the past, like Dr Samuel Beckett, and unable to realise that there have been significant improvements in the UK’s trading position because of the freedoms that we acquired, and because of the 70 trade deals that the previous Government brought in. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to change his altered reality, there will be an audience for it in this House.
On the emissions trading scheme, we know that carbon prices are higher in the EU than they are in the UK. There is great concern among certain industries that if, as has been trailed in the press, the Government are planning to sign us up to the EU’s emissions trading system, there will be a heavy price to pay, particularly in the ceramics industry. Two weeks ago, we saw a ceramics factory in Stoke-on-Trent close, citing high energy prices under this Labour Government.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Sadly, high energy prices are a result of the policy of the hon. Gentleman’s Government, who had four industrial strategies, all of which promised significant help for the ceramics sector and it never materialised. One of the biggest problems for the ceramics sector is ensuring that the European Union’s food contact regulations, which it has to comply with to sell its wares, match the British system. If he were in power today, what would he do to ensure that our trading arrangements allow for free trade of the goods that my city makes and sells into Europe?
Alex Burghart
Well, it will be irrelevant if all the businesses shut down because of high energy prices. The hon. Gentleman can talk about the previous Administration, but it was his party that promised to cut energy bills by £300. Instead, they continue to go up, and the market expectation is that energy prices will continue to rise under this Government. That would be very bad for ceramics factories, such as the ones in his constituency.
There are a range of other things that we could go into. If there are going to be negotiations with the EU, there are plenty of things that might be raised, but we do not know whether the Government have raised them. They include the arrangements with France on illegal migration, mutual recognition of food standards, conformity certification, touring musicians, rules of origin and so on. The point is that the Government have not told us whether they want these things, whether they are pursuing them and whether it is negotiating them on our behalf.
We on this side of the House are clear: following the referendum, this country turned a page, and it is very important that the Labour party does not turn it back. The fact is that we are on the brink of witnessing yet another disastrous Labour deal. We know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. To leave the House in no doubt, if and when my party is back in power, we will reverse any handover of power, any imposition of EU law, any new rights for the ECJ and any new budgetary commitments. It is my party that took the country out of the EU, and it is my party that will keep it out. I commend this motion to the House.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and insert:
“notes the overwhelming mandate on which the Government was elected, which included resetting the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union to deepen ties with its European friends, neighbours and allies; welcomes the Government’s commitment only to agree a deal that is in the UK’s national interest and is in line with the manifesto on which the Government was elected; supports the Government’s commitment to agree a new and ambitious security agreement between the UK and the EU to help tackle common threats, whilst noting that NATO is the cornerstone of the UK’s defence; recognises the Government’s ambition to negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary and veterinary agreement to address the cost of food and to tackle a range of other issues to reduce barriers to trade; and further supports improvements to the UK-EU relationship that are aimed at making the UK safer, more secure and more prosperous, in line with the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change.”
First of all, I should say what a pleasure it always is to debate with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who is across the Dispatch Box from me. Discussions with the EU are ongoing, and I am sure that Members from across the House will understand that I cannot, this afternoon, pre-empt what will be unveiled at next week’s summit. We will not provide a running commentary on negotiations, nor would this House expect us to. However, after the summit has concluded, we will take the earliest possible opportunity to update Parliament on what has been delivered, and on the impact that any measures will have.
I will focus my remarks on how this Government are improving the lives of working people and making the people of the UK safer, more secure and more prosperous, and I am grateful to the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to talk about that. We have heard from the Opposition today, and from the Leader of the Opposition in recent days, that the only thing that has been surrendered is the credibility of the Conservative party as a party of opposition, let alone a party of government. The only quantum leap made is by the Conservative party, which has gone from government to irrelevance.
2025 started so well, didn’t it? The Leader of the Opposition was turning over a new leaf and taking responsibility for her mistakes. She said of the previous Government:
“We were making announcements without proper plans. We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU.”
However, with negotiations ongoing, today the Conservatives are rehashing the arguments of the past. There is no analysis of where the United Kingdom’s interest lies in the mid-2020s. The Conservatives simply do not believe in Britain’s ability to win. Perhaps that is no surprise, given the 14 years of failure that they delivered for our country.
This Government were elected in July 2024 on a mandate to deliver change for working people, and we are delivering on the promises of our manifesto. If the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar does not know about the objectives of the negotiation, I suggest that he read the manifesto—a manifesto that delivered 411 Labour Members of Parliament, as the public overwhelmingly rejected the Conservative party.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
May I point out that the Conservative motion says that the Conservatives stand by the result of the 2016 referendum, but the Labour amendment does not say the same of the Labour party? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that a one-term mandate in one election trumps a referendum result, or does he respect the referendum result of 2016?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I absolutely respect the referendum result. If the hon. Gentleman bothered to read our manifesto, he would discover that there are red lines: we will not go back to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement. Let me say to the Conservative party that delivering on our manifesto promises will unlock huge benefits for the United Kingdom, reduce barriers to trade and accelerate economic growth. In an uncertain world, it will keep us safer, more secure and more prosperous. That is what this Government are working towards.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Minister has referred to the Labour manifesto several times in a few minutes. Did it say anything at all about accepting dynamic alignment or becoming a rule taker—yes or no?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The objective of negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement, so that agricultural products, food and drink can be traded more cheaply between the UK and the EU, is in the Labour manifesto, and we have a mandate for that. The Government will put more money in the pockets of working people and create greater long-term stability and security for the British people. Apparently, the Opposition are against that, and so, I hear, is Reform. To be fair, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) says that he thinks the current deal with the EU can be improved, but he has never told us exactly how, and we wait to find out.
Since last July, this Government have been getting on with the job of resetting our relationship with the European Union in a number of important areas.
Pete Wishart
Right now, the young people of this country are confined to this island, and cannot live, work or move freely across the continent. There are discussions about a youth mobility scheme. Will the Minister commit himself to securing a mobility scheme for the young people of this country?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I would not describe the hon. Gentleman as being confined to any island. I have already spoken about smart, controlled youth mobility schemes; the previous Government agreed a number of them.
This Government are exercising diplomacy in our national interest. We need only take one look at the trade deals that we have signed with the United States —[Hon. Members: “Terrible!”]—and India in the last fortnight to see that we are delivering for the British people. Conservative Front Benchers shout from a sedentaryposition about the US deal, but they can tell that to the workers at Jaguar Land Rover whose jobs have been saved by the deal.
I can tell the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) that I was in Scotland yesterday to talk to the Scotch Whisky Association about the enormous benefits for Scotland of the India deal. He should welcome that deal, not criticise the Government. Britain is back on the world stage, no thanks to the carping from the Opposition
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the point about carping from the Opposition, I will.
Harriet Cross
The Minister mentioned that he was in Scotland yesterday, which is wonderful. As a Scottish MP, I am in Scotland every week, and I quite often meet people from distilleries, who have recently said that they are suffering because of the family farm tax that the Government have brought in. Their farmers are downsizing and not investing, which is reducing their supply of grain. Are the Minister and the Government proud of that legacy, and that contribution to the Scotch Whisky Association?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am very proud of the extra £25 billion that we have put into the national health service. Apparently, the ludicrous position of the Opposition is that they are in favour of the investment, but they will not tell us exactly how they would raise the money.
I put it to the Opposition: is there any country they actually want a British business to trade with? In government, the Conservatives promised a trade deal with India by Diwali—to be fair, they did not say which Diwali—but they delivered absolutely nothing for the British people. We secure an India trade deal, and they complain about it. We secure an economic deal with the United States—long promised by the last Government, but never delivered—and they do not like that. I like to be constructive, so can I make a suggestion to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith)? Maybe he should change his title to shadow Secretary of State for no business and no trade, because when it comes to the trade deals that we have negotiated, that is the Opposition’s position.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I was self-employed, actually. I would be careful about making remarks without knowing the facts.
While the Opposition continue to turn inwards on themselves, this Government will focus on delivery. Our priority is translating that strengthened relationship with the European Union into a long-term UK-EU strategic partnership that improves the lives of working people and puts more money in their pockets.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will have heard what the shadow Minister said about the Conservatives’ pride in Brexit. It seems to me that they are proud of the terrible Brexit deal that they delivered and completely unable to bring forward any constructive ideas. They have managed to set out five red lines, but does the Minister agree that the Opposition have nothing to be proud of when it comes to the botched Brexit deal that they brought forward, nothing to be proud of in making Britons poorer, and nothing to be proud of in making trade harder? Will he share with us some of the framework that he will be discussing?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Conservative Members sit there defending the status quo, but if they bothered to speak to any businesses trading internationally, they would know that the status quo is not working for Britain.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister has spoken about UK deals with India and the United States, and next Tuesday there will be a UK deal, or a reset, with the European Union. Where is Northern Ireland’s place in that? When the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and I have asked where the benefit is for Northern Ireland from the UK-India and UK-US trade deals, we have had no answers from the Government.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have visited Belfast as a Minister more than once, and I have listened very carefully to businesses in Northern Ireland about their priorities. Northern Ireland has dual-market access, and I am absolutely supportive of Northern Ireland taking the greatest possible economic advantage of that. On the Windsor framework and the checks at the border on the Irish sea, if we are able to secure a sanitary and phytosanitary deal, that will obviously reduce the necessity for checks at that border, which I hope the hon. Gentleman would be able to support.
On safety, the trade and co-operation agreement agreed by the Conservatives left a gap in our ability to tackle crime and criminality, and stopped opportunities to work with European countries on closing the loopholes allowing illegal migration. We have to improve on that. On security, which was raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, we are responding to a once-in-a-generation moment for the collective security of our continent through an ambitious UK-EU security and defence relationship. In the shadow of the 80th anniversary of VE Day, which gave us all powerful historical reminders in our constituencies up and down the country, securing our collective future is paramount.
I remind the House that NATO was the creation of that great post-war Labour Government of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin. It has been the bedrock of our security over three quarters of a century after the treaty was signed, and that will not change. In fact, a new defence and security pact strengthens European security and strengthens NATO, and to suggest otherwise is irresponsible. The United Kingdom is rapidly increasing defence spending, and it is playing a leadership role on Ukraine. The only person who would benefit from talk of division across Europe is Vladimir Putin.
On growth, the Government’s central mission is to slash red tape at the border, making it easier for UK businesses to trade with the EU and to cut costs for businesses and consumers.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I am so pleased that the Minister is trying to negotiate a new SPS deal and working to remove the red tape. Would he agree with me that businesses in my constituency, such as Tri-Wall in Monmouthshire, are absolutely desperate to remove that red tape, so they can increase exports again, as they did before the botched Brexit deal?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and businesses up and down the country will benefit from a reduction in trade barriers.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Minister is making a good case. Would he agree with me that closer UK-EU defence ties do not diminish our role in NATO, but complement it, especially at a time when transatlantic security simply cannot be taken for granted? Would he also agree that securing access to programmes such as the Security Action for Europe fund would be a win for British manufacturers and for our strategic capability?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is in the UK’s interests, and this would be the worst possible moment to start fragmenting defence across Europe.
Let me just say that on the three pillars of this negotiation—safety, security and growth—this Government will deliver for our country’s future, reducing the cost of living and creating jobs. The Opposition motion is stuck in the past. Everybody else has moved on and, frankly, it is time for them to move on, too.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The Minister raises the important issue of the cost of living. Given the dire economic impacts of Brexit, including food inflation being eight times higher than it would otherwise have been, and the costs of leaving the European Union amounting to £1 million an hour in 2022, according to data from the Office for National Statistics, does he agree with me that it makes total economic sense for the UK and the people in it to use next week’s summit to start discussions with the EU on what the process of rejoining might be, and the timings for that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We respect the result of the 2016 referendum. What the hon. Lady is saying on the cost of food is precisely what an SPS agreement on agricultural products, food and drink would seek to deal with—I would hope to see her party supporting that.
The Conservatives now seem to be the defenders of the current status quo. If they bothered to speak to traders these days, they would know that that status quo is not working in the interests of UK businesses, big or small. One Member said that the existing trade deal is
“not a very good one”.
That was actually the hon. Member for Clacton; it is not often that I agree with him, but there we are. As a result of the previous Government’s failure, companies have been enduring significant delays at our borders, and having to fill out hundreds of pieces of paper just to be able to import or export to our nearest neighbours.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is making an excellent speech. Like me, I am sure he is concerned about small businesses that could particularly benefit from an agrifood deal. Would he like to say a little bit more about the benefits for our small businesses?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will be a particular benefit to small and medium-sized businesses, which simply have not had the capacity to deal with the additional red tape we have seen in recent years.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way once more: to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).
Sir John Hayes
I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The last time we exchanged comments in the Chamber, I think they were about Asquith, but I cannot match that today.
The right hon. Gentleman is making some sensible points about trusted traders and easing barriers at the border, but he will know, when he speaks of safety and security, that our key security relationship is the Five Eyes relationship: with America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Of course we co-operate with Europe, but any changes to our relationship around security with Europe would endanger the security of this country, if we compromised that core relationship. In particular, given that those Euro-enthusiasts on the continent have always wanted a pan-European army and a pan-European security policy, will he talk a bit about defence and defence procurement?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First of all, there is absolutely no compromise on the core principles of our defence, which we have had since NATO was founded in 1949. Far from any weakening, we are producing the opposite. This would be the worst possible moment to fragment European defence. That is not what this Government are doing. I dismiss any suggestion of a European army in the way that I think the right hon. Gentleman means it. This is a crucial moment for our continent. It is about leadership and peace on our continent, and strengthening and complementing NATO—absolutely not weakening it in any sense. I hope he will take that reassurance.
I have to go back to the point about businesses, because businesses themselves are speaking out. Businesses such as Marks and Spencer have been up front about how real the challenges are. Its head of food said recently:
“paperwork takes hours to complete and demands detail as niche as the Latin name for the chicken used in our chicken tikka masala.”
It is not just M&S. All supermarkets have said the same, as recently reported in the Financial Times. Just yesterday, I was in Edinburgh hearing from businesses about the difficulties they face—difficulties that we could resolve with some ruthless pragmatism and a better deal.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am going to make some progress.
Meanwhile, a few weeks ago more than 50 energy companies and organisations highlighted the need for closer energy co-operation with the EU to drive down costs and drive up investment. All those were voices that a Conservative party of the past might have listened to, but not, it seems, this lot on the Opposition Front Bench. There is an opportunity in front of us that the Opposition do not even want to try to understand. It will make a difference to growing our economy, boosting our living standards and eradicating the barriers that limit trade with our single biggest trading partner today.
The consequence of the Conservatives’ position today is that they are defending a status quo that is failing businesses and failing working people. Their view—let us be clear about this—is that the trade barriers holding businesses back should stay in place. That impacts on the cost of living and on the number of jobs.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that at the heart of this debate is that this Government are taking proactive engagement with our nearest and largest trading and security partner, which is a quantum leap from the failed position of sneering resentment from the Conservative party?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The situation now is a quantum leap of improvement after what we saw from the Conservative Government.
Sir Ashley Fox
Will the SPS and energy deals that the Minister has in mind be on the basis of a mutual recognition of standards, or does he envisage the United Kingdom accepting EU standards now, being dynamically aligned and placing ourselves under the jurisdiction of the European Court?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Just to be clear, whether on energy, an SPS agreement or employment rights, this Government are interested in a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. [Interruption.] Opposition Members feign interest in the details of the deal next Monday. The Leader of the Opposition did not even want to look at it before she went out at the weekend and made her mind up about it. That is not the behaviour of a serious Opposition party, let alone a party of government. But that is where the Conservatives are now: very happy to carp on about what they are against, not caring about reducing bills, not caring about people’s pay checks, not caring about people’s jobs, and forever trying not to spell out an alternative. They have not listened, and they certainly have not learned.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the issue of learning and listening, I give way to the right hon. Member.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I just wanted to check on something. We can debate whether a trade deal can be improved—I am sure that all trade deals can be improved, whether it is the American one or what is an extensive one with Europe, and probably the greatest one negotiated in the past—but one area, as the Government go back into this discussion, needs to be very clear. I was looking at a paper produced by the Centre for European Reform, which makes one point very clear, as the Government go into the negotiation. It states:
“Labour’s red lines do not extend to ruling out dynamic alignment or a role for the ECJ in dispute settlement.”
Is that correct? Is that the position of the present Labour Government?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have to say, having been for some years in this House with the right hon. Gentleman, that I never thought I would find him quoting the Centre for European Reform in a parliamentary debate, but clearly someone on the Opposition Benches is moving on, even if those on the Opposition Front Bench are not.
Driven by our ruthlessly pragmatic approach, next Monday’s UK-EU summit will be the first annual summit between the UK and the EU. It will be a day of delivery. We are delivering on our manifesto—not returning to the customs union, single market or freedom of movement, or revisiting the arguments of 2016.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the subject of revisiting the arguments of 2016, I give way to the hon. Member.
Richard Tice
I can understand why the right hon. Member did not want to answer the two questions from the Opposition on dynamic alignment, but surely, given a third opportunity, he will commit the Government not to have dynamic alignment in any way, so that we can benefit from trade deals around the world—a great Brexit benefit.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In the past few weeks, we have absolutely been benefiting from trade deals around the world. Nothing we are doing with the European Union is stopping that. If the hon. Gentleman wants evidence of that, he can see the UK-India trade deal that this Government agreed in recent weeks, or look at the deal with the United States that we agreed in recent weeks. Nothing we are doing with the European Union cuts across that. Our position has been that we will not choose between our allies. The UK’s national interest lies in deepening—[Interruption.] No, there is nothing dynamic about the Conservative party. The UK’s national interest lies in deepening our trade relationships with all our partners.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Will the Minister give way?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have given way a number of times now.
Trade, security, defence and other areas of our relationship should never be treated as a zero-sum game. It is possible to deliver on all fronts, and that is exactly what this Government are doing.
I look forward to turning the page next week, as we forge a new strategic partnership with our European friends and make Brexit work in the interests of the British people. We are stepping up and meeting the moment, making people safer and more secure, delivering growth and delivering in our national interest—that is what this Government will do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank those on the Conservative Front Bench for bringing this motion, which reveals, if nothing else, the sorry state of their party—not a vision for Britain’s future, but a stubborn fixation on a failed past.
The Tories’ botched Brexit deal has left us not flourishing, but floundering—not prosperous, but poorer. Their dreadful Brexit deal has been utterly ruinous for our economy. While they cling to their Brexit dogma, British businesses, farmers and fishers in every corner of our country face the harsh reality of their record of incompetence. Britain deserves more than hollow promises and endless excuses—Britain deserves better.
The Conservatives’ motion today is a checklist of their own failures. What was once a pro-business party that supported open markets and free trade now cowers behind trade barriers. There is only one liberal party speaking up for British business in this House, and that is the Liberal Democrats. Businesses that were promised a bonfire of regulation are now buried in paperwork. The Tories did not deliver the streamlined trade they promised; instead, they created a bureaucratic nightmare.
Freddie van Mierlo
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of one of my constituents, who started a business importing organic produce from the EU but has to pay to re-certify the organic produce in the UK at their own cost. That is killing their business. Is this the type of red tape, introduced by Brexit, that the Government should remove?
James MacCleary
Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s point speaks to the nature of the deal that was agreed when we left the European Union. Far from creating the streamlined trade the Conservatives promised, and instead of boosting growth, they have strangled it. Our farmers were promised golden opportunities, but have ended up poorer and weighed down by yet more Tory Brexit bureaucracy.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The previous Conservative Government undermined farmers and our rural economy with a botched trade deal with Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs slammed it by saying
“the UK gave away far too much for far too little”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government should not allow our farmers to be thrown under the bus again?
James MacCleary
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for farmers in her constituency and across the country, and I absolutely agree with her.
Our fishing communities have suffered similarly. I hear from local fishers in Newhaven, in my constituency, who fear their livelihoods are close to collapse. Elsewhere, we have the example of offshore shellfish in Brixham, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), where a vet is now needed to sign 17 separate documents by hand for every shipment of mussels. If the deadline is missed at Calais, the entire catch goes to waste. That is not taking back control—it is losing the plot.
The Tories have thoroughly botched our relationship with Europe, but Labour’s overcautious approach risks cementing this failure. We acknowledge the Government’s recognition that this Brexit deal was not working, but their approach falls a long way short. Where Britain needs bold leadership, they offer nothing more than reluctant half-measures; where we need decisive action, they offer excuses and red lines.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point about shellfish. The environmental and hygiene standards we apply to our shellfish remained exactly the same the day we left the EU as when we were in the EU—it was the EU that supplied all that bureaucracy and requirement for wet stamps. Under World Trade Organisation rules, if a territory has equivalent standards, it is obliged to allow goods to enter its jurisdiction unchecked. Why does the EU breach this international law so wantonly, and why have the Government become a supplicant to the EU, trying to gain its favour to remove these illegal barriers?
James MacCleary
I think the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that the regulations he references are not the only barriers to export in this country. I mentioned Calais; the port of Dover currently sees massive delays in getting any goods through the port because of the additional bureaucracy and security that are necessary as a result of Brexit. Newhaven port in my constituency, which I know very well—in fact, I humbly suggest that I know it better than other hon. Members—has had to spend millions of pounds simply putting in place more barriers in order to move goods through the port, and that is what is slowing things down. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about equivalence, but at the end of the day, it is not the only output of Brexit that is harming our industries.
With its half-measures, Labour seems so afraid of its Reform-shaped shadow that it has ruled out bold measures to set free British business and stimulate growth. Britain cannot afford such timidity; our businesses cannot afford it, and our young people, who face a future with fewer opportunities than their parents, absolutely cannot afford it.
Sir John Hayes
I assume the hon. Gentleman is not advocating returning to the common fisheries policy, which, with its ludicrous quotas and equivalence, was bad for fish, which were discarded live, and bad for fishermen, who were limited by quotas. It was a disaster that had a detrimental effect on the fishing industry across this country. Surely he does not want a return to that.
James MacCleary
Absolutely not. The common fisheries policy did a lot of damage to British fishing, as the common agricultural policy did to farming.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
On that point, it is possibly worth noting that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) attended only one of 42 European Parliament Fisheries Committee meetings that he could have attended, thereby never speaking up for British interests, and that is potentially why the common fisheries policy was not to our benefit.
James MacCleary
I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
What we have advocated for on all these areas is a new relationship with Europe, which would involve a new discussion around fishing. Unlike the Conservatives, who apparently cannot cope with the idea that we can actually move forward in the world and have a different arrangement, we acknowledge that we do not have to go back to what we had before.
The Liberal Democrats have a clear four-step road map to rebuild our European relationships. First, we must have a fundamental reset, rebuilding trust trashed by years of Conservative recklessness. I absolutely acknowledge the positive work Ministers have done in that regard. Secondly, we must rejoin crucial European agencies that directly benefit British people, such as Erasmus+, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency and Horizon Europe, which back in 2023 the Conservatives agreed to pay more than £2 billion a year to rejoin due to the enormous harm that leaving that programme had done to our critical research and innovation sector. To recognise the necessity of such programmes, only to demand in the motion that the Government rule out paying for access to other schemes that could benefit the UK, is the very height of hypocrisy.
Thirdly, we must negotiate practical arrangements to slash red tape, culminating in a UK-EU customs union by 2030 that would give British businesses the oxygen they so desperately need. Finally, as trust rebuilds, we must pursue single market membership, unlocking maximum prosperity for businesses and maximum opportunity for future generations.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the common fisheries policy. Will he join us on the Conservative Benches and go one further by urging the Government not to give up any of the sovereign fishing rights that the UK currently benefits from by giving away fishing to France for other seen-to-be benefits from a wider deal? Can he be strong and urge the Government on fishing, like those on these Benches?
James MacCleary
I can be strong; I promise the House that I will never join those Benches—I can rule that out definitively. What we should not be doing, as the right-wing press have slightly hysterically speculated, is trading away fishing rights for a defence deal, for instance. That is something that Liberal Democrats have been very clear about, and that we continue to be clear about.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member makes an excellent case. To his credit, he set out four clear points, which is more than the Government or the main Opposition party have done. Members across this House have previously said that a democracy fails to be a democracy if people do not have the ability to change their minds. Does he rule out ever rejoining the EU?
James MacCleary
It is impossible to rule out anything in the future. If the hon. Member had asked me 20 years ago whether it were possible that we would ever leave the EU, I would have said that it was extremely unlikely. Who knows what will happen in the future? We may have a Government of a different complexion one day who choose to take those steps, but right now that is clearly not something that we are talking about.
The EU must show flexibility, too. Britain is no ordinary third country. We are a major economy and an indispensable partner on defence, security and trade. The EU must make space for bespoke, pragmatic arrangements. Alongside that, the Government must immediately introduce a youth mobility scheme. Our young people deserve the same European opportunities that previous generations enjoyed, including many on these Benches. The Tories obstinately refuse this common-sense approach and Labour has so far flip-flopped on the issue. We have existing schemes with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Canada, but not with our nearest neighbours. Our young people do not deserve this short-sightedness; they deserve access to opportunities across Europe.
As global threats multiply—Putin’s brutality in Ukraine and Trump’s economic recklessness—Britain’s security demands strong European partnerships. Our comprehensive UK-EU defence pact is not just desirable, but essential for our national security. We are no longer part of Europol, meaning that we have lost access to crucial intelligence sharing and vital databases that help track criminals and terrorists across borders. That is not taking back control; that is making British people feel less safe and less secure. To those who claim that a UK-EU defence co-operation pact would somehow weaken NATO, let us be clear: it would do the exact opposite. Greater mobility for personnel across Europe strengthens NATO’s ability to deploy forces, particularly in the east. Access to EU procurement mechanisms allows us to purchase more equipment more efficiently and boost British defence firms.
Stronger co-operation on European defence not only bolsters the alliance, but improves our shared operational effectiveness. The Conservatives are undermining British security and scaremongering by suggesting otherwise. With Trump in the White House, the world has been plunged into a trade war. Britain’s exports to the EU reached £356 billion last year, which is 42% of everything that we sell to the world. Imagine how much higher that would be and how much more money the British people would have in their pockets had the Conservatives’ disastrous deal not shrunk our economy by 4%.
Calum Miller
In my constituency of Bicester and Woodstock, many workers at the Cowley Mini plant tell me that they are worried about the future of the plant, and one of the principal reasons is that the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has introduced so much red tape that the just-in-time delivery of component parts across the European network that BMW operates is threatening the plant. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is just one example of how the Brexit deal damages our economy, rather than supporting our core industries?
James MacCleary
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for sticking up for his local businesses, as he always does. Absolutely; the effect on supply chains in particular has not always been obvious, but it has been detrimental to many, particularly large, complicated businesses.
James MacCleary
Not at the moment, no.
By contrast, the much-vaunted trade deal signed with India last week is worth just a fraction of our former deal with the European Union. It is around 20 times smaller than the economic boost that we gain simply by aligning with the EU on goods and services.
Mr Francois
The whole House will have noted that the hon. Member clearly failed to rule out a second referendum, because he did not much like the result of the first one. May I ask him this directly? Like the Government, as is obvious from their evasion this afternoon, are the Liberal Democrats prepared to accept a process of dynamic alignment, whereby we effectively become a passive rule-taker from the European Union? Yes or no?
James MacCleary
The right hon. Member makes two points. First, he mentioned a second referendum. I find this a fascinating contention. Elections happen every four years. At the last election, we returned a Labour Government. This argument that the result of that referendum in 2016 must be held in perpetuity—no matter what the British people think of it—suggests to me that everybody should join the Labour party, because now we will have a Labour Government in perpetuity, too. Perhaps Conservative Members might want to give some consideration to that.
Secondly, the right hon. Member used the term “rule-taker”. I find that fascinating, too. It was quite noticeable that in the negotiations on Brexit, Conservative Members became enthralled by the philosophy of cakeism to the extent that it became their mantra that we could have our cake and eat it, and that, apparently, modern trade deals do not require any give and take. The recent India trade deal, which has been so trumpeted by Labour Members and, which, of course, was started by Conservative Members, does involve the UK having to take some things as well. That is what a trade deal looks like, and it certainly looks like that when we are talking with the largest trading bloc on the planet. The key question that the right hon. Member should be asking is what benefit would it bring to British people. That, ultimately, is the job of any Government and any politician: what will benefit us?
James MacCleary
I am pleased that the right hon. Member agrees with himself.
By contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) tells me of an engineering firm in his constituency that, due to the mountains of Brexit red tape, now finds it far easier to trade with South Korea than with Europe. This is not just damaging, but frankly absurd. The one thing that the Government will not do that is guaranteed to deliver growth is negotiate a bespoke customs union with the EU, yet they are hiking national insurance for businesses, stifling investment and refusing to support the most vulnerable in our society by not scrapping the two-child benefit cap or safeguarding personal independence payments.
James MacCleary
I will, if I may, make a little progress, because I am conscious of the amount of time that I am taking up.
Only a customs union can give businesses the long-term certainty they need, which will help to shield British jobs from the looming threat of Trump’s trade wars. I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman first and then from my hon. Friend.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman told us that he has a constituent who finds it easier to trade with South Korea than with the EU. What does that tell us about the EU? Is that not one reason why people voted to leave? It is because of its excessive bureaucracy and its protectionism. Why is it easier to trade with South Korea than with the EU if it is not for EU bureaucracy?
James MacCleary
Just to be clear, I was talking about one of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth. But on the hon. Member’s point, the reason was the trade barriers put up by the Conservative party as part of the Brexit deal. It is as simple as that. It was a protectionist party putting up trade barriers, and it continues to advocate for it.
Helen Maguire
On the issue of red tape, Epsom and Ewell constituents are facing preventable delays on essential medication for conditions such as diabetes, ADHD and mental ill health. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is simply not the time to play politics, and that we must urgently seek a comprehensive mutual recognition agreement with the European Medicines Agency to cut the red tape that is so detrimental to the health of all of our constituents?
James MacCleary
That is a really important point. We have seen shortages of key medications—my hon. Friend mentioned ADHD medication, which has a detrimental impact on the lives of children and parents—like insulin and others.
The Liberal Democrats understand that Britain belongs at Europe’s heart, not on its periphery, isolated and diminished. We recognise that rebuilding these ties requires patience and skilled diplomacy, but unlike the Tories, we will not bury our heads in the sand. Unlike Labour, we will not settle for tepid tinkering. As such, we will abstain on the Government’s amendment. We believe in Britain’s potential and in Britain’s future. We believe that our future is brighter, stronger and more prosperous when we work closely with Europe. Today, the Conservatives’ motion offers no solutions, only distraction from their disastrous record. Britain deserves leaders who will properly rebuild relationships, deliver genuine prosperity and restore our standing in the world. This is the vision that the Liberal Democrats offer—not Tory and Reform fantasies and not Labour fence-sitting. We believe in practical solutions, clear direction and an unwavering commitment to Britain’s best interests. Let us be honest, many on the Labour Benches agree with what I am saying. They know that this fence-sitting will not cut it, but they are not allowed to say so. Fear not, we will say so.
The Conservatives have nothing to say on Europe. Labour has tied itself up in red lines. The public know that our country’s future is European. For businesses and jobs, for our nation’s security and our children’s futures, it is time to put the divisions of the past behind us and act in the national interest. We will vote against this nonsensical motion, and we stand ready to work constructively with the Government to build a closer, more pragmatic relationship with our European friends and neighbours.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Many people may still be finding things a little bit gloomy and challenging as a result of the mess left by the previous Government, as I am after 10 months of being a Member of Parliament, but today I am incredibly heartened. It is probably the happiest day I have spent in the House yet, because we have a real opportunity to be hopeful and positive about the future of this country. The ideology and chaos that have caused so much damage, with the Conservative Government running frit from the Reform party, have now given way to a party that is pragmatic and has proven itself to be competent.
I would love at this stage to congratulate the Government on their tremendous securing of trade deals with India and the USA. I am looking forward to the hat-trick, where we secure a trade deal with the European Union that is even bigger and better than either of those two, and all in the British interest.
What is absolutely clear to me—everybody knows this in the Labour party and it runs through everything the Prime Minister has said—is that this country needs growth. Over the last 14 years, services have been decimated. Every time the new Government open a cupboard, we find it bare. We have to rebuild our public services, and the swiftest way to get growth in the economy is by having a good trade deal with the European Union. Nothing will guarantee swifter growth for the economy.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
What is the hon. Member’s analysis of why growth projections have been halved since Labour came in?
Ben Coleman
I find it very hard to take anything that the Conservatives say with any degree of seriousness. What is their explanation for why, after 14 years, public services are on their knees and we have seen a collapse in the economy? We even heard a Conservative Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), say that there has been growth since leaving the European Union despite Brexit—even the Conservatives admit that it was a disaster.
Nothing will deliver the growth that this country needs faster than signing a good deal with the European Union, slashing red tape and reducing regulation with the biggest market on our doorstep. Opening up markets, kick-starting growth, boosting exports and investments and reducing prices at home—this prize would be welcomed by anyone who is not a crazy ideologue. We on the Government side are not crazy ideologues or prisoners of our past—or of a television programme from the past. The actions that the Conservatives took while in government have damaged the British people.
Businesses across the country, and in Chelsea and Fulham, want us to get a good deal from the European Union. People in my constituency do not want us to rejoin the EU, and I am not talking about rejoining. They would like us still to be in it, and they think it has done them damage. The importer of wine in my constituency who has to pay £160 for every consignment he now brings in would like us still to be in the EU and to not have to face that. But they do not want us to spend the next five years renegotiating the deal.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Constituents and small and medium-sized businesses are crying out for this Labour Government to come forward and renegotiate a good trade deal so that businesses can thrive. Does he agree that this Government are taking the right pragmatic approach in wanting to deliver growth for our country?
Ben Coleman
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for stressing that point. She is absolutely right; we have a Government who have replaced chaos and ideology with cool-headed, pragmatic determination. We have a trade deal with India and with the US, and we are going to get a good trade deal with the European Union. That is why it is a day for rejoicing, not for doom and gloom and people rehashing the past. Not a single one of the Conservatives, except the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar on the Front Bench, who accepted that despite Brexit the economy grew a little bit—
Ben Coleman
Oh, it was sarcasm.
As I was saying, I am very pleased, as many are, with the Government for being cool-headed and having a common-sense approach. We are going to reset our relationship with the European Union and put Britain first. Putting Britain first has to also mean putting our young people first, so I am excited by the opportunity for young people in my constituency and every constituency to take advantage of a time-limited, controlled visa-based youth system, which we already have with a dozen countries.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman will know that thousands of young people—perhaps not in Chelsea but in most of the country—are NEETs, meaning they are not in education, employment or training, and that number is growing. Why should those young people, who are desperately seeking access to education or jobs, have to compete with large numbers of people from abroad? Is that what the people in Chelsea and Fulham really want for the people who live in the rest of Britain?
Ben Coleman
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what people in Chelsea and Fulham really want. They do not want a Prime Minister like the last one—a business Prime Minister—who said that we would level up to help people across the country but then did nothing about it. What they want is a Prime Minister who will invest in increasing skills and apprenticeships right across the country, as ours said yesterday that he will. That is what we need, and that is what we are getting now.
Stephen Gethins
On that point, because rhetoric is important, does the hon. Member agree with Lord Dubs, who said that what the Prime Minister said yesterday was outrageous, or does he agree with the Alternative für Deutschland leader, who agreed with the Prime Minister?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Member said “you”, but I did not ask the question.
Ben Coleman
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member touches a soft spot when he mentions Lord Dubs, who is a great friend and a doughty campaigner in my constituency. Lord Dubs will have his views, but I was talking about the Prime Minister setting out an absolute commitment to increase the skills of young people right across the country, and that is in no way undermined by the prospect of a controlled visa-based youth experience scheme.
In such unstable times, it is right that we should seek a closer relationship with the European Union that will strengthen defence and security alongside our commitment to NATO. I am hopeful that the Government will pull off an agreement that, as hon. Friends of mine have said already, will bring new jobs in the defence industries of this country. We are facing the starkest, most serious defence challenge that we have faced for decades, and we have to meet it together with the European Union. Having spoken to many ambassadors here, I know that they welcome Britain playing its full role in defending our shared continent.
That is what we are doing as a Government. That is why it is so disappointing, with all the prospects and excitement ahead of us, to hear the Conservatives and Reform still putting ideology first, ahead of growth and security. They are failing to say what they would do instead and just want to continue with the status quo.
The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about the chaos that was brought to Kent, where trucks backed up for miles near Dover because the infrastructure for customs checks was never ready, and fresh produce rotted in the queue. That was under the Conservative Government. They jeopardised car manufacturing in Birmingham and the west midlands, which is a region that relies on just-in-time EU supply chains. It was hit with rules of origin checks, rising costs, and delayed parts—thanks to the Conservatives. They sold out Cornwall’s poorest communities by moving out of European structural funds that has millions in them, replacing them with a shared prosperity fund worth far less. That was the Conservative Government’s failed Brexit.
They weakened Port Talbot and the south Wales steel industry, made exports harder and reduced competitiveness in what was already a challenging global market. They undermined Scottish farmers and distillers by erecting barriers to their largest export market. This is all part of the record that the Conservatives are delighted to defend. I would not be delighted to defend such a record, but they are—so much so that they have brought forward this ridiculous motion today.
I am delighted by the amendment that the Government have tabled. The contrast between our pragmatic, cool-headed approach and these ideologues could not be starker. It is refreshing.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Member has criticised the Opposition for the motion but, to give them their due, at least they have turned up. They delivered Brexit, but none of its architects, who would usually be sitting on the Benches behind me, have shown up. Does that not show the contempt in which those Members hold us, and voters as well?
Ben Coleman
I agree with the hon. Member. If the Reform party’s entire shtick for getting elected is being anti-EU and thinking that it can defend the interests of the British people better by continuing the chaotic, unfavourable system we have, with that being its entire reason for existence, it is not okay for one of its Members of Parliament to ask a couple of questions and skedaddle. As for the hon. Member for Clacton—and for Florida—I do not know what he is doing today, but he ought to be here.
We should be cheered—it is refreshing—so let us be a little more optimistic as we look to next week and not say, “We’re always going to be out-diddled by French and Germans.” That counsel of despair is pathetic. We are perfectly capable of negotiating trade deals, as we have shown with deals with the US and India, to get the best for the British people, and that is what we will do with the European Union. That is what the people of this country voted for at the last election: an end to failed ideology, and the start of applied, cool-headed, determined common sense. As a result, at the end of the meeting next week and in future years, the British people will benefit. We should all be delighted about that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) and his flowery optimism for the future of this country, with it somehow being a terribly good thing that we are realigning ourselves with the European Union without actually rejoining it. It makes me wonder about all the debates I have attended over 33 years in the House about our relationship with what used to be called the common market, then the European Communities and now the European Union.
This debate has a ring of familiarity about it, because there are two sides in the House that tend to completely misunderstand each other—only, I think that Conservative Members now understand the truth, because that came out in the referendum. The referendum demonstrated that the House of Commons was completely out of alignment with the population on the question of our membership of the European Union. The whole Brexit story was about a battle within the House as to whether the pro-EU majority would assert itself and somehow negate the referendum, or whether the referendum would be respected. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and her shadow Cabinet colleagues are right to put at the front of the motion the importance of honouring the referendum result.
The fact is that a referendum result represents a superior mandate to a single term of election for an elected Government, because that referendum takes place on a single issue. I do not think anyone would pretend that the European Union was the main issue at the last general election, so anyone in the Government or indeed in the Liberal Democrats trying to use the general election result as a mandate to circumvent the result of the 2016 referendum is playing a dangerous political game.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Of course, that argument was used in reverse on those of us who had had concerns about Europe for 40 years as we were told—exactly to my hon. Friend’s point—that a referendum was superior to continuous elections. We made a decision after the last referendum; that was a generational move. We have hardly had a generation in the few years since the referendum.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I agree with my right hon. Friend. The important point is that we do not have a written constitution, but we do have in our minds a hierarchy of legitimacy on which, in the end, the democratic credibility of the House depends. The fact is, a referendum represents a superior mandate on a single issue and, with a great struggle, the pro-EU majority eventually aligned itself with the decision that the British people had taken on our membership of the European Union.
Sir John Hayes
Since we are straying into political ideas and philosophy, is not the point that the democratic legitimacy we enjoy in this place is on the basis of popular consent, and there is no more direct expression of popular consent than a referendum, which is why its result has to be honoured?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and that is why it was an extremely ominous portent that the Minister at the Dispatch Box refused to answer him on the question of whether there would be alignment or subjection to the European Court of Justice. If the referendum was about one thing, it was about taking back control of our laws. In fact, many of us in the leave campaign at the time argued that the British people do understand sovereignty—they certainly did by the end of the referendum—and getting into permanent alignment of regulation or subjecting the meaning of laws applied in the United Kingdom to the scrutiny and jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is giving back control. It is a dangerous thing for a Government elected on the principle of honouring the referendum result, and one who are now playing dog-whistle politics with immigration, to be backsliding in secret, with a sleight of hand, into allowing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and permanent alignment back into our law while pretending that is not happening. That is exactly what the Minister did at the Dispatch Box.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I will give way to my right hon. Friend, but I have another point that I wish to make.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend will well remember that during the referendum a booklet was circulated to every household in the United Kingdom, which famously said:
“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”
The people decided to leave, and some in this place spent three years trying to frustrate their decision. In that context, is he concerned that today the Minister blatantly refused three times to answer a straight question about whether the Government would concede dynamic alignment at the summit? Is that not the sort of duplicitous behaviour that made the public so angry in the first place?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I agree. But there is another dangerous game being played by another political party: the Liberal Democrats. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) pressed the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), who wants to rejoin the European Union, on whether there would be another referendum, and he did not say that there would be. That we would have a referendum to leave the European Union but not require a new referendum to rejoin it would be incendiary politics for this country.
Why have people become disillusioned with their politicians? It is because politicians seem to agree to one proposition and then do something completely different from what was voted for. I hope we can all agree on one proposition: that there could be no possibility of a proposal to rejoin the European Union or to accept dynamic alignment or the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—except over its current limited areas, which will eventually expire—without a further referendum. That is a serious matter.
Caroline Voaden
The hon. Member talks about people losing their trust in politics. Does he agree that the promise of £350 million a week to go to the NHS, which was broadcast on the side of a big red bus during the referendum, might have somewhat reduced trust in his party?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am happy to point out that after the referendum and since we left the European Union, we are spending way more than £350 million a week more on the NHS than we were, and our contributions to the European Union have fallen dramatically—in fact, much faster than was expected under the withdrawal agreement. So the benefit that was on the side of the bus has turned out to be correct, although I believe it was a statistical sleight of hand to use that particular number; I disowned it at the time. But have no doubt that if we are to get drawn back into the European Union, we will have to start raiding the NHS to make payments to the European Union again. I do not think that is what the British people voted for.
That brings me back to this great defence fund, which I think will be borrowed. Will we have to borrow some of that fund as well? No, it was going to be borrowed through some European Central Bank mechanism. Will it instead be taxed? In any case, it is all Government borrowing, so will we add to Government borrowing by participating in the borrowing or funding of that fund, or would it not be better if we just remained aloof from it to concentrate on spending money on our own defence? That is the point that has already been made: the money that we have committed to defence over the years, in the period since the second world war and, indeed, since the end of the cold war, is far greater than that of the vast majority of EU countries. We also mandate our nuclear deterrent to the protection of the whole of Europe. We play our part in the defence of Europe. As for the idea that we can deploy troops more quickly through free movement of people, what planet are the Liberal Democrats on? It is utterly ludicrous.
I come back to the point about the defence fund. There have been such funds in Europe before, but I can assure Members that the game that every country plays is the one where what they put in, they get out. The French are past masters at that. They will participate in a multilateral programme, but if they do not get the lion’s share, they pull out. They pulled out of the Eurofighter programme when that was meant to be part of their deal because they were not getting enough work out of it. Therefore, the idea that it is a freebie for British defence companies to participate in the fund and get extra money into the British defence industries will simply not happen.
In any case, this fund is not about creating warfighting capability this year or next year, which is what we need; it is about the very long-term, big programmes that the defence industries want. That will not rescue us from America’s absence from NATO, if that were to occur for more than a few months or a few years under Donald Trump. Let us also remember that Donald Trump will not be there forever; he has 45 more months to go. Let us not do more damage to NATO by making it look to the other side of the Atlantic that we will take care of our own defence in Europe from now on. That is very dangerous.
I remember Madeleine Albright, a Democrat Secretary of State, railing against what was then called the European security and defence policy. She warned that it represented the “Three Ds”: the duplication of NATO assets, which was wasteful and unnecessary; the discrimination against non-EU members of NATO such as Norway, Turkey, Canada and the United States; and the decoupling of American and European defence policy. Is that what we want? Is that what this House wants? Is that what the Labour party wants? No. The Labour party says that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence and rightly so, but what signal is it sending to President Trump?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I ask that he wait just a minute.
What signal is it sending to Donald Trump by suggesting that we will have an EU defence policy that excludes the United States? It is exactly the wrong signal for this moment.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am pleased that my hon. Friend raises that point, which I want to elaborate further. The real point is that J. D. Vance, the vice president, came over to Munich and ripped a hole through the Europeans, including ourselves, for not having spent enough, although we were one of the top spenders. Since then, the Americans have gone on and on about that, but each time we get the sense that they are keener to decouple. Does what we are about to do not give strength to the argument that we do not need them any longer and therefore they need to look somewhere else? That is the danger, because NATO was not just about defence of the west; it was about making sure that the US never goes into isolationism again.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Yes. That promise of creating an EU defence capability has been on the table since the St Malo declaration of 1999, in the aftermath of the Maastricht treaty that first introduced the word “defence” into the EU. That was when France and the United Kingdom, under a Labour Government, declared that the EU would have autonomous military capability, with separable but not separate military forces from NATO.
We still have the absurdity in which the armed forces of the EU countries are allocated to NATO tasks but, at the same time, are ready for EU tasks. There had to be a complicated de-confliction arrangement to try to ensure that an EU defence mission does not conflict with a NATO defence mission. We finished up with something called the Berlin-plus arrangements, which Turkey has never accepted because it is not a member of the EU but is a member of NATO.
There has always been an impasse between NATO and the EU on those two questions, and it is all completely unnecessary because NATO has a military headquarters, it has a political committee and it is an international organisation. Indeed, it is the most successful military alliance in the world. Why is the EU trying to duplicate it just for itself? The EU is more interested in statecraft and state-building than defending our own continent. The anger with which Ursula von der Leyen and Friedrich Merz have attacked Trump reflects a latent anti-Americanism that has always been there and which we could do without at this moment.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend makes a profound argument. He highlights the EU, which sees itself as a supranational body, and NATO, which, by nature, is anything but that, in that it is a confederation of sovereign nations. That tension lies at the heart of the EU’s ill-concealed and now evident disdain for NATO. I do not know whether the Government are careless or unknowing of that. They are either complicit or ignorant; I wonder which one my hon. Friend thinks it is.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Sadly, European Union defence has always promised far more than it delivers. It was meant to galvanise all the European states into spending more money; it failed and just did not do that. When any serious military operation was required, it was NATO. To the EU’s credit, some EU military operations are taking place, but they are on a very limited scale. The British and the Americans need to reinforce the Balkans now, because the Europeans are not committing enough on their own and are incapable of doing so.
Even if, this time, there were rapid growth in EU military capability to address the crisis that we face, it would take decades to replicate what the Americans currently provide, such as tactical nuclear weapons and air cover. Why does the EU need to have its own air defence policy when that is exactly what NATO does? It does European air defence. We need to bolster NATO. It is encouraging that force planning for a possible peacekeeping force in Ukraine is all being done at NATO and not in the EU crisis management centre or at EU military headquarters. Only NATO has the capability to plan large-scale military activity.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. What does he know about it? I would be interested in him challenging me.
Luke Taylor
Does the hon. Gentleman not see the fragility of a European defence that is dependent on key items of American hardware, which he correctly identifies that we do not have, and which it will take decades for us to replicate, operate, integrate with our systems and train people on? Does he not see the fragility of our defence if President Trump or another incoming US leader says, “Actually, you’re on your own. We don’t care about the defence of Ukraine”?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. While I am in the Chair, interventions will be shorter than that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, but the best thing for all European nations is not to try to build our own EU defence capability, but to strengthen NATO. There is an argument that we are somehow doing this through the EU so that it can strengthen NATO, but I do not think that is really the ambition of the bureaucrats in Brussels. They have a flag and a Parliament, and they want an army—a Euro army. That is what people periodically talk about, particularly the Germans and the French. They want a Euro army, but that would send the wrong signal to President Trump. Yes, we need to develop those capabilities, but let us develop them through NATO.
Jim Allister
Is not the hon. Member’s point put beyond all doubt by the wording of article 42 of the treaty of the EU, which expressly says that the purpose of co-operation is to arrive at common defence? Is it not therefore perfectly clear that the EU is setting itself up to have its own sovereign defence capability?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Yes, and when we look at the European Defence Agency and all the mechanisms that have been created, we can see that the European Defence Agency is an embryo European Ministry of Defence. That is what is intended.
Let us just suppose that, in the ideal world that Labour and the Liberal Democrats live in, this defence capability comes about. The fundamental problem is that the European Union was never originally conceived as a defence and foreign policy organisation. There are many countries in it with very different—[Interruption.] No, it was functionalism that drove the foundation of the European Communities. It was about trade and creating a single market. Defence was never in the minds of the early founders of the European Union, and it is very ill suited to the task of getting defence capability, because the institutions were not designed for that purpose. It is not in the culture of those institutions. To rely on them for our defence and security is extremely unwise. On the other hand, NATO is already very well suited to the task and does not need to be duplicated.
To put it mildly, given the political disunity in the European Union, particularly towards Trump—okay, that afflicts NATO as well—this is not an instant solution to the political problems in NATO, if those are what the European Union is seeking to resolve. We should dispense with the idea that making a defence pact with the European Union is somehow the great panacea for all the problems we face on our continent because of President Putin. On the contrary, I think it is likely to make things worse—more complicated and more bureaucratic—and it would probably make our defence industries less competitive, because they would be cocooned inside this fund, instead of competing on the on the global stage with the Americans. Incidentally, our defence procurement co-operation with the Americans remains essential. They have the lion’s share of the technology; they are way ahead of the European Union when it comes to technology.
So, why are the Government doing this? I think they have always been religiously committed to the idea of EU defence—they introduced it in the first place, in the St Malo declaration—but why are they so devoted to doing this now? Of course, it is what the European Union really wants. We are the supplicant in these negotiations. We are asking the EU for concessions, and the one thing that would really make it feel good is drawing the United Kingdom into the defence arena of the European Union.
Meanwhile, what concessions are we getting from the EU? I do not see any. It will be interesting to find out. It will not instantly reduce all trade barriers, because we are not in the single market and will not be in the single market. It will still apply all the checks, including the antiquated wet stamps that are applied to forms certifying the fitness of shellfish. Wet stamps are so last century, but the EU is still using them on customs forms. That is how backward it is. There are electronic frontiers between African countries where there are no barriers. Incidentally, that is the answer to the Northern Ireland problem.
I fully support the Opposition’s proposals, which are to question everything that the EU will demand of us and which the Government might pursue, and to reserve our ability to tear up those agreements if they are not in the national interest. The Government do not have a monopoly on the national interest. “National interest” is a subjective term—the national interest might be different in the mind of one person and in the mind of another. As far as I am concerned, we left the European Union in the national interest, because we wanted to remain a sovereign democracy, in charge of our own laws, and to be like most other countries that are not in the European Union; they get on fine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) pointed out, the economy is still growing, or was growing until the Government hit it with their Budget. We have every opportunity at our feet.
One of the reasons we left the European Union—sorry to relitigate all these arguments—and left that slow-growth, high-unemployment, high-regulation, high-tax trade bloc was so that we could make deals with the high-growth, low-regulation, high-employment parts of the world, which in the end will provide us with far more business than we get from the EU. Actually, the vast majority of our trade, particularly our services trade, is outside the EU—people forget that. By being obsessed with trade with the EU, we drive our economy into a straitjacket; we are well out of that.
The Government should take away from this debate a warning. They know that they are being attacked by Reform. Those voters would probably never vote Conservative, or are less likely to vote Conservative than Labour, but they are going to Reform because they can sense the backsliding going on in this Government. If there were ever to be another referendum, I would hazard a guess that the vote would be against rejoining the European Union, so there can be no rejoining by stealth, which seems to be the Government’s policy. We will stand by the British people, and will dishonour any agreement that the Government make with the European Union that is not in our interests.
Indeed, there are parts of the withdrawal agreement that we may need to revisit—for example, in the Northern Ireland protocol. The technology has moved on, and we can move to an electronic frontier across the north-south border, without the need for checks on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. One of the founding principles of the Act of Union was that there should be frontier-free trade within the United Kingdom as a whole. If the continuing development of the Northern Ireland protocol continues to impose those checks, those checks are not in the national interest, and we should reserve the right to jettison the protocol and replace it with something better.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak, and I commend the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on staying on his feet for nearly half an hour—quite an impressive feat. It is an honour to follow him; he was elected 33 years ago, when I was nine. I imagine that he has seen a lot of history over the past 33 years, and over the past nearly 10 years since the referendum.
If we think about the main features of that history, it is indisputable that we live in a new world. We have the illegal invasion of Ukraine; Taiwan is acting as a test point; NATO and the UN are at risk; and there is rising authoritarian populism, which risks democratic backsliding, be that through the undermining of institutions, power being concentrated in the Executive, the dismissal of checks and balances, growing electoral interference, or big tech captains involving themselves in democratic politics like never before. We see economic inequality on an unprecedented scale. That creates a risk of democratic instability, here and around the world. There is also the risk of wealth concentration, unaddressed tax haven networks, rising social inequality, and people feeling left out. Issues of development, aid and debt relief are gone from our political discussions.
The rise of technology risks creating democratic threats. Artificial intelligence and social media create the potential for deepfakes, automated disinformation, cyber-attacks and the development of lethal systems with no human oversight. There are health challenges, such as the global pandemic that we have been through. Climate change continues unabated and remains unaddressed at the scale needed, creating the possibility of resource conflicts, climate refugee flows and stresses on nature and wildlife. If that has not convinced the House that I am a fun time down the pub, I do not know what will.
I say all that because those are the major threats that have emerged in the past 10 years—and that is not an exhaustive list. If I carried on, Members would want me to sit down faster. We have to face reality. All of us in this place were elected to behave like grown-ups—to face the facts, debate on the basis of reality, and come up with common-sense solutions. Given that we face those threats—I have not even mentioned the lion’s share of threats in the UK, which I would say we inherited from the previous Government—it is no wonder that people outside the walls of Westminster feel that we go too slow and do not focus on the things that they care about. It is no wonder that people are succumbing to hopelessness, and feel that politics is not meeting their needs.
A question was asked earlier about what was on the ballot paper. I accept that the European Union was not on the ballot paper as an existential question. However, what was on the ballot paper was quality of life in our country, the state of our economy, and the possibility that generations will be locked out of the democratic agreement and social contract on a fair chance at life. We Labour Members are saying that trade is a solution to some of those challenges.
As I was saying, people outside the walls of this Palace feel frustrated by the slowness of our debates.
Tom Hayes
I will come to you shortly.
We must recognise the importance of urgency. That is why I am genuinely extremely pleased that we have a Government who have moved forward in recent days and weeks with two significant trade deals. The first, with India, was achieved in 10 months, after the Conservatives had spent eight years saying that they would get a deal. We rolled up our sleeves and got a deal that will put more money into people’s pockets, create jobs here, and benefit our economy. The trade deal with the United States is not what we would have got had Kamala Harris been elected President; it is the deal we could get with Donald Trump as President, and I think that it shows realistic, common-sense negotiation.
Tom Hayes
I will come to you.
That deal will put money in people’s pockets, grow our economy and create jobs. Now, we have the prospect of a third trade deal, with the European Union, on the horizon. It would be a really important deal. That is crucial, because if we do not foster the conditions for trade in a world of global insecurity, we will create further problems in our democracy and around the world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member has said “you” twice, and now says “Sir John”. It is a very long-established convention that Members do not refer to right hon. and hon. colleagues by name.
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to my namesake for giving way. He is making an interesting speech. He is right that global power and its growth is making people feel that they cannot affect decision making; that is a profound point, but we need to root power closer to people, not detach it from them, as happens when power is given over to foreign potentates, whether in the EU or any other part of the world.
Tom Hayes
I agree with the right hon. Member. With the UK a sovereign, independent trading nation, we in this place are able to shape the debate and conditions of trade. We have the prospect of an EU trade deal before us, and we must grasp it. If we do not, we will see our country fall further behind. There are areas of possibility for that trade deal. For example, there is a need for the transfer and exchange of clean energy between the UK and France and the European Union on a larger scale. I had the privilege of visiting Gosport recently to see IFA2—Interconnexion France-Angleterre 2—where the subsea interconnector is exchanging clean energy between the UK and France, ensuring that we can keep the lights on not only here but in France and across the European Union. Surely energy security is an important feature of our democracy, in an age where we are threatened by Putin and other dictators.
Luke Taylor
The hon. Member talks about us being a sovereign nation and being able to choose our trade deals. I assume we will get a vote in this place on the shape of a future trade deal with the United States, so that we are able to examine it, vote and exercise our parliamentary sovereignty.
Tom Hayes
I thank the hon. Member for listening to some of what I said. I said that we in this place have the right to speak in debates such as this, to shape the conditions of trade. Clearly, with the Minister on the Front Bench listening acutely to everything that Members are saying, that message is being carried into Government —the Minister is nodding profusely—in which case, we will have that democratic accountability.
I turn to the other areas of potential EU-UK relationship improvement. Defence is obviously a core part of that. NATO is the cornerstone of our collective security, but a strong UK must sit alongside strong European countries. The UK is raising its defence spending to an unprecedented level and making efforts to grow our defence industrial base. We need to do that not only for our own security and the security of democracies, but to set an example to European countries about raising their own defence spending, while working with them to grow our collaboration.
On the question of trade, all of us in this House, whichever party we represent, will have had small businesses come to our surgeries and tell us about the red tape they encounter as a result of the Brexit deal. If they voted for Brexit, they did not vote for that Brexit deal; they voted for something very different. I think we can all recognise that, and if we do not, we are not listening to our constituents when they come to our surgeries and tell us their truth very clearly.
By reducing red tape, we can help to grow the number of jobs in our economy, open up our borders to more trade and smooth our exports, which is critical if we are going to achieve the Government’s No. 1 goal of growing our economy. Without growth in our economy, we will not raise living standards, we will not be a country at ease with itself, we will not again be confident on the world stage, and we will not be a leading democratic voice in a world of strengthening democracies.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that rejoining a customs union would achieve all those aims of reducing red tape?
Tom Hayes
After 30 minutes of speaking, the hon. Member has probably said everything he needed to say, and if he did not, we have a serious problem in this House.
On the question of expanding opportunities in the UK-EU relationship, I am particularly struck by the need for a capped, controlled, balanced youth mobility scheme. Around our country, including in my constituency of Bournemouth East, young people are suffering generational challenges that their predecessors did not face, be it their inability to buy a home at an affordable price, find secure work or get the education they want, or the fact that they have gone through a cost of living crisis and a pandemic. Surely we owe it to our younger generation to provide them with some of the conditions that will allow for a better life. A capped, balanced, controlled youth mobility scheme is key to that.
Such a scheme will not just be beneficial for the youth of the UK. I have in my constituency a significant number of English language schools. I had the privilege of visiting Beet Language Centre in my constituency last Friday for a roundtable that it hosted, and we were joined by other important language schools. They talked to me about the difficult financial circumstances they are all in and the difficulty of keeping the doors open because of the damaging Brexit deal that was negotiated. With a youth mobility scheme, we can put money back into our English language sector, which is critical.
We are living in an insecure world. Britain’s soft power is critical to ensuring that we are respected around the world. By bringing people to the UK—and particularly to sunny Bournemouth—for one to two weeks, or four to six weeks, they get a sense of how wonderful, open and accepting we are as a country. They can then take that back to their families and their home countries, and they can grow an affection for this country, come back repeatedly, spend money here and grow our tourism sector. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole has the highest concentration of English language schools of any borough or local authority in the UK; they contribute £400 million to the BCP economy. Indeed, English language schools contribute £44 billion nationally. Imagine how much better we could be if we had a youth mobility scheme and support for our English language schools.
I will soon conclude my speech so more Members can speak, but before sitting down I want to talk about not just the importance of the UK-EU reset as a way of delivering trade in its own right between the UK and the EU, but the benefits of trade. In an increasingly protectionist world, we need to be talking up the benefits of trade. Trade brings people into closer, and more harmonious and profitable relations, with one another. It brings down the walls and the barriers between nations. It makes war less likely because it binds people in peace. It does not just put money into people’s pockets or create jobs in our communities; it grows our economies faster and it raises living standards.
We know that trade has its challenges, but—done well—trade deals can help to make sure our countries prosper. At its heart, the EU-UK reset should be about trade, our economy and our businesses. It should not be a question of identity, culture wars and scaremongering. It should be about grown-ups gathering in this Chamber and talking about what is important to our constituents on the basis of the facts, rather than rehashing old, tired debates and scaremongering. We need to face the future, and I am pleased that finally we have a Government who are doing so.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is good to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and to be reminded of how old he was when I first came here; I hope he stays here as long as well, or maybe I do not hope for that as it might mean we Conservative Members will be on the Opposition Benches forever.
Today’s debate is on an important topic and there have been some very good contributions already, but I want to get to the bottom of what the Government really want out of this negotiation, because they have been a little bit tepid in coming forward on the key issues. I welcome the Government’s negotiations in India—finishing off a trade arrangement deal or whatever it is with the Indian Government. I welcome too that they have been able to begin to negotiate with the United States, although they have not secured a full trade deal. By the way, they would not have got a trade deal if the Democrats had got back into office because they rejected it for four years. In fact, President Biden said that there would be no trade deal with the UK. Let us not just observe that because the Democrats are not Trump, somehow they were going to give us a trade deal. I have my problems with the current President, but President Biden absolutely did not want trade with us; it was as simple as that. That was a mistake on his part. He had a real opportunity, because the trade deal was pretty much all done—and then it was binned.
There is also the question of the reason we are able to do these trade deals with the rest of the world, to which we export more than the European Union. We should do more of those trade deals. The Conservative Government did 73 after Brexit, although some of them were mopping up the ones that we had before. I stand ready to congratulate the Labour Government if they use the freedom Brexit gives them to get more trade arrangements, because that is what we are here for. I might want to press them further and say they could get a lot more out of the US, but that is another debate all together.
I do not disagree with the idea that the deal we did with the European Union is capable of being improved. Of course it is, because the EU put up many barriers in the course of that negotiation; it weaponised Northern Ireland distinctly, and that was a grave error on its part. It risked some of the process of peace in Northern Ireland by making it a critical negotiating tool that could be used as leverage later in the rest of the negotiations, and as a result we have been left with a problem in Northern Ireland. I encourage the Government to have a very good look at that. I did not vote for the Windsor agreement because I thought it did not solve the problem by a long chalk, and it has left Northern Ireland in the same position as before, with a couple of small modifications.
This debate is really about getting into the issue. I say to the Minister that the European Union did not play straight about phytosanitary from day one in the negotiations, and it still does not play straight. The fact is that our standards in animal welfare and product health are, and always have been, above those of the European Union. The European Union knows that. The reality is that somehow it decided that there had to be all these phytosanitary checks and changes, and it is desperately keen to get dynamic alignment now, because that means that there will be a rules-based order coming from the EU. That is what it has always wanted to do.
The truth is that the European Union does not have that arrangement with other countries around the world. For example, it is quite happy to have New Zealand vets check their products before departure. Those products go in through Rotterdam without any checks, other than checks that they came from the area specified. The EU knows which vets it authorises, so it does that. It could have done that here in the UK.
I sat down with Monsieur Barnier and a group of people to have a long discussion when the negotiations broke down as a result of what was going on here in Parliament, and I very much remember that we talked about trusting each other’s regulations and working with that trust to get an arrangement that made it as easy as possible to get goods across the border. He accepted that then, saying that, provided we could trust each other’s veterinary authorities, we would not need to have the phytosanitary rules as proposed at the moment. It was only later, when my party in government came back and did a terrible shimmy with him, that he thought he had it all, so he took it. The reality is that the EU knew all along, from the word go, that it was easier to put in place these arrangements than it made out.
I have always found the phytosanitary objection peculiar, because it could be sorted out very quickly. Our standards are higher than the EU’s, and our vets are quite capable of checking different producers to see whether they fit European standards. That is all it is: are they up to European standards, and are European standards up to ours when the EU exports to us? It is very simple. That can be done in every trade deal, and the EU already does it with other countries that are not, and have never been, part of that Union. There is an idea that to get this issue sorted, we would have to go into dynamic alignment and accept the EU’s rules over our products, but it would make it more difficult to make future trade arrangements if we were rule-takers from the European Union and could not negotiate these areas ourselves. That brings me back to my previous point.
Before I return to that issue, I want to raise another point. The trouble is that the argument I heard made—that a phytosanitary agreement involving dynamic alignment would address the price of food—is patently absurd. If SPS checks concerned the price of food, we could unilaterally relax them. They do not have to be where they are: that is our decision to take. It would not change or lower the price of food. If anything, it would be more likely to block us from doing a number of things, such as gene editing in food and work that we want to do that the European Union does not want to do. All these things put at risk where we may be in future trade arrangements and the direction in which we may want to develop farming here.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I want to make a couple of points on this issue before I give way.
We know, and everybody else around the world outside the EU knows, that the EU puts up very hidden tariff barriers. America is right about that; it complained that Europe finds all sorts of little regulations and problems, so that it cannot break in with its products and goods. That has happened for a long time, and it has happened with us—we know that it was even happening when we were in the EU. We are by nature a free-trading country, and there is no way on earth that we think the EU as a construct is as free trading in that sense. It wants to protect its markets more than anything else, rather than open up to the rest of the world.
David Chadwick
Welsh food and drink exports have fallen by 18% since 2018. Does that not evidence the damage that has been done to Wales by these deals?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
If damage has been done to exporting to the European Union, as I said earlier, that is about the attitude of the European Union to protectionism in the EU. Its trade with us has not fallen away on that basis, because we did not set up those barriers in the first place, so my argument to the hon. Gentleman is very simple: the European Union wants it all. That is the reality of what we are dealing with. It wants it all, and it negotiated in bad faith from the word go. We have an agreement, which is a pretty good agreement as trade agreements go. It is one of the largest trade agreements that we have. It can always be improved—I do not disagree with that—but the reality is that we need to deal with an organisation that is as relaxed about being fair to us as we are about being fair to it. That has been our biggest problem from the word go.
Returning to phytosanitary issues, I have had debates and discussions with the Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), in the past, and we have agreed with each other many times. I laud him for his stance on Russia and everything else—there is no question about that—but I want to quote from a little document that I came across from the Centre for European Reform. By the way, it is very complimentary to say that I read things that I do not agree with. I tend to do that quite a lot, strangely—it is a bad habit of mine, I know. That document is very close to how the European Union’s heads of department all think, and it says:
“Labour’s red lines do not extend to ruling out dynamic alignment or a role for the ECJ in dispute settlement.”
As such, I ask the Minister this simple question: is the Centre for European Reform correct? Do the Government’s red lines rule out dynamic alignment, or do they not? I will give way to the Minister right now, because I am generous like that, and he probably wants to answer that question. I tempt him to come to the Dispatch Box and say whether the Government’s red lines rule out dynamic alignment. Could they, and will they, agree to dynamic alignment and ECJ rules? I will give way to him now, because I see that he is beginning to move.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
indicated dissent.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has a little while to go before he stands at the Dispatch Box. I am after the Minister, not him, but we will get to that in due course. The reality is that the Government could agree to dynamic alignment—there was no denial of that. Essentially, the Government are going into this negotiation knowing full well that they are so desperate on phytosanitary matters that they will give way on dynamic alignment. That is exactly what the EU wants.
My real worry in all of this, however, is that we know what is going on—I will just move on to another topic, and then I will sit down and give other Members a chance to speak. Most of all, I am worried about bad faith. When we talked about improvements—which, to be fair to the Government, they did with the European Union—what did France do almost immediately? The Prime Minister is showing some leadership over Ukraine, trying to galvanise the other nations, which is his role. His role is to haul America and keep it with us, and he has been doing that. I do not have any criticism of that, but when the Prime Minister got involved, saying that Europe should form a coalition of the willing and that he wanted to drive that further forward and get some kind of agreement on it, what did France immediately say? “Not before you give us access to fishing.” That was it. In no world does fishing have anything to do with defence, yet France weaponised fishing to block off the UK, which had taken the—I think—generous position of saying that it wanted to galvanise Europe to do more.
The problem here is that if we take out the countries that joined since the Ukraine war, Europe across the board spends half of what the United States does on defence in dollar terms. We have more people and more industry in Europe, yet we spend half of what America does on weaponry and defence. That is a shocking position for a member of NATO to be in. We have not stood up. We have done better—still not good enough—but what the rest of Europe has done has been shocking. By the way, the country that just told us that we will not get any discussions unless fishing is on the agenda has been one of the worst spenders on defence in the European Union, let alone in global terms.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Way less than us, and less than most of the others—it is at the bottom of the scale. I simply say to the Government that the Prime Minister is right to press on defence, to get the European nations to step up, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said earlier, we have a mechanism for that. The Prime Minister is right to do it through NATO, and we must not allow Europe to slide away from NATO as its means of defence.
I watched, as did many of its leaders, when Vice-President Vance lectured the European Union in Munich. What he said shocked the European leaders, as it was meant to—he laid into Europe quite vindictively—but fair enough. However, where we are now heading, towards somehow encouraging those countries peculiarly to form some kind of European Union defence organisation, is exactly what will give the American Administration permission to say, “Well, you can do this yourself.” We are already halfway there, by the way, because we are forming a coalition of the willing but America is not willing, and we are at odds with it over its relationship with Ukraine. We agreed about the ceasefire, but America has now changed its position and will now be holding negotiations before a ceasefire. I think that that is wrong, by the way. Although I am personally a big supporter of America, I think it is mistaken on that particular point and the Government are right.
My point is that we are putting the whole of NATO at risk for a phytosanitary and fishing deal. In what world does anyone do that? What are we doing it for? The answer, it seems to me, is that we are too desperate to curry favour with an organisation that, when push comes to shove and when it comes to defence, needs us more than we need it. It needs the UK to be locked into this because we are the key to so much of what it needs to do with defence. I say to the Government, “You have much stronger tools in your hand than you may think.” We have key persuasive powers on defence, and we should not sell them on the basis that they should become European and we should destroy NATO, or damage NATO, simply because we want to make some kind of adjustment or improvement which includes dynamic alignment and the loss of the possibility of future trade negotiation.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Unlike many Opposition Members, my constituents have little appetite for a relitigation of the Brexit debates of 2016. Back at the time of referendum, 66% of them voted to leave the European Union; there is scant desire for us to rejoin, and even less desire for a return to embracing freedom of movement. I will always put my constituents first, and these are red lines that I understand, honour and respect.
However, my constituents also see the changing world around us, and recognise that the world has been transformed immeasurably since 2016. The terms on which we left the European Union do not match the global moment that we face today. President Trump’s tariffs have rocked the international economic order. War has broken out in Europe, and there is a need for dramatically increased defence spending and new methods of working with international colleagues. A new wave of mass migration from the middle east and Africa, and the small boats crisis in our channel, can only be properly handled through further co-operation with our international partners.
Basically, my constituents are patriotic. They want their country to be resilient to new threats, and prosperous in a chaotic world. While any future with the European Union must respect critical red lines on controlling borders and protecting ultimate sovereignty in Westminster, there is now scope for a new thread, a new relationship, to embolden our security and economic interests in a volatile world. This new approach can, should and will, I believe, overcome the increasingly desperate, archaic, old-fashioned attacks from some Opposition Members about the so-called Brexit betrayal, and the British public know that.
Polling by the Good Growth Foundation shows that 73% of the public support significant co-operation with the EU on trade and the economy, defence and security. More than twice as many adults say that the EU is the UK’s most trustworthy ally, rather than the United States under its current President, and about 60% of the public say that it is imperative for us to have a closer relationship with the European Union in the future. A new, better deal with the European Union is popular because few think that the current relationship is working. Many, while supporting the principle of Brexit and having voted in favour of it in 2016, feel that its execution during the chaotic Conservative premierships has been disastrous.
The public’s desire for change is a reality that the Conservative party cannot seem to wake up to. Although I fundamentally disagree with its principles, it has been a great party. At their best, the Conservatives have been successful in modernising the country in line with global trends. They brought us into Europe, and played a pivotal role in building the single market that so many Europeans enjoy today. Given their track record, it is sad to see that they seem to oppose the notion of negotiating a new and better relationship with Europe. The party of Churchill and Thatcher, who once led on the world stage, is now left to carp from the sidelines, like talk radio commentators from a bygone era. The Leader of the Opposition is busy denouncing every post-Brexit deal that this Labour Government sign as inadequate or a betrayal, including those that she failed to get over the line when she was Trade Secretary.
On this issue, as with so many of the Conservatives’ current fixations, the public have simply left them behind. The Conservatives are fighting yesterday’s battles. Although the themes that won such support in the referendum cannot be ignored, change is required. Any entanglement of political structures, and any notion of increased immigration or a lack of control, will rightly be met with outrage by those who supported Brexit, but the benefits of a closer deal are now clear.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the Conservative party; it has indeed been a great party and remains so. On entanglement, he makes a valid point about co-operation and collaboration, but that has always been the case. Of course we must work with other countries, but the core issue here is authority. Entanglement means granting authority to a power outside this country. Surely this movement of young people, which is a dressed-up form of free movement, is just that.
Jake Richards
I reject the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the policy. I will come on to that specific policy in a moment, but his characterisation is unfair. I am not in the habit of giving advice to the Conservatives, but my understanding is that at the last general election, the party finished fifth among voters under the age of 35. Looking in the mirror and thinking about how they have ended up in that position might be a worthwhile way to spend some time.
The benefits of a closer deal are now clear: a unified carbon and electricity market could raise billions of pounds in revenue for the Treasury, and more collaboration on defence would ease pressures, enhance capability, and support joint procurement and R&D in key areas. There is also scope—this goes to the right hon. Gentleman’s point—for a capped UK-EU youth mobility scheme to be part of the deal, but it has to be negotiated and the devil will be in the detail. There should be tight limits on the numbers, access to services and duration of stay, and it should be part of an agreement whereby the EU helps the UK with many of the challenges that we face with immigration. This is part of a relationship that does not stop at one moment or at one deal; it is an ongoing relationship. This Government are open, negotiating, listening and getting the best deal for Britain, and it is one that I support.
As so often is the case, the political class is lagging behind public opinion and fighting the last battle. The Brexit paradigm that certainly defined British politics between 2016 and 2020 is history, and the Government are right to look to the future and pursue a better and deeper relationship with our European partners in order to improve living standards, offer economic protection and ensure our country’s security. I am pleased that this Government appear willing to seize the moment, and I look forward to supporting their efforts in that endeavour in the coming weeks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I do not intend to introduce a time limit, but Members will be aware that there are in the region of 25 people wishing to speak. They might like to consider how long they will spend on their feet, so that as many colleagues as possible can get in.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Last week, this House recognised the 80th anniversary of the allied victory in Europe, so I find it somewhat strange that today the party of Churchill is calling for a debate that seeks to drive a wedge between us and our friends and allies on the continent.
I speak on behalf of the young people, farmers, fishermen and small business owners of my constituency—[Hon. Members: “Fishermen?”] Yes, plural! They are hard-working people who have felt the consequences of our severance from Europe. The bungling of farming and fisheries policy since Brexit has led to supply chain disruptions, reduced access to export markets and financial uncertainty for our producers. Our farmers—once able to trade freely with Europe—now find themselves bogged down in paperwork, losing out to competitors who enjoy smoother trade arrangements.
Despite the turbulence of Brexit, the European Union remains our largest trading partner. To undermine this reality seems, to my mind, to be a curious act of economic self-harm. Grand promises of scaling back Brussels bureaucracy were made, but precisely the opposite has occurred, with more red tape, delays and headaches for our businesses and traders.
Rachel Gilmour
I simply do not accept what the hon. Member says. Big corporations may be able to adapt, shift operations—[Interruption.] Do be quiet for a minute!
Big corporations may be able to adapt, shift operations and sidestep the chaos, but for our small businesses—the backbone of our economy—this is not merely an inconvenience, but a catastrophe. Ask my constituent Becca James of Williton what she has made of the Brexit fallout, having run a superb au pair agency that folded. As an MP representing many SMEs in my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead—Minehead being on the sea, hence the fishermen—I hear daily about their struggles to keep trading and to navigate new regulations. Conservative Governments have hung them out to dry, leaving them to fend for themselves in a post-Brexit economic landscape riddled with uncertainties. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
We must swerve the temptations of dogma and pursue policies that benefit our economy, our people and our future. We must come to terms with the fact that forming a new customs arrangement would offset much of this harsh impact and would be a sign of a more grown-up politics. I and my party are looking forward eagerly to the Government’s big reset in the weeks to come. Without a comprehensive trading arrangement with the EU, it will be clear that reset just means rebrand.
Fisheries have not fared any better. Grandstanding notions of reclaiming British waters turned out to be hollow, as coastal communities have seen dwindling profits, complicated licensing, and deals that have left them materially worse off than before. If only the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) had attended more than one of the 42 meetings of the EU Parliament Committee on Fisheries, which he was paid to attend, our fishermen might be on a more even keel.
We must embrace the EU youth mobility scheme. The West Somerset area of my constituency sits at 324th out of 324 on the social mobility index, and while there is no overnight panacea to this, I believe that those from disadvantaged backgrounds having access to opportunity on the continent can only be a good thing. The youth mobility scheme would democratise travel and work abroad by removing the financial barriers that typically make it an option only for the privileged. It would empower talented young people who may have the skills but lack the financial means to access the same opportunities as their more affluent peers. Why should they be reserved for a few?
It is my firm belief that travel and broadening one’s experiences can be one of the best forms of education. Why would we deny our young people that golden ticket to live, work, study and build lifelong friendships in Europe? This is not entirely an argument about economics, for what monetary value can be placed on broadening the horizons of our young people wherever those opportunities may lie? It is a peculiar irony that young people from nations on the other side of the world—the likes of our Australian and Kiwi friends—are part of this scheme, while the UK across that small body of water known as the channel, or la manche, remains on the outside looking in.
I will end with the words of the European Union preamble: nous sommes unis dans notre diversité, notre histoire commune, nos valeurs et notre avenir partagés. I will give hon. Members a translation if they need one.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
As this is a debate in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition, it is only right that I share some personal reflections on the record of the Conservative party when it was in government. I am feeling generous, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure the House will be pleased to know that this will be a brief speech. But I am also feeling generous because I want to begin with three simple and constructive suggestions for the Conservative party on its future approach to the European Union.
First, a good place to start would be by accepting that the Brexit deal signed in 2020 has done substantial damage to our economy. Fundamentally, it was a deal that put up barriers to trade. As the Office for Budget Responsibility concluded, the UK economy will be 4% smaller than previously expected. That means the country is on course to be £100 billion poorer than it otherwise would have been.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is not the first time that the 4% figure has been referenced. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was based on the assumption that UK-EU trade would fall and there would therefore be a hit to our productivity? In fact, EU-UK trade has risen since Brexit, so the whole basis of that assumption is wrong. Will he please acknowledge that?
Andrew Lewin
It is curious, is it not? I have seen Conservative Front Benchers talking up the OBR when it is convenient, but in this case, when they do not agree with it, they decry it and say we must not listen to it.
Step one: it is time to accept that it was a deal that made the country poorer and it must be looked at again.
My second tip would be to apologise to the business community. He is no longer a Member of this House, so perhaps it is time to fully disown the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. As well as saying sorry for his language towards the business community, it might be time to say sorry to the 60% of companies that told the British chambers of commerce that it has become harder for them to trade as a direct consequence of the deal that was signed.
The highlight of the shadow Minister’s speech was his reference to “Quantum Leap”. He talked fondly of it, but I think it is time to jump back into the present. My third piece of advice is, therefore, that the Conservative party should listen to more podcasts. I know for a fact that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) and the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) listen to a certain weekly political podcast featuring former Chancellor George Osborne. I know they listen to it, because I have heard the voice notes they submitted as questions in recent weeks and months. It is an excellent podcast, but I fear that while Conservative MPs are tuning in, they are not really listening. George Osborne could not be more clear: the European Union is our single biggest trading partner and if we are serious about growing the economy, it is time for a new and more ambitious deal. On this, he and his co-host Ed Balls are united, and they are absolutely right.
I am a pro-European and an internationalist. In my short time in this place, I have already had the opportunity to speak at greater length in other debates on why now is the time for a substantial reset in the relationship with our largest trading partner. Today, I will not revisit those arguments at length. But we are less than a week away from the UK-EU summit and I am very hopeful that we will see a comprehensive deal that makes progress on security, trade and a visa-based youth mobility scheme.
This is not 2016 or 2020. While the Conservative party in Parliament may want to replay the old debates, public opinion in the country has moved on. In an uncertain and volatile world, there is no more important relationship for the UK than the one with our closest neighbour and biggest trading partner. People want to see progress. They want to see a deal that makes a material difference to their lives. I am confident that is exactly what this Labour Government will deliver, starting with the summit next week.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is wonderful to hear from the acclaimed globalists from both the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Labour Benches who cannot wait to bring us back into the EU. For the record, I am opposed to doing so not only because the British people voted the opposite way and we should honour the referendum, but because, as Labour Members seem to have forgotten, we actually negotiated a trade deal with Europe.
What I am interested in is the evasive nature of what the Minister said from the Dispatch Box, which committed us to nothing other than resetting our relationship with the EU. I would like reassurances on what that means. What strategic partnership with the EU was he referring to? What concessions is he planning on making? Will some kind of new EU treaty renegotiation come out of this? What kind of active or passive role is the UK planning on taking at this summit? None of that has been made clear.
Joy Morrissey
In a moment—I want to make some progress.
While none of that has been made clear, we have heard from quite a lot of Back-Bench Labour MPs that we will have a wonderful new trade deal and a great new visa system for young people, which gives me pause. Either we are not being told fully what is going to happen at this summit, or there is such anticipation for back-door EU realignment that the Labour party cannot contain itself, and its Members cannot help but tell us what they are planning on doing.
My biggest concern in all this—forgive me for wanting reassurance from the Dispatch Box—is that the outcome of the summit might involve concessions of jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice, or the application of any of the principles of supremacy of EU law. I would like a guarantee from the Minister, on the Floor of the House, that that will not be the case. There can be no question of the European Court of Justice being brought back via the back door through dynamic realignment with EU law.
I want to hear reassurances from the Minister that nothing will be discussed or renegotiated at this summit that would tear apart all the work we did, through the withdrawal agreement and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, to ensure that our laws have supremacy over EU law. That was the point. Many of us voted for Brexit because we wanted to see our sovereignty and our borders restored; we wanted to see our laws brought back under our sovereignty. We want to ensure that we honour the commitments that we made, with both the Retained EU Law Act and the withdrawal agreement, to move forward with the EU.
I welcome trade deals all over the world; I want us to be as successful as we can be. Praise where praise is due: if the Labour party has achieved a trade deal, fine—I am happy to acknowledge that and to say “Well done”. We should be trying to get trade deals with any country that we can.
The reason I am asking for assurances from the Dispatch Box is that I have seen the Labour party change its view on so many things: on Brexit, on Trump, on scrapping winter fuel payments, on energy bills—
Joy Morrissey
And on national insurance. Forgive me for needing reassurance from the Dispatch Box that the Minister will not come back with some sort of 1984 doublespeak and expect us to enjoy that.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend’s scepticism is well founded, because many on the Government Benches—I do not say all—could barely sustain the result of the referendum and regarded it with outrage. The people had spoken and contradicted the long-standing prejudice of the liberal bourgeoisie. That is why they tried to block Brexit—indeed, the Prime Minister tried to block it 48 times. My hon. Friend is right, therefore, to be sceptical about Labour.
Joy Morrissey
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We need to protect our Brexit freedoms and make sure that we hold the Labour party to account.
We heard a lot from the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) about all the wonderful things he has planned for our free trade deal. However, I am concerned that we are going to rewrite history; that we are going to ignore the British people again and allow for dynamic back-door realignment with the EU without giving Parliament or the British people a say.
Joy Morrissey
The hon. Gentleman had a long time to speak, but I will give way once.
Ben Coleman
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I took a third of the time that her colleague, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), took for his speech. Is she genuinely suggesting that we should tell this House right now what we will be negotiating in Brussels next week—that we should give away the full details of our strategy? Perhaps that is the attitude that the Conservative Government took when they were negotiating the trade deal with Australia; the Conservative former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that it was a poor deal that let our farmers down. Given her approach, no wonder that happened.
Joy Morrissey
The hon. Gentleman should allow us to fulfil the deal to which we are committed. We have put in place a trade deal and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Unless there are new negotiations to be had, what exactly is the purpose of the summit?
I was going to end my speech, but the hon. Gentleman has inspired me to continue. The Government’s amendment relates to NATO, but NATO has nothing to do with the EU; it is a completely separate entity. Talk of dynamic realignment on defence came about after we left the EU. Ensuring an ever closer Union, through military, policing and social policy, has always been part of the plan of the European Union. That is welcome to internationalists, Liberal Democrats and Labour Members. I am sure that they would all love to have another way of binding us to the EU. NATO is separate; it has one document that has been agreed in the post-war period—
Joy Morrissey
No, I will not.
NATO gives us an alignment on military matters that needs to be protected and fostered. A Liberal Democrat Member mentioned our technical and military capability. That is not the issue; the issue is: who bears the cost of our military capacity, which we deploy in defence of Europe and the free world? NATO was created post war, during the cold war, when we needed that strategic protection in Europe. That still holds true. Why would we disrupt that, and muddy the waters with this motion, which brings in NATO, which is separate from the EU? Why would we talk about something related to the military in a debate on EU jurisdiction?
Several hon. Members rose—
Joy Morrissey
I will finish and allow others to speak. I want to hear from colleagues from across the House, because this is a very interesting debate. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your time. I will really enjoy hearing from the Minister when they return from the summit on what exactly they have in mind for us and the EU.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I am delighted to contribute to the debate. I was really pleased to hear the Minister say from the Dispatch Box that, at the EU summit, we will focus on safety, security and growth. And, boy, don’t we need growth, after 14 years of chaos and disaster from the Conservative party. Since leaving the EU in 2020, businesses in Monmouthshire and across the UK have faced the many barriers that resulted from the Tories’ botched Brexit deal.
I must declare an interest: I am a big fan of the EU. No, that does not mean that I want to rejoin the EU, contrary to what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said. We need a better trading deal for our farmers, and for businesses in Monmouthshire. I was lucky enough, when I was at Middlesex Polytechnic many years ago, to take part in the Erasmus scheme. I went to Europe for two years; I studied in France. I learned French and did my finals in French. That cultural exchange—that ability to go to another country—is so important for our future, and for our young people. That was even before I met my Catalan husband, so now I have lots of family in Barcelona. It is so important to have close ties with the European Union.
As a member of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, I was delighted that we were received with open arms in Brussels earlier this year. Our trading relations with our nearest and largest partner are too important to be taken over by playground politics from the Conservative party. I am so pleased that the new Labour Government are seeking a more co-operative and mature relationship with the EU. As one MEP said, “Thank goodness the grown-ups are back in charge”.
Wales has a unique relationship with the EU, especially regarding our world famous, delicious and best-tasting Welsh lamb. Farmers and National Farmers Union Cymru have told me that we need a new SPS deal. In 2023 alone, Wales exported £600 million of food and drink to the EU, and a large proportion of that was red meat, but UK exports to the EU overall were down 19% in 2023.
Ben Coleman
On the subject of lamb, will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact—I asked this of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey)—that the previous Government negotiated a trade deal with Australia that a former Conservative Environment Secretary described as a disaster for our farmers, not least those farming lamb?
Catherine Fookes
Absolutely, I remember that well.
The reduction in exports is mainly due to the increase in paperwork, form-filling, and checks and barriers to trade. Some companies have simply given up because they have had such a difficult time dealing with the red tape. Companies have also had to put up prices, which has impacted consumers. For farmers, businesses and consumers, we need a strong, beneficial SPS agreement. I am so pleased that the Minister is working hard on this. Our Government’s No. 1 priority is economic growth, and that would be supported by growing co-operation with the EU.
Recently, I met people from businesses in my constituency that export to the EU for a proper discussion about what Brexit has meant for them. Sadly, I was unsurprised by what they had to say. I have already mentioned the increase in admin, which has hit their productivity; they are doing more work for less reward. Requirements for product information and documentation are creating a time-consuming and costly burden. Once the paperwork is all done, there is another set of challenges. One person I met said that delays at Calais were borderline unmanageable. That is especially impacting the small and medium-sized enterprises of Monmouthshire.
One person I spoke to at the roundtable said:
“The biggest issue currently is that inspections at Calais for our products are very slow and at the same time we are restricted in terms of time spent at the port due to dangerous goods that are included in the load. This is a balance that is barely manageable for us.”
A person from another company said:
“What a disaster Brexit was for the import/export business: for my company, although through the agreement we are now back to ‘zero tariff’, the net result is simply a huge increase in admin and transport costs, for which ultimately the consumer pays.”
Finally, a person said:
“Exhibiting in the EU is much more complex and requires greater admin”.
They gave this example: if a business takes as much as a screwdriver to an exhibition in the EU, it must fill in a form for that screwdriver, even though it is to be used only to put up an exhibition stand. They said that every single piece of equipment must be counted in and counted out.
Three overall strands emerged from my roundtable: we must remove trade barriers; we must have dynamic alignment of standards; and businesses in my constituency would like a return to some kind of youth exchange scheme, like the one I benefited from. Trade is one of the most pressing issues at hand as we seek to rebuild our relationship at the summit next week. Removing barriers to export will be essential for farmers, businesses and consumers in Monmouthshire as the Government pursue their vital mission of economic growth.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I will start with a few words about the context of the debate. Clearly, the accusation—as though it were a negative—is that the campaign for Brexit had a sort of nostalgic, backward-looking spirit, and that those of us who supported it did so in that spirit. There is something in that, because we were talking about restoring British sovereignty; there was a sense that something good had been lost and needed to be brought back. All good revolutions are in a sense backward-looking; the bad revolutions are the progressive ones, while good revolutions restore what was lost. That is what Brexit was about.
Nevertheless, despite that point, which I do concede, fundamentally the case for Brexit was forward-looking. It was about putting this country in the best possible position to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This century demands agility, and the independence that sovereignty can allow. Obviously, there must be co-operation and close working in partnership—Britain has always been an outward-looking country—but nimbleness and agility will be needed in the highly contested new world that we are in. That is what Brexit was about, and on a number of hugely significant occasions since Brexit, we have already seen why our independence was so necessary. We saw it in our covid response, and in the context of Ukraine and our defence policy, and we see it now in our trade. Indeed, we have done since Brexit. We have seen it in the UK’s negotiations with the US, which we can compare with those undertaken by the EU in recent months.
On trade, as I said in an intervention, the challenge is often made that Brexit has harmed our GDP because it brought about a loss in productivity. The reverse is true. Trade with the EU has grown since Brexit, and it is not the case that we have suffered detriment because of that. Trade is growing between the UK and the whole world, including the EU, but it is growing more with non-EU countries, which makes the point about why it was so necessary to reclaim sovereignty over our trade policy. I echo the concerns raised by Conservative colleagues about what is being planned for next week, in terms of dynamic alignment on trade, and I call on the Minister to rule out a back-door alignment arrangement with the EU. We have seen worrying hints of that. I look forward to his response.
The case for Brexit was not primarily about trade. Of course, that is a very important matter, but let us acknowledge, as I think we all do, that really people were voting to take back control of our borders and our laws. Those two vital issues remain contested because this Government never believed in Brexit and do not understand the call of the people for independence and sovereignty in those two key respects.
On borders and immigration, I recognise the case for a youth mobility scheme. In principle, the abstract case for a reciprocal arrangement in which young people can spend a few months or a year working in another country is a good thing. The hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) said that it was a nice thing to do. Nevertheless, we see the value of such schemes only when there is a reciprocal arrangement and comparable numbers are coming and going. The same argument applies to the Indian trade deal and its reciprocal arrangement on national insurance. The fact is, many more people will take advantage of the so-called reciprocal arrangements by coming to the UK than will go either to India or to the EU, so we would not have a level playing field. As with free movement, this youth scheme would be another way for many more people to come to this country, undercutting British workers and continuing the stagnation of wages that we have suffered from for so many decades.
On laws and taking back control, I am concerned about the threat of European Court of Justice oversight of the trade arrangements, and potentially of the new veterinary agreement and deals on meat and dairy. I very much hope that the Minister will definitively rule out any extension of ECJ oversight. The fact is—we see this in the Government’s rather mealy-mouthed amendment to the motion—that Labour does not believe in Brexit.
I really honour the Green party for its amendment, because in that we hear the true voice of the pro-European movement. It is almost a parody. It suggests that free movement and rejoining the EU are what the country needs and would be in the national interest. Indeed, it suggests that it would be a way to counter the hard right. Have Green Members seen what is going on in Europe? The extension of the principles of ever closer union, deeper alignment and concentration of power at the European level is stoking the far right across Europe. The fundamental reason why the Conservative party has always been so successful, historically, is that we have spoken for those people who otherwise would be outraged. Reform has been doing well—by the way, I do not associate Reform with the far right—because it speaks for those outraged members of the public, many of whom used to vote for us and for the Labour party, who feel that their Parliament has let them down and politics has left them behind. That has happened across Europe in a much more dangerous way, so if we are serious about countering the danger of the right, we should be absolutely clear about there being no suggestion of any return to the EU.
Let me finish on Reform. Its Members are not here any more, but there we go. They have a rather amusing amendment to the motion, which simply replaces the words “Conservative party” with the words “Reform”. They are piggybacking somewhat on our good work, in a desperate search to be relevant and to catch up with the Conservative party, which is leading the way on this agenda. It is a bit of a problem, and two things occur to me: first, that they cannot even write an amendment of their own and they have to rely on us—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member might reflect on the fact that the amendment to which he refers was not even selected, so he should not even be speaking to it.
Danny Kruger
I will therefore end just by saying that the amendment tabled by Reform, which I appreciate was not selected, demonstrates that we are on the same page and I deeply regret their opposition to what we are trying to do.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Reform Members are not here, so I will answer that point. They are not on the same page as us because their amendment, which was not a proper one, did not fit on the same page of the Order Paper!
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian and knows that he should be addressing the Chair, not facing the back of the Chamber.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—that was a lapse on my part.
Danny Kruger
All sorts of things go wrong when we mention Reform, so we had best leave that topic.
I pay tribute to the Conservative Front-Bench Members, who have put forward an important and principled statement of the declaration that our party will stand for. We support the decision of the British people to leave the European Union, repeated in multiple general elections. It is a great shame that we cannot hear the Labour party make the same pledge.
Ben Coleman
I am trying to understand if, at some point, we will hear anything from the Conservative party about what its Members think could be improved in the Brexit agreement that has been so bad for their party. We are talking about getting a better Brexit agreement than the one they negotiated. Are they saying that what they did was perfect, or can it be improved on? If it can, how? Everything else the hon. Gentleman has said has been negative.
Danny Kruger
There are two things. First, we could do better on Northern Ireland, but let us leave that whole topic for another day. Secondly, the Brexit agreement that we negotiated was absolutely right, but the problem is the EU and the fact that it is a protectionist bloc. We decided to leave because we believe in sovereignty and leaving a declining quarter of the world’s economy. The problem is the trade barriers that the EU erected unnecessarily and which are harmful to both parties. I will leave it there.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
May I start with a warning to my colleagues elected in 2024? Many of us who were here between 2017 and 2019 have been deeply triggered by this debate, which has rerun and rehashed the debates of old. We have the scars on all our backs. I warn hon. Members: do not go down that rabbit hole. No good can come of it. [Interruption.] I wager that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is laughing because he knows how much—
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful to my neighbour for giving way. If she wants to deliberately not go down that rabbit hole, she should be talking to the Government Front Benchers.
Ms Creasy
And lo, Bugs Bunny did appear. We have also heard from the man I started arguing with 33 years ago as a young campaigner about the merits or otherwise of working with Europe. It appears that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) was on the other bus in the debates about Brexit. That is exactly it: our constituents, who might listen to this, would be horrified to see us going backwards again, acting as if the last 10 years had not happened and there was no evidence about what Brexit means.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Who is it that is trying to take us back to the past? It is the Government. Brexit is giving this country its new future and the Government are trying to turn the clock back. That is what is wrong.
Ms Creasy
I hate to warn the hon. Gentleman, but I have a horrible feeling that if he were to compare the speech he made today with many of those he made between 2017 and 2019, he might find that he would lose “Just a Minute” on the grounds of repetition. That is going backwards. This country deserves better.
Let me start with a clear statement of intent. Brexit has happened; we have left. I am not here to prosecute the argument to rejoin. We do not have time for that. What we need is a salvage operation, because of the damage that has been done, especially in a world with so much uncertainty, where tariffs are now part and parcel of the everyday conversation and the damage that is being done to our constituents.
We can fight many things in life, but geography really is not one of them, however hard some Members on the Conservative Benches try. We heard from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) the continued myth that somehow the isolation to our status that Brexit has brought would bring us strength. The last 10 years—indeed, the last six months—have shown how clearly that is not the case. In fact, we are uniquely isolated and at risk as a nation. That is why what this Government are doing is absolutely right. They are getting on with signing trade deals, trying to sort out the damage that has been done and, indeed, looking for that hat-trick.
I have to say to Conservative Members that there is no conspiracy here. Those of us who were here in 2019 remember exactly the details of that deal and the fact that a five-year review process was written into it. What we are going to see next Monday is not some secret negotiation; it is part of the trade and co-operation process—[Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members chuntering. Hang on, I can see their tin foil hats! I beg them to look at the details of the agreement, which said clearly that there would be a renegotiation point, where we would review whether or not it was working. I am sorry that the shadow Minister is not in his place. He tried to claim affinity with Sam Beckett but frankly I suspect he is going to be more like Jim Trott from “The Vicar of Dibley”. He will say, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no”, and then have to say yes. The summit is not the end. It is the start of the process of reviewing the trade and co-operation agreement, and looking at what is in the best interests of this country.
Let me be clear: I am absolutely committed to the idea that there should be parliamentary scrutiny. My colleagues on the Front Bench will know that I have been concerned that the European Scrutiny Committee was deleted, because I think we should be able to discuss these matters. However, I think there probably ought to be a summit first in order for us to have something to discuss. I hope that will account for me putting in an advert for the Backbench Business debate that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I were going to have after the summit on 22 May, so that we parliamentarians may properly examine what comes out of it. Sadly, he is not in his place, which is a shame because I know how strongly he feels about these things, and I am sure he would want to talk about the benefits of Brexit and other mythical creatures. The summit is the starting gun. It is not the final deal, and it is really important to look at it in that way.
This is the test for the motion today. Are the Opposition really telling us that the trade and co-operation agreement is perfection? Is there absolutely nothing in that agreement that they would not wish to amend, revise or refine? Is there absolutely nothing in what it has delivered in the last five years that they are troubled by? For example, there are 1.8 million fewer jobs in our economy because of the Tory hard Brexit, and the academics who have studied this recognise that that figure will rise to 3 million by 2035. Trade is down 27% with the European Union—a bloc that we do five times more trade with than we do with America. Over 16,000 businesses have given up trading with Europe all together, because the truth about Brexit is that it was just paperwork—reams and reams of it—and small businesses in this country have sadly had to up sticks.
I declare an interest as the chair of the Labour Movement for Europe. I am not standing here arguing to rejoin, but I am a red against red tape and what I see is the amount of paperwork—[Interruption.] I am loving the fact that Conservative Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, as if this was some sort of revelation. Perhaps they can borrow some tin foil from their fellow Members and talk about a conspiracy. They would do better to reflect on the impact of the border trading operating model—an entirely self-inflicted wound by the previous Government on British farmers and British food supply chains that pushed up inflation, because charging for pallets of food coming into the country created more and more paperwork. Unless Conservative Members are genuinely telling us that they think “chef’s kiss” for the trade and co-operation agreement, it is right for us to look at whether there are things we can do to deal with the problems it has created for our constituents—including the £6.95 billion of additional cost to households—and to account for some of the myths that have been created.
Again, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—he will accuse me of being obsessed, but let us look at what he talked about—said that somehow being out of the European Union made our response to covid better. Well, he might want to talk to the UK covid inquiry, which found that it was the reverse. It found that our failure to prepare was increased by the fact that we were dealing with a no-deal Brexit; it harmed our covid response. He might even want to reflect on the words of the UK medicines regulator, which said we could have used the emergency processes to bring forward our own vaccine. I am sure that is what he was talking about.
The hon. Member also talked about Ukraine. He might want to reflect, as he thinks about the summit on Monday, on how hard it was for us to make the case about the importance of standing with Ukraine from outside of the room, and that those who were less convinced who were part of the European Union would have heard our message more clearly if we were inside the room, particularly when it came to gas imports. We championed Ukraine, but we had to shout from outside rather than being part of the conversations from the start.
This summit needs a strong agenda, and that is exactly what this Government are talking about. It is an agenda focused on fixing the problems that this trade and co-operation agreement has created. That is what the public want—they agree with us. They do not want us to spend five to 10 years on treaty renegotiation and the possibility of rejoining; they want us to salvage this country from the damage that Brexit has done. Two thirds of the country say that Brexit is bad for the cost of living, and 65% say that it has had a negative impact on the economy. Opposition Members might want to reflect on the fact that that is nearly twice the number of people who think that immigration is bad for our economy.
The British public are not daft; they are wise about what needs to happen next. They understand the value of a defence deal. They understand that, in a world with Putin at our doorstep, with the challenges we face and the uncertainty in other parts of the world, it is absolutely right and proper, and will complement NATO, to work more closely with our European counterparts, to increase investment in the UK defence industry and to collaborate on crime. Those of us who used to have constituents whose needs were served by the EU arrest warrants know the damage that the previous Government’s deal has done. Those of us who want to see us stepping up the way we collaborate on international aid know that we need to get round the table with our European counterparts. The best way to tackle those who might be stuck on a boat, fleeing persecution, is to try to stop the conflict at the source. That is what collaborating on international aid with Europe could offer.
The public understand the value of an SPS deal, which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) mentioned, and the value of the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, which deals with the paperwork about rules of origin. Thanks to the Tory hard Brexit, those rules mean that every time a tomato is brought into this country to make a pizza in the Wirral, extra paperwork comes with it. The public would want us to look at the VAT rules, because small businesses are now struggling with 27 different VAT regimes. They would also want us to sort out the carbon border adjustment mechanism; that is how we save British steel, which will be affected if there is a divergence. We need to look at how the emissions trading schemes can be linked, and we can save British business £800 million in charges.
The public want us to look at mutual conformity assessments to try to reduce duplication. They want common sense on regulation. The previous Government tried to bring in separate regulatory regimes and, understandably, British business said, “That is twice the cost.” British businesses want to be able to sell to their neighbours; they do not want extra pieces of paperwork. The previous Government tried to make us have separate regulations on airline safety—as if an aeroplane taking off in London would need to follow a different set of regimes if it landed in Berlin. That is bonkers. Understandably, we walked back from it, and we should not go back to those kind of arguments just because those on the Conservative Benches have a blindness when it comes to Europe.
This Government have got their head on. They are looking at what they can do to help the chemicals industry and supply chains, and of course it is looking at what a deal on youth mobility might look like. This is a summit; it is about having the conversation, looking at the details and looking at how we can support apprenticeships through youth mobility. Clearly, youth mobility is not freedom of movement, otherwise I would have heard complaints from Opposition Members about the fact that we have freedom of movement deals with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Uruguay—[Interruption.] I can see a Conservative Member saying, “Yes, indeed.” I presume they are going to call for the abolition of freedom of movement from Canada, then; that would be consistency.
We could also do more to help our creative services and financial services, and, yes, to resolve some of the tensions in Northern Ireland. Many of us feel deeply that the people of Northern Ireland have suffered the most as a result of the Tory hard Brexit. Yes, we could do a deal on fishing. We could acknowledge the fact that our fisheries industry felt sold out by the previous Government by supporting them to be sustainable. All those are issues that we can return to in that Back-Bench debate, but we cannot do that if we do not have the summit. We cannot walk into the summit saying, “No, no, no.” We need to walk in saying, “What gives? What are the opportunities here? How can we solve some of these challenges?”
Many, many years ago, one of my next-door constituency neighbours was Winston Churchill. We on the Labour Benches have become the defenders of his vision of ending conflict in Europe. Conservative Members spend all their time fighting with each other and fighting a ghost. We need to talk about the future. We need to get away from the fantasy that somehow Brexit will deliver and start getting back to the cost of living crisis in our communities and how we can help people.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady mentioned Churchill, so I cannot let her sit down yet. She talked about conflict within the Conservative party. Winston Churchill had a few battles in his own party, as she might recall—he was not averse to that. Sometimes one has to stand up for what is right, which is what Conservative Brexiteers did. Does she really think that Winston Churchill would have supported the EU in its current form? Does she really think that he would have supported what the ECHR has become? How can she possibly claim Winston Churchill for the politics that she stands for? Go on!
Ms Creasy
I think Winston Churchill would turn in his grave if he saw what the Conservative party and its libertarian wing have become, and how the proud defence of our ability to participate in international organisations, and to speak up for freedom, for shared interests and for the national interest, have been diminished as a result of the previous Government’s approach to Brexit, as well as that of Conservative Members today.
I will draw my remarks to a close. The world is changing. We are living in a world in which trade, security, co-operation and climate issues move at pace. Many of us could not have predicted—remember, it has been only 120 days since President Trump was elected—what would happen next. Never more have we needed good relationships with our neighbours. Monday is about being good neighbours. The world might be changing, but we have the same old Conservative party, on the same page as Reform—that is all they seem to care about. We care about the British interest. I look forward to hearing what comes out of the summit, and I look forward to the Back-Bench debate to discuss it. That really is taking back control.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
It is good to contribute to the debate. On the matter of Churchill, I am of course one of his successors in Dundee, where he was defeated by the only prohibitionist ever elected. It was after his defeat that he went on to make his speeches about Europe, after he had joined the Conservative party.
I suspect that I will in a moment slip into the same levels of exasperation expressed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—I hope that she does not mind my saying that we agree on so much—but before I do, let me thank the Conservative party for bringing this motion. I have to say, I salute their—how should one put it—courage in securing the debate. Nobody is saying that the Conservatives’ Brexit has been a success. In that context, I feel that they are leading with their chin today. Nobody is arguing that it is something that has gone well. Nobody is arguing that it has become a triumph. Rather, we are debating and discussing today how to tackle a problem that has been well set out by the Government. I am sorry to say that Brexit continues to cast a spell over the political classes at Westminster.
We have heard a rerun of some of the arguments and some of the falsehoods about the European Union, but let us talk about the evidence—I will be brief, as it has been well covered. There is the 4% drop in GDP that the Treasury has outlined, and the 15% drop in trade that was part of the Budget documents. The UK has now lost more than it ever contributed financially, with absolutely nothing in return. There is the loss of jobs, the loss of regional structural funds that were never replaced despite the promises, the loss of opportunities for SMEs and, critically, the loss of opportunities for our young people. I can remember when the Brexiteers told us that lots of countries would follow the UK out the door. Nobody has followed the UK, and I wonder why. It leans into the sense of British exceptionalism that we hear time and again. The UK has been left impoverished as a direct consequence of those arguments.
I have heard the warm words from Labour Members about wanting to be closer to Europe, but they are fundamentally grabbing hold of a hard Tory Brexit. I fail to see why a Labour Government do not stand up for Europe more. Rather than try to imitate failed Conservative policies and failed Reform policies—let us not forget that Reform has a track record, and it is not a good one—Labour should take them on, on that track record.
Stephen Gethins
Before I move on to the Treasury and some of the right hon. Gentleman’s points, I will give way to him.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman was pointing to an empty Bench when he talked about Reform, by the way, because its Members have not turned up.
On the structural funds, I know the hon. Gentleman would not want in any way to say something misleading. After Brexit, my constituency attracted Government funding of something like £60 million or £70 million for roads, a new leisure centre and the regeneration of our town centre. In the last year we were in the EU, does he know that it cost us £17 billion to be a member? What sort of price is that?
Stephen Gethins
Seventeen billion is less than half the amount lost from the public finances. Those are not my figures, but the Labour Mayor of London’s figures. That is money lost without getting anything back in return, and the Scottish Government has lost £300 million in money that has not come from regional structural funds.
Let me turn to devolution and sovereignty. The EU is a Union fit for the 21st century. The UK is barely a Union fit for the 18th century, because it has not been modernised since. We have a Brexit deal that ripped up the devolution settlement, which Scottish Labour and others spoke out against but which has now been imposed on the devolved Administrations in a way that the EU could never do to its member states. I remind Members that not one of the 27 independent, sovereign member states of the EU consider themselves any less independent or sovereign for being a member of the European Union—not one of them. Just one did, and it is this British nationalist exceptionalism that is so utterly damaging to everybody in the UK.
The most sovereign country in the world is North Korea, because we give up a tiny bit of sovereignty with deals. All these other states that see themselves as sovereign—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) talks of Ukraine. Ukraine wants to join the EU. He talks of democracy. The democrats in Georgia and Moldova drape themselves in European flags because they see that as the future of the rule of law, democracy and greater wealth for their country. Every country that has joined the EU got better off. The one country that left got worse off, and its citizens had fewer rights.
We all have to recognise that the EU is a security actor, and a majority of European states now see the EU and NATO as the twin pillars of security. Those sovereign states see that. While I welcome the UK Government’s steadfast support for Ukraine—both the current and previous Administrations—we are not realistic about the challenges we face. Putin’s Russia fears the EU. That is why we saw the initial war in Ukraine in 2014, because of the EU accession agreement. We know that, and everyone else gets it except those in the United Kingdom. The EU provides food security and energy security for its members, and sitting outside leaves us more isolated and less secure. Why is the UK so exceptional? What makes the UK so special? How is it that everybody else has got it wrong, but the UK has somehow got it right? It is a piece of nonsense that is damaging us all.
Turning to young people, I am getting tired of hearing Labour talk about youth mobility schemes. I would like the Minister to tell me whether a youth mobility scheme will be put in place, and then say how it will compare with the free movement we all enjoyed when we were in the EU. We are leaving younger generations with fewer rights and opportunities than we ourselves enjoyed, and that is a failure of our political generation—an abject failure.
I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister’s rhetoric yesterday feeds into that. That he was called out by Lord Dubs, a Labour Member of the House of Lords, and yet praised by the leader of Alternative for Germany should surely give Labour Members some cause for reflection—some cause to reflect on how others are seeing them right now. I would expect such rhetoric from Reform and others, but I did not expect it from the Labour party and I say to Labour Members, “I’m sorry, I oppose you sometimes and you stood against me, but I did not expect that from the Labour party.”
The worst part of this is that we are getting it from a Labour Government who do not really believe in what they are doing. I know that from working with them over the years. They do not believe in the damage this is doing. What is damaging us in politics right now is that people are standing up for things they do not really believe in. They do not say what they believe in. They might say, “I believe in leaving the European Union”—(Interruption.) The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) talks about Parliament—I just heard that—in a Parliament where we do not have an idea of British sovereignty. The definition of Scottish sovereignty—I would encourage him to read MacCormick v. Lord Advocate—is different from the idea of English sovereignty, because the supremacy of Parliament does not exist.
Mr Francois
I think it is fair to say that in the years I have been here generally most people have known what I believed in, but is the reason the hon. Gentleman is so incredibly angry this afternoon because, from his point of view, he lost not only one referendum, but two: on Scottish independence and then on the European Union?
Stephen Gethins
I will concede the point. I know what the right hon. Gentleman believes in. I was not surprised that he wanted to take me on not on the substance of what I said but rather on some of the semantics, because as the Secretary of State for Scotland said, a democracy ceases to be a democracy when it ceases to have the ability to change its mind.
My appeal would be this: yes, I believe in independence; I believe that the European Union provides a model that the UK Union does not. That is something I believe in, and some Members disagree with me and I respect them for that, and I know that Scottish Labour Members disagree with me on that, and I respect them for that as well. What I struggle with is that we know this is a bad deal with Europe. We know that staying outside the customs union and the single market is making us poorer every day. I would encourage Members to stand up and put the case of what they believe in, because that is the way to return respect back into politics—not repeat what has been said in the past, but truly look to the future.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I will keep my remarks fairly brief, and we have been treated to a lot of good, well-informed speeches. On respect and speaking up for what we believe in, it is important to remember the poison that was brought into the body politic before I entered this place. On the local election night I was particularly concerned in my constituency about the return of a Reform councillor whose Facebook page has been described by Hope Not Hate as
“a slew of anti-Muslim content.”
That really worries me. It worries a lot of my constituents, and it worries a lot of people across the country. I am very disappointed with Reform and question some of its vetting processes.
To return to the matter in hand, I meet every week with businesses in my constituency—with farmers, small businesses, businesses that export and those that want to export but do not feel they have the facilities or support in place to do so. There are failures in the Brexit deal, and I know that there are many sober and mature Members on the other side of the House who recognise those shortcomings, and this summit is an opportunity to recognise that we live in a world that is changing every single day, where the demands of yesterday are not the same as the demands of tomorrow. We have a Government who are looking to the mature, reasonable and responsible thing to do, which is to improve the day to day lives of our constituents, which is what we are sent here to do.
I speak to farmers who suffer from being caught up in red tape when trying to export or small businesses who do not have access to the “Rolls-Royce” access programmes that larger businesses do to go abroad, and that is one of the major failings of the previous Government’s trade policy. I hope that in winding up the Minister will address how we can get small businesses exporting across the world as part of the slew of trade deals that we have just signed.
It is really important that we do not go into conspiracy-theory baiting on backsliding on the EU and what that means. I do not particularly care about chasing views from accounts amplified by Elon Musk: I care about getting good results, jobs and outcomes for my constituents. For far too long, my constituency was denied a voice because it was a safe Conservative seat. It was a seat where Members would go up every six weeks and not really engage with the solid issues. We have a school in my constituency that was built eight-and-a-half years ago that is already structurally unsound. That is a pretty damning failure of the Conservatives. We need to ensure that the system we have inherited works properly.
I urge the Minister and the Government to get to the negotiating table, work through the kinks in the deal, work out what is going wrong and holding businesses back, and approach the issue with a mature, honest and genuine discussion on how we can improve things. As it says on my party membership card, we achieve more by our common endeavour; ultimately, we need that approach. We need an internationalist approach rooted in pragmatism that does not fall victim to some of the appalling cynicism and rather brutal mischaracterisation that we often see from Opposition Members.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to contribute to this important debate on the forthcoming UK-EU summit next Monday. As someone who has, I hope the House will concede, followed these matters reasonably closely for a number of years, I will focus on three broad areas. I will say something about the summit itself, make some points about the very worrying suggestion that we are about to waive a large part of our fishing rights, and raise my concerns and those of many others about the potential for so-called dynamic alignment by which the United Kingdom effectively would become a passive rule taker, despite voting peacefully and democratically to leave the European Union in the first place.
Before I do that, I pay a personal tribute to Sir Roy Stone, who has tragically passed away. He was a constituent of mine and lived just a few minutes away from me. I once inadvertently canvassed him some years ago during the local elections. As a highly professional public servant, he was completely inscrutable about his voting intentions. I subsequently worked with him closely for two years in the coalition Whips Office between 2010 and 2012. He was always very patient, especially with me. When I was the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household, he always gave well-informed and canny advice. He believed passionately in the institution of Parliament and the principle of representative democracy, which he served so well. Our thoughts and prayers are with his widow, Dawn, and her family. May he rest in peace and always be warmly remembered.
A crucial summit will take place between the leaders of the UK and the EU in London next month. I recall being told repeatedly during the referendum campaign that if we left the EU, we would be isolated and friendless. All the meetings that have taken place in London recently, including one with virtually every EU leader at Lancaster House regarding the so-called coalition of the willing, show how absolutely ludicrous that assertion was. However, according to multiple media reports, it seems as if this summit could involve some kind of defence pact between ourselves in the UK and the European Union. As I have Front-Bench responsibility for defence, I shall not dwell at length on those matters, but hopefully we will have a lot more to say on them next week once the details of any such agreement have been made public and, crucially, we have had an opportunity to read the small print.
Nevertheless, I am sure that the Government’s tactic will be to try to talk almost exclusively about defence as a form of camouflage to mask likely concessions both on our fishing rights and, potentially, relating to our food. When the British people voted democratically to leave the European Union some nine years ago, they did so in order to decide their destiny for themselves. It would be completely against the spirit of the referendum, under the guise of some kind of reset with the EU, to surrender that principle next week. Moreover, after the absolute chaos of the Labour Government’s proposed Chagos deal, the Spanish Foreign Minister asserted only yesterday that the UK should make concessions over the sovereignty of Gibraltar as part of our reset at the summit. This is despite the fact that the Gibraltarians themselves voted by a majority of 99% to maintain the current position in their own referendum on the subject, a margin so emphatic that even the SNP would have to accept it.
On fishing, in early 2020 during Boris Johnson’s premiership, the United Kingdom agreed what was known as the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU. While there has been much recent talk of trade deals, including with India and now the US, the TCA was in effect a major, comprehensive trade deal with the EU, negotiated in the context of having left the European Union. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who is no longer in his place, that agreement was 1,245 pages long—I know, because I read it. In essence, the TCA guaranteed virtually tariff-free trade between the UK and the EU. Moreover, the fact that we had left the EU, including the customs union, meant that we were able to negotiate unilateral trade deals of our own around the world.
Mr Francois
In a moment.
While we were in the customs union, it was possible to negotiate those agreements only collectively via the auspices of the EU. That is a fundamental difference. It is important to note that by using this critical Brexit freedom, we have been able to negotiate almost 80 independent trade deals with nations around the world since we left the EU, including important Commonwealth partners such as Australia, New Zealand, and now India. We have also joined the trans-Pacific partnership, which materially improves our access to Asian markets worth trillions of dollars. Moreover—
Mr Francois
If the hon. Lady will let me finish this point, I promise I will do so, but I want to enjoy this bit.
We now have the delightful visage of our ambassador to the United States, one Lord Mandelson, having to acknowledge through metaphorically gritted teeth that we have been able to negotiate a trade deal with the United States—albeit one that is limited in scope—only because we left his beloved European Union. I think our Peter is struggling with that.
I will give way to the hon. Lady, who has been patient.
Catherine Fookes
If those trade deals were such sunlit uplands and such wonderful deals, can the right hon. Member explain to me why our seafood exports to the EU plummeted by 80% since the Brexit deal? Why did that happen on his watch, if that deal was so good?
Mr Francois
The hon. Lady pre-empts me. If she will give me a moment, I will get to fishing very shortly.
The TCA—part 2, heading 5—contains transition arrangements relating to fishing. In essence, the TCA allowed for a period of over five years during which there would be temporary arrangements on access to UK waters by EU fishing fleets. After that, under international maritime arrangements, the United Kingdom would become solely responsible for its own territorial waters, out to 200 nautical miles in some places. As this transition period is now approaching its expiration in 2026, the EU is pushing very hard to maintain its access to our fishing waters and—it would seem—even to expand its access in certain cases, were we naive enough to give in. It would be a complete betrayal of our fishermen if the United Kingdom Labour Government were now to grant major concessions to the EU in what will become indisputably our own sovereign waters once again come 2026.
Mr Francois
In a second—the bourgeoisie will have to wait. While our sovereign rights are enshrined in both the TCA itself and wider maritime law, we have yet to see the final details of whatever Faustian pact the Government have agreed with the EU on fishing. However, our fishermen and those of us on the Opposition Benches —although not Reform Members, who are not here—will be watching the Government very closely, and will be highly alert to the prospect of a sell-out on fish.
We then come to veterinary matters and SPS—and ultimately, therefore, food—which would involve the United Kingdom in a process known as dynamic alignment. In essence, this means that if the EU were in any way to change or modify its rules in those areas, we would in turn be compelled to follow the EU, regardless of the wishes of our own Parliament. In other words, we would become a “rule taker” in those areas, even though we have left the European Union. Moreover, it seems that these arrangements would apply throughout the United Kingdom, and in the event of a dispute, that would be arbitrated by the European Court of Justice rather than the UK Supreme Court or even an international tribunal.
Mr Francois
In a moment.
To have left the EU but submit to becoming a passive rule taker would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the 2016 referendum. That is why, time and again today, no Minister will admit that the Government are going to do it next week.
Mr Francois
No.
When Labour talked about a “reset” in its general election manifesto, there was absolutely no reference to rule taking as part of any such accommodation. Labour would therefore be giving away our rights, entirely without the consent of the British people. That must be fiercely resisted and, if necessary, overturned. Moreover, there is the prospect of additional concessions over everything from so-called youth mobility schemes—a euphemism for a return to freedom of movement in another guise—to capitulation over net zero mechanisms and, specifically, the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, which would make our remaining industries even more internationally uncompetitive than the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) has achieved to date.
As someone who sat here during the last Parliament—as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) kindly mentioned—and witnessed, night after night and week after week, the then Labour shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, now the Prime Minister, pulling every procedural trick from the depths of Erskine May in order to try to keep the United Kingdom in the European Union at almost any price and despite the referendum, I am in no way surprised that his Government are now attempting this act of capitulation. Our Prime Minister has always been a passionate Europhile; in short, he remains a remainer in his heart of hearts, and he always will.
What the Labour Government are up to—and I say again that they will try to use a defence pact in order to hide it—is beginning a process of gradually taking us back towards and even back into the European Union, if they think they can get away with it. They will never risk another referendum, because in 2016, almost up to the last minute, the polls were showing that remain might win, but when it came to it, the British people had the temerity to vote to govern themselves, despite the best efforts of the British Establishment and “Project Fear”. What they will do is try to take us back in very gradually, via a process of grandmother’s footsteps, or, to make another analogy, trying to boil a frog slowly. If they get away with submission next week, despite their manifesto commitments, they will eventually try to take us back into the single market—although, no doubt, under some other name—and if they can get away with that, they will suggest that we might as well rejoin the customs union. They will put the argument to the British people that we are so far back into the blooming thing that we might as well go the whole hog and rejoin it entirely—all without a vote or the consent of the people of the United Kingdom, at any stage, whatsoever.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I just want to draw something out. Dynamic alignment is not a small thing; it is huge, because it is rule taking. Can my right hon. Friend imagine our engaging in any other trade arrangement—with the United States or Australia, for instance, or the trans-Pacific partnership—and being in a position where we had to say, “We will accept your rules and your adjudication”?
Mr Francois
It would be far better to do this via a process of mutual enforcement, of which my right hon. Friend has always been a staunch advocate. When the Minister sums up the debate, we will ask him if he will rule out, very clearly, any prospect of dynamic alignment at the summit next week.
Mr Francois
In a moment.
This is a yes or no question. Perhaps the Minister, at that time—because he would not answer my right hon. Friend’s question yesterday—will give us an honest answer to an honest question. In fact, if he wants to do it now I will give way to him. A stunning silence! Well, as he has not the guts to get up, I will give way to his Back Bencher.
Ben Coleman
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his nomenclature, and I am most grateful to my Jacobin friend for taking my intervention. I did not want him to finish without having the opportunity to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) put to him. Exports of UK seafood to the European Union have fallen by 80% since Brexit, and there have been lots of new checks, and there is lots of new paperwork and bureaucracy. What does he put that down to? Exports of seafood have collapsed. Does he put that down to Brexit, or to something else?
Mr Francois
People have made market choices, but under the common fisheries policy, we had the absurdity of so-called discards. Our fishermen had to throw fish, many of which were already dead, back into the sea in order to comply with the absurdities of the CFP. Hopefully, we will never return to that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
This is something that I have looked at quite closely. The reason for the collapse is that the United Kingdom is not in the internal market, so we do not give direct applicability and direct effect to EU SPS laws. The EU procedure is to check every consignment of shellfish coming into the EU to see if it complies with EU standards, even though the provisions in EU law on clean rivers, clean beaches and clean water all exist in the United Kingdom, and our provisions are probably of a superior standard to those that apply in much of the EU.
Mr Francois
I defer to my hon. Friend, who is clearly a subject matter expert.
I will conclude, because others want a chance to speak. The Labour Government will go for dynamic alignment. They will sign us up as a passive rule-taker at the behest of the EU, despite the British people voting in 2016 to take back control of their laws. I have absolutely no doubt that if the Labour Government get away with this surrender summit early next week, that is precisely what they will do. It is therefore very important that we alert the British people, and the media that serve them, to exactly what Labour is up to, in an attempt to expose the situation and prevent it getting any worse.
In summary, we will not allow our obsessively Europhile Prime Minister—in this context, our “white flag” man—to surrender our right to govern ourselves. This surrender to the EU has absolutely no democratic mandate, and we will oppose it tooth and nail. If necessary, we will eventually overturn it. Remember what the booklet in the referendum said:
“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”
The British people decided to take back control of their own laws. It is not for Labour to give them away.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate, but, to reflect on the unhappy nostalgia of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), it is quite clear that some people are having trouble moving on, as we need to. The summit is happening because of the process agreed by the Conservative party when it was in government. This is not a surrender summit; it is a summit for success for business and business people, and we can only achieve that if we move on in this debate. At one point, I thought Bill Cash was going to stand up and contribute. We are not moving forward as a Parliament, and thinking about the real priorities of the British people and our future relationship with Europe, but other people are prepared to move on and want to do so.
Today, I was pleased to have the chance to meet representatives of the Scottish Advisory Forum on Europe, known as SAFE, at an event that I had the pleasure of co-hosting with the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins). It was an excellent event that reflected all their great work in collaborating with their colleagues and counterparts in Europe. They have been collaborating not just with Governments but with civil society, academia and a whole range of organisations, because that is in their interests. This is about growing the Scottish economy and furthering the interests of the Scottish people.
I pay tribute to my good friend Dr Irene Oldfather, who, as chair of SAFE, has done so much to promote ongoing collaboration with colleagues in Europe. She is a happy constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) and is doing vital work. We should go into these negotiations in a spirit of collaboration, seeking mutual benefit, in order to build a better relationship between the UK and our European Union colleagues.
Stephen Gethins
I put on record my thanks to Irene Oldfather. On a very hard issue—and we have seen today that it is very difficult—she is doing something extraordinarily constructive, and I think we can all learn from her work.
Richard Baker
I could not agree more. On the issue of learning, it is so important, good and welcome to hear that, ahead of this vital summit, the Minister for the constitution and European Union relations, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), attended a meeting with SAFE in Edinburgh yesterday. I understand that it was held at the Scotch Whisky Association, so I hope he enjoyed an excellent afternoon.
This is a good point at which to mention that our trade deal with India is securing £1 billion for the Scottish whisky industry over the next five years, and 1,200 extra jobs. This fantastic deal is in no way frustrated by our pursuing a better deal with the European Union. At that event yesterday, the Minister met young people who look to our future in Europe, rather than seeking to debate the battles of the past. They asked the Minister to find ways to ensure that they have the opportunity to work and study in Europe. I hope he can think inventively about how that can be achieved within the policy framework that the Government have set out, because the previous Erasmus+ scheme was important not only for the young people who participated, but for Scotland’s economy. It was worth £340 million annually, delivering £7 in value for every £1 invested.
Economic growth is rightly the priority for this Government. If they changed course in these negotiations in the way proposed by the Opposition, that would not be putting the national interests first. The Minister and his colleagues should proceed with the vital work that they have taken forward with their European counterparts ahead of the summit. That is the right thing to do for economic growth and in our national interests.
The Government’s approach, which is absolutely essential, recognises the EU’s status as our biggest trading partner. It accounts for 41% of our exports and 51% of our imports. I am encouraged to hear from the Minister that issues that are vital to growth in my constituency of Glenrothes and Mid Fife—including closer co-operation on energy policy, which I hope may include increasing co-operation with the North Seas Energy Co-operation—are the issues on the agenda next week.
I hope that there will be measures that benefit small businesses in my constituency, particularly in the creative sector. Rightly, at the election, our party committed to making it easier for musicians to tour in Europe. That is vital for the future of our brilliant creative sector in Scotland, and in the UK, and I hope that we can make progress in this area.
Of course, we have to respect the decision of the Brexit referendum. However, while we should not simply repeat the debate on Brexit in this House, as we seem to, neither should we repeat the mistakes of the previous Government, who failed to ensure that our new relationship with the European Union created the right environment for trade and co-operation in key areas of policy. This Government have already made significant progress on resetting the UK’s relationship with the European Union in our national interests, and particularly in line with this Government’s policy on economic growth.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has covered a range of groups—he mentioned farmers, businesses, young people and the creative sector—but is it not the truth that all these groups are simply looking for practical measures that the Government can take to improve their lot, and to improve our relationship with Europe? That could involve cutting red tape, unlocking energy and deepening security co-operation, without being to the detriment of the previous agreement.
Richard Baker
I could not agree more. This will absolutely be in line with previous agreements. In our new relationship with Europe, we are doing far better than the previous Government, who agreed very poor deals, which resulted in economic decline; we could have achieved more with a different approach.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to go further, faster, on this policy area and Government priority. I urge him not to be deflected by Opposition Members who wish to fight the battles of the past. The Government are right to seek a better relationship with Europe, and to be ready for the opportunities, and indeed the tests, that lie ahead for our continent.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
In human affairs, there is a persistent fascination with novelty. It is curious that people clamour for what is different—for the other, whatever that other might look like. It is this fascination that leads to the similar interest in—indeed, preoccupation with—internationalism, even to the point where that means giving up power to someone beyond these shores. It is a damaging preoccupation. At its most curious, it leads to the peculiarity of—I am sorry the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) is not here, because he made a remarkably articulate speech, as I told him afterwards—a representative of a nationalist party making the case against nationalism, and a Member who believes in sovereignty making the argument that sovereignty does not really matter, although he did qualify that by saying that sovereignty in Scotland meant something different. He and I will no doubt have an opportunity to debate that at some length in future.
That fascination fuelled the sentiment that, after the referendum, pervaded the Labour Benches and the Liberals; it is a matter of record that I do not have a liberal bone in my body of any kind, whether socially, culturally, politically or economically, and I shall make the case against free trade in a few moments. As a result of that fascination, the cadre of people who populate a good deal of the establishment—the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) will know this, because a lot of the establishment live in his constituency; it is not surprising that they picked one of their own, really—could not bear to come to terms with the result of the referendum. For the people had spoken! And of course, the people’s will directly contradicted the assumptions—the presumptions—of that establishment, which they had foisted on the people for donkeys’ years.
I do not say, by the way, that all the guilt lies on the other side of the Chamber. This began with Harold Macmillan, and then was carried on by Ted Heath, who sold out our fishermen. It went on and on; the gallery of villains is almost endless. One thinks of Roy Jenkins. There were noble exceptions, including Labour’s Peter Shore, and Tony Benn, who made the case for national self-government in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) told me was one of the best speeches he has heard in this Chamber in his years here. On our side, there were noble exceptions, too. Enoch Powell stands proud among those, but there were many others. [Interruption.] There was Michael Foot, of course, on the other side. I will not go into the whole list, Madam Deputy Speaker, just in case you thought I was going to. I was thinking of our lamented friend Sir Bill Cash, who gave such great service. He was seen as a bit of an outsider for the great bulk of his career, and then, in the last part of it, was proved right. My goodness, what is better than that in politics? They say all political careers end in failure, but Bill Cash’s didn’t; his political career ended in success.
Mr Francois
It has not ended yet. Sir Bill is a sprightly 83, and he has been texting some of us throughout the debate. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that Sir Bill’s great success was the sovereignty clause, which finally said, after years of campaigning, that this Parliament is sovereign? That is on the statute book because of Bill.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; Sir Bill’s political career has not ended; his parliamentary one has. I can, like my right hon. Friend, acknowledge that Sir Bill has texted me this afternoon, along with no doubt many others—[Interruption.]—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I just gathered. This tension—between the will of the people as expressed in the 2016 referendum, and the prevailing assumptions of what I described earlier as the liberal establishment—underpins this debate.
In the spirit of generosity, which I tend to employ—there are exceptions, by the way; Members can intervene on me, if they like—I note that there are those on the Government Benches, such as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who acknowledge, albeit grudgingly, that the referendum result cannot be reversed and that we cannot go back into the EU. That was not what those people said immediately after the referendum, of course. They fought hard for ages to try to frustrate the outcome. They used every parliamentary technique they could conjure, as well as extra-parliamentary techniques, including well-funded legal cases, to try to derail Brexit.
The scepticism personified by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who said she was doubtful about the Government’s intent, is well founded. I know that the Minister will want to reassure us, when he rises at the end of the debate, that that scepticism—in his case, at least—will not prove to be a prediction of what might happen next. Scepticism is well founded, though, because of the history. It was a Labour politician who said, “You don’t need a crystal ball when you’ve got the record book”—Aneurin Bevan, of course. We have the record book when it comes to Labour, and, worse still, when it comes to the Liberal Democrats.
I hope the Minister will be crystal clear, as he has been invited to be throughout the debate, on dynamic alignment, or, as I think it would be better described, dynamic realignment: realigning our relationship with the EU. Such alignment would bring us closer not to our friends and neighbours in Europe—of course, co-operation and collaboration is a natural part of mature policies—but to the EU, in terms of governance, regulation, law, interference in our affairs and, crucially, jurisdiction. It is the exercise of authority that we are really debating here—not the ability or, indeed, the willingness to share, but the danger of succumbing to a power that takes authority further and further from the British people.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) talked about some of the challenges the world faces and the answers to those global challenges. He was right to do so, by the way; I thought the first half of his speech was very good, although it got worse as it went on. The answer to those challenges is not to become more globalist or to give in to the forces he described that exert power in an unaccountable way, but to bring power back to the people.
When those of us who advocated Brexit spoke of taking back control, we did so partly because we wanted power to be vested in this Parliament, which is accountable to the people whom that power affects. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are almost a model for this, and others would do well to follow your model. We are answerable to and known by our constituents; they understand that we make decisions on their behalf. New Members of the House will be coming to terms with what that means and its relentlessness. I do not mind it myself, but I can see how it could wear down souls less forceful and robust than me. It is that constant interaction with our constituents that is the lifeblood of democracy.
Whoever knew who their Member of the European Parliament was? I could not remember who the Tories were, let alone the Members from the other parties. People certainly did not enjoy that kind of intimate relationship and sense of mutual ownership when we were members of the EU. We feel as though we own our constituencies and they feel as though they own us, and quite right too. [Interruption.] I am being chided, Madam Deputy Speaker. I first heard of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) when he arrived here—I never knew who he was before then. I say that without disrespect.
Sir Ashley Fox
My right hon. Friend is correct. While I was in the European Parliament, opinion poll research was conducted into whether people could name their Member of the European Parliament, and only 2% of British people could name any Member of the European Parliament—regrettably, it was not me.
Sir John Hayes
It is typical of my hon. Friend’s humility and good humour that he should acknowledge that in the Chamber in such an open and frank way, and I pay tribute to him for it.
The scepticism that I have described and tried to articulate takes the form of real doubts about what realignment will really mean. Let me just deal with three or four specifics. I spoke earlier in an intervention about security and defence. Of course, it is right that we have a continuing relationship with our neighbours in those terms. We do work with the agencies across Europe, but the critical security relationship we enjoy is with the Five Eyes countries—by the way, we also enjoy relations with many other countries in the world outside the Five Eyes and Europe—and it is vital that we reinforce that relationship. That, of course, overlaps with our commitment to NATO and defence.
There may be some virtues in information sharing—indeed, there certainly are virtues in various kinds of co-operation—but anything that undermines the sovereignty of that security and defence alliance seems to be highly questionable and also risky, which is worse.
Let me turn now to free movement. Although the referendum was not all about immigration, immigration was perhaps the most pressing and salient matter during those times. People resented and resisted free movement and they wanted to bring it to an end. For many, the term “take back control” epitomised the need to control our borders—to decide who came here and who did not. Although it may be understandable that people want to wax lyrical about young people being able to travel across the continent, what they say less enthusiastically, or do not say at all, is that young people from the entire continent will want to travel here. Until we know the terms of that, that could easily mean those people competing with Britons for scarce jobs.
We have large numbers of young people not in education, employment or training. No Government have dealt with that satisfactorily. I started speaking about this more than 20 years ago. Previous Labour Governments and, indeed, Conservative Governments did not really grasp that nettle as firmly as they should have done. Disturbingly, the trend is upwards, and so I do not want people in my country to have to compete for education and training places and for other opportunities with possibly tens of thousands of people who have entered the country by those means. There will be suspicions that it is the beginning of a return to free movement.
What did mass immigration do? The Prime Minister was right about this yesterday. He is a very late convert, but the Bible says that we must welcome all converts with enthusiasm. What mass immigration did was to displace investment in recruitment, training and retention of workers and in automation and improving workplaces, making us ever more dependent on low-skilled labour. It had the effect of stultifying the economy. Any suggestion that we may return to that will inhibit—perhaps ruin—the Government’s intention of improving productivity. If we really want to deal with productivity, we have to create a high-tech, high-skilled economy. I am fearful that that broader consideration will not necessarily hold sway when we get into negotiations with the EU on this issue of some relaxation of the bar on free movement, which was brought by the referendum.
Mindful that there are enthusiastic, insightful and bright colleagues on all sides of the House, but mainly on the Conservative side, who want to contribute to the debate, I will draw my remarks to a close. I can hear colleagues saying, “No, go on”, but I am going to resist those overtures and finish with this thought: C.S. Lewis said, “We are what we think we are”. I think we are a proud, independent nation that has made a disproportionate contribution as part of western civilisation to world history. I think that our past is noble and should give us a sense of achievement and pride. I do not buy the self-loathing that seems to have taken hold with too much of the very establishment that I derided earlier.
Sir John Hayes
I will happily give way—let us see whether the hon. Member is a self-loathing individual.
Ben Coleman
I trust that I am not. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appreciated when I said earlier how excited I was for the prospects ahead of us. I want to thank him for identifying me a couple of times and associating me with my constituents, which I am certainly proud of. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman and a number of his colleagues for making me feel like I have been in this place not for 10 months but for 10 years, and for giving me the privilege of seeing the Brexit debate live, writ large again. It is a rare opportunity that I did not know I would get as a Member of this House, and I am most grateful.
Sir John Hayes
I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at it through this prism: for all intents and purposes, I am Brexit, I stand for Brexit: I am a patriot, proud of my working-class origins; I am determined to do my best for my constituents and my country; and I am driven by a combination of the national interest and the common good. That was the spirit that inspired Brexit. It inspired those of us who campaigned for it, and those who voted for it, which 75% of my constituents in South Holland and the Deepings did. I am a bit resentful that Boston and Skegness next door had an even higher percentage, but it was only by 1%.
As I said, C.S. Lewis said that we are what we think we are. I think that we are a proud country who can stand in the world, in collaboration with other nations, of course, but free and sovereign. Labour cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that we have done a great deal with India because we did not have to kowtow to the EU and that we have done a great deal with the US because we escaped the clutches of the EU, while at the same time saying that we want to creep back in and for them to have more say in any future deals we might do.
Let me end with the words of one of my political heroes, Joseph Chamberlain, who understood that to protect our economy we need to protect the jobs, industry and enterprise that are part of it and not to give in to the free trade liberals. He said:
“a democratic Government, resting on the confidence and support of the whole nation, and not on the favour of any limited class, would be very strong. It would know how to make itself respected, and how to maintain the obligations and the honour of the country.”
No Member of this House should do less than that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am now instating an immediate three-minute time limit. I call Luke Charters.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Next Monday is a really important day, as the UK rebuilds our relationship with Europe. This is a big issue for my constituents, because they were failed for far too long.
Let me be clear: I cannot believe that the Conservatives think that they have the credibility to run an Opposition day debate on this topic. The absolute cheek of them is off the scale. They come in here to talk down the merits of the youth mobility scheme—an arrangement that we already have with many non-EU countries. What they are really doing is demonstrating yet again a prehistoric approach to young people across this country. It is no wonder that support for them among that age group is virtually extinct. They want to deny a reset that will benefit our national security, food security and economic security with our biggest and most proximate trading bloc.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent, powerful speech. Does he agree that the summit is not about giving away power, but about working with our European neighbours in our mutual interests, of which there are many?
Mr Charters
My hon. Friend is spot on. That is why the Conservative party is completely irresponsible. Conservative Members are so out of step with reality that I may as well be asking them to take advice from the stone age. They said that they wanted to take back control once upon a time, but the reality is that over the last eight years they completely lost control of our economy, of our borders and of our future. They do not want the pragmatic, sensible summit next week that will be focused on the future, not the past—a far cry from the chaos and Conservative circus they presided over.
Let me move on to something we should all be welcoming: a youth mobility scheme. It is important that we strike the right balance with that, just like we have with other countries we already share deals with. But unlike Conservative Members, who focus on themselves rather than the public, let us talk about how such a scheme would matter to ordinary people. Nobody would want an 18-year-old at the start of their adult life, eager to explore the world, to be limited to just 90 days in Europe. It is natural for young people to swap Bishopthorpe in my constituency for Barcelona for a year or so, or Copmanthorpe for Copenhagen.
As a parent in York, I would love for my children to have the privilege to enjoy an experience like the youth mobility scheme: an opportunity that can open minds and broaden horizons. Research from the University of Oxford has shown that mobility schemes lead to returnees who launch their own enterprises, start social ventures, reform hospital practices and launch tech start-ups—that sounds good to me.
A really important topic that we must address in the forthcoming summit is defence.
Ben Coleman
Before we leave young people, Opposition Members have said that we are not doing enough for our young people and that a scheme would cause problems. Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that yesterday the Prime Minister said that we must put British young people at the front of the queue for skills and training? The Government have already committed £625 million for training up 60,000 young engineers, chippies and brickies—
Mr Charters
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. A youth mobility scheme could be sensible and pragmatic and lead to opportunities across the continent.
Let me briefly touch on defence. Last week, I held a Westminster Hall debate about the benefits of a multilateral defence bank. I was pleased to have with me the founder of the Defence, Security and Resilience bank, Rob Murray, who is an inspirational ex-Army officer. I really believe that the UK could anchor a multilateral defence bank at the heart of any future defence pact with Europe. That is the single most transformative lever that the Government could pull to fortify our collective security, acting as an industrial deterrent to Russia. I would welcome my hon. Friend the Minister thinking about that running into next week.
Finally, I will touch on holidays. Over the next few months, hard-working families across the country will travel to airports up and down the UK to go away for some hard-earned summer sun. Since leaving the EU, many of us have landed at a foreign airport to see a huge queue and waited with envy as others pass straight through. I would really welcome it if, as a small gesture to give back to the grafters of this country, we could look at a new arrangement with the EU to ease airport congestion.
Mr Charters
I will not, because we are on a three-minute limit for speeches. Perhaps the hon. Member does not want to give back to the grafters of this country, but I think we should be helping hard-working Brits get through to the gates and straight to their sunbeds. Could we have some co-operation with the EU on airport congestion?
There is lots that I could talk about, but I will leave it there. This is about moving on pragmatically and securing our future, just as we have recently with India and the US.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Next week, the EU and the UK will meet in London for a much vaunted reset of our post-Brexit relationship. If that delivers real benefits for our country, that is great—let us hear them—but forgive me, because I am a doubter.
I have learned two lessons from my miserable direct experience of how Labour operates. First, do not trust the Prime Minister. Between 2017 and 2019, I and others watched him, as the shadow Brexit Secretary, twist every parliamentary rule to block what the British people voted for. That was not principled opposition; it was sabotage. In so doing, he connived to empower Brussels in a way that directly and actively undermined our national negotiating position. He was not alone in that endeavour, but it was a spectacle that disgraced this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. May I respectfully suggest to the hon. Lady that she needs to be very careful in the language that she chooses to use about the Prime Minister?
Julia Lopez
I was deliberately careful to adhere to the rules of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope my intent was clear.
Let me be clear. I do not think that the Prime Minister is a straight dealer. He says what suits him, poses as a man of decency and hopes—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I suggest the hon. Lady withdraw her comment, in which she has accused the Prime Minister of not being straight.
Julia Lopez
If that is outside the boundaries of what is acceptable, I will withdraw the comment.
My second lesson is that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. We have already seen it in this Parliament, from the Chagos islands to the backroom deals with the unions. It is ideological naivety dressed up as serious and sober diplomacy. Labour thinks that signing a deal is the same as securing a good one. It is not, and all that will become clear.
Let us remind ourselves that Brexit was never a rejection of Europe and its people. It was a demand for democratic control over our laws, our borders, our trade and our future.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The hon. Lady is a great fan of honesty in this Chamber, so I am sure that she will give me an honest answer. One way of understanding Brexit is that it replaced a circular flow of people with a one-way flow of people. Does she think that Brexit increased or decreased migration into this country?
Julia Lopez
Brexit allowed us to introduce a points-based system and that is what we did. I will accept that mistakes were made in the introduction of that points-based system, but the key is that we can tweak and tune that to accommodate the needs of our economy and those of the people we represent.
The British people could feel the world changing around them and they knew instinctively that the UK needed to be nimbler, faster and more accountable in responding to those currents, be they the movement of people or the regulation of businesses. We will not let it be said that there have been no Brexit benefits, because that is simply not true.
For a start, we no longer hand between £11 billion and £12 billion a year net to Brussels. We have secured trade deals, including from the fast-growing comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership nations. Whatever we think about last week’s US-UK tariff deal, we are not paying the same prohibitive trade taxes as the EU. We are setting our own course in areas such as AI, financial services and agritech. Those are not abstract wins or nostalgic impulses; they are real opportunities for a modern, outward-facing Britain.
If next week’s summit can ease practical frictions, that is all well and good. I want what works for British people. However, I am worried that Labour does not know what it wants, only that it wants a deal. I am worried it does not grasp what the EU will demand in return. And I am worried that Labour thinks slick comms matter more than real outcomes for the British people.
Today, we lay down a clear marker. On immigration, there should be no youth mobility scheme. It might sound harmless, but let us not be naive and have partial free movement by stealth. On defence and regulation, we want no dynamic alignment, and I am fascinated by the Minister’s refusal to say anything further on that matter. If Labour really thinks it has a great deal, there is a simple thing it could do, which is to bring that deal back to this House for a vote.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
We are here to look forward to the UK-EU summit next week and not to relive the past; although, listening to today’s debate, I feel like I have gone back about 10 years. As we look forward, it is important that we all, in this place, do what we can to make the lives of people across the UK better. That is our job.
Even though the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who is no longer in his place, would probably not agree, times change, as do opinions. We know that many people—even some of those who might have voted for it—now realise that Brexit has damaged our economy and our country. We only need to compare the result of the election in 2015 with the result last year for the Conservative party to see that opinions can change quite drastically.
Looking forward to the summit next week, I would like to focus on reality, not rhetoric. The former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said in May 2016: “We think that leaving the single market would weaken our economy and hurt jobs, trade and investment”. That is exactly what we have seen: an act of economic self-harm that no other country is dreaming of. Research by Aston University has shown that exports to the EU have fallen by 27% since Brexit, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has projected a long-term reduction in GDP of 4% relative to remaining in the EU. In contrast, the great Brexit benefit of the Australia trade deal negotiated by the Conservatives was projected to increase UK GDP by just 0.08%, and the Government’s new India trade deal, while welcome, is estimated to add only 0.1% to GDP.
Neither of those trade deals even come close to touching the sides of what we have lost through Brexit, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to approach next week’s summit with ambition and boldness and to agree a road map and a timeline for the creation of a new, bespoke UK-EU customs union to free up the red tape that is strangling our businesses. We have had lots of examples. I could give the House many from my constituency, but in the interest of time I will move on.
I also want to see us agree a youth mobility scheme as part of next week’s summit. It would be a win-win for young people and deliver a boost for our economy. Yes, we do want to see young people coming over here. I no longer want to see the pubs in my constituency closed two days a week because they cannot get the staff. I do not want to see cafés closing down because there are not enough young people to staff the hospitality business. It is estimated that 120,000 young people have left the hospitality industry since Brexit. We need progress. We need to improve the terrible deal that was done by the Conservatives, so I hope the Government will be bold, forget this rhetoric and bluster and sign a deal that we can all celebrate across this House.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am grateful to be able speak in this Opposition day debate ahead of next week’s UK-EU summit. I campaigned for, believed in and continue to believe in the promise of Brexit. At its core, Brexit was a vote for the importance of national democracy, a vote for national sovereignty and a vote against regionalisation and government by bureaucrats. I believe strongly in international co-operation, but I do not believe in institutionalisation. I do not believe that decision making gets better in aggregate. My experience has taught me that it only gets worse. It gets more remote, less well informed and riddled with compromises that barely satisfy anyone and please no one. I continue to believe that the UK—its people and its Government—deciding its own future, not locked into continental bureaucracy, provides the best possible future for us.
Behind all the carefully choreographed language from Ministers about resets, there is one inescapable truth: this Labour Government risk laying the groundwork and taking the first steps to betraying the full promise of Brexit. That should not be any surprise, given that they are led by a man who campaigned for the leadership of the Labour party on the basis of restoring freedom of movement. He supported a second referendum and he voted against Brexit 48 times. We on this side of the House are not prepared to watch this slow train wreck in silence.
Many issues have been raised by many Members, but I want to raise just two that are of particular importance. First, on the youth mobility scheme, the fundamental issues that made freedom of movement so unpopular would remain at the core of any youth mobility scheme. The level of economic disparity across EU member states is fundamentally incompatible with the scheme becoming anything other than yet another route for mass low-skilled migration, at a time when the Government tell us they want to drive that down.
Secondly, there can be no dynamic EU rule taking or ECJ oversight. Any agreement on food standards, services or carbon trading must not come at the price of automatic alignment. We did not leave the EU to find ourselves bound to it in everything but name. We must demand mutual recognition and independent dispute resolution, and that is the only thing we should accept. That would reflect a relationship of mutual respect. These are not unreasonable demands. They are the bare minimum that any sovereign state would expect when engaging in talks with a foreign bloc.
The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, whether the Prime Minister and his Ministers like it or not. Is it any wonder that they are looking for answers internationally when we look at their domestic picture? They are restricting winter fuel payments, inflation is still biting us, business confidence is shaken, working families are being hammered with job-destroying taxes, and growth is stalling. We must not allow this to serve as a diplomatic distraction from their domestic failure. We will not allow Labour to turn a reset into a roll-back, and any future Conservative Government will not be bound by any agreement that breaches these clear red lines. We will not allow Brussels to disguise control as co-operation, and we will not let the democratic choice of the British people be eroded by stealth.
Brexit was not a pause; it was a pivot. It was a huge opportunity for our country, and I believe that the benefits will accrue for decades to come. The Government might be able to hide their true intentions this week but they will not be able to hide them forever, and we will be here to make sure that the British people know what they really believe in. It is not the freedom and sovereignty of Brexit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With regret, it may not be possible for all Members to speak in the debate, even with this time limit.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
No one representing Northern Ireland wishes more than I do for a proper reset of the relationship with Europe. To be a proper reset, however, it must acknowledge and respect the fundamental concept of international agreements: that the agreeing parties respect the territorial integrity of each other. That is the fundamental flaw and failing of the present arrangements.
There is not, and there was not under the last Government, a requirement for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom to be respected. That is how and why it came to be that, in my part of the United Kingdom, in 300 areas of law we are subject not to the laws of this House but to those of a foreign Parliament. The EU insisted, and alas the British Government accepted, that Northern Ireland should be under its customs code, which treats GB as a foreign country and Northern Ireland as EU territory, and that we should be in its single market and subject to all its laws. In that, we had the most dramatic refusal and repudiation of that fundamental concept of mutual acknowledgment of territorial integrity. Unless and until that is addressed in a reset, we will never have a fair deal with Europe, and that is what I would dearly like to see.
When I hear talk about dynamic alignment, it is not academic for me; we experience it every day of the week. We experience the indignity of being subject to laws that we do not make and cannot change. We are subject to the indignity of the other part of this United Kingdom being described as a foreign country whose goods must be checked coming through an international EU customs border.
If the Government are going to do an SPS deal with Europe, it inevitably falls, as it has in Northern Ireland, that we submit to the yoke of dynamic alignment with EU rules. That is the price that the EU extracted for Northern Ireland. It is the price it will extract for an SPS deal with Great Britain. Therefore, that is not the way forward. The way forward is to retrieve sovereignty over all of this country and to retrieve respect for territorial integrity.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
In mid-March, in my role as a vice chair of the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, I formed part of the delegation that headed out to Brussels for the assembly meeting ahead of the 19 May summit meeting. While it was a convivial affair, I came away with great concerns about the tone of the conversations and contributions made by Labour Members. While the Prime Minister is on the record as saying, as part of his red lines, that there would be no return to freedom of movement and no rejoining of the customs union or the single market, the assembly would not allow me to include such a statement in the committee’s recommendations that were published. If, as was said, it was implicit, surely it is not controversial to include it as a statement of fact. The tone of the conversations and debates indicated a different direction. The red lines seemed to be drawn in disappearing ink.
It very much felt that the leadership and the Members were singing from different hymn sheets, or perhaps the Members belie the Government’s true intentions. If that is the case, the Government should be much clearer with the British public and those in this House about what they are trying to achieve. Going into the summit, the conspiracy of silence cannot continue.
Brexit at its heart was about restoring powers to Britain, allowing us sovereignty. Despite the result of the referendum, the goal of Labour Members seems to be to get ever closer to the EU again. Talk of youth opportunities seems innocuous, but Labour Members must explain their terms and be realistic about what that would mean for opening up free movement of people between the European Union and the UK via the back door.
We must also be alert to the trade-offs in this debate. I fear that, to secure a veterinary agreement, we will concede on dynamic alignment. The Minister has another opportunity to intervene, should he so wish. Silence once again. I also fear that our fisheries, which were not mentioned once in the Labour manifesto, may be the next sacrificial lamb.
The PPA recommendation, which the Conservatives dissented to on the whole, states that the assembly would provide
“a signal at or before the Summit that a fair deal on fisheries will be reached, building on current arrangements”,
but what does “a fair deal” mean to this Government? If, as a condition for getting an SPS agreement, the French insist on a multi-year agreement that naturally shifts the favour further towards their industry and our Government agree, they will have harmed another community. First, they attack our farmers; now they attack our fishermen.
At the PPA meeting, members said that everyone should be clear that this Labour Government are clear in their ambition to reset the relationship with the EU, but I offer a word of warning: we must not betray our fishermen and risk our food security in doing so.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I could speak about so many aspects of the Brexit renegotiation that the Government are entering into—Conservative Members in particular have spoken a lot about those issues—but I wish to focus on fishing and farming.
It is always a worry when this Government go into bat in a negotiation, because when Labour negotiates, Britain invariably loses. The current agreement with the EU on fisheries should be a baseline, and preferably a springboard, so that if the Government negotiate, they improve on that deal. That was always the intention. What is a negotiation if we go into it with a mind to sell out and come away with a worse deal? That is what is on the mind of UK fishing communities right now. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) asked the Prime Minister only last week to rule out giving away sovereign British waters to the EU, he refused to do so. The Minister may intervene on me to give our fishing communities the reassurance that the Government will not sell out to the EU on our sovereign waters.
We know what the French want: to send their trawlers closer inshore to our fishing waters in order to catch fish from UK waters and take them back to the EU and sell them. We are already in a situation whereby Dutch trawlers—4,000 tonne vessels—travel up and down the English channel trawling the bottom of the ocean. They take a huge bycatch of fish, including bass, right in front of small British vessels—such as those fishing out of the Isle of Wight, where my constituency is—that have a set of rules restricting their bass catch. They have to watch the Dutch boats scrape those fish up by accident and take them home.
If the Government enter a negotiation, the current arrangement for fishermen must be a baseline. They must improve on the deal and absolutely rule out any concessions to the French and the EU on sovereignty over British territorial waters.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s stated aim of negotiating a closer trading relationship with the European Union—I wish the Minister well—but given this Government’s record of negotiating international agreements, I worry about what the Prime Minister will agree on our behalf. We have seen his weakness in the negotiations on the Chagos islands. The Government intend to give away the sovereignty of a territory that we already own and then pay billions of pounds to lease it back. I can assure the Minister that when he comes to negotiate the details with the European Commission, he will find it a great deal tougher to deal with than the Government of Mauritius.
The Government say that the agreement will improve growth in our economy, and that is commendable, but we on the Conservative Benches would take that assurance far more seriously if the Government had not spent the last 10 months making life more difficult for British business. The Employment Rights Bill will increase costs to businesses by £5 billion a year, borne mostly by small and medium-sized enterprises, and the £25 billion national insurance jobs tax will make it more expensive to employ people—unless, of course, it is an Indian business importing workers from India, because then it will benefit from the new trade deal negotiated by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
A closer trading relationship with the EU would be very welcome. Trade frictions could be diminished easily. An agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures could be reached were the EU and the UK to recognise each other’s standards. Our standards are already the same as, or higher than, the EU’s, and the EU knows this. But the EU has no intention of doing that. It intends to wait until the UK has a Government who will agree to its rules, agree to the dynamic alignment of those rules and then agree that the Court of Justice of the European Union is the final arbiter of those rules.
It seems that the EU’s patience has been rewarded, because when I asked the Minister earlier to clarify what approach he intended to take, answer came there none. It is clear that this Government intend to sign us up to EU rules, over which this House will have no say. When those rules are changed by the EU, Britain will simply have to follow. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that this is the beginning of a process to bring the United Kingdom within the regulatory control of the EU, and thereafter, perhaps an attempt by the Labour party to make us join the EU.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
There has been an astonishing lack of transparency by the Government ahead of the dud deal that they look set to agree next week, and that was personified by the Paymaster General, who refused to engage on any of the substantive issues. Briefings suggest that the Government are preparing to sign a deal that pulls the UK back into the EU’s regulatory and political orbit. Anyone listening to the debate will have heard Ministers repeatedly refuse to deny that the Government are preparing to make the UK a rule taker once again.
One of the frustrations when we were negotiating the trade and co-operation agreement was that the EU refused to back a veterinary agreement based on regulatory equivalence. Given our record and our commitment to high SPS standards, that was clearly the common-sense approach, but the EU simply refused to engage. Instead, it has imposed higher costs and regulations, which fall on businesses and consumers. Now, extraordinarily, it seems that this Government are simply going to roll over and concede that the UK will have to follow EU rules over which it has no say, and bring back ECJ jurisdiction. That is not necessary, desirable or consistent with a democratic vote to leave the EU and restore our sovereignty. Once again, let us see whether the Minister will rule it out when he speaks.
Having spent three years in the Ministry of Defence advising the then Defence Secretary, I am concerned at the approach the Government are looking to take on defence and security. NATO is the cornerstone of our defence, and the alliance should be our focus, yet a leak reveals that the deal will pull the UK into the EU’s common security and defence policy, duplicating many of the functions and institutions of NATO—and for what? The deal does not even guarantee British firms access to the rearmament fund. Instead, that will be subject to future separate negotiations, and the UK will have to pay; how much and on what terms is completely unclear. It is very disappointing, given the need to defend our continent, that some in the EU want to link access to the defence programme to fishing rights. [Interruption.] France, indeed. Once again, the Government have simply rolled over.
I know from my time in the Cabinet Office and No. 10 working on Brexit issues that the EU was determined to be inflexible from the start. Michel Barnier, the negotiator, embodied that rigidness. Unlike the man from Del Monte, he delighted in saying no. Improvements to the TCA can be made. The agreement provides for that precisely and deliberately in the review mechanism. To get trade flowing, there are easements that the EU could easily agree to, benefiting businesses and consumers. Instead of pursuing those from a position of principle, this Government are negotiating a backroom deal and look set to do so badly and undermine our national interest.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I start by paying a small tribute to the Government because just last week they passed secondary legislation, albeit made possible by the Conservatives’ groundbreaking Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, that will mean more resilient crops, further food choices and enhanced food security. Although it might pain some of them, Labour Members have to admit they are making some use of the hard-won Brexit freedoms secured by the Conservatives. Why would we give them away? The example I have used might seem somewhat niche, but this is exactly what a modern industrial strategy focused on technology, productivity and the future looks like, and in doing this, we have a head start on the continent, which is now fumbling to produce regulation of its own in this area.
We should be going further still. Gene editing has the power to reduce the impact of animal disease and stop pandemics in their tracks. Researchers at Imperial College London and the Roslin Institute, Edinburgh, are now close to making breakthroughs on bird flu-resistant poultry using gene editing. The Government must introduce secondary legislation for farmed animals, as they have done for plants.
I visited Imperial’s Silwood campus in my constituency. The students there are doing incredible things. When they make breakthroughs, our regulatory framework should allow us to nimbly make use of them, but there is a very real risk that with next week’s reset the Government could kill the progress with the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement they are negotiating.
Companies at the forefront of the agricultural industry have raised concerns about this reset, and I know that my colleagues, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the all-party group on science and technology in agriculture have done the same. This is a rare—and much needed as those on the Government Benches hammer our farmers—competitive unique selling point for British agriculture. Reports suggest that this Government will make concessions on SPS to give them more bartering power on other issues, setting a precedent for the wider agricultural relationship with the EU, bending over backwards for an establishment that the British people voted to reject. We would also be signing up to rules we have no power to influence. There were good reasons to leave the EU and good reasons to stay in the EU, and reasonable people could and did disagree, but there is no good reason to leave and opt into rules over which we have no say. That is the worst of both worlds.
Under Switzerland’s agreement with the EU, it must align with almost all the EU’s food safety demands and replicate any further regulatory changes made in the future. That agreement may well be in the best interests of the Swiss but it would not work for Britain. Every time we want to diverge in a way that could benefit the British people, we would have to supplicate to those in Brussels once again. Carve-outs are possible, but we all know what tends to happen when the Prime Minister negotiates. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. A reset deal with a deep SPS agreement would be short-sighted, perhaps offering a quick boost in the near term but taking the wind from the sails of longer term, game-changing investment that is starting to flow in.
We need to maintain a competitive advantage to supercharge investment in areas like the Thames valley, where we have a world-leading life sciences sector. So I warn the Government not to chain Britain to the economic anchor of the EU and the dead hand of its precautionary principle regulators, especially when last week’s secondary legislation on precision breeding is such a clear example of what regulatory autonomy for an innovative UK could do for us.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to highlight the impact of the botched Brexit deal on businesses in my constituency, including pharmacies and the local hospitality industry.
Stuart Yalden, the managing director of GW Martin, a small and medium-sized enterprise in engineering in my constituency, has raised concerns over the additional costs and regulatory requirements the business now faces when trading with the EU. In one recent case it exported a small volume of products to a customer in France worth around £5,000 but the combined cost of paperwork, export licences and transport came to £2,500. This is not a sustainable way to trade. To reassure my constituents, I hope that the Minister will give this important matter some consideration, and that he will raise these issues next week.
We cannot ignore the opportunities that have been taken away from young people for no good reason and with no benefit to anyone. I have listened to arguments from Conservative Members, but I still cannot understand why anyone would want to stop young people from experiencing all that the world has to offer. I hope the Minister will agree with me that giving young people, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, the opportunity and freedom to live, study and work in Europe with a youth mobility scheme would be hugely beneficial to them and to the country. We must also recognise the negative impact that Brexit has had on our creative sector. We need urgent action to renegotiate touring arrangements with the EU, ensuring that British artists can showcase their talent abroad without excessive red tape.
The Liberal Democrats have set out a clear road map to reset UK-EU relations. We must start by restoring trust, rebuilding co-operation in key areas such as research, climate policy and security and removing the barriers that have been strangling our economy. It is time to take meaningful steps to repair our relationship with Europe and restore the prosperity that our country so desperately needs. I sincerely hope that the Government will use the EU-UK summit to turn a page on the chaos of the last five years.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Diolch, Dirprwy Llefarydd. The people of Wales have been let down by those who promised that Brexit would lead to a brighter future; instead, it has caused huge damage right across our communities and economy. The hard Brexit pursued by the previous UK Government has cost the Welsh economy up to £4 billion and reduced the value of Welsh exports by up to £1.1 billion, and post-Brexit trade deals, such as those with New Zealand and Australia, have been unfavourable for Welsh agriculture and manufacturing. Since Brexit, Wales has lost out on £1 billion in European structural and rural development funding, which could have been used to support our deprived communities. That is despite the promise made by the then Conservative UK Government in 2019 to
“at a minimum match the size”
of former EU funding in Wales and the other nations across the UK.
In my constituency, the port of Holyhead, which is a strategically vital port for UK-EU trade, has seen dramatic falls in traffic since Brexit. I note that following the closure of the port after Storm Darragh in December last year, the value of trade going through Holyhead has dropped by £500 million. At the time, I called for the Government to establish a hardship fund to support businesses impacted by the closure of the port. I urge the Government, as part of their strategy towards the EU, to make clear commitments to safeguard the port against future crises, given its strategic importance.
We need a relationship with Europe that works for Wales, and the opportunity to improve relations at the upcoming UK-EU summit is welcome. Given that Wales is more reliant on exporting to the EU than the rest of the UK, it is crucial that we make trading between Wales and Europe easier. I have seen the challenges that exporters in my constituency face, with local business The Lobster Pot telling me that it has struggled to export under the post-Brexit system. A veterinary agreement covering plant and animal health to cut red tape and costs for our exporting businesses will be vital. The Government should create a youth mobility scheme and join the Erasmus+ programme so that our young people can study and work abroad, creating new skills and opportunities for the next generation. We also need to see co-operation on the environment, the arts and defence.
I hope that next week’s summit will be the start, not the end of strengthening our ties with Europe. This Government have said that their first mission is to grow the economy, and I can see no better opportunity to improve growth than by committing the UK and Wales to the long-term goal of joining the single market and customs union. Wales has been made to suffer badly by those who championed the false promises of Brexit. This Government must now take action to fix our damaged relationship with Europe to protect the Welsh economy.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
We have had a strong debate this afternoon, with many contributions on both sides. I thank so many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) and for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who knows a great deal about this subject, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and for Windsor (Jack Rankin)—what a fantastic set of knowledgeable contributions and real concerns about the impending EU surrender summit. It is in the spirit of such rigorous debate that this House finds its strength and purpose.
It has been less than a year since the general election. In that time, this Labour Government have tanked the economy, crushed British business, seen—as we have learned today—100,000 fewer people in employment, driven wealth creators overseas at the rate of one millionaire every 45 minutes, and shattered any signs of economic growth. I am afraid to say that the next item on this bleak agenda of declinism is the betrayal of the 17 million people who voted for this country to leave the European political union. This should come as no surprise to anyone, because those on the Benches opposite—and, I regret, some of those on the Benches to the left of me— voted against Brexit on no fewer than 48 different occasions.
If this debate is reminiscent of the past, it is because that is precisely where some Members wish to take us back to. Ever since they were seduced by Jacques Delors, the Euro-socialist, their hearts have never been in the mission of taking back control of our laws. Next Monday’s EU surrender summit formally marks the start of Labour’s plan to dismantle the powers of not just the Government, but this House, and push us back into the European Union as a passive rule taker. We Conservatives ask, “To what end? Why are the Government capitulating the very same hard-fought Brexit freedoms that permitted the signing of two trade agreements—notwithstanding their limited scope—in the past seven days?”
Had we followed the policies that Labour was advocating in opposition, this Government would never have been able to reach an agreement with the USA or with India. They would not even have been in the room; they would have been one of 28 member nations, resorting to asking—begging—Ursula von der Leyen to perhaps consider putting British interests first. We were right not to follow Labour’s advice then, and the Government would be right to listen to our advice now, yet it appears that they still have not learned. As we heard from many speakers this afternoon, the opportunities of the future will fall to those states that are agile—opportunities in areas such as artificial intelligence, genomics, space, the creative industries, financial and professional services, and the life sciences.
This country already has a good deal with the European Union. We have a mutually advantageous zero-tariff agreement that is valued at £184 billion in services and £174 billion in goods. Nothing is perfect, and where there are sensible measures—such as pursuing opportunities for mutual recognition—they should be explored. For example, one of the biggest frictions our businesses face today is the denial of the use of e-gates, which was imposed by the European Union out of spite. There was no such small-mindedness from us.
However, the problem we face today is that the Government have failed to come to this House and explain exactly, or at all, what the Prime Minister’s EU reset will look like. We have seen nothing on the Government’s negotiating objectives, their red lines or the supposed benefits, and we have not seen an impact assessment or even an interim update. Of course, I understand there will be finer negotiating details that the Government will not want to share, but that is very different from sharing absolutely nothing. That is disrespectful of Parliament, and forces this House to rely on leaks and read between the lines of Downing Street press handouts. If those leaks are to be believed, we know that Labour is planning on signing up the British armed forces to an EU army, binding our strategic military decision-making powers to bureaucrats in Brussels. [Interruption.] The Minister is very welcome to rule these things out—perhaps he will be more forthcoming than the Paymaster General was earlier.
When it comes to security, there is no bigger challenge than our borders—I think even the Prime Minister recognised that on Monday—but the UK’s request for shared access to a joint illegal migrant database has already been rejected by the European Union. So much for co-operation on security. Defence procurement must never be “pay to play”. I have no idea why the European Union member nations would cut themselves off from the UK’s excellent defence primes, unless this is once again a protectionist industrial policy cloak—and what twisted deal-making trades fishing rights for the French for working more closely together, as we have so many times, on Europe’s defence? We warned that Labour would betray our fishermen, and it has sadly proved us right by putting fishing rights back on the negotiating table.
Harriet Cross
My hon. Friend has referred to the betrayal of our fishermen. I wonder whether the Minister will take the opportunity to deny media speculations that the Government are about to consent to multi-year agreements. The fishermen want single-year agreements, which are the international norm. Can the Minister rule that out today?
Andrew Griffith
I am afraid the Minister is as talkative as a haddock when it comes to clarifying his objectives, but perhaps he will confound our expectations when he sums up the debate.
Just as the Prime Minister pretends to talk tough on immigration, by the same token he plans to open our borders to an EU youth mobility scheme. Perhaps the Minister will deny that, but it could mean millions from Boulogne to Bucharest. Limited volume schemes with comparable economies whereby the UK is able to decide who comes here are fine in principle. We have such a scheme with Australia, but Australia is 10,000 miles away and its economy is very different from those that we are discussing. The wrong type of youth mobility scheme would disadvantage young British workers who, thanks to this Government, are already struggling to get a foot on the ladder, whether for a job—unemployment is up again today—or to secure a roof over their heads in Britain’s housing market. What part of the Government’s objective involves making things harder for our young people?
What we do see is the Government proceeding at breakneck pace with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. Beware of Bills with boring names, Madam Deputy Speaker! This is a Trojan horse, blank-cheque Bill giving Ministers the power to roll back Brexit, sign us up to EU rules and abandon imperial measurements for good, all at the stroke of a pen. It provides unchecked ministerial power to make us a passive rule-taker of Brussels diktat. Let me be clear. The Conservatives are certainly not opposed to co-operation with Europe as one among other markets—that much should be obvious from the hard-fought trade agreement that we obtained under the last Government—but we must not in any circumstances surrender our Brexit freedoms so that the Prime Minister can reassure his next law school reunion that he has undermined our sovereignty.
After the earlier equivocation from the Paymaster General, let me give the Minister—they have been chuntering all afternoon—a final chance to answer these questions once and for all. Can he reassure the millions of people who voted to leave the EU that his surrender summit will not betray their wishes? Will he confirm that there will be no backsliding on free movement or compulsory asylum transfers? Can he reassure taxpayers, or those who have lost their winter fuel allowance or whose benefits are set to be cut, that the UK will not be agreeing to any new payments to the EU? Is he able to confirm, for the benefit of our coastal communities, that there will be no concessions on fishing rights? Can he assure the House that there will be no rule taking, dynamic alignment, or extension of European Court jurisdiction? Will he pledge, in deeds as well as words, that there will be no compromise on the primacy of NATO as the successful cornerstone of European security?
If the Minister is not able to provide those assurances, this Government are betraying Brexit. All of the evidence that we have seen today suggests that they are limbering up for a surrender summit to damage Britain’s interests. They are determined to deal away our hard-fought freedoms, and we will lose control of our borders, our laws, our fish and our armed forces. I urge the Minister to come clean and to have the honesty to explain to this House and this country why Labour is preparing to surrender the right of the British people to choose their own destiny. We know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I am grateful to have the chance to respond to this afternoon’s debate. I did not know that the House had so many fans of “Quantum Leap”— a favourite show of mine when I was younger. Of course, fans of the show will know that Sam Beckett was advised by a hologram called Al, a US admiral who would come in and give good advice on how to get through challenges. Instead, we have had the spectre of Sir Bill Cash coming in via text to Conservative Members. Who would have thought it?
This debate has been a journey back to the past. On this side of the House, we have a Government who want to take this country forward, not back. That is a stark contrast with those on the other side, who seem stuck in the last decade. We will not be rejoining the EU, the single market or the customs union, or returning to freedom of movement, but we look forward to welcoming Presidents von der Leyen and Costa to London next week for the first ever UK-EU summit—the first annual summit to take place between the UK and the EU.
The Leader of the Opposition recently said:
“We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU. These mistakes were made because we told people what they wanted to hear first and then tried to work it out later.”
Of course, the lesson that we have learned, and to which the Conservative party might want to pay careful attention, is that failing to plan is inevitably planning to fail. This Government will not take the same reckless, chaotic and dogmatic approach when it comes to the British people and our national interests. That is why, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, this Government were elected on a mandate for change, which is what we are delivering. We have been resetting our relationships with our EU partners and our wider European partners, and we are using those strengthened relationships to deliver growth, prosperity, safety and security. I, the Paymaster General, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have been working to do that.
Just this week, we hosted the Weimar+ Foreign Ministers meeting on Ukraine, and we have had high-level engagement with many European leaders. We have been travelling around the continent, driving forward growth, driving forward action on illegal immigration, and driving forward relationships for our security and our defence. We are also setting up structures to ensure that our European partnerships deliver in the long term, including treaties or leader-level summits with some of our closest partners, such as France, Germany, Poland and Ireland—not to mention the exciting and successful state visit by His Majesty the King to Italy last month. I am delighted that Buckingham Palace has today announced that President Macron, accompanied by Mrs Macron, has accepted an invitation from His Majesty to pay a state visit to the UK, and the Prime Minister and President will hold their next summit during that visit.
Increased engagement has already delivered results for the UK. On growth, we have had £250 million of Czech investment in Rolls-Royce small modular reactors and a £600 million investment by the Polish logistics company InPost, and Iberdrola is doubling its investment through ScottishPower over the next four years. On security, we have new defence agreements with Germany and Romania, and new negotiations on defence agreements with Poland and Norway. On migration, we have a joint action plan with Germany and new migration deals with Serbia, Kosovo, Slovenia and Slovakia, and we have also agreed new measures to tackle people-smuggling gangs with France. On energy and climate, we have new civil nuclear co-operation between the UK and Finland, and other European countries are responding positively to that. Crucially, on security and defence—
Stephen Doughty
They want answers to the questions they have asked. I am going to give them some answers, and then I will happily take interventions.
On foreign security and defence policy, let me be absolutely clear: NATO is and remains the bedrock of our security and our transatlantic alliances, but there are many strands to a muscle. Whether it is the joint expeditionary force, our bilateral security and defence partnerships, or our work through other pan-European bodies, through the European Political Community, in the western Balkans, through the Quint or, indeed, through a new UK-EU security and defence partnership, a muscle gets stronger when its multiple strands are flexed. Those things do not contradict each other; they are strengthening this country and our place in the world, and delivering on defence, on technology, on jobs, on industry and on security.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and as I have said, we have worked together in the past quite a lot. I will just ask a very simple question. The Government have constantly said they will not breach their red lines. They have apparently said that publicly in Europe, and they have said it here. My simple question is: is dynamic alignment one of the red lines?
Stephen Doughty
I will come on to that in a moment, but we are absolutely clear. I have been clear, and so has the Paymaster General. I will come on to answer that question specifically in a moment.
Talking down Britain’s role in NATO at a time of war in Europe when we are showing such leadership is, quite frankly, irresponsible. I will not take lessons on NATO, European defence and security or the defence and security of this country from a party that shrunk the British Army to the smallest size since the Napoleonic era, when we have made the tough choices of investing in defence.
Let me be absolutely clear: there is no suggestion that the UK would ever join a European army, and no formal proposal for that has ever been put forward. Indeed, on Gibraltar—I answered questions on this earlier—we absolutely take a stand on the sovereignty of Gibraltar, given the importance of our military base there. I spoke to the Chief Minister earlier about that, and the wild speculation that is being put about is hugely unhelpful.
On fisheries, we should be clear that there was of course a Brexit deal negotiated by the last Government, and we are looking for an overall arrangement that is beneficial for our fisheries and our coastal communities, but I am not going to get into a running commentary.
On SPS—and, indeed, on the question the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—asked, let us be clear: since 2018, the UK’s agrifood trade with the EU has fallen by 20% for exports and 11% for imports, after adjusting for trade inflation, so it is in the interests of both sides to seek an SPS agreement that removes those barriers to trade. We are not interested in divergence for the sake of divergence or in a race to the bottom on standards. We will not get into a running commentary on this, but we have been absolutely clear. Of course, there need to be appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
Conservative Ministers ask questions, but they may not want to hear the answers. [Interruption.]
Stephen Doughty
We are absolutely clear: we are taking serious action to reduce net migration, but we support controlled schemes that create opportunities for young people to experience different cultures, travel and work. Important questions were asked about issues such as the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. It is of course right and responsible that we look at it, ensuring that any final decisions are made in the national interest.
However, I want to address a very fundamental point, which is this absolutely absurd and nonsensical suggestion of surrender. What an absolute disgrace to be talking Britain down—talking Britain down! In fact, what we see is strength. We see strength from this Prime Minister and strength from this Government. In a world of turmoil—
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been absolutely clear: surrender—what nonsense! Instead, we see strength in standing up for our steel and our car manufacturers, delivering trade deals with the US and India, investing in green energy, leading Europe with our key allies in the defence of Ukraine, tackling illegal migration and serious and organised crime, and boosting funding and support for our national defence after shameful disinvestment by the previous Government. That is talking down Britain; we are standing up for Britain.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Business without Debate
Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 507).
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger, and to see all right hon. and hon. Members. These regulations amend The Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Five months after the fall of the brutal Assad regime, Syria stands at a crossroads. The country and its economy have been decimated by more than 13 years of conflict, and vital infrastructure has been destroyed. Some 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line, so they desperately need support to recover and rebuild their country.
On 24 April, I laid a statutory instrument amending the Syria sanctions regulations to promote and support Syria’s economic recovery. It revokes specific UK sanctions measures on some sectors of the Syrian economy, including transport, trade, energy and finance. We have taken this action to help to open up the Syrian financial system and to support the flow of essential investment in energy infrastructure, above all in the electricity generation sector, which is vital for Syria’s recovery and reconstruction.
This measure is the latest step in a series of gradual actions designed to aid Syria’s recovery and benefit its citizens. On 12 February, HM Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation issued a general licence allowing for payments to be made to support humanitarian delivery. My statement to the House on 13 February indicated the overall direction of travel—as I said, a gradual one—for our Syria sanctions regulations. Following that, on 6 March, we announced the delisting of 24 Syrian entities that were previously used by the Assad regime to fund the oppression of the Syrian people, including the Central Bank of Syria, Syrian Arab Airlines, and several energy companies.
Reflecting the momentous changes that have taken place in Syria since December, this measure brings the 2019 regulations up to date, as well as supporting the Syrian people in rebuilding their country and economy. In the light of the fall of the Assad Government, the regulations now prioritise the promotion of peace, stability and security in Syria, while encouraging respect for democracy and human rights. At the same time, they provide accountability for gross violations of human rights carried out by or on behalf of the Assad regime.
Alongside laying this instrument, we delisted a further 12 Government and media entities that were previously sanctioned due to their links to Assad, and that we judge to no longer have an association with the former regime. Those include the Syrian Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior.
I want to be very clear that the Government remain determined to hold Bashar al-Assad and his associates accountable for their atrocious actions against the people of Syria. Many hon. Members present have taken part in debates in this place over many years on that issue and have exposed those horrors. As such, we will ensure that sanctions imposed on 348 individuals and entities linked to the former regime remain in place.
A number of hon. Members have rightly raised deep concerns about the horrific violence that erupted in coastal areas of Syria in early March, on which the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who has responsibility for the middle east, updated the House in his statement on 10 March. We also saw further violence in southern Syria at the end of April. Rightly, therefore, hon. Members may ask why we are lifting a number of sanctions at this time.
I reassure the House that we keep all our sanctions regimes under close review to ensure that they are used as a responsive tool, targeting those who bear responsibility for repression and human rights abuses. I want to be clear that the revised regulations give the UK scope to deploy future sanctions should that become necessary.
The violence that we have seen has given us a vision of Syria’s future if its new leaders choose the wrong path. They must protect the rights of all Syrians and ensure that all Syrians are included in the political transition. Without meaningful representation of Syria’s diverse communities, there can be no lasting peace, and ultimately no better future for the country. We consistently emphasise that message in all the UK’s engagement with interim President al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister al-Shaibani.
It is important to recognise, however, that there have been some positive developments that suggest Syria could choose the right path towards peace and stability. President al-Sharaa’s actions in the aftermath of the violence in March, announcing the formation of a committee to investigate those found responsible for crimes committed during the violence, is welcome. We also welcome the formation of a new Syrian Government on 29 March and the commitment of President al-Sharaa to hold free and fair elections. We expect those appointed to the new Government to demonstrate a clear commitment to the protection of human rights, allowing unfettered access for humanitarian aid, the safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles, and combating terrorism and extremism.
Further, we welcome the provisions made in the constitutional declaration on 13 March on freedom of expression, freedom of belief and women’s rights. It will be vital to ensure that Syria’s diverse communities are consulted as future iterations of the draft constitution are developed. We continue to call on the Syrian Government to prioritise inclusivity and representation in the building of state institutions and in further appointments, including to the legislative committee, and to set out a clear timeline for the next phases of the transition.
We are encouraged, too, by the positive and constructive engagement that Syria has demonstrated with the United Nations Human Rights Council’s new resolution on Syria, which the UK co-tabled and which renewed the mandate of the commission of inquiry for a further 12 months. The UK will continue to maintain our resolute commitment to supporting accountability and human rights in Syria—including freedom of religion or belief—and to advocate for their foundational place at the centre of the transitional process in Syria.
The appearance of Foreign Minister al-Shaibani at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ executive council on 5 March was indeed an historic moment. We welcome the commitments by the Syrian Government to protect chemical weapons sites and not to use chemical weapons under any circumstances. The OPCW’s two visits to Syria are also important steps forward. It reported that the Syrian Government extended all possible support and co-operation, including through access to sites and people. We call on Syria to now move quickly towards declaration.
The agreement made by President al-Sharaa with the Syrian Democratic Forces in north-east Syria on 10 March was also a welcome development. We continue to engage with all parties in support of an inclusive process, as implementation of the agreement progresses.
Beyond our action on sanctions, we also remain committed to helping to meet Syria’s humanitarian needs. We have pledged up to £160 million of UK support in 2025, providing lifesaving assistance to millions of Syrians, inside Syria and across the region, as well as agriculture, livelihoods and education programmes to help Syrians to rebuild their lives.
To conclude, Syria’s transition remains delicately balanced. A step in the wrong direction could lead to instability and ultimately a collapse that would only benefit Iran, Russia and others. It would have wider ramifications for our efforts to counter Daesh—we remain a member of the global coalition—and illegal migration, and would risk destabilising the wider region. Promoting stability and prosperity in Syria through economic recovery is also firmly in the UK’s national interest. It will bolster regional and UK security, in line with our plans. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria and will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks.
I welcome this opportunity to debate sanctions on Syria and this measure that the Government have introduced, but before we get into the substance of the matter, may I raise with the Minister a point relating to the process? Will he explain why the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office press release announcing the relaxation of sanctions was issued on 24 April and the legislation was signed by the Minister on 23 April, but it took a week for a written ministerial statement to be laid to Parliament announcing these changes, on 30 April? Can he explain why this discourtesy was shown to the House, and give an assurance that statements on changes to sanctions will in future be made to the House first whenever possible, and certainly in a timelier manner?
As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has said in the House on multiple occasions, the Opposition are of the view that we need to exercise extreme caution when it comes to lifting sanctions on Syria. Syria is at a fork in the road, and there is still no guarantee which path it will take. The situation is very fragile and remains volatile, as clearly demonstrated by the appalling clashes between the pro-Government and Druze communities in recent days. Millions of Syrians remain displaced, facing hardship and suffering, while the security situation on the ground is volatile, with the country still vulnerable to criminal gangs smuggling weapons, drugs and people; still at risk of continuing to be exploited by terrorists; and still exposed to the malign influence of Iran.
Few will shed tears for the end of the vile, tyrannical Assad regime, which bore responsibility for repression, torture and death on a truly horrific scale and, infamously, the use of chemical weapons against its own people. However, there is still an onus on Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham to prove that it is serious about putting Syria on the path to a future that is materially different and better than that under the monstrous tyranny of the Assads, including when it comes to the protection of all communities, groups and minorities. With that in mind, we need to judge HTS and the transitional Government solely on the basis of action, not words or statements about a future vision. Will the Minister give his latest assessment of the number of groups and militias operating in Syria, and say how he will ensure that this relaxation in sanctions benefits the people of Syria?
Co-ordination of course is also important, so I will take the opportunity to ask the Minister what co-ordination, if any, he has undertaken with both the US and European allies on the approach to sanctions. The last Conservative Government helped to lead a co-ordinated approach when it came to Syria, but the UK does not appear to be trying to lead efforts on sanctions policy in the post-Assad period. We see key players in the international community now taking different approaches to the lifting of sanctions, when what we really need is consistency of message. We understand that the US is seeking to impose conditions on the lifting of sanctions, including over the removal of chemical weapons and counter-terrorism measures—indeed, there have been reports of letters being exchanged on these matters as the US seeks assurances—but it appears that the UK is not doing so. Will the Minister explain why he does not want to apply conditions? On what basis has he made the decision not to row in behind the US approach?
We recognise that regulation 5 of these regulations contains a list of high-level and laudable purposes for the UK’s decisions, but that is not the same as a concrete condition. On this point, the Minister will be aware that page 2 of the explanatory memorandum summarises the purposes of the regulations as being,
“to promote the peace, stability and security of Syria…to promote respect for democracy, the rule of law and good governance in Syria, including in particular promoting the successful completion of Syria’s transition to a democratic country…to discourage actions, policies or activities which repress the civilian population in Syria”.
Will the Minister explain what direct discussions have taken place with HTS about the requirements that we expect it to be able to fulfil? If he has not placed conditions on this decision, will he explain why he has not done so?
The Minister will be aware that the shadow Foreign Secretary tabled a written parliamentary question on 24 February on
“conditions he”—
the Foreign Secretary—
“plans to apply to the Government of Syria in relation to the relaxation of sanctions.”
The Minister who answered on 24 March did not give a direct response to that part of the question, so I would like to give this Minister the opportunity now to give a direct answer. Is this relaxation of sanctions directly linked to a clear set of conditions placed on the transitional Government, and will any future relaxation of sanctions be directly linked to conditions too?
It is also important for the Minister to explain what assurances, if any, he has been directly given by the transitional Government of Syria on adhering to the standards that we expect of them. What measures will be put in place to ensure that this relaxation of sanctions does not lead to investments and resources being abused? Syria remains a fragmented country, with different groups and militias exercising control, and conflict and violence still taking place. How often will the Minister review the impact of the relaxation of sanctions, and will he commit to putting sanctions on entities and people in Syria if the standards that we expect in relation to protecting rights are not met?
I ask that because section 10 of the explanatory memorandum gives some details on the Government’s approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation, but seems to suggest that the Government will look only at the effectiveness of maintaining or relaxing the sanctions regime, rather than tightening it up, and that a specific review provision is not needed. The relevant section asks,
“What is the approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation?”
and section 10.1 states:
“If His Majesty’s Government determined that…it was no longer appropriate to maintain a sanctions regime or specific sanctions measures, that regime would be removed or amended accordingly. In the case of the 2019 Regulations, that would include the measures introduced by this instrument. As such, the Minister does not consider that a review clause in this instrument is appropriate.
Will the Minister clarify his approach to reviewing and monitoring, which is important? If the transitional Government or other entities in Syria are not acting in an appropriate way to deliver stability to Syria and protect rights, will the current sanctions regime be amended, or will the Government consider introducing a new bespoke sanctions regime and set of regulations?
Will the Minister commit to giving a regular update and statement to the House on the status of Syria and the progress, or lack of progress, being made, and whether he is considering any further amendments to sanctions? Does he expect to make any further amendments this year? On monitoring the impact, what criteria will the Minister use to judge whether the lifting of sanctions has had the effect he desires, including on the security front, which will also be important?
Turning to more specific provisions, on 25 April the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation at HM Treasury issued a financial sanctions notice that updated references to the 310 individuals and 39 entities to which sanctions apply. With the Assad regime over, can the Minister confirm whether any of those individuals are still in Syria, or have all fled? We know that Assad is in Russia, but does the Minister know the whereabouts of other individuals?
Will the Government still consider adding names of individuals and entities to the list, should evidence emerge of the complicity in Assad’s crimes and the repression of Syria by those either currently in Syria or elsewhere? We agree those sanctions must remain in place, and those responsible for heinous acts be held to account. Will the Minister give details on the work under way with international partners and the transitional Government in Syria to bring those responsible to face justice? Will he give an update on his assessment of compliance with sanctions in place?
I now turn to the impact of the amendment. Section 9.2 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“The lifting of sanctions creates trade and investment opportunities for the UK. The impact on UK growth is expected to be positive but negligible, due to the small size of the Syrian economy. Any such trade and investment with Syria will remain subject to other existing legal regulation including international sanctions.”
Does the Minister have an estimate of the impact this would have on UK businesses? Will support and assistance be provided to any UK businesses looking to invest in Syria as a result of these changes, to ensure safe operations? How will he monitor new investments in Syria, to ensure that they are for the benefit of the Syrian people and are not making their way into the hands of those who will undermine our objectives in Syria?
With regard to regulation 6 of the 2019 regulations, headed “Designation criteria: meaning of ‘involved person’”, the amendments would add references to the regulation applying to activities during the period of the Assad regime, which is defined in the regulations as the period ending on 8 December 2024. They state that those designated will be persons involved in a range of abhorrent activities, including
“repressing the civilian population in Syria”
and
“the commission of, or obstruction of an independent investigation into a serious human rights violation or abuse in Syria.”
Can the Minister confirm whether that will mean that anyone who may obstruct investigations into human rights abuses that happened under the Assad regime but where the obstructive actions took place after 8 December 2024, will not be covered by that provision? Ensuring that evidence is secured is vital to bringing criminal cases against those responsible. Anything that could compromise that must surely be a concern.
In the 2019 regulations, regulation 6 defines
“prohibited activities related to chemical weapons”
and regulation 7 lists
“stockpiling or retaining chemical weapons”
as actions that can lead to sanctions being applied. Will the Minister confirm whether those aspects of the regulations will apply to anyone who has been maintaining chemical weapons, or obstructing any efforts to investigate and dispose of chemical weapons held in Syria currently, since the fall of the Assad regime? Or does the measure apply only to persons involved in those activities up to 8 December 2024?
I am sure that the Minister will share our concerns about the risks of chemical weapons not being secured and disposed of. Can he give an update on the international efforts to deal with chemical weapons in Syria and any progress that the transitional Government are making on that issue?
Finally, only an appropriate and inclusive constitutional future will ultimately guarantee peace and stability for Syria, so we should make sure that our policy on Syria’s economic recovery, of which sanctions are of course a part, is not decoupled from ensuring that the right governance structures are in place. On that basis, what is the Minister’s latest assessment of transitional Government’s progress and the plans that they have laid out? We seek assurances on all those points, and I trust that the Minister will give full answers to all those questions when he sums up.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats recognise the power of lifting sanctions for the rebuilding of Syria after a decade of civil war and the end of the brutal Assad regime. However, it is vital that the new transitional Syrian Government under President al-Sharaa reaffirm their commitment to political inclusion and religious and sectarian tolerance—a position they originally outlined last December. They must take concrete steps to promote and protect the rights of minority groups and women in Syria, and to ensure that they are represented in the new Administration.
Will the Minister outline today an explicit strategy for supporting the promotion of political inclusion and the protection of minorities in Syria? How will that be linked to the future lifting of any sanctions?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes, for their comments. They highlighted many of the reasonable concerns of right hon. and hon. Members about the future of Syria and how those concerns relate to our sanctions regimes.
First, on the process, I assure the Committee that absolutely no discourtesy was intended. I gently say to the shadow Minister that, as she will know from her time as a Minister, these things often move at pace. We always try to keep the House updated as soon as possible on any changes that we need to make.
The shadow Minister asked about co-ordination with the United States, the European Union and other partners. I assure her that the Minister with responsibility for the middle east and I, and others, have regular conversations with partners across the region, as well as with those in the European Union, the United States and elsewhere, to understand our approaches and assessments of this rapidly moving set of circumstances. We have been quite honest that there are a number of unknowns, but we regularly discuss those and always seek to co-ordinate.
The shadow Minister will know, but it may benefit other Committee members to say, that our sanctions regimes are all different in their scope, their legal aspects and how they operate. There is not always a direct alignment between different measures and different approaches. We also have different nexuses and points of reference with relation to the entities and individuals who were previously sanctioned.
The shadow Minister and other Committee members will understand that there is a crucial balance to be achieved. As I said at the beginning, this is a gradual process. It is about balancing support for the people, for Syria’s economic recovery and for a hopeful and positive future for the people, of which we have seen some positive signs, against ensuring the rightful caution and assessment of the circumstances on the ground and of the performance and actions, not just the words, of the new regime.
The shadow Minister will be reassured that we are regularly keeping these matters under review. Obviously—I always say this—we do not comment on future designations or the future actions that we might take, but she can rest assured that this measure and our overall regimes allow the potential, should we seek to, to impose new measures in future given the circumstances on the ground. It is worth emphasising that this measure effectively relates to defunct regulations that were no longer appropriate, because they related to the Assad regime.
The shadow Minister asked about discussions with the Syrian Government. The United Kingdom engages privately and regularly with the Syrian Government at every level, including through our Syria envoy, to support them in delivering a more stable, free and prosperous future for the Syrian people. The UK National Security Adviser spoke to President Ahmed al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister al-Shaibani on 10 April. He made clear the importance of an inclusive political transition, the need to protect all civilians, and the hope that we would work together to tackle shared concerns, including countering Daesh.
The Minister with responsibility for the middle east met Syria’s Foreign Minister al-Shaibani in Brussels on 17 March, and they discussed the importance of an inclusive political transition, the need to protect all civilians, and the security situation in northern Syria. The Foreign Secretary also met Syria’s Foreign Minister al-Shaibani at the Munich security conference, and FCDO staff, including the UK special representative for Syria, have undertaken visits to Damascus. I hope the Committee is assured that we are engaging at every level, and making clear our expectations and hopes. We will work with others to support the transition and to take the necessary steps.
On conditions, I have clearly set out our expectations. Those are then kept closely under review, in the same way that we approach all matters in relation to Syria—not just sanctions, but our support and engagement with the regime.
The shadow Minister asked about the whereabouts of previously sanctioned individuals. I will not go into that now, but I will write to her with some assurances about the measures we are taking to monitor the situation. Those hundreds of individuals rightly remain sanctioned, but it is important for the Committee to be aware that we want to hold them accountable, and to stop those who were involved in atrocities under the Assad regime from being able to prosper and thrive as a result of their actions. She also asked about the number of militant groups; I will write to her with a more detailed assessment of the situation and perhaps we can offer her some briefing as well.
The shadow Minister referred specifically to growth and economic potential. Obviously, this is a fragile and fast-moving situation, and our advice to businesses is clear that they must undertake their own legal and risk assessments of the situation. There are a range of not only UK but international measures in relation to activity in Syria. It is very important that businesses get the best advice on that before engaging in any activities. Although this measure does not specifically relate to UK companies, it should help more broadly to achieve a prosperous, peaceful and stable future for Syria.
The shadow Minister asked about measures to secure evidence, routes to justice and ways forward. I want to be clear with the Committee that accountability and the protection of human rights are critical parts of a sustainable transition. We continue to advocate for that and, as I have said, we have raised it on a number of occasions. We have committed £1.15 million to accountability and documentation-related programming, and following the collapse of the Assad regime, we announced £240,000 in funding to help to secure and preserve vital evidence.
We also continue to work with international partners and civil society to support mechanisms such as the UN’s International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism, the Independent Institution on Missing Persons, and the commission of inquiry, to ensure that they have the resources to conduct their operations and to address impunity and the suffering of the Syrian people. We directly support Syrians documenting and gathering evidence to hold the former Assad regime to account for sexual and gender-based violence, which has resulted in the first conviction for sexual crimes. That is a core part of our work with the Syrian Government and is crucially important.
I can say, as someone who highlighted many of these concerns in the House alongside our former and deeply missed colleague Jo Cox and others, that the shadow Minister should be assured of my commitment, and that of the ministerial team, to ensuring that we have accountability that does justice for victims and survivors and that fundamentally underpins a peaceful future for civilians. That will be crucial.
The shadow Minister asked about chemical weapons. We are clear that any use of chemical weapons, by anyone and under any circumstance, is unacceptable. The brutal history of chemical weapons use in Syria must never be repeated. There is now an opportunity to rid Syria of chemical weapons and we have been very clear that Syria must meet its obligations under the chemical weapons convention and United Nations Security Council resolution 2118.
We are working closely with the new regime and other partners. We welcome commitments that they are going to protect the chemical weapons sites and not use such weapons under any circumstances. As I mentioned, that appearance with the OPCW, the visits by the OPCW in March, and a range of other measures are progressing that crucial work. We have provided nearly a million—£837,000—to the OPCW Syria mission since the fall of Assad to support its immediate work, which will absolutely continue.
More broadly, I should make the point that we have not given any new humanitarian funds to the new Syrian Government. Our humanitarian assistance is provided via NGOs and UN organisations operating in Syria to meet the needs of the most vulnerable across the country. As with all of our work, to reassure both spokespeople, we have extensive controls in place to ensure that our aid reaches those who need it and is not falling into the hands of those it should not.
More widely, I hope that I have clearly set out how we are engaging at every level, how we are working with partners, and how we are focused on crucial issues related to accountability, immediate humanitarian needs, economic recovery and setting out clear positions for the new regime that we hope it will come true on. As I said, there are positive signs and important steps forward being taken.
I assure the Committee and the shadow Minister that this situation remains high focus for the UK Government. Ministers are working across the piece on it and we will keep the House updated as matters develop. It is a finely balanced situation. We hope that it will move in the right direction, but of course we always retain the right to take other action should that not be the case. We will continue to make our expectations clear. With that, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 507 ).
Draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Exemptions for Certain Foreign Power Investment Funds, Education, Government Administration and Public Bodies) Regulations 2025
Draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations 2025
Draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Iran) Regulations 2025
Draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Russia) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Exemptions for Certain Foreign Power Investment Funds, Education, Government Administration and Public Bodies) Regulations 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations, the draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Iran) Regulations 2025 and the draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Russia) Regulations 2025.
Dan Jarvis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I beg leave to speak for slightly longer than is customary, as we are debating four separate statutory instruments today.
On 1 April, I announced that FIRS—the foreign influence registration scheme—would go live on 1 July 2025, with Russia and Iran specified on the enhanced tier of the scheme. FIRS, which is contained in part 4 of the National Security Act 2023, will be an invaluable tool for deterring and disrupting state threats and providing transparency of foreign power influence in our democracy.
The scheme serves three principal aims. The first aim is transparency: the scheme will require those carrying out certain activities for foreign powers to declare them, and details of any political influence activities will be included on a public register. The second aim is deterrence: those carrying out malign activities for foreign powers will need either to cease their activities or to register them with the Government. The third aim is disruption: those who fail to declare their links to foreign powers will be at risk of criminal penalties.
The draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Iran) Regulations and the draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Russia) Regulations specify the entirety of the Iranian and Russian states on the enhanced tier of the scheme. For Iran, that includes the Supreme Leader, the whole of the Government, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran and the judiciary of Iran. For Russia, it includes the President of Russia, Cabinet Ministers, Government Ministries, regional governments, the judiciary and the legislature.
As I set out in a statement to the House on 4 March, the Iranian regime is targeting dissidents, media organisations and journalists reporting on the regime’s violent oppression. There is also a long-standing pattern of Jewish and Israeli people being targeted internationally by the Iranian intelligence services. Russia also poses an acute threat to UK security: in recent years, its hostile acts have ranged from the use of a deadly nerve agent in Salisbury to espionage, arson and cyber-attacks, including the targeting of UK parliamentarians through spear-phishing campaigns. Specifying Russia and Iran on the enhanced tier will mean that anyone acting for the Russian or Iranian state in the UK will face a choice: either they declare their activities to the UK Government, or they will face up to five years’ imprisonment.
Both instruments include a statutory five-year review period and a grace period for those who are in ongoing arrangements at the point of the scheme going live, to allow them to register arrangements without an impact on legitimate activities.
The draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Exemptions for Certain Foreign Power Investment Funds, Education, Government Administration and Public Bodies) Regulations introduce four new exemptions to the scheme. These exemptions, as well as those contained in primary legislation, are designed to ensure the proportionality of the scheme by reducing the amount of routine activity, and activity which is already transparent, that needs to be registered with the scheme.
First, the instrument introduces an exemption from the political influence tier of the scheme for foreign power investment funds, which is intended to cover sovereign wealth funds and certain public pension funds. Secondly, it introduces an exemption for funded study arrangements, such as foreign Government scholarships. Thirdly, it introduces an exemption from the enhanced tier for activities related to Government administrative and technical services, such as nationality, immigration and tax-related services. Finally, it introduces an exemption from an enhanced tier for public bodies and arrangements to which they are a party.
All these exemptions have been carefully crafted to ensure that they apply only to a narrow set of activities to avoid creating loopholes that could be exploited for malign purposes. For example, Russian or Iranian students under scholarship programmes will be exempt only in relation to activities related to their course of study. Any other activity that they carry out for the Russian or Iranian states must be registered.
The draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations sets out how the public register will work. The register is essential to achieving the transparency aims of the scheme. This instrument sets out details about what categories of registered information will be published, limited to that which is necessary to achieve the scheme’s transparency aims, while protecting individuals’ privacy.
Registrations under the scheme that relate to political influence activities will, by default, be included on the public register. Wider registrations under the enhanced tier that go beyond political influence activities will not be published.
It is important to point out that those who register with the scheme and those who appear on the public register are doing the right thing and supporting transparency through the scheme. The instrument sets out that the information will be retained on the public register for 10 years after the end date of activities to enable trends and patterns of foreign influence to be monitored over time, and to achieve the scheme’s transparency objectives. The instrument also sets out that information may not appear on the register where it has been demonstrated that publication would be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK, or to the prevention of a crime, a criminal investigation, or criminal proceedings; where it would put an individual’s safety at risk; and where it could result in the disclosure of commercially sensitive information.
Under this Government, national security will always come first, because nothing matters more than keeping our country and our people safe. In this era of growing and evolving state-based threats, it is a task that requires unflinching vigilance and constant renewal of the tools available to our world-class police and intelligence services. That is why we have placed national security at the heart of our plan for change; and it is why we are acting to operationalise the foreign influence registration scheme, including through the measures that we are debating. I hope and trust that we will have the support of all Members in this critical endeavour. I commend the instruments to the Committee.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Stringer. It is a basic moral requirement of Governments to act in their country’s interest. They do that at home and abroad, overtly and covertly. Unsurprisingly, the interests of different countries are not always the same, so to protect our national security, we must take decisive action against those who engage in covert lobbying on behalf of hostile foreign powers, whether they are acting directly or indirectly, including through other foreign entities. These efforts seek to disrupt our democracy, undermine our national sovereignty and erode the precious freedoms that we have built in this country over so many centuries. Part 4 of the National Security Act was a necessary step towards tackling this malign foreign influence.
We welcome the Government’s draft regulations, which build on the previous Government’s work. It is right that by using the enhanced tier to apply additional scrutiny, we recognise the threat posed by particular foreign states. Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, which has rightly horrified millions of people across this country, underscores the threat that it poses to our way of life. In recent years, Russia and its agents have sought to disrupt our economy and political system; in 2018, for example, they attempted to poison Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury. The Government’s efforts to step up our efforts to target Russian influence in the UK are welcome.
Likewise, Iran rightly belongs on the enhanced tier. The UK security services have responded to more than 20 Iran-backed plots since 2022. The Minister has made multiple statements to the House regarding malign Iranian activity in the UK, including cases that have involved the arrest of Iranian nationals. I know that he is very familiar with the threat; I thank him and our security services for everything that they do to protect us.
However, the Government’s guidance on the Act points to one glaring omission in the draft regulations before the Committee. It states:
“The heads of MI5 and SIS have spoken about the growing threat from states, with the Director General of MI5 previously confirming that the threat predominantly comes from Russia, Iran and China.”
Notwithstanding representations from the Opposition, the Government have chosen not to include China in the enhanced tier, despite having created bespoke regulations for the two other countries identified. Do the Government really believe that the threat posed by China is less severe than that posed by Russia or by Iran?
The Chinese Government continue to impose sanctions on Members of this House. In 2021, Chinese state-affiliated actors targeted the private emails of British MPs. In the same year, agents of the Chinese Government targeted the computer systems of our Electoral Commission. In recent months, we have heard about bounties of up to £100,000 for “information leading to the arrest” of advocates of democracy in Hong Kong who live here in Britain. This is an appalling attempt to extend the jurisdiction of China’s authoritarian national security law to the streets of the UK, violating the most basic principles of national sovereignty.
The charge sheet goes on and on. The Chinese Government are actively involved in interfering with our political system and have not been shy about their intent to target people they consider a threat, even when they are living in this country. Regardless of the UK Government’s efforts to maintain constructive relations with China, we must be absolutely clear that there can be no compromise when it comes to our fundamental national security.
Does the Minister agree with the director general of MI5 about the threat that China poses to our national security? If so, does he feel that China should be included in the enhanced tier? If not, why not?
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I absolutely agree that the measures before the Committee are unobjectionable, particularly as I have the privilege of being sanctioned by the Russian Federation. Salisbury is close to my constituency, and the memory of the 2018 Novichok poisoning is still very raw in my part of the country.
Beyond China, which my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent rightly cited, there is an omission from the list: North Korea, which was a member of George Bush’s “axis of evil”. That country has shown itself to be a willing confederate of Russia in recent times. Why has the Minister not included North Korea? Can we expect a further measure that specifically cites North Korea under the arrangements that he has described?
Dan Jarvis
First, let me offer my thanks for two very helpful, constructive and pertinent contributions from the Opposition, and also more generally for the collegiate atmosphere in which these instruments have been discussed today. That is important, and it does make a difference, because the presence of a cross-party consensus on matters relating to national security does send a powerful message to our adversaries that we are united in our determination to root out and repel their hostile activities. I am grateful, therefore, for the broad support that has been shown for FIRS today, and on previous occasions when it has been discussed in this House. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, for her broad welcome for these regulations.
Let me take a moment to pay tribute to the work that was done by the previous Government in the previous Parliament. The 2023 Act was a landmark piece of legislation; as Security Ministers today, we feel the benefit of the work that was done in the previous Parliament. I have mentioned this to the shadow Minister previously, but I say it again for the benefit of the House: this Government are grateful for the efforts of all those who went before who put in place this legislative framework, which is now delivering real operational benefit for the United Kingdom. I join her in the comments that she made about Russia and Iran. The work that we are doing with the implementation of FIRS will make a difference in terms of ensuring that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible operating environment for these countries, and all—all—activities carried out under the direction of the Russian or the Iranian state will require registration. That is to ensure that the scheme provides assurance for the full range of activities that those two countries are directing at the United Kingdom.
For reasons that I understand, the shadow Minister also asked about China. Let me say to her—this will come as no great surprise—that countries are considered separately for specification on the enhanced tier, and it would not be appropriate for me today to speculate about whether other countries might be added to the enhanced tier in the future.
On the issue of China more broadly, I think it is absolutely fair to say that this Government have been crystal clear about what our approach to China will be. We are taking a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relationship with China. We will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to and challenge where we must, including on issues relating to national security.
We want a consistent and robust relationship with China that works in the best interests of the United Kingdom, but that cannot be boiled down to one word or one decision. We are not naive to the challenges that China poses to the UK, but FIRS is not a tool to formally designate particular countries as being a threat to the UK interests or to our security. It is designed to create transparency around the influence of foreign powers in the UK.
Let me end my responses to the shadow Minister’s comments on what I hope is a point of consensus. She rightly said that there can be absolutely no compromise with regard to national security, and that is absolutely right: that is absolutely the approach of this Government, and I can give her that categorical assurance that national security will always come first.
It is always very good to hear from the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire and he knows that his part of the world and his constituency has a special place in my heart. I do not know whether I have been around this place for too long, but I did mention to officials that he might ask me about North Korea, and I am pleased that he did not disappoint. Decisions are made on a country-by-country basis. We very carefully consider these matters and we keep these under close review, but we have not made any specific decision with regard to North Korea. However, I am very happy to debate these points with him, today or on any other occasion.
Let me finally join the right hon. Gentleman in agreeing with the characterisation that he made, and has made previously, about the terrible attack that took place in Salisbury in 2018. These are the most repugnant and unacceptable acts. He is absolutely right to say—he is much closer to it than I am and knows better than I do—that these matters are still raw for the people of Salisbury. They are not matters that we will ever forget and we take them incredibly seriously.
With that, there is nothing more to add other than to commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations 2025.—(Dan Jarvis.)
Draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Iran) Regulations 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Iran) Regulations 2025.—(Dan Jarvis.)
Draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Russia) Regulations 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Russia) Regulations 2025.—(Dan Jarvis.)
Reading Football Club
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch off electronic devices. Are all devices off? Excellent. I am not sure that mine is, but I will do that in a moment. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, nor is milk.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 13 May) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 May;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 15 May;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 May;
2. the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; the Schedule; Clauses 2 to 15; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 20 May.—(Justin Madders.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Justin Madders.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence received by the Committee will be made available on the table in the Committee Room.
I move now to declarations of interests. Members are responsible for declaring any interests, in accordance with the code of conduct, at the start of proceedings and when speaking or tabling amendments. Do any Members want to declare interests at this juncture? No.
We now begin—I am building the excitement, Minister —the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available at the back of the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and amendments have been grouped together for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members can then speak, and they need to bob if they wish to do so. If there has been sufficient debate on an amendment to obviate the need for a stand part debate, I will make that judgment at the time, as is normal in the circumstances.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall again call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause or seek a Division. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment in a group, including grouped new clauses, they will need to let me know. If you have signed amendments that you want to press, please let me know and I will take them at the appropriate time. My fellow Chair, Valerie Vaz, and I shall use our discretion to decide whether to allow separate stand part debates, as I have said.
I hope that is all helpful. Are there any questions at this stage? I am conscious that we have a number of Members who may not have served on Bill Committees before. Many of you probably have by now, but we will take it along those lines.
Clause 1
Product regulations
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under product regulations, when defining and regulating risks and determining what constitutes efficient or effective product operation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 15, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “also”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 14.
Amendment 16, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “(1) or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 14.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
What a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir John, and for the duration of this Bill Committee. I am shall start by indulging the Committee with a little bit of background on the reasons behind the amendments in this group.
As colleagues will have noted, the Bill gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to change regulations through delegated legislation. It is what everyone would describe as a skeleton Bill—and those are not just my words. In clause 1, which we seek to amend, the sweeping powers given to the Secretary of State are quite extraordinary. It is not just the Opposition who have pointed that out. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place looked closely at the Bill and concluded that the delegated powers in clause 1—we will come to the other clauses later—are inappropriate and should be removed from the Bill. I am sure Members will agree that that is quite a strong statement.
In response to the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government shifted somewhat. They acknowledged that Committee’s concerns and accepted that more detail could have been included in the delegated powers memorandum. Nevertheless, we heard again from the Committee on 21 February, when it welcomed the amendments the Government had tabled to introduce a requirement for consultation and narrow some of the delegated powers, but stated:
“The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill.”
The Committee in the other place remained of the view that
“the delegation to Ministers of law-making powers in this Bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the legislature to the Executive”
and that
“the Government has failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in this Bill that give Ministers such wide powers to re-write in regulations the substance of the regulatory regimes for products and metrology.”
The Committee added that regulations made under the Bill should “in all cases” be subject to “affirmative procedure scrutiny”, meaning the regulations would require active approval by both Houses.
Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State extraordinary powers. I put on the record that the Secretary of State is a man of benign disposition. We can all see that many dangerous products find their way into the UK and to UK consumers’ homes, either through online marketplaces or through other means, and that a prudent and benign Government would need to introduce regulations to address that. The evidence that has been supplied to the Committee cites alarming cases of lithium-ion batteries, and regulations need take into account how dangerous those products can sometimes be. We are all aware of some of the challenges with online marketplaces where products that are illegal in the UK find their way to the UK market and UK consumers.
At the same time, although it may come as a surprise to some people, there are other countries in the world, and they also put in place product regulations. Some may have higher standards than us, and some may have lower standards. We can all agree that we want product regulation to be not only of the very best quality for the UK consumer, but consistent across our United Kingdom. The evidence to the Committee also highlights the need to look at the issue of fulfilment centres, on which it will be interesting to hear from the Minister.
It is also the case that we have our own accreditation: the UKCA—UK conformity assessed—marking. Many businesses in the UK have taken extensive and expensive steps to apply for that accreditation. The previous Government extended the recognition of the CE—conformité Européenne—marking, with which people are familiar and which shows that a product has met product regulation requirements in the EU. What plans do the Minister and his Department have for extending recognition of the very high standards that apply in the UKCA marking scheme?
What are the Government’s plans for when the operation of clause 1 leads to a difference in standards and labelling for particular products? In the evidence the Committee received, the example of tumble dryers was highlighted. A tumble dryer is likely to be subject to different labelling requirements in different parts of the UK, with the requirements in Northern Ireland being different from those in Great Britain.
In short, we are concerned that the legislation would give enormous powers to a future Secretary of State who might not be as benign as the one we have now. We need only to look across the Atlantic to see how President Trump was able to use Executive powers to move away from paper straws to plastic straws at the sweep of his signature. I am sure that Labour Members are extremely concerned about giving enormous delegated powers to the Executive, so will want to support our amendments to clause 1.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee not only had concerns about clause 1, as we will discuss in due course, but also raised concerns about clauses 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9, which I am sure we will discuss at length. It is extraordinary how much power is being taken by the Executive in this legislation. The Conservatives accept that there is a need to reduce and mitigate the risks presented by products that make their way into the UK marketplace. There is obviously an important role in ensuring that products operate efficiently and effectively, and that products designed for weighing or measuring operate accurately. However, we are startled by the extent of the powers provided to the Secretary State in clause 1, particularly in the subsections that we propose to amend. The Secretary of State’s powers are startling, as will be shown in the Committee’s line-by-line scrutiny of the clause.
To summarise the concerns about delegated powers, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated that:
“A delegated power is needed in order to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to respond swiftly to any new risks and hazards that might arise in this area—”
I am sure we will mention that again when we move on to clause 4—
“as well as ensuring continuity across the United Kingdom internal market. This will include an ability to maintain continuity with relevant EU law where it is deemed appropriate and, in the United Kingdom’s best interests to do so, but also the ability to make different provision to the EU.”
We will talk about that in more detail when we discuss clause 2.
It is worth highlighting to the Committee that the Secretary of State himself is not a fan of delegated powers. When in opposition, he stated clearly that they carry a risk of abuse by the Executive and were not something that the Opposition could ever support. In 2018, the Secretary of State said:
“We must bear in mind that the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support. Rather, it is our duty at this stage to check the powers of the Executive and ensure that we are not giving them carte blanche to change the balance of power permanently in their favour.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]
It is not just the Secretary of State who feels strongly about this issue. The Attorney General said in his recent Bingham lecture on the rule of law that Henry VIII powers such as we see in this legislation are a strike at the rule of law—that skeleton legislation or delegated legislation
“not only strikes at the rule of law…but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”
I see that you are listening intently, Sir John. I want to re-emphasise why I think the powers are inappropriately drawn. Despite some movement in the other place, the Secretary of State is left with powers that are far too wide-ranging. On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Leong, speaking for the Government, said:
“We have taken the Bill from its early state to where it is today, and obviously it will now go to the other place. I am sure that the noble Lord is right: there will be further deliberation…and hopefully”—
that is the important point—
“we will get it to a better place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 714.]
That is a green light from the Government spokesman in the other place for this Committee to do its job. I urge the Committee to accept our amendments to clause 1.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire made numerous important points—I reinforce the point that this group of amendments looks to a future with a less benign Secretary of State—and made the case that the current Secretary of State agrees with her.
Amendments 14, 15, and 16 seek to remove the sweeping powers currently granted to the Secretary of State under clause 1(1). As drafted, the clause gives a single Minister an almost unrestricted mandate to define and regulate product standards, ostensibly to reduce risk and ensure efficient and effective operation. The terms are vague and the power to define them is left entirely to the Executive. This is not a technical tweak. It is a fundamental constitutional concern. Clause 1(1) effectively hands Ministers a blank cheque to legislate by decree, bypassing the scrutiny and consent of this House.
The amendments would delete the subsection and make the necessary consequential changes, thereby restoring the proper balance between Executive action and parliamentary oversight. This is not about obstructing Government action. It is about ensuring that when Ministers act, they do so within clearly defined limits and with the approval of Parliament. Regulations that affect businesses, consumers and the public at large should not be made behind closed doors in Whitehall. They should be debated and decided in public, by elected representatives.
By supporting amendments 14 to 16, we reaffirm a vital constitutional principle: that it is Parliament, not Ministers, who should define the scope of regulatory power. The changes would not weaken the Bill; they would strengthen it by embedding accountability and transparency at its core. I urge colleagues to support the amendments.
The Chair
I call the Minister for Employment Rights, Competition and Markets, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Justin Madders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Thank you, Sir John—and what a lengthy title. I hope that is not a portent for the rest of the day. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning. I thank all Members and officials for helping us to examine the Bill.
The Bill, as the title suggests, is a little dry—as dry as the weather, possibly—but it is very important in underpinning product safety in this country. I am sure that by the end of the Committee we will all know a little more about product safety, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, who is the first metrologist to be elected to this House. I am sure he will give the Committee the benefit of his experience, which we are all looking forward to.
I thank the shadow Minister for her introduction. She has cut to the heart of one of the central arguments that we will no doubt be having over the next few days, on the importance of the powers to keep people safe and to ensure that the right level of scrutiny is applied to regulations made under the Bill. The Lords have made a number of changes to get that balance right.
Our product regulation and metrology framework is extensive and highly technical. It extends to dozens of regulations and thousands of products in a huge range of technical detail. The Bill’s powers will allow us to keep that extensive body of regulation up to date. We need to make sure that regulation can be modified to reflect new evidence of risks, such as new chemical ingredients in cosmetics. We also need to keep it more substantially updated as business models and products change, not least to reflect the growth of online marketplaces, which I am sure we will debate in due course. The shadow Minister’s amendments 14 to 16 would strip out the power to do that in clause 1(1).
Clause 1(1) contains the Bill’s central power to ensure that product risks can be mitigated, to ensure that products operate effectively or efficiently and, of course, to ensure that products operate accurately. It is vital to ensuring that our product regulation framework can adapt, keep consumers safe and give them confidence that what they are buying is safe, which we think is very important. Removing subsection (1) would leave our product regulation framework frozen in time.
Of course, it is important that Parliament has appropriate scrutiny of the powers—no doubt we can all trade quotes on the various things we have said about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. However, it would not be a good use of parliamentary time to require primary legislation or affirmative procedure debates for every single change in the regulations, no matter how small and technical. We have listened to the concerns of the DPRRC and the Lords Constitution Committee and have already amended the Bill to improve parliamentary scrutiny. We have increased the number of areas where the affirmative procedure will operate, such as when we impose product requirements on a new category of supply chain actor, and removed most of the Bill’s Henry VIII powers.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The Minister refers to the Government’s decision to pursue so many skeleton powers in the Bill, and says the Secretary of State now disagrees with what he said back in 2018. Can the Minister elaborate on what has happened in the real world to cause the Secretary of State to have such a damascene conversion?
Justin Madders
I am not able to read the Secretary of State’s mind, but this debate is about a different area of law from the one the Secretary of State was talking about. I refer the hon. Lady to one of her colleagues, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who said:
“It is critical that that power operates in that manner to ensure that legislation that sits on the UK’s statute book is able to keep pace with scientific and technological developments, so that we continue to uphold our high standards as well as ensure laws remain tailored to best suit the UK’s needs. Without that power, it would take a significant amount of parliamentary time for the Government to bring forward bespoke proposals and consider each amendment on a sector by sector basis.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 29 November 2022; c. 260.]
That is essentially the argument. I served on that Public Bill Committee, which accepted that there is a need for a degree of delegated power, but we have gone further. We have published a code of conduct setting out statutory and non-statutory controls to ensure that product safety regulation, now and in the future, is proportionate and evidence based, and takes into account the views of relevant stakeholders.
It is not the case, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, that this has all taken place behind closed doors. The code of conduct is a very clear public statement, there has been relevant engagement and consultation with stakeholders, and the affirmative procedure will be applied on a number of occasions. It is about getting that balance right.
I note the shadow Minister’s generous comments about the current Secretary of State being a benign individual; I hope her comments also apply to the Secretary of State’s immediate predecessor. It is worth pointing out that similar product safety powers have existed for almost 40 years in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. I do not believe there has been any occasion on which a Secretary of State, of any political persuasion, has used the powers in a draconian or whimsical way.
The shadow Minister described the powers in the Bill as “extraordinary.” I am afraid they are actually rather ordinary in the sense that, to my reckoning, over the last decade the DPRRC has described some 19 Bills as either wholly or partially skeletal. Of course, the shadow Minister will be aware that all those Bills were introduced when her party was in government.
It is entirely normal for Bills to have a degree of delegated powers, particularly within important areas of technical detail where there is a need to act quickly. It is about getting the balance right. We need to ensure that the product regulation framework is agile, up to date and able to protect consumers and businesses effectively. We have taken great care, and we have listened to get the right balance between delivering that objective and ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny on the exercise of the powers. I therefore invite the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I listened carefully to the Minister. If I heard him correctly, he basically said that these kinds of skeleton Bills exist, and therefore, despite the objections of his Secretary of State in the last Parliament, he will persist in supporting legislation that continues this practice, which has been so soundly described in the other place as unacceptable in our democracy. The Opposition believe the principle is so important that we will press our amendment to a Division.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations about the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom which corresponds, or is similar to, a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
This amendment removes the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met.
Amendment 21, in clause 2, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
“(7A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.”
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
“(10) The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and
(b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when aligning with EU law, and for Parliament to approve that provision before aligning with EU law.
Amendment 7, in clause 2, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
“(10) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.
(11) The enforcement of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to EU law from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or CJEU).
New clause 4—Review panel—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review panel (‘the Panel’) no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act comes into force.
(2) The Panel must—
(a) carry out a review of all regulations under this Act corresponding to, similar to, or making references to, the requirements of relevant EU laws under section 2(7), with a view to establishing—
(i) their effect on economic growth;
(ii) their effect on trade in the product concerned on a global basis; and
(iii) their effect on the relevant industry or industries within the United Kingdom;
(b) prepare a report of the review, and
(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, no later than 12 months from the date of the Panel’s creation and then every 24 months.
(3) The Panel must consist of—
(a) at least one person with expertise in economics;
(b) at least one person with expertise in trade policy; and
(c) at least one person with expertise in domestic regulation of business.
(4) If either House of Parliament rejects a motion in the form set out in subsection (5), moved in accordance with subsection (6) by a Minister of the Crown, the Secretary of State must ensure that the regulations reviewed by the Panel cease to have effect not later than the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the rejection takes place.
(5) The form of the motion is—
(6) So far as practicable, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for the motion to be debated and voted on by both Houses of Parliament within a period of 14 sitting days beginning immediately after the report mentioned in subsection (2)(b) is laid before Parliament.”
This new clause would ensure a review and report to Parliament of any regulations aligning the UK with EU laws, and for that review to be approved by both Houses for the relevant regulations to remain in force.
New clause 9—Alignment with EU law—
“(1) Where equivalent or similar EU law exists in relation to relevant product regulations, the Secretary of State must, when making provision under section 1, update Parliament on whether the Government proposes to vary the regulations from alignment with EU law.
(2) If the Secretary of State believes divergence from relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this divergence, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.
(3) If the Secretary of State believes alignment with the relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this alignment, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.
(4) The statement under subsection (2) or (3) must include the date by which any such regulations will be reviewed, which can be no later than 36 months after implementation.”
This new clause provides greater regulatory certainty for UK businesses by requiring scrutiny of all decisions to diverge or align with EU regulations and a process for Parliamentary scrutiny and review, whether Ministers determine that divergence or alignment from such regulations would be in the best interests of the UK.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We tabled our amendments to clauses 1 and 2 because we can see both what the Secretary of State intends and the purpose of the huge powers he is taking under clause 1.
Amendment 3 seeks to remove clause 1(2), which states:
“The Secretary of State…in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom”
can make provision
“which corresponds, or is similar, to a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.”
That is an extraordinarily wide power. We seek to delete subsection (2) because it is clear that the Bill is effectively planned to be used as a Trojan horse. It will be a surrender Bill, ahead of the surrender summit next week.
Through this legislation, the Secretary of State will be given the power, for environmental and many other issues, to sign up to the rule of EU law on product regulation in this country without any further primary legislation. We have real concerns that the Bill could effectively be used to facilitate dynamic alignment. That is not even a hunch, as it is spelled out by the Department for Business and Trade in the impact assessment, which states that the Bill will:
“Ensure that the law can be updated to enable recognition of new or updated EU product requirements.”
It is spelled out, which is why we have also tabled amendment 4 to leave out clauses 2(7) and (8), and amendment 21 to add proposed new subsection (7A):
“Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.”
Amendment 5 would insert proposed new subsection (10):
“The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and
(b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
Without those important provisions, we would be handing the Executive the most extraordinary ability to allow a foreign power to legislate this country’s product regulations. I am sure all parliamentarians agree that product regulation ought to be considered at the parliamentary level on a case-by-case basis.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I want to make a few brief points in support of the Opposition amendments. Taken together, they serve a simple but essential purpose: they seek to ensure that the powers granted under the Bill are used transparently, responsibly and with full parliamentary oversight. Let me be clear: this is not about rehashing the debates of the past. It is about making sure that future decisions, especially those that could have profound consequences for British industry, trade and product standards, are subject to democratic scrutiny.
As it stands, the Bill gives sweeping discretion to Ministers to align domestic product regulations with European law. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, it enables the potential for dynamic alignment, which the impact assessment essentially spells out as the aim, without any binding requirement for parliamentary approval, debate or even explanation. Amendment 5 would change that by requiring the Secretary of State to explain the rationale for alignment and seek Parliament’s consent before any such decision takes effect. This is not obstructionism; it is good governance.
As has been noted, the Bill also risks undoing the progress made by the previous Government in removing excessive red tape and regaining regulatory autonomy. Through sovereign decision making the UK has created trading opportunities on the world stage. That is why amendments 3 and 4, to remove automatic mechanisms to treat compliance with EU rules as equivalent to UK compliance by default and without justification, are vital. This is not about rejecting co-operation where it is in our interest; it is about avoiding automatic alignment without accountability.
As was raised in the other place, the powers are not just technical; they are significant policy decisions that deserve primary legislation. The democratic will of the British people, expressed in the referendum when we decided to leave the European Union and in elections since, was to restore British sovereignty. It is only right that no authority based outside the UK, whether it be the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the European Union, can unilaterally shape the enforcement or interpretation of our rules.
Amendment 21, in particular, would ensure that any EU-derived product standards must first be brought into UK law by regulation before they can be treated as equivalent. That would both protect sovereignty and provide certainty. Ultimately, there must be proper scrutiny, and if Ministers are confident in their decisions, they should have no concern about being asked to report back to Parliament on any regulations aligning with EU law and to ask Parliament to approve their continuation. That would enable proper oversight while guarding against regulatory drift.
Alison Griffiths
The amendments in this group serve a clear and vital purpose: to prevent the automatic alignment of UK product regulations with EU law and to reaffirm our sovereign right to set our own standards.
As it stands, clause 1(2) would allow Ministers to make UK regulations that correspond
“to a provision of relevant EU law”
in the area of environmental product standards. In plain English, that opens the door to copying and pasting EU rules into UK law via statutory instrument without full parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 3 would remove subsection (2) entirely, closing that back door.
Amendments 4, 5, 7 and 21 target other provisions that risk tethering us to EU frameworks. For example, clause 2(7) would allow compliance with certain EU laws to automatically satisfy UK requirements. That is not sovereignty; it is outsourcing. This is not about rejecting co-operation with Europe. It is about ensuring that any alignment is a result of a deliberate and transparent decision made here in Westminster, not an automatic consequence of vague enabling powers. As my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire and for Chester South and Eddisbury have made clear, the British people voted to leave the European Union to take back control of our laws. That control must not be quietly handed back through ministerial shortcuts.
New clause 4 is especially important. It would introduce a safeguard in the form of an independent review panel to assess any regulation made under the Bill that aligns with EU law. Where a Minister chooses to align, the panel would have to report back, within two years, on the impact on growth, trade and industry. Crucially, Parliament would then vote on whether those EU-aligned rules should remain in force. No regulation should persist by inertia. How can the Minister possibly object to a review after two years?
The amendments would not isolate us; they would empower us. They would ensure that when we choose to align with international standards, we do so on our terms, with full accountability. That is the essence of post-Brexit governance. We assert that UK regulators answer first and foremost to the UK Parliament, not to Brussels and not to Whitehall alone.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This is only my second Bill Committee, so please accept my apologies if I fail in any of the protocol. I want to make a small point on our new clause 9, which interestingly, being on the subject of the EU, is grouped with amendments tabled by the official Opposition.
I feel that new clause 9 provides a certain compromise between the two positions. It is important to recognise that the EU continues to be one of our biggest trading partners. Currently, a lot of product legislation is aligned, and therefore divergence is a concern for business. A lot of our small enterprises find that exporting to the EU is an important part of their business, so they need clarity and certainty if any legislation or product safety regulations are going to change or diverge. Our new clause would ensure that any such change, whether a continued alignment or a divergence, is scrutinised and made the subject of a statement to the House. I would be grateful if Members supported the new clause, which I feel offers a compromise between the two positions.
Justin Madders
We have had several impassioned speeches from Conservative Members. Unfortunately, they are all wrong about what the Bill does. I will attempt to explain what the position actually is.
The Bill provides powers to make and amend relevant product regulations, so that the UK can act in the best interests of our businesses and consumers, which I think we would all agree is a good thing. That includes choosing to recognise or stop recognising EU product requirements. That is the key: there is absolute ability to recognise or not recognise as we see fit. This is not back-door submission to the EU or having our tummies tickled—I am not sure what the correct legislative term for that is. This is about the Government taking back control to set their own laws, as we determined back in 2016.
Amendment 3 would remove clause 1(2), which gives us a power to update regulations that address the environmental impact of products where similar provisions exist in relevant EU law. Increasingly, product regulations take account of the environmental impact of goods and provisions. The Bill will enable us, where it is in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers, to choose whether to update our laws or not. As I have set out, the Bill is about supporting the UK’s interests. Clause 1(2) means that, where it is in the UK’s interests, product regulation can make the same or similar provision as that contained in relevant EU law, which can simplify the regulatory landscape for UK businesses.
Turning to amendment 4, again, clause 2(7) allows us to act in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers. It enables us to provide that requirements in our law can be satisfied by meeting specified EU requirements, but it does not mean that we are obliged to recognise EU provisions, and it also gives us the power to end such recognition. We have been clear that decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis, which I think is what the shadow Minister was asking for, based on the needs of UK businesses and consumers, with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 4 would take away that flexibility and would freeze EU law in time at May 2024. I mention May 2024 because that is when the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which effectively introduced the same powers as those in the Bill, were made.
Alison Griffiths
I am genuinely curious. The Minister says that new clause 4 would take away powers. Can he explain why he would possibly object to the introduction of a review panel within two years? Surely there cannot be any objection.
Justin Madders
I have not got on to new clause 4 yet. I will come to it shortly, and there are several reasons why we will resist it, but I was talking about amendment 4. All these numbers are very confusing.
I draw the Committee’s attention to what the then Minister—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is now a member of the shadow Cabinet—said in May 2024 when introducing the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations:
“Where EU regulations change, we will consider whether to continue recognition of EU rules on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the views of industry and consumer safety.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13 May 2024; c. 4.]
That is exactly what we seek to do in the Bill. I know that there has been some change in the Conservative party since May 2024, but the current leader of the party was the Secretary of State for Business and Trade at the time. It is therefore curious, to say the least, that the Conservatives are now distancing themselves from their original position and seeking to take away our ability to make decisions on a case-by-case basis in the interests of UK consumers.
Amendment 5 and new clause 9 would require statements to be made to Parliament in relation to aligning with or diverging from EU law. I think them unnecessary. It is very clear that we will be taking decisions on the basis of what is in the best interests of the UK, rather than taking an ideological position in either direction. There may be instances in which the UK’s product regulation interests are different from the EU’s; there may be other instances in which our interests are similar. When making regulations under the Bill, we will provide Parliament with the usual information to make sure that their purpose and effect is well understood. That will provide Parliament with a clear explanation of the Government’s intent, and Parliament will have oversight of regulations made under the Bill. The amendments would add unnecessary extra processes and would not provide Parliament with any new information.
I turn to amendment 7. I remind hon. Members again of the purpose of the Bill, which is to ensure that the UK can deliver an effective domestic regulatory regime across a range of sectors. That is why the Bill will extend only to England and Wales, to Scotland and to Northern Ireland, as clause 13 sets out. There may be instances in which it is in the UK’s best interests to recognise a provision of relevant EU law when making domestic product regulations. In this instance, the recognised EU provision that must be complied with would be stated in UK law and would be enforceable only by UK authorities. If we wanted to update our laws to reflect a decision of the European Court of Justice, we would need to make a statutory instrument. There is no automatic taking of rules from the EU, as has been suggested.
Amendment 21 proposes that the UK should only recognise updated EU law if we incorporate the relevant updates into our domestic regulations, and the Secretary of State makes an explanatory statement if only recognising EU law under the Bill. The Bill is about ensuring that our domestic regulatory framework works for businesses and consumers. The Bill will allow us to make changes to our framework and reflect global best practice when doing so. The reason that it refers explicitly to the EU is that most of our product regulation is inherited from the EU, and we continue to recognise certain EU product requirements, which is the reason why the 2024 regulations were passed last year. This gives us the ability to review decisions on recognising certain EU product requirements. Clause 2(7) will allow us to do so on a case-by-case basis.
New clause 4 proposes a review panel. The Government have published a code of conduct, which has been drafted with valuable input from parliamentarians in the other place. It sets out the various guardrails that will be in place when the powers in the Bill are exercised; they include an impact assessment that analyses the expected effects of changes on businesses, consumers and the UK internal market. All secondary legislation made under the Bill will be subject to the statutory and non-statutory assessments set out in the code of conduct, including the principles of the better regulation framework.
Alison Griffiths
I assume that the code of conduct you mentioned will be voluntary. I would be interested to hear what parliamentary enforcement the code, or indeed the wider constraints referred to in new clause 4, will receive.
The Chair
Order. May I gently remind Members that they should not use the word “you”? “You”, in this context, is me, and I do not know anything about the code of conduct.
Justin Madders
If you wish to read it, Sir John, I can provide you with a copy.
Justin Madders
It is entitled “Product Safety: Checks and balances on developing policy and legislation”. It has been referred to extensively in debates here and in the other place. It is the guardrail by which we will be judged when making further regulation in this policy area. It sets out our commitment to ensure that the wider impact of any changes is properly considered and reported on where appropriate. We are happy to be judged by the standards set out in the code of conduct, which was developed in conjunction with parliamentarians in the other place.
New clause 4 would add unnecessary bureaucracy. The matter is already covered by the code of conduct. The new clause would slow down our efforts to protect consumers and introduce regulation. I invite Opposition Members not to press their amendments.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We did not hear anything from the Minister to reassure the Committee on the fundamental points that we have been making throughout the debate. The Bill gives unfettered powers to the Secretary of State, and it is openly acknowledged, both in the Bill and in the impact assessment, that the powers could be used to dynamically align us to EU regulation.
We have tried to be constructive by tabling a range of amendments that would give a more prominent role to parliamentary scrutiny and would give the legislature significant oversight of how the Secretary of State uses the powers. The hon. Member for Chippenham also tabled an amendment that would enable the sharing of further information with voters at the next election. I think that the voters of Knowsley, of Birmingham Northfield and of Worsley and Eccles will want to know how their Secretary of State used the powers in this Trojan horse surrender legislation. They will want to know what the impact has been, as judged by experts such as economists and by people who really know their trade.
Justin Madders
I was at pains to explain why the shadow Minister is wrong in her analysis of the effect of the Bill. It has essentially the same powers as in last year’s regulations, which allow us to take decisions on a case-by-case basis. Why does she insist on saying that this is some sort of Trojan horse?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is accepted in the impact statement that that is one potential use of the powers, but if the Minister believes that, he will want to support our amendments in this group.
Sir John, I understand that because amendment 14 fell, we were unable to divide on subsequent amendments in the first group. In this group, however, I believe that we can divide the Committee on more of the amendments individually. I seek your guidance on how many amendments in this group we can divide the Committee on.
The Chair
The amendments are not strictly consequential on one another, so it is possible to have separate Divisions. I assume that you wish to divide on amendment 3.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
In the light of your guidance, Sir John, I would like to divide the Committee on all our amendments in this group.
The Chair
We will divide on amendment 3 now, and on the others when we reach them.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
We come to amendment 38, tabled in the name of Clive Jones and Sarah Gibson. I call Sarah Jones.
Sarah Gibson
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(3A) Further, the Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsections (1) or (2) if satisfied that making the regulations will not result in reducing the necessary levels of consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products, with reference where applicable to equivalent product regulations or standards in force at the time.”
This amendment inserts safeguards to help ensure non-regression from existing legal protections to help ensure greater certainty and a level playing field. It addresses the omission on the face of the Bill of the current legal requirement that products placed on the market must in principle be safe.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones) would speak far more eloquently than I can, but I will make a couple of points to relay to the Committee why I think amendment 38 is important.
We are trying to ensure that the Secretary of State can make regulations under clause 1 only if satisfied that doing so will not lead to a reduction in consumer protection or regulatory standards. It is not about regression; it is about preserving the baseline of legal protection that we already have, especially when it comes to product safety and regulatory quality. We are all aware of recent cases of consumer products bought online that arrive in a substandard and dangerous state. I suspect that the Minister will say that no Secretary of State will lower existing legal expectations. That is great, but why not just put it in the Bill?
Amendment 38 would direct the Secretary of State to make reference to equivalent regulations in force at the time, offering clear and objective standards for comparison. It creates greater certainty for business and confidence for consumers. We think that it is important to include in the Bill the explicit legal requirement that products placed in the market must be, in principle, safe. Without that kind of safeguard, there is a risk of regulatory weakening over time, whether intentional or through oversight, which could undermine consumer trust, market fairness and even public safety.
By locking in a non-regression commitment, we would help to maintain a level playing field, especially for businesses in the UK that already meet high standards and do not want to be undercut by those who are cutting corners. It is about ensuring that as regulations evolve, we do not compromise the public interest in the name of flexibility and deregulation. I therefore urge the Committee to support the amendment.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chippenham for moving amendment 38. I reassure her that we take product safety very seriously, which is why we introduced the Bill. It is designed to ensure that only safe products are placed on the UK market, and it builds on a strong track record of protecting consumers, a goal with which we all agree.
The Bill includes robust safeguards to ensure that consumer safety and regulatory standards are not reduced when new regulations are made. The code of conduct, to which I have already referred, sets out our intelligence and engagement-led approach to assessing whether and how to update our product regulations. It means that we do not make changes in isolation; instead, we work closely with industry, consumer groups and regulators to build a clear picture of the risks, benefits and practical implications. This ensures that our regulatory decisions are evidence-based, proportionate and responsive to the evolving needs of businesses and consumers.
Product safety is often about carefully balancing the risks, while also considering consumer needs and expectations. An example that shows why we do not think it would be helpful to agree to the amendment is our current extensive engagement on potential reforms to furniture fire safety regulations. This requires weighing up the critical importance of fire resistance with the growing concerns about the health and environmental impacts of the fire-retardant chemicals used on furniture. No decisions have been made at this stage, but it is an area in which an evidence-based approach that balances those competing interests may lead to a different outcome, and that shows why tying our hands, by accepting the amendment, would not be a good idea.
We are confident that overall the Bill provides a robust and flexible framework to ensure that safety remains central, while enabling innovation and growth across the economy. Safety is the whole point of the Bill—it is central to what we are trying to achieve—but there will be occasions when different considerations come into play. The example that I gave is one very live example that shows why we do not think it helpful to accept the amendment.
Sarah Gibson
I thank the Minister. I have served on a Bill Committee with him before, and he knows how to appeal to the technical side of my expertise. He gave a compelling example, and I thank him for his consideration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must also by regulations make provision aimed at promoting investment, fostering innovation, and encouraging economic growth in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom.
(4B) Regulations under subsection (4A) must support—
(a) the creation of economic incentives for businesses that contribute to economic growth, and
(b) the alignment of product regulations with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation.”
This amendment ensures that the regulations in the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.
The Committee will see immediately that the purpose of the amendment is to be incredibly helpful to the Government in their growth mission. How different the spirit of the amendment is from the spirit of the Bill! The Bill effectively outsources product regulation to a different Parliament; the amendment would ensure that the regulations made under the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.
Throughout our history, the UK’s innovative spirit has increased our prosperity and growth as a nation. Key innovations that became accepted around the world led to greater prosperity for our fellow citizens, so what could be more important than for the Committee to agree to the amendment? The Government are very good at saying the word growth, but they have so far signally failed to deliver it. The amendment will ensure that, when exercising the powers in the Bill, economic growth truly is the first priority, as the Government so often claim it is.
Alison Griffiths
Amendment 17 speaks directly to our country’s values of enterprise, innovation and economic freedom. The proposal would insert new subsection (4A) into clause 1, placing a clear duty on Ministers that, whenever they exercise regulatory powers under the Bill, they must do so with the aim of promoting investment, fostering innovation and encouraging economic growth.
In short, the amendment would ensure that regulation is about not just managing risk, but unlocking opportunity. It would put growth at the heart of our regulatory framework—an aspiration that I know the Government will want to support. Regulation and prosperity are not mutually exclusive. As a Conservative and, indeed, a former businessperson, I understand that wealth is not created by Government; it is created by the ingenuity of businesses, entrepreneurs and investors—but Government can either enable that ingenuity or suffocate it. This is a pro-growth Government, so they should be in favour of the amendment, which would ensure that every regulation made under the Bill is shaped with a constant awareness of its economic impact.
The amendment would require Ministers to ask: does this rule support innovation? Could it be more flexible? Will it help British firms to compete globally? Too often, regulations—however well-meaning—have imposed hidden costs, stifled small businesses or driven innovation offshore. The amendment would guard against that by making growth a guiding principle, not an afterthought. It also reflects the unique opportunity we have post Brexit. No longer bound by one-size-fits-all EU frameworks, we can craft smarter, more agile rules that play to Britain’s strengths. Proposed new subsection (4A) would serve as a beacon in the Bill, signalling that when we regulate, we do so to empower, not to encumber.
Take, for example, emerging technologies, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has already mentioned. If we are setting safety standards for a new sector, the amendment would prompt Ministers to do so in a way that attracts investment, supports start-ups and keeps the UK at the forefront of innovation.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. Does she agree that we do not only need to grow our economy in new sectors? The UK has been a world leader in some areas historically, which was a driving force behind leaving the European Union in the first place. People wanted to get some innovation and growth back in areas that had been stifled by our European Union membership.
Alison Griffiths
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The future of successful economic growth is dependent on not just new industries, but ensuring that traditional industries, and both large and small businesses, can thrive and prosper in a post-Brexit scenario.
Amendment 17 would align the Bill with the pro-growth agenda and send a clear message to investors and innovators: Britain is open for business.
Aphra Brandreth
I will speak very briefly on amendment 17. The watchword of this Government has been, supposedly, growth. That is supposed to be the driving force behind legislation and policy, yet they have clearly introduced measures that have done nothing to support growth, and the Bill risks being another stumbling block to continuing the path of recovery—a recovery that the Government actually inherited, with the UK the fastest-growing economy in the G7.
The Opposition have sought to constructively improve the Bill through the amendment, which would ensure that the Government focus on growth. These are sensible and important provisions to promote investment and to foster innovation.
I am sure that Labour Members want to encourage economic growth. Supporting businesses is the way to do that. Empowering them—rather than prohibiting them with regulation and red tape from Brussels—should be central to achieving growth. There are huge opportunities and markets out there for the UK to seize. We must ensure that trade and national policy are as one, supporting job creation, innovation and competition. We need clarity and assurance from the Government that they understand the potential impact of dynamic alignment and the damage that that could do to the economy.
When have legally binding powers achieved growth? When has ambiguity in what businesses should expect and in their operating conditions delivered growth? The truth is that it does not. Businesses need clarity and confidence, and this skeleton Bill does not deliver that. If Labour Members really want—as they say they do—to see growth, I am sure they will want to support the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire pointed out, the Government’s actions so far have seen GDP per capita shrinking and business confidence plummeting.
Mr Holden
The Bill makes it clear that the Government are keen on dynamic alignment with the European Union wherever possible. That is why the amendment is so important, because it points to what the Government should be doing. Rather than aligning with the European Union and tacking behind it on every issue, the amendment pushes for growth in this country, to deliver jobs for people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire mentioned our need to embrace the business of the future, but we must also look to where we can drive forward areas that have been particularly left behind in recent years with traditional industries and sectors.
Aphra Brandreth
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important intervention. Dynamic alignment will see us give away control to the European Union, meaning that we cannot focus on growth in a way that will rightly and importantly improve growth for UK businesses across the whole of the UK. I represent Chester South and Eddisbury, a seat in the north-west of England, and we need to ensure that we see growth across the whole United Kingdom. The amendment, importantly, would ensure that we focus on that. More than ever, we must not stifle growth.
Alison Griffiths
Perhaps my hon. Friend was about to make this point, but does she agree that the amendment would give the Government the opportunity to demonstrate to the world their commitment to and understanding of innovation agility, and the necessity to ensure that not just at Government level, but right across Whitehall, all our legislation considers how we can improve growth, innovation and ingenuity at all times?
Aphra Brandreth
I thank my hon. Friend for that clear and important intervention. She is absolutely right: this is an opportunity to create incentives for growth and to position the UK as a global leader in innovation. We all know that we must continue to innovate. We want the UK to be at the forefront for so many possible emerging markets. We must do everything we can to support that. I urge Members to support the amendment.
Justin Madders
Economic growth is, as we are all aware, the No. 1 mission of the Government. The Bill will support growth by giving the Government the flexibility to ensure that regulations are tailored to the needs of the UK and can respond to global developments. It will ensure that regulations work effectively for businesses and consumers, and will continue to do so in future. We will empower businesses to have the certainty that they can invest and innovate.
I have to take issue with what my Cheshire neighbour, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, said: the Bill does not mean dynamic alignment and we have been clear on that. Some of the doom and gloom from Opposition Members about the state of the economy fails to recognise that it grew by 0.5% in February, and that we are currently second in the G7 countries in terms of growth predicted for this year. There are some positive aspects on the economy.
In terms of innovation, we of course now have the Regulatory Innovation Office under the auspices of Lord Vallance, who I think is doing some excellent work, particularly in the areas of AI. In terms of the shadow Minister’s references to AI, AI will become relevant in this particular Bill only when it is actually manifested in a tangible product. I understand that fridges are a good example of where AI and tangible consumer products actually come into play. I am not quite sure how that works in practice, as my fridge does not talk to me, but I believe that some do, and are quite smart at working out when someone has run out of products.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Well, Sir John, I do have a very noisy fridge, but I am not sure it is helping me to order the milk. The crucial thing about amendment 17 is that it focuses on innovation. I appreciate that the Government Benches are not necessarily always as heavily weighted with those who have run or developed businesses themselves as ours are, but the Minister should recognise that businesses with a good market share are often able to entrench their version of a product into regulations. That prevents innovators from joining the market, because the regulations were put in place to favour those businesses’ approach. That is why the regulations proposed in clause 1 are so important, but also why it is so worrying that the powers that the Secretary of State is taking through this skeleton Bill are so extensive.
We are trying here to be helpful to the Government and to prevent that kind of behaviour, where the incumbent tries to get the regulations to work in its favour so that its competition cannot come in, compete against it and help the economy to grow through that process of creative destruction that is so often an important part of economic progress. That is why we have tabled this important amendment.
I suggest that the best way for the Government to show their passion for growth—they are clinging to a few recent statistics, but I am afraid that their track record since July is a woeful one, and the forecasts have all been halved by the major forecasters—would be by supporting the amendment. That is why I would seek to divide the Committee on amendment 17.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
We now come to the Question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. I feel that we have had a full debate on the clause; I do not feel that there should be further consideration. I am happy to put the Question. Are you content, Minister?
Justin Madders
I am always happy to be guided by your wisdom, Sir John.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is important to highlight the excluded products in the schedule. The powers that the Committee has just agreed to give to the Secretary of State will not cover food, plants, animal by-products, products of animal origin, aircraft, components of aircraft and radio equipment. Importantly,
“unmanned aircraft designed or intended…for use in play by children under 14 years old”
are not excluded. My eight-year-old grandson was given one of those for his birthday; I am reassured by the fact that, under the schedule, his little radio-controlled aircraft will be something that can be regulated. There are also some exemptions for military equipment and, furthermore, medicines and medical devices.
These exemptions are worth highlighting on the record because, in the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, we should appreciate that questions about food, phytosanitary products, medicines, military equipment and radio spectrum products are incredibly important, particularly in relation to trade agreements. When we discuss some of the clauses as part of the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, those things must be separately considered. It is notable that some of those product lines were ones that were not affected by tariffs when—and I quote —“liberation day” in the United States was announced. It is very important that there is clarity in the legislation. We have not tabled any amendments to the schedule, but it is worth highlighting that what we have been talking about today does not cover those product lines.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister has helpfully read the list of sectors excluded from the schedule, so I will not repeat it. However, it is important, when a Bill has powers of this nature, that we are clear about what they do and do not relate to. As I think Members will appreciate, those excluded sectors will have other regulatory domains, which will refer to them. It is important that we are specific about what the Bill relates to, and that is the purpose of the schedule.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule accordingly agreed to.
Clause 2
Product requirements
Sarah Gibson
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) Product regulations must include requirements in relation to an environmental impact assessment, and provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy.”
This amendment guarantees that future regulations under the Act will include provisions which relate to the circular economy and granting consumers the right to repair products.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 37, in clause 11, page 10, line 38, at end insert—
“‘circular economy’ means that products are manufactured to minimise waste and maximise the use, reuse, and recyclability of products;”.
This amendment clarifies the meaning of circular economy and is consequential on Amendment 36.
Sarah Gibson
As Liberal Democrats, we are clear that the circular economy is not just a sustainability concept; it is a practical, forward-looking economic model that responds to the urgent challenges of waste, resource scarcity and climate change. At its core, the circular economy is about keeping resources in use for as long as possible, through reuse, repair, remanufacturing and recycling, rather than relying on the traditional “take, make, dispose” model. That shift is essential because the current, linear economy is inherently wasteful. We extract raw materials, use them briefly and discard them, often sending valuable resources to landfill or incineration.
The shift should be a win-win approach. For the environment, it reduces waste, lowers carbon emissions and reduces the pressure on our economy and ecosystems. It creates new business models, and jobs in repair and innovation, and it makes the supply chain more resilient, especially in a world facing geopolitical events and material shortages. It also brings clear benefits for consumers by encouraging the creation of products that are longer lasting, easier to fix and more affordable to maintain, which in the current climate of economic difficulties is always welcomed.
For Government and industry, the circular economy offers a strategic opportunity to modernise production, drive clean growth and lead global sustainability. We need to embed the circular economy principles, not only in waste and resource policy but across our industrial strategy, product design, and procurement and investment decisions. If we are serious about achieving net zero and protecting future generations, the circular economy must be a central pillar to our economic and environmental thinking.
While the circular economy is not necessarily new, it is something that we have lost. It was not many years ago that a faulty washing machine was mended—or even a noisy fridge, such as the one the hon. Member for West Worcestershire was concerned about. I feel that there are skills that we are beginning to lose and skills that we could be taking forward. Now, when something goes wrong, it is cheaper to replace it than to mend it. That is wrong, and this is a good place to start addressing that. I urge the Committee to support these amendments.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chippenham for making a clear argument about the importance of the circular economy. The amendments she spoke to seek to mandate that all product regulations made under the Bill require an environmental impact assessment, as well as provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy. As Members will be aware, under the duty set out in the Environment Act 2021, Ministers and policymakers must already consider the environmental impact of all new Government policies. That has been reflected on and set out in more detail in the code of conduct, to which I referred Members today and which was in response to suggestions from Members of the other place on the kinds of issues to put forward in that code.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set moving to a zero-waste economy as one of the top five priorities of the Department. To support that, he has committed to work with a wide range of stakeholders to develop a circular economy strategy and a series of sectoral reform road maps to deliver a circular economy transition. It would therefore be inappropriate to introduce a definition of the circular economy in legislation at this time.
Turning to the right to repair, it is important to note that product regulations made under the Bill will cover many types of products, some of which may be inappropriate to repair, such as cosmetics. The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 introduced measures including requirements for repairability for the first time in Great Britain. Those regulations contribute to our circular economy objectives by increasing the lifespan, maintenance and waste handling of energy-related products. The Government’s aim is to introduce further right to repair measures when regulating individual products under the ecodesign for energy-related products regulations where appropriate. As those powers exist, it is unnecessary to amend the Bill in the manner being suggested.
I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for her contributions, but hope that I have demonstrated why such amendments would be inappropriate and unnecessary due to existing legislation or work being done elsewhere across Government. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Sarah Gibson
I thank the Minister for his response. Given that work is being done elsewhere on the circular economy, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Before we come to amendment 34, Minister, although you said that you will make a personal copy of the code of conduct available for me, I assume that it is available at the back of the room.
Justin Madders
I will have to check with the Clerks. We will ensure that it is available this afternoon if it is not there already.
The Chair
Thank you. As it has been referred to several times, it is important that all Committee members are able to reference it.
Sarah Gibson
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 2, page 3, line 21, at end insert—
“(fa) a person involved on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f), in product marketing or the use of products, including storage, transportation, packaging, labelling or disposal;”.
This amendment closes a potential loophole in the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that, whatever their legal status or location, all relevant organisations in the supply chain, including fulfilment houses, can be held accountable by regulations to protect consumers from non-compliant goods.
The amendment is important because it adds a crucial provision that extends regulatory accountability to those involved in the broader handling and marketing of products. Specifically, it covers storage, transportation, packaging, labelling and disposal—all key parts of the product journey from manufacturer to consumer. The aim is to close a potential loophole in the powers of the Secretary of State under the Bill. Without the amendment, there is a risk that certain players in the supply chain, such as fulfilment houses, third-party logistics providers or re-packagers, could escape regulation even if they are handling non-compliant or unsafe products.
We know that consumer harm can arise at any point along the supply chain, not just at the point of manufacture or sale, so it is vital that all relevant organisations, regardless of their legal status or physical location, can be held accountable where necessary, The amendment supports stronger consumer protection, promotes fairness in the marketplace and ensures that everyone involved in putting products on the market plays to the same rules.
Mr Holden
The Government are clearly looking to do trade deals across the world, so will the hon. Lady reflect on the fact that, as we do not know where those fulfilment centres will be located in future, it is particularly important for the Government to look at the issue and consider it in the round?
Sarah Gibson
Very possibly, but the rights of consumers in the UK still need to be protected, regardless of where those fulfilment centres are. I take the right hon. Member’s point, but I feel that the provisions in the amendment still need to be included. The amendment supports stronger protection, promotes fairness in the marketplace and ensures that everyone involved in putting products on the market plays by the same rules. It provides practical, targeted safeguards to ensure that the regulatory responsibilities reflect how modern supply chains operate, so I urge Members to support the amendment.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for tabling the amendment, which seeks to add to the list of persons in clause 2(3)(i) on whom product regulations may impose requirements. I recognise her good intentions behind the amendment to ensure that all relevant actors must be captured by our regulatory framework, including fulfilment houses.
Clause 2(3)(i) strengthens that approach by making it clear that any person engaged in activities related to a product can be brought within scope. That is a critical safeguard against loopholes that could be exploited by those seeking to operate outside the law as new, often complex business models emerge. My eyes have certainly been opened in recent months about some of the new ways in which such operations can deliver products to consumers. The Government have taken care to ensure that the powers in the Bill are robust enough to account for new actors arising from both technological innovation and shifts in supply chain practice.
I hope I can reassure the hon. Member that the Bill as drafted gives us the flexibility and breadth to tackle and cover any new developments in this policy area. Amendment 34 is unnecessary because actors, such as fulfilment houses and others that undertake any activity in relation to products, are already captured by clause 2(3)(i). I therefore ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Sarah Gibson
Given that the Government feel that this issue is captured elsewhere, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. However, further work needs to be done to ensure that third parties that are involved are given the protection that they need. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I am mindful, Dame Harriett, that you wanted to divide the Committee on amendment 4 to clause 2, which we debated with amendment 3. Do you wish to move that amendment formally?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I seek your guidance, Sir John, as there were a number of amendments that pertained to clause 2 in the first few groupings on which the Committee could divide. Should we do that now?
The Chair
We can divide now—I assume that you intend to ask the Committee to divide on further amendments—and I am inclined to do that. Amendment 4 relates to clause 2 and was linked to amendment 3. If you want to move that formally, I am happy to take the Division now.
Amendment proposed: 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)
This amendment removes the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met.
The Chair
It is my intention to allow the Committee to divide on all the occasions that you have requested, Dame Harriett.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I welcome everybody to the afternoon sitting. I remind the Committee that it is really important for everyone to be able to hear—I have had a plea for Members to speak as clearly as possible. I also draw attention to the Bill’s code of conduct, which has been published.
Clause 2
Product requirements
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 2, page 3, line 41, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
“(7A) Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.”
This amendment prevents the Bill enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and only enables alignment with laws as they stand on a particular defined date.
Amendment 22, in clause 2, page 4, line 5, at end insert—
“(8A) Before making provision described in subsection (7), the Secretary of State must make an explanatory statement if the provision relates to relevant foreign law of only one of the markets listed in the definition of ‘relevant foreign law’ in section 1(5).”
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We start by discussing some of the amendments we have tabled to clause 2. In this morning’s sitting we had a thorough discussion of the issues relating to clause 1, and we also discussed some amendments to clause 2. I hope, Ms Vaz, that you will allow the Committee to consider each measure separately.
Essentially, amendments 20, 6 and 22 would allow for product regulations to be defined by relation to the laws of a wide range of foreign countries rather than just the European Union. Although we have an incredibly important and valuable trading relationship with our friends and neighbours in the European Union, and a very good zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with them, we also have a range of agreements with other countries that facilitate the international trade of products.
Amendment 20 would expand the scope of the powers that the Committee agreed to give to the Secretary of State under clause 1 to cover foreign countries with which we have a close trading relationship. For example, we have a close trading relationship with the United States; indeed, we are each other’s single biggest investor and it is the biggest single country with which we have a trading relationship. We would like to see the Bill enable a discussion whereby we liberalise trade between our countries but also mutually recognise product regulation.
We also have a significant trade agreement, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which covers our great trading relationship with friends as far away geographically but as close emotionally as those in Australia and other countries around the Pacific. I am sure that Australia has a system to mutually recognise product safety regimes in important trade agreements, to allow global trade with the confidence that high-quality products are reaching the marketplace.
There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose the amendments, unless they truly are uniquely fixated on the EU as a product regulator. Any argument for permitting EU standards should also be one for permitting safe international standards from our other partners. That is unless the actual purpose of the Bill is solely to enable dynamic EU alignment—indeed, EU alignment is mentioned clearly in the impact assessment—while preventing alternatives that could benefit British businesses and, importantly, British consumers, who are our constituents. If the Government do not intend to dynamically align us with the European Union on product regulation, they have every reason to accept amendment 20 and make that clear.
Amendment 6 would add to clause 2 new subsection (7A), which says:
“Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.”
That would prevent the Bill from enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and would enable alignment with laws only as they stand on the particular date the Secretary of State decides to use his copious powers under clause 1. That would mean that if regulation changes, Ministers would rightly have to look again and decide whether to maintain alignment.
It is right that we do not give a blank cheque to the EU—or, if amendment 20 is accepted, to foreign countries—by allowing them to diverge on regulations while British businesses and consumers get taken along for the ride. We should be making our own laws that prioritise growth and innovation and that champion businesses here in the UK, thereby giving them the ability to set the standard and the bar and to thrive on the global stage. Only we in this Parliament should be in charge of those decisions; foreign courts should not opine on them. Amendment 6 would allow for flexibility if foreign laws changed, which would allow for a reassessment of their compatibility with the UK market.
Amendment 22 would require the Secretary of State to justify decisions through an explanatory statement, to limit any reference to the laws of one specific territory and prevent the provision of regulations for dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws.
By tabling these helpful amendments, we have given the Government a golden opportunity to show that they are not using this Trojan horse Bill to covertly, and without the express will of Parliament, dynamically align for evermore with EU regulations. They would open up the UK as a global trading nation to mutual recognition around the world. We have our very own certification—UK conformity assessed—which I urge the Government to seek to get recognised in all the trade agreements they sign up to.
Surely we want this Parliament to define the standards by which products around the world are recognised. There should be mutual recognition of the other high-quality jurisdictions—such as Canada, Australia, the United States and the countries in the Pacific—to supplement the recognition that the Secretary of State seems minded to give exclusively to the European Union.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I rise to speak in support of the Opposition amendments, which are not just minor textual tweaks but go to the core of how we manage product regulations now that we have left the European Union.
Amendment 20, which proposes replacing the word “EU” with the word “foreign” in the relevant provision, might seem like a small change on the surface, but it is very important. Focusing only on EU law in this context risks narrowing our horizons at a time when we have been trying to broaden them. Since leaving the EU, the UK has made real efforts to strike up new trade relationships and to move in ways that enable us to take advantage of fast-growing global markets, not just the one on our doorstep.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The context is that, despite its massive expansion since 1990, the EU’s share of global GDP has halved from 30% to just above 15%. That is why the amendments, along with our earlier amendment on growth, are clearly in favour of the UK’s future as a global trading power.
Aphra Brandreth
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we need to think about the EU, but we also need to think more widely and broadly, and look at the opportunities across the globe. A good example of that is, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire rightly pointed out, our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. That is a major economic partnership with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. To join the CPTPP, the UK underwent a comprehensive review to ensure that our domestic regulations were compatible with those of its members. That progress was possible because we were no longer locked into EU rules.
We need to be careful here. If the Bill’s powers allowed us to simply fall back into alignment with EU laws through dynamic alignment, we would end up undoing the very advantages that regulatory independence has given us. That is why amendment 6 is so important: it would make sure that if we chose to align with any foreign law, EU or otherwise, it would be to the version of that law as it exists on a specific date, not as it may evolve in the future. In other words, we keep control: we know exactly what we are aligning with and we do so deliberately. As the Opposition continue to stress, the Bill clearly indicates a move towards dynamic alignment with the EU without oversight. It is clear that the intention is to see our regulations automatically change every time the EU updates its regulations.
Dynamic alignment would bring businesses uncertainty by requiring continuous adjustments, and such changes might require businesses to adapt and potentially bear the costs of the changes. As was pointed out in debates in the other place, EU rules are not always made with our economy in mind. They are sometimes protectionist, or designed to benefit specific interests in the single market. We must be sure that the Bill does not jeopardise any progress we have made with new partners, or tie us to a regulatory environment that is not in our best interests. Dynamic alignment would effectively mean outsourcing decisions about UK product standards to a foreign body. That does not sit well with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and, frankly, does not give British businesses the clarity or stability that they need.
Finally, amendment 22 would add a simple but important safeguard: it would require the Secretary of State to publish an explanatory statement if the Government plan to base regulations on the law of just one foreign market. It is a transparency measure. If we are going to align UK rules with those of another country or bloc, the public and Parliament deserve to know why that is the right course of action. The amendment would help to ensure that decisions are made in the national interest and, importantly, that they are properly scrutinised.
I ask again why Ministers are so unwilling to explain their decisions. Why would they not want transparency? If their decisions are in the public interest, they surely would not have any issue with supporting amendment 22 and agreeing to publish an explanatory statement in relevant cases. The Government have argued that clause 2 provides flexibility and continuity. I understand that perspective, but flexibility should not come at the expense of democratic oversight, and continuity should not mean quietly reverting to rules that we have worked hard to move beyond.
The amendments in this group would not prevent alignment where it is helpful; they would ensure that alignment is clear, accountable and firmly in our control. That is a balanced approach that recognises the opportunities of global trade while respecting the sovereignty of this House. I hope the Committee will support the amendments.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Vaz.
Opposition amendments 20, 6 and 22 to clause 2 are crucial to safeguarding our sovereignty and global outlook in the Bill. As drafted, clause 2(7) and (8) would allow UK regulations to treat compliance with EU law as sufficient for UK product standards. In effect, the Government are writing a blank cheque for automatic EU alignment into our product rules. The assumption that European Union regulations should be the starting point for our own safety standards is simply extraordinary. Did we vote to take back control only to hand it straight to Brussels by default?
Our amendments demand a global perspective. If the Bill lets EU rules count as meeting UK requirements, high-quality standards from trusted partners around the world must be treated equally. As the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), has pointed out, the Bill features the
“overweighting of references to EU standards versus comparable standards from the United States and Commonwealth friends”. —[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 221.]
Why should a spanner approved in Berlin get a free pass in Britain, but one approved in Boston or Tokyo face extra hurdles? Regulators in the US, Canada, Australia and Japan—allies with rigorous standards—deserve the same respect as EU regulators.
Mr Holden
Is that not particularly the case when it comes to some of our new international trade agreements that have defence implications, such as AUKUS with our Australian and American allies? Why would we want to use a Norway model in which we literally wait for the fax machine to churn out the latest EU regulation?
Alison Griffiths
I thank my right hon. Friend for his wise words. I agree that it makes no sense whatsoever.
A noble Lord in the other place put it well, saying that we should be
“open to the best standards globally”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC56.]
accepting that goods made in high-standard, well-regulated economies like the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and the EU are safe for our markets. In fact, the UK’s own Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency already recognises approvals from such countries to get innovative products to market faster. Why not apply the same principle here, if this is truly about economic liberalism and global free trade from a pro-growth Government?
Why do the Government not support the amendments? By broadening recognition beyond the EU, we would reduce duplication and costs for British businesses that export and import worldwide. We would also bolster our sovereignty by making our own decisions about which international standards serve UK interests, rather than reflexively mirroring Brussels. The Government claim that subsection (7) is merely about “recognition”, not automatic alignment. But recognition should not be exclusive to Europe; it must extend to any standard that meets British safety and quality benchmarks, whether it originates in Brussels, Washington, Canberra or beyond.
Our amendments would ensure equal openness to global standards and end the special status of EU law in the Bill. This is a sensible alternative: a truly global Britain that maintains high standards without tethering itself to EU rules alone. I urge Government colleagues to accept these sensible amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I think it is to your advantage that you have not already heard the same arguments on this issue as we heard this morning. I am sorry to say that we are still clearly at cross-purposes about what the Bill does and does not do. There was a ripple of laughter on the Government Benches when the shadow Minister accused us of being fixated with the EU. If we did a word count on how many times it has been mentioned in the debate so far, we would find that the Opposition Members are comfortably ahead.
Justin Madders
I am afraid that is just not correct; that is not how the Bill operates. I can explain again why the EU is referenced: it is because the majority of our product safety regulations derive from the EU. In the debate on the draft Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations last year, it was said:
“Last year, the Government held a series of roundtables to hear views from industry, including representatives from about 200 domestic and 50 international businesses. Industry in the UK and businesses that supply Great Britain from abroad indicated that ending CE recognition and mandating UKCA would cause issues for their businesses. It could increase costs and require duplicative processes, leading to higher prices and less choice for consumers in Great Britain. Some overseas suppliers also reported that they might reduce or stop sales to Great Britain entirely.” —[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13 May 2024; c. 3.]
Justin Madders
Okay, Ms Vaz. It was also said in that debate:
“We should bear in mind some of the history and the proximity of the UK to EU markets.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13 May 2024; c. 4.]
Those were not my words, but the words of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who was the Minister at the time. It is clear that we are acting entirely consistently with the previous Government’s position. We recognise that there is a great deal of common history with the EU on product safety regulation, but the Bill gives us the power and the option to do as we see fit on a case-by-case basis. Conservative Members’ obsession with this issue does not reflect the reality of the Bill.
Amendment 20 would broaden the Bill to recognise product requirements in “relevant foreign law”, rather than only EU law. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents us from adopting other jurisdictions’ standards if we so wish, but “relevant foreign law” is very vague drafting. It could mean almost anything, and there is no definition in the Bill, so it is certainly not a provision that we can support. That approach is capable of being taken under the Bill anyway.
Alison Griffiths
The Minister is still not being clear with us about exactly why he objects to broadening the scope of the Bill to include the valuable jurisdictions that I mentioned. Instead, he is constraining the Bill to being about only the EU.
Justin Madders
The answer is that the Bill does not constrain us from doing as the amendment proposes; it is perfectly possible for us to do it anyway. However, the definition of “relevant foreign law” is not set out in the Bill, which would cause us difficulties later on.
Amendment 22 proposes that the UK recognise updated EU law only if we incorporate the updates into our domestic regulations, and that the Secretary of State must make an explanatory statement if recognising EU law under the Bill. As I have mentioned several times, there are a number of opportunities for the Government to set out exactly why we are taking any particular option. The explanation that I quoted from Hansard from last year is a good example of why we might choose to follow the EU, but there will be occasions when we will not. There will be impact assessments and opportunities for debates, and the code of conduct will guide us in that respect. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Alison Griffiths
The Minister talks about impact assessments and so on, but does not the framing of the Bill mean that the current Government and any future Government can ignore any impact assessments and carry on regardless? There is no parliamentary scrutiny and there are no meaningful safeguards.
Justin Madders
That is not correct. There are a number of opportunities for debate under the affirmative procedure, and we have set out in the Bill the triggers that would allow that, so there will be plenty of parliamentary scrutiny. The amendments do not reflect what the Bill actually does and seek to paint it as a project, which it simply is not in reality. I therefore ask that they be withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I would like to respond before I divide the Committee on this amendment. I seek your advice, Ms Vaz. The previous group contained amendments 21, 5 and 7, which relate to clause 2, and we may also want to get the Committee’s point of view on them.
The Minister’s reluctance to make this innocuous change to the Bill speaks volumes. I am not the only one who thinks that: the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said in paragraph 4 of its 15th report that it is “deeply concerned” that
“the delegated powers in the Bill give Ministers maximum flexibility to choose the direction that the law in this area will take, including making potentially politically contentious choices about the degree to which our domestic laws on product regulation should be aligned with EU laws”.
By not accepting the amendments, I am afraid the Minister compels me to test the will of the Committee not only on these amendments but on amendments 21, 5 and 7, which we discussed in the previous group.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
Clause 2 clarifies the power given under clause 1, specifically what types of requirement the product regulations may cover. It enables regulations to specify the requirements that products to be marketed or used in the UK must meet. That will ensure that the UK can maintain high levels of product safety and compliance, support economic growth, and remove unsafe or non-compliant goods from the market.
The requirements may cover a range of activities related to products, and the list in clause 2 is not exhaustive. It includes, for example, how a product is marketed, how it is assessed, how it is installed and how it is manufactured and packaged. It also allows regulations to set requirements on the components of products, whether tangible or intangible. In that way, although the Bill relates to physical products, regulations may address the effects of intangible components, such as artificial intelligence software, on the risks that a physical product may present.
In terms of who it affects, the clause allows the regulations to set obligations on manufacturers, persons who market or import the products, online marketplace operators and other actors involved in the product journey. Thus, all actors involved in the product’s lifecycle, and therefore the product’s safety, may be covered by the regulations. Members will be aware of the breadth of product safety regulations already on the statute book. The breadth of clause 2 is necessary to ensure that all aspects of ensuring product safety are adequately covered now and in the future by regulations passed under the Bill.
While the growth of e-commerce models has provided consumers with greater choice and convenience, that cannot be at the expense of consumer protection or undermine compliant businesses. The rapid expansion of e-commerce has also brought significant challenges to regulatory frameworks, which were not designed with increasingly complex online and globalised supply chains in mind. Today, the sale of unsafe products to UK consumers via online marketplaces is a significant problem that has led to serious harm and fatalities. The clause will allow the Government to respond to those modern challenges by explicitly recognising the role of online marketplaces in ensuring that products sold via their sites are safe, while enabling businesses to innovate and grow.
We intend to use the powers in the Bill to clarify the responsibilities of online marketplaces. We will build on best practice to create a proportionate regulatory framework for online marketplaces to prevent non-compliant and unsafe products being made available on their sites, to ensure that sellers operating on their platform comply with product safety obligations, to provide consumers with appropriate information, and to co-operate with regulators, such as by establishing processes to remove unsafe products from the market quickly.
The Government will develop the details of the requirements with consideration of the practical implications and through stakeholder engagement and consultation before they are implemented via secondary legislation. The affirmative procedure will also apply when imposing product requirements for the first time on online marketplaces. This will ensure that the first regulations imposing new obligations on providers and platforms are subject to debate and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
As Members will be aware, currently we recognise certain EU product requirements, such as conformité Européenne marking, to support the interests of UK businesses and consumers. The clause will ensure that where the EU makes changes to product requirements, including those we recognise, we are able to recognise those changes where it is in our interest to do so. This would offer businesses the choice to use either the CE or UKCA marking to place a range of products on the GB market, helping them to avoid duplication of costs without compromising on consumer safety. The clause also enables the UK to end recognition of EU requirements where that is in our interests. The UK being able to respond to changes made by the EU to product requirements that we recognise will allow us to give businesses the regulatory clarity they need.
Aphra Brandreth
I thank the Minister for his remarks. If he says that these things will be done if they are in the country’s interest, what is the problem with bringing that back to the House to be debated and agreed? The problem we have, Ms Vaz, is that Ministers are to have discretion to decide what is in the country’s interest, when we think that should be for Parliament to decide.
Justin Madders
I understand the point being made. We have already made it clear that there will be a number of occasions when we bring regulations under the affirmative procedure—for example, when a new power of entry is created; when regulations are disapplied in the case of an emergency; when a criminal offence is created or widened; when information sharing provisions are introduced; when cost recovery procedures are established; where changes are made to primary legislation; when the definition of an online marketplace is amended; when requirements relating to the marking of products and online marketplaces are introduced for the first time; when requirements on persons who control online marketplaces are introduced for the first time, and so on. I suggest that there will be ample opportunity for Parliament to have its say and scrutinise regulations made under the Bill.
Finally, I turn to the technical standards that will be developed or updated. Technical standards set out practical ways in which a requirement may be met, to help manufacturers in meeting their obligations. Currently, they can be used to demonstrate compliance with a particular product requirement, and are often prepared and adopted by recognised bodies such as the British Standards Institution. The reference to standards in clause 2 makes clear that regulations will maintain this practice, and that will therefore help to provide clarity to manufacturers and traders on how to comply with regulatory requirements through the use of these standards.
Alison Griffiths
I ask the Minister to speak slightly slower; I am partially deaf and am really struggling to hear him. I am grateful for his forbearance.
Justin Madders
I apologise—I had not realised. I will try to slow down.
Clause 2 is a vital part of the Bill: it will ensure that the UK has a comprehensive framework for regulating products sold on its markets and provides the flexibility to recognise global standards and maintain the highest safety and quality requirements for consumers and businesses.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It will not surprise the Committee to hear that, because our very sensible amendments to clause 2 have been rejected, we continue to have significant concerns about it and the extraordinary powers it confers on the Minister. In particular, subsection (7), which we tried to amend, will allow product regulations to provide that a
“product requirement is to be treated as met if—
(a) a requirement of relevant EU law specified in product regulations is met, or
(b) such a requirement is met and conditions specified in the regulations are also met.”
Because of our concerns about those provisions, and because the Committee took the view that it did not want to accept our sensible amendments, I will divide the Committee on clause 2 stand part.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Given that addressing the changes in retail, especially the rise of online marketing, is an important part of the Bill, I feel that the clause is vital, and I will support it. It is slightly sad that colleagues on the Opposition Benches allow their ideology regarding the EU to get in the way of supporting British businesses, which, as we know, want clarity and continuity.
Alison Griffiths
We share the hon. Member’s view that we should all be ambitious for the United Kingdom. There is no ideology on our side. We are simply seeking a global perspective rather than a constrained perspective.
Sarah Gibson
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I think we all have to recognise the reality of our starting position, which is that an awful lot of our product regulation is currently aligned. We cannot throw that out and start talking about “foreign law”, as if any country that we happen to have a trade deal with will have similar levels of scrutiny of its products.
Aphra Brandreth
The point is that we want to be forward-looking, and our concern is that this provision is very much backward-looking. My hon. Friends have talked about future trading partners and things like the CPTPP—things we might miss out on by being backward-looking. Does the hon. Member agree?
Sarah Gibson
Although I am extremely excited about any future and new trade deals the UK might have across the globe, I am a little worried that we are back to Brexit benefits, which we did not quite see. We have to be realistic: our businesses need continuity and clarity, and I believe that the Bill provides them. It would have been much more useful if we had been able to concentrate on the valid points that Opposition Members made about parliamentary scrutiny, which we could quite clearly support. I will be supporting the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Clause 3 deals with the enforcement provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 grants sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, and clause 2 defines the types of requirement there may be on products. Clearly, the regulations that the Secretary of State has so much freedom to enact will need to be enforced, but the wording of clause 3 is such that any lawyer—or anyone who believes in our freedom and democracy under the rule of law—would be concerned about it.
Alison Griffiths
I rise to speak to clause 3 and Opposition amendments 23 to 25. Clause 3 deals with the enforcement of product regulations, but as it stands, it embodies a vast Executive overreach that undermines accountability and business confidence. The Opposition believe in clear and limited rules, not vague powers that spook entrepreneurs. Our amendments would inject much-needed clarity and proportionality into clause 3.
First, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire set out, amendment 23 presses for a definition of the so-called “relevant authority”. The Bill hands out new regulatory powers without even specifying who will wield them. Is it to be the Secretary of State, local trading standards officers, a new quango or devolved Administrations? Nobody knows. Businesses deserve to know who might come knocking at their door to enforce these rules. We need clarity about which authority is in charge, so that there is accountability instead of a free-for-all.
Secondly, amendment 24 highlights the Bill’s vague enforcement functions. Clause 3 would empower unnamed authorities to monitor, investigate and secure compliance with wide-ranging product regulations, but it sets no clear limits or guidance. That open-ended mandate could invite over-zealous enforcement. We all support product safety, but regulators must not have a blank cheque to harass businesses. The functions and scope of enforcement need to be defined with precision and targeted at genuinely dangerous non-compliance, not wielded arbitrarily. Trustworthy business owners should not lie awake at night worrying that some inspector will suddenly decide to make an example of them for a minor technical breach.
Thirdly, amendment 25 addresses the sweeping powers of inspectors. As drafted, the Bill will even allow inspectors to enter homes and seize products on the say-so of a Minister’s regulation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) warned in a previous debate that a future Minister, on a whim, could create legions of inspectors with the rights to barge into people’s homes or businesses and to confiscate property. We must ensure that enforcement powers are proportionate to actual risks, and that innocent consumers and traders are protected from unreasonable intrusion.
Aphra Brandreth
I rise to speak in support of amendments 23 to 25 on the enforcement of product regulations. Let me be clear: no one here is arguing against the need for robust enforcement of product safety or regulatory compliance. However, we must consider the broader context.
Clause 3—indeed much of the Bill—is a classic example of what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place has rightly criticised as “skeleton legislation”. The Bill delegates sweeping powers to Ministers to create regulatory frameworks entirely through secondary legislation, with little to no detail included in the Bill itself, yet here in clause 3, we are being asked to give authorities that have not yet been named real and potentially intrusive enforcement powers for regulations that have not yet been written. That should give us all pause for thought.
Subsection (1) allows Ministers to designate anyone as a “relevant authority”, and subsection (3) gives those authorities the power to investigate, monitor and even mitigate non-compliance. We then come to subsection (4), which grants those authorities the ability to appoint inspectors armed with powers to enter premises, seize goods, demand information and even order the destruction of products. These are serious powers. They may well be appropriate in specific, proportionate contexts but the point is that we do not know what those contexts will be because the Bill does not tell us.
How can we, in good conscience, grant enforcement powers for rules that have not been set to people we have not identified in a system that Parliament will have very limited opportunity to scrutinise? This is not a narrow, technical concern; this is a constitutional one. As the DPRRC in the other place said in its report:
“Skeleton legislation signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive”.
This is not something that this House should hand over lightly.
Our amendments do not reject the need for enforcement powers in principle, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, the wording of clause 3 needs to be clarified. Who are these authorities and what are their functions? In our amendments, we seek clear information, which is vital. There will be significant costs to businesses, so the powers must be clear. We all support product safety, but I urge the Committee to support the amendments and, in doing so, uphold the role of the House in setting the law, not just rubber-stamping it once the details have been decided behind closed doors.
Justin Madders
Amendment 23 would prevent the naming in regulations of “relevant authorities”. That would render enforcement of the Bill impossible, so clearly it is not an amendment that we will accept. Local authority enforcement officers conduct the majority of product safety and metrology enforcement activities, and the Office for Product Safety and Standards is the national regulator. Other regulators are also responsible for enforcement, including the Health and Safety Executive, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the Office of Communications and the Office of Rail and Road. There is an indicative list in the explanatory notes to the Bill and the code of conduct.
We need to be clear in clause 3 because it is important that the authorities are able to enforce in a targeted way when regulations are created. The Bill places sensible and important restrictions on those who may be named as a “relevant authority”. Only those who are fulfilling a public function will be given powers under the Bill. That is set out in subsections (2) and (3).
Dame Harriett Baldwin
If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that “relevant authority” is strictly limited to the organisations that he has already mentioned.
Justin Madders
If we were to limit ourselves to naming organisations in the Bill, we might not have sufficient flexibility in the future. I am trying to indicate the types of body that we would expect to enforce product safety regulations, as they do already.
Amendment 24 would prevent regulations made under the Bill from creating product regulations and metrology enforcement powers and functions. At present, product legislation provides a patchwork of enforcement powers across numerous pieces of legislation, but that has caused complexities and inconsistencies to emerge over decades. The Bill will enable the Government to introduce powers vital to the enforcement of product regulations and will ensure that enforcement powers can meet changing demands, without the continuous process of layering that caused confusion and complexity in the current framework. There is considerable precedent for the inclusion of enforcement powers in regulations, including the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 and the Personal Protective Equipment (Enforcement) Regulations 2018.
Amendment 25 would remove powers relating to investigations, which would prevent relevant authorities from effectively monitoring product compliance. Powers to inspect, investigate and dispose of goods are an essential part of effective enforcement. The purpose of clause 3 is to protect the public and ensure a level playing field for businesses. A crucial element of that is ensuring that it can future-proof enforcement against gaps that may emerge following changes in technology, some of which we have already discussed. Technologies such as 3D printing and AI are likely to have meaningful impacts on the supply chain and business requirements, so removing the ability to make targeted provision for investigatory powers in the Bill would undermine the ability appropriately to regulate products involving new supply chain actors and technologies.
There are provisions in subsection (5) on the requirements for warrants to be issued in certain circumstances, and the Bill also limits the criminal penalties that may be implemented for contraventions of product regulations. The criminal penalties imposed under the Bill may not exceed the existing maxima. This is not a massive expansion of powers; it is simply a consolidation of existing laws that gives us additional flexibility to adjust when new products and marketplaces develop, as we expect them to.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am not sure that I have heard enough to reassure the Opposition on the subject of who will be a relevant authority, which specific functions will be conferred on that relevant authority and the powers that might be granted to it, so I would like to press the amendments to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 3, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11).
Clause 3 continues to become even more dystopian. In the debate on clause 1, we acknowledged that we have an extremely benign Minister and Secretary of State, and we all acknowledge that products reach the UK marketplace that should not reach our consumers and constituents. However, that does not mean that we should give the Secretary of State with sweeping powers in law to come up with regulations and to have them enforced by some random “relevant authority”. We have heard a list of those authorities, but we know that it is not exhaustive.
Some poor, innocent business might not notice that the product regulations have been changed suddenly, because there was very little overt scrutiny of that change, and they might be left with a warehouse full of some good that was perfectly saleable on the UK market yesterday but is not today. As a result of the provisions in subsections (9) to (11), the relevant authority can send somebody into that business with sweeping powers to enter a premises, to levy fines, to create criminal offences and to send an individual to prison for up to three months. The provisions under subsection (9) to (11) could also go through with minimal legislative scrutiny—it really is not good enough. This is another of the skeleton clauses about which they despaired in the other place.
Subsection (9) specifies that product regulations can create or widen the scope of criminal offences, with prosecution by the relevant authorities—we do not know who they are—subject to the affirmative procedure, and they can confer powers on that same relevant authority to impose civil sanctions, including fines. The poor business that I am describing—one with a warehouse full of goods that suddenly, unbeknownst to that business, can no longer be sold legally in the UK, because a Parliament in Brussels has changed the rules—can find itself subject to confiscation and fines.
Under subsection (11), criminal offences must be
“triable summarily only, or…triable summarily or on indictment”.
The subsection provides for statutory limits on offences, but frankly, they are pretty harsh for someone who has potentially been caught inadvertently with products that no longer meet the standards for the UK market. Of all the shocking things in the Bill, these provisions are the most shocking.
Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences, which would have consequences for our already overburdened Ministry of Justice and criminal justice system, are not created through new product regulations under the Bill. The ability to create new criminal offences is an incredibly significant power; it really should not be passed through secondary legislation, and Government Members should think about what they are doing by supporting clause 3.
The creation of new criminal offences needs to be brought to both Houses and debated through proper parliamentary procedure, so that we can explore who these relevant authorities are as well as the potential inadvertent breaches of product regulation and metrology. Frankly, I think that this is the most shocking part of the legislation that we have seen. It shocked the other place, it has shocked the Opposition, and I think the constituents of Government Members will be shocked that they might agree to these sweeping powers.
Alison Griffiths
Amendment 26 relates to the alarming creation of new criminal offences in clause 3, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has already set out. Clause 3(9) to (11) would let Ministers create or widen criminal offences and penalties by regulation, bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny. As my hon. Friend has set out, this is an absolute travesty, and it is extraordinary to believe that Government Members will support it.
The clause is an affront to the principle that criminal law is made by the people’s elected representatives in primary legislation, not by Ministers slipping provisions through the regulatory back door. Even the House of Lords Constitution Committee has fiercely criticised the approach, reiterating that using delegated powers to create crimes is “constitutionally unacceptable”. It urges that these subsections should be removed from the Bill entirely. We simply cannot allow a situation where business owners wake up one morning and find that a new statutory instrument has turned some technical regulatory breach into a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. I urge Government Members to think about the provision.
Mr Holden
Does my hon. Friend agree that Government Members really should think about what they are doing? We remember that decades ago there was a lot of upset among the British public after people started to be prosecuted for selling things by pounds and ounces, rather than kilograms and grams. It is crazy that people could do be prosecuted by regulation and without proper scrutiny from this House, and Government Members will have to explain that to their constituents down the line. This is such a clear thing, and we should really think about it properly.
Alison Griffiths
I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a very serious moment. It might appear to be just a line in a Bill, but it could have far-reaching consequences that are far greater than Government Members are considering at the moment. Parliament must debate and decide such grave matters, not rubber-stamp them after the fact.
Taken together, our amendments champion a pro-business climate. Effective regulation should not mean endless state interference. We can secure compliance in smarter, targeted ways by information sharing and using civil sanctions for minor breaches, rather than unleashing these unbridled powers. I urge Ministers to accept amendment 26 or, at least, to provide iron-clad assurances for the record.
Justin Madders
I am beginning to wonder whether Opposition Members think that “Capricorn One” was a documentary rather than a work of fiction. We are really entering some quite interesting territory about what evil plots this Government have, which of course is not the case at all.
Amendment 26 seeks to remove the ability to create or widen criminal offences, or to implement civil sanctions, through regulations. The harm caused by breaches of regulations can vary considerably depending on the product sector. Consequently, offences and penalties must be tailored to the specific requirements of a given sector and the seriousness of the breach. The consequences of failing to provide the necessary instructions for a product could be entirely different for a highly sensitive component within a nuclear energy installation than for a lower-risk product. Reducing enforcement flexibility to a series of broad, rigid offences would negatively impact relevant authorities’ ability to enforce proportionately. Attempting to draft very broad offences and penalties in the Bill, to capture requirements in a less targeted way, would actually undermine legal clarity and the principles of the rule of law.
There was talk from Opposition Members about how this would all be done through the back door. The affirmative procedure will apply where new offences are created or widened, so there will be no rubber-stamping after the event. There will be parliamentary scrutiny, as one would expect. We have considered the views of the DPRRC, but we have taken this approach in the Bill because it is not, in fact, unique to it. The shadow Minister said that she was shocked when she saw these subsections. I wonder whether she was equally shocked when criminal offences were created in regulations by the Building Safety Act 2022, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 or the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Those all included similar powers to the ones that we are talking about now, but I do not recall Opposition Members expressing shock and dismay at what was happening. Existing product regulations, such as the Cosmetic Products Enforcement Regulations 2013, also contained offences and penalties, further demonstrating that this is not a departure from existing practice.
The Bill has also placed limits on the maximum criminal penalties that may be implemented for contraventions of product regulations. Product regulations made under the Bill will not be able to exceed maximum criminal penalties that reflect the existing maxima. I believe that Opposition Members are making this a far more dramatic issue that it needs to be, and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Sadly, I have not seen “Capricorn One”. I have already said clearly, on the record, that I have great confidence in the good intentions of the Minister himself and his Secretary of State. However, that is not to say that we should put powers on the statue book that would allow future occupiers of the position to send someone to prison for three months, or to fine them a substantial amount. For those very reasons, I wish to press amendment 26 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
Clause 3 reflects an ambition to streamline and modernise our approach to the enforcement of product regulations to ensure that it is proportionate and effective. We will ensure that the tools available for enforcement are effective so that we may further level the playing field for businesses and provide UK consumers with deepened confidence in their purchasing. Many of the powers contained within existing legislation overlap with one another, which has created a proliferated system that is undermined by its complexity.
The clause will enable the introduction of regulations that consolidate existing enforcement powers. New regulations will implement a set of flexible, proportionate and effective enforcement tools. The new toolkit will continue to cover activities relating to the monitoring, investigation, sanctioning and remediation of non-compliance with product safety regulations. By delivering these changes through regulations, we will be able to flex and adapt to the marketplace quickly. We will be able to ensure that duties can always be enforced, and it is imperative that duties can be enforced without ambiguity.
Through regulations enabled by this clause, we will simplify powers to ensure that they are applicable inland and at the border. We will also ensure that powers are available to enforce duties on all those holding responsibility in the supply chain. Powers should be applicable without unnecessary complexity wherever product regulations require enforcement. Additionally, we intend to augment existing powers carefully with precedented powers such as improvement notices and undertakings, which will provide proportionate routes for resolving non-compliance.
Another power under the clause is one to widen or create criminal offences, as well as introduce civil sanctions for the first time. We have committed to following the affirmative procedure when introducing regulations that seek to use the power to widen or create criminal offences. The power will allow offences to meet the requirements imposed by product regulations. Offences and penalties are already often set out in regulations, so this approach follows precedent.
Finally, the clause will allow the Secretary of State to designate relevant authorities responsible for product regulation enforcement to both ensure flexibility and provide additional clarity. We have included a non-exhaustive list of those relevant authorities in the Bill’s explanatory notes. As I have mentioned, relevant authorities will include those currently enforcing product regulation, such as local authority enforcement teams, the Office for Product Safety and Standards and the Health and Safety Executive. Relevant authorities will have access to the new, consolidated toolkit of enforcement powers that I have described. The clause is necessary for the proper enforcement of the UK’s product safety regime, and I commend it to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Ms Vaz, you will not be surprised to hear that this dystopian picture of unnamed relevant authorities sweeping the land with their powers of seizure, fining and imprisonment is not something that we support, and we therefore oppose clause 3.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Members on this side of the Committee always enjoy our clause 4 moments.
Clause 4 is an essential part of the Bill, and it is informed by the lessons of the covid-19 pandemic. The then Government had to act quickly during that emergency to ensure the supply of critical products such as personal protective equipment. However, the regulatory easement was made under sections 45C, 45F and 45P of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 as no alternative powers were available through the product safety framework.
Clause 4 therefore fills the gap by providing a mechanism to disapply or modify product regulations in a controlled manner for future emergencies, including emergencies that go beyond public health. In practice, the clause will allow the supply and fair distribution of critical goods in short supply during a national emergency, while ensuring greater co-ordination of market surveillance and enforcement activities during these periods.
The Government have also produced a code of conduct on product safety to support the use of powers under the Bill. The code outlines the Government’s proposals for how the emergency powers will work. To summarise a few key points, the code outlines that a derogation will be made available only if there is a serious risk of harm to people, businesses or the environment, and if it is in compliance with the UK’s international obligations. A derogation will be granted only for products deemed critical for the emergency response where demand exceeds supply.
In times of emergency, the Government may temporarily reduce or modify requirements for a product to meet essential health and safety requirements for use in certain settings, provided the market surveillance authority is satisfied with the product’s safety and traceability. For example, in the hypothetical scenario of a national power outage, demand for essential consumer products such as gas stoves, torches or batteries could surge rapidly. If compliant products are in short supply, the Government could use clause 4 to allow UK manufacturers or importers to supply these products, where they meet essential safety standards or other internationally recognised standards, while awaiting UKCA certification.
In such circumstances, the market surveillance authority must also be satisfied that the product still meets acceptable safety standards and can be effectively traced through distribution. This may involve reviewing safety data, in-house test reports or batch numbers and distribution records for traceability.
To be clear, and as Members will expect me to say, the Government will use clause 4 only in emergency situations. Depending on the nature of the emergency, the Government will decide how products can best be fast-tracked on to the market and, where appropriate, implement conditions through secondary legislation for pre-market assessments, consumer protections and time limits. We have also committed to developing a clear framework for how clause 4 will operate in practice, in consultation with stakeholders. This will be developed and delivered through the Office for Product Safety and Standards, and it will be published in due course.
It is also important to highlight that the power is not a carte blanche for bypassing product safety regulation, but rather a targeted response to emergencies. The clause will ensure that, while we speed up the process, essential safety standards are maintained through proportionate measures. Crucially, the exercise of clause 4 will be subject to the draft affirmative legislative procedure, ensuring that any regulatory changes made under the clause are subject to scrutiny by both Houses before coming into force.
In conclusion, clause 4 is a necessary response to ensure that, in future emergencies, the Government can react swiftly to guarantee the supply of critical products while maintaining safety standards. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
As the Committee reaches its clause 4 moment, Members might be pleased to hear that I will not propose voting against it—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I know: a political conversion. I accept that in exceptional times, and unfortunately we have seen a few of those in recent years, the Government need these emergency powers.
I welcome that, in the other place, Lord Leong published the code of conduct on product safety setting out how the Office for Product Safety and Standards expects the emergency powers to work. Will the Minister clarify whether that will include time limiting the period of emergency? How will we know when the emergency has ended? I believe that some products approved during the pandemic are on the market but still have not had their status clarified since the pandemic ended, as anyone would define it. Will the Minister elaborate a little on the time limits for emergency periods?
While the Minister looks at his officials for inspiration, I acknowledge that the pandemic was clearly an emergency, and we have seen a number of situations that could constitute an emergency. We will be able to tell when an emergency has started because of the steps that the Minister set out, but it would be helpful if he could clarify for the record how he would define the end of an emergency, when the powers will effectively end.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s support. As a shadow Health Minister during the pandemic, I had more than my fair share of emergency legislation, and I think it is fair to say that we have all learned lessons from how that process played out. However, I am afraid that her valiant efforts to play for time have not led to my getting the answer I was seeking. My understanding is that there will be some sort of time limit, but it is safer to say that I will write to her. It is important that we are clear.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. This is one of the shorter clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Metrology regulations
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 5, page 6, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the powers granted to the Secretary of State under metrology regulations regarding quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods.
We now come to the metrology part of the Bill. You will be glad to know, Ms Vaz, that as we have Parliament’s first elected metrologist in the hon. Member for Erewash on the Labour Benches, I will constrain myself to making legislative points rather than metrological points.
Subsection (2) is another example of the Bill’s Henry VIII powers. It grants the office of the Secretary of State—although I acknowledge that the current Secretary of State is benign—the power to make provisions on the quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods. People really care about the quantities and units of measurement of the goods they purchase. They are of great importance to consumers. I appreciate that food is not in scope, but when people do their shopping, they look at the units and quantities on the side of the packaging of the goods they buy.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. It is also a great pleasure to serve on this Committee. It is rare that a Member has the opportunity to influence legislation that affects their specific area of professional expertise. As the first elected metrologist, I feel deeply honoured to be debating amendments to this Bill.
Amendment 27 seeks to remove the powers granted to the Secretary of State under metrology regulations regarding quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. However, there are many reasons why it is not a good amendment.
During my speech on Second Reading, I discussed both what metrology is—the science of measurement and its application—and its history. I highlight that definition again because the decisions we make today will affect not only our trade relationships, as we have been discussing, but how fundamental science is conducted in both research and practice.
I discussed the history of the Egyptian royal cubit, which was the first unit of measurement, but today I will highlight how metrology is a fundamentally British science, with metrology regulations having formed a notable part of our legislative history. Magna Carta, the document that in many ways represents the birth of our nation—a copy of which sits in the other place—contains the first example of metrological regulation in Britain.
Magna Carta specified, for the first time, rules for the measurement of various commodities, such as wine, ale, corn and cloth, and represented a notable step forward in early British science, placing us very much at the forefront of the international curve of progress. The focus on alcoholic beverages in that document perhaps states something telling about the nature of early Britishness, but metrology’s inclusion in our great charter demonstrates Britain’s early standing as a nation of progress and science.
Britain has always remained at the front of that curve of progress, through the greats of the Victorian era, from Lord Kelvin to Darwin, and right up until today. A little over a century ago, we, the British people, formed the Engineering Standards Committee, later the British Standards Institution. The BSI was formed in 1901 and now operates in 195 countries, with 90 offices across 31 of those countries. The international nature of the BSI is essential to its success. By operating on the global stage, we have maintained our global soft power in the creation of standards and regulations that allow British industry to maintain dominance in fields from life science to advanced manufacturing.
I have had the privilege of serving on several BSI committees, most notably spending eight years of my former career on the technical product realisation committee 1/11, which is responsible for standards verifying X-ray computed tomography systems. That committee feeds into the work of the International Organisation for Standardisation, and specifically of technical committee 213, working group 10—the taskforce for X-ray computed tomography. While standards development is often slow and laborious, the great joy for me of sitting on that committee, and the various others that I contributed to over the years that preceded my election to this House, was the opportunity to work alongside technical experts from across my field representing industry, instrument manufacturers and academia.
I stress the importance of technical experts in these spaces. Standards frameworks work only because of the input of unpaid experts who come together to create a mutually acceptable national and international standards system that allows everything to function. Metrology and standards frameworks should be designed not by politicians and Governments but by technical experts. Indeed, I have spent many hours working on standards designed by non-experts that were often cumbersome, non-functional and, crucially, destined to be forgotten as the useless wastes of paper that they were. There is nothing worse than a bad standard. We need standards to be decided and honed by true experts and to have the broadest possible reach so that we can be as productive and effective as possible in our work.
The Bill, as currently drafted, allows the Secretary of State powers to maintain pace with the decisions of those experts. Amendments such as this one serve only to detach us from the perpetual motion of progress. Opposition Members have argued, wholly falsely, that the Bill defers powers to foreign nations or that it gives too much power to the Secretary of State of the day. The Bill is not about giving powers to foreign nations; it is about ensuring that the UK remains at the bleeding edge of science and regulation.
Alison Griffiths
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s point about expert witnesses. Like the relevant authorities we spoke about earlier, and which also come into clause 6, there is no clear definition of who those experts will be. The hon. Member is taking it on trust that they will indeed be experts.
Adam Thompson
It is important that I describe how standards bodies work. They come together through relationships between experts within an industry, and through mutual recognition of peer-to-peer expertise. That is how standards bodies are formed here and across the world. Inherently, the system that creates those standards bodies forms a trustworthy circle around them. Standards are ultimately optional. If a standard does not work, people can just ignore it. Standards are essentially meritocratic. If they are not good, they do not continue.
Alison Griffiths
I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of metrology organisations around the world and recognise his expertise. However, from a legislative perspective, the Bill does not rely on metrology experts being the relevant authorities. If metrology experts had been defined as the relevant authorities, I think we would be significantly less concerned. The hon. Gentleman lays out the exact expertise that we would all love to hear. My issue is with the lack of clarity in the Bill.
Adam Thompson
I disagree with the hon. Lady’s point. It is clear that, with this Bill, we are designing frameworks that allow the current system to thrive. I cannot accept the amendment which, like many of the Opposition amendments we have discussed today, serves no purpose.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to hear part 2 of the speech that my hon. Friend made on Second Reading. Does he agree that, contrary to what we have just heard, the clause broadly represents continuity with how legislation has worked in this area? One of the final acts of the last Government was to make the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 under powers that have now expired. The Health and Safety Executive enforces standards based on regulations introduced relating to metrification between 1981 and 1992. For all the claims of change, what we are looking at here, broadly, is continuity.
Adam Thompson
My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge on this subject, and I completely agree with everything he says.
Sarah Gibson
I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the very complex Fire Safety Act 2021 was brought about following a serious fire caused by people who were supposed to be in charge of scrutinising product safety, but actually lied about it, presenting different products that were not part of the original product and were put together slightly differently. The reliance on experts we do not know about is quite a concern. The points made by my Opposition colleagues are extremely important: who are these experts and what scrutiny are they held to?
Adam Thompson
The hon. Lady makes a good point; it is very important that, in situations such as the one she describes, we maintain the utmost scrutiny. In that situation, however, it was not necessarily a failure of the standards bodies, but of the individual companies that had put forward—
Sarah Gibson
It is indeed the case that the standards bodies failed to check that the products they were being presented with were actually the ones on the certificates they were being asked to approve. So it was a failure of our system.
Adam Thompson
I appreciate that. I take the hon. Lady’s point and will continue, as I am nearly done.
The last point I wished to make was that this amendment, and many of those we have heard today, has no purpose other than to demonstrate that their proposers have broadly failed to maintain the softest grasp of what metrology is, what standard frameworks are for or even why they exist. I hope that the right hon. and hon. Members opposite will consider withdrawing their amendment; otherwise, I implore colleagues to vote against it.
Alison Griffiths
Thank you, Ms Vaz. It has been fascinating to understand more about the science and history of measurement from the hon. Member for Erewash.
I will speak on clause 5, and specifically in support of Opposition amendment 27, which implements a crucial safeguard to prevent regulatory overreach in the sensitive and highly impactful area of metrology. Clause 5 grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to make regulations about units of measurement and the way that goods must be marketed, weighed or labelled.
Let us be clear: we all agree that accuracy in measurement is important. However, we must also be clear-eyed about the extent of the powers being handed to Ministers under this clause—powers that go far beyond maintaining standards and veer dangerously into heavy-handed interference in markets and consumer choice. The Government want us to believe this is just housekeeping, but let us remember that these powers enable the Secretary of State to change what units are permitted, how goods are packaged and what must be printed on labels, without primary legislation and with minimal scrutiny.
Amendment 27 offers a clear, reasonable boundary by seeking to ensure that any use of those powers is necessary, proportionate and accountable to Parliament. What is the threshold for intervention? Are we comfortable with the idea that, under the current drafting, a future Minister could outlaw certain traditional measurements or enforce rigid labelling regimes with sweeping economic consequences? What is more, businesses are already under pressure. Small producers, corner shops and importers are the people who will be forced to re-label products, change packaging and absorb costs if metrology regulations shift unpredictably.
Without clear safeguards, clause 5 becomes a weapon against small business certainty and economic growth. Amendment 27 would ensure that changes made under the clause are transparent, justified and time-bound, where necessary. We are not anti-regulation; we are pro-accountability. We believe in making rules that support competition, protect consumers and foster innovation, not in granting sweeping authority without oversight.
The Chair
This debate is about amendment 27. There would have been a later opportunity to discuss clause stand part, but I feel that that debate has already taken place, so I will call the Minister to respond now.
Justin Madders
As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash most elegantly put it, metrology is a long-standing part of our progress as a species and as a country, and it will no doubt play an important part in the future. He talked about the importance of experts. Other Members in the past have said that we have had enough of experts, but this is clearly an area where expert opinion will be very important. Metrology is critical to ensuring the accuracy of measuring instruments and the quantities in which goods are sold. In turn, that will boost consumer confidence and ensure that we have a level playing field. We require the powers in clause 5 to make changes to our metrology regime to protect consumers, ensure accuracy and, critically, support innovation and technological progress.
Amendment 27 would remove subsection (2) from the clause, which would prevent us from updating requirements in the metrology framework to reflect changing consumer behaviour and business markets. For example, UK consumers and businesses spend many billions of pounds each year on goods sold by weight or measure, such as packaged food and drink. Subsection (2) sets out powers to make legislation that ensures the accuracy of quantity marking on such packaged goods.
As one would expect, the weights and measures legislation where those elements are currently prescribed is very technical, setting out the detailed methods of ensuring that quantities are within the permitted margins of error. Without subsection (2), we would be unable to incorporate in legislation any technical advances in quantity measurement, meaning that consumers and businesses could potentially lose out on more accurate ways of measurement in the future. Additionally, the removal of subsection (2) on its own would reduce the overall clarity of the clause, because a redundant reference to subsection (2) would remain in the rest of the clause.
Again, the alarm has been raised about what we are going to do with the Bill. We had the discussion in the other place about how this was somehow a secret plot to abolish the pint. We responded by ensuring that there was very clear protection for the pint in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash stated, making sure that consumers have confidence by ensuring that measures are accurate and up to date is an essential component of us continuing to progress scientifically. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
The Chair
Before I call Dame Harriett, I will ask her to address her remarks to clause 5 more widely.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
With your guidance, Ms Vaz, I will try to combine my remarks on clause 5 and amendment 27.
Again, the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee felt that the power in this clause was too sweeping. The Minister has mentioned that the pint is safe, but the sweeping powers cover pretty much any measurement of
“length, area, volume, capacity, mass, weight, time, temperature or electrical current”,
which the Secretary of State will miraculously be able to make regulations on. Going to the market and buying a quarter of sweets or a pound of flour would fall within the scope of the Secretary of State’s wide and sweeping powers. That is why we have tabled amendment 27 to leave out subsection (2) and why we oppose clause 5 itself, and we would like to probe the Committee’s views on both those elements.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 6, page 6, line 36, leave out subsection (1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 29, in clause 6, page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (6).
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We now move on to the enforcement powers in terms of the metrology regulations. I draw the Committee’s attention to the point I made on the enforcement regulations to do with the product regulations, because many of the same concerns exist here. In the case of clause 6(6), there is something that I personally think is the most egregious and extraordinary provision in any legislation I have ever seen. I would call it the “something” provision. Clause 6(6) says:
“Provision described in subsection (3)(c) or (d) may include provision conferring power on a relevant authority by notice to require a person to do or cease to do something.”.
Has this House, or this Committee, ever seen something so broadly defined? I am interested to hear whether the Minister is able to define “something”. It astonishes me that we are sitting here looking at legislation that includes provision
“conferring a power on a relevant authority”,
which as we have already heard is not narrowly defined,
“by notice to require a person to do or cease to do something”.
How are we supposed to know what this particular provision is meant to refer to? Amendment 29 would require the Minister to be very clear as to what he means by “something” regarding the powers of the relevant authority in enforcing metrology regulations. That is far too broadly drawn. It is absolutely incomprehensible to the layperson.
Amendment 28 goes back to the points I made in the debate on clause 3 about how we are defining a “relevant authority”. We have heard about the importance of the relevant authority from the hon. Member for Erewash, who spoke extremely well about the range of bodies that could be the relevant authority here—but we do not know, because the legislation is not clearly defined enough. Because we do not know, and because the legislation simply refers to “something”, I am afraid we are nowhere near able to support clause 6, or to withdraw our amendments 28 and 29 to it. The public deserve to know what they might be required
“to do or cease to do.”
The wording is far too broad, I am keen to hear what the Minister thinks.
Justin Madders
I am glad that the shadow Minister is keen to hear from me. I can, I think, explain the power in subsection (6); it refers to subsection (3)(c) and (d), which cover compliance with metrology regulations and mitigating the effect of non-compliance with metrology regulations. This provision is about making sure that those delivering and producing those products are doing so accurately and in compliance with the law. By its nature, subsection (6) has to be broad, but it has to be seen in the context of subsection (3)(c) and (d), which explain the context in which that power would operate.
As the shadow Minister said, the argument here is similar—it is possibly identical—to the one we had earlier about the powers. As I said earlier, enforcement authorities include the Office for Product Safety and Standards, local authority enforcement officers, the Health and Safety Executive, and the Office for Nuclear Regulation. We need to ensure that these bodies can enforce in a targeted way, with the relevant requirements created by these regulations, which set out clearly what those powers do, and they must do so while fulfilling a public function, as set out in clause 6(2) and clause 3(2), which we debated earlier.
Aphra Brandreth
It is still not entirely clear from subsection (3)(c) and (d) what that “something” is. Rather than just referring to those provisions, will the Minister clarify what “something” means, instead of referring it back to the relevant authorities, when we still do not know exactly what they will be required to enforce?
Justin Madders
I refer the hon. Member to clause 5(5), which talks about quantities, goods and units of measurement, which is the broad ambit of the areas where these powers will apply.
Amendment 29 seeks to prevent regulations made under the Bill from creating product regulation and metrology enforcement powers and functions. At present, product legislation provides a patchwork of enforcement powers across numerous pieces of legislation. That has caused complexity over the decades, so we are seeking to introduce new enforcement powers that are able to meet changing demands without the continuous process of layering that we have seen in recent decades, which has caused confusion and added complexity to the current framework.
As I mentioned earlier, there is precedent for including enforcement powers within regulations, including in the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 and the Personal Protective Equipment (Enforcement) Regulations 2018. I believe that the issues in this debate are the same as those that we discussed earlier; therefore, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I will not withdraw my amendment, because I am not sure that I heard reassuring words from the Minister that trading standards officers are not going to sweep through the marketplaces of this land and require people to cease doing something that they would not know, from the Bill as it stands, not to do. I will press amendments 28 and 29 to a Division, and then we will debate other amendments before we debate clause 6 stand part.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 6, page 7, line 27, leave out subsection (7).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 31, in clause 6, page 7, line 42, leave out subsection (9).
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Amendment 30 continues some of the themes around the enforcement powers on product regulation. It leaves out subsection (7), which is on sanctions for non-compliance with metrology regulations. Here again is the amorphous concept of a relevant authority that is empowered by metrology regulations. Subsection (7) talks about the
“obstruction of, or failure to assist or co-operate with, a relevant authority or an inspector;”
and about providing
“false or misleading information to a relevant authority or an inspector.”
With amendment 30, we are seeking clarification on what constitutes non-compliance. Is it if a pub landlord manages to serve someone more than “0.56826125 cubic decimetres”? Any reasonable person would think not, but it appears that with the provisions as they are currently set out under the metrology regulations, that could be considered a case of non-compliance.
By tabling amendment 30, I seek a definition from the Minister of how serious he sees those kinds of infractions as being. Given how busy trading standards can be, how serious an infraction of the metrology regulations would a failure to assist be, as an individual would presumably have exactly the right measuring equipment? I want the Minister to put on record how the extremely severe and onerous provisions in the Bill are to be implemented.
Amendment 31 also seeks to remove subsection (9) from the Bill, which again introduces the idea of criminal offences for underselling or overselling measurements, or for potentially not co-operating with this so-called and widely defined relevant authority. Our concerns about that, as well as about the Henry VIII powers involved, are firmly on the record now, but we want to clarify through amendment 31 the specific offences that might be created or expanded, as well as the civil sanctions that might be imposed.
We want to get the Minister’s sense of how bad it would be if an individual were to slightly overpour a pint. The civil sanctions are very broad and allow the Secretary of State significant powers over our criminal justice system. When new offences are created, it is proper that both Houses have the chance to consider and debate them. We had the same debate on the earlier clause regarding product regulations, and there seem to be the same failures of drafting with the metrology regulations, which is why we have tabled amendments 30 and 31.
Justin Madders
As the shadow Minister said, this debate has a similar theme to earlier ones. It is the case that the harm caused by a breach of regulations will vary tremendously, which is why it is important to have different levels of intervention. This clause actually creates a much broader suite of powers at a lower level for intervention. There will be an ability to require undertakings or civil monetary penalties, and an improvement notice could also be served. At the moment, I do not believe that any of those powers are available in metrology regulations, and it is important that we have many tools at our disposal to ensure that measurements are done accurately.
It would not be helpful or proportionate to spell out every single circumstance in the Bill. We can give an assurance that, where new offences are created or expanded on as a result of the Bill, we have already committed to using the affirmative procedure to ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny. Of course, many measures in the Bill already exist in various legislative guises, so it is not, in the main, a massive extension of power as is being suggested. I think this is a proportionate and reasonable way to deliver on the Bill’s intentions, and therefore I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I seek the Committee’s decision on the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
Clause 6 reflects an ambition to streamline and modernise our approach to the enforcement of metrology regulations, in the same way that clause 3 seeks to do for the enforcement of product regulations. We will ensure that the tools available for enforcement are effective and proportionate so that we may further level the playing field for businesses and provide UK consumers with deepened confidence in their purchasing. Many of the metrology enforcement powers in existing legislation overlap with one another, which has created a proliferated system that is undermined by its complexity.
As for product regulations, clause 6 will enable the introduction of metrology regulations that consolidate the existing metrology enforcement powers. New regulations will implement a set of flexible, distinct and efficient enforcement tools. That toolkit will continue to cover activities relating to the monitoring, investigation, sanctioning and remediation of non-compliance with metrology regulations. By delivering these changes through regulations, we will be able to flex and adapt to the marketplace—for example, ensuring that duties can always be enforced even when changes are made by regulations. It is imperative to ensure that all duties imposed may be enforced without ambiguity.
We intend to carefully augment existing enforcement powers with precedented powers, such as improvement notices and undertakings, which will provide proportionate routes for resolving non-compliance. Another power under this clause will widen or create criminal offences, as well as civil sanctions. As clause 3 does for product regulations, so the power in clause 6 will allow offences to fit the requirements imposed by metrology regulations. The clause also provides that metrology regulations may provide for the use of civil sanctions, including fines for certain offences. That power will allow offences to proportionately meet the requirements imposed by metrology regulations. Offences and penalties are already often set out in regulations, so the approach follows precedent.
The clause will allow the Secretary of State to designate “relevant authorities” responsible for metrology regulation enforcement. To ensure flexibility but provide additional clarity, we have included a non-exhaustive list of those relevant authorities in the Bill’s explanatory notes. Relevant authorities will have access to the new, consolidated toolkit of enforcement powers that I have described. The clause is necessary for the modernisation and enforcement of the UK’s metrology regime.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
For the same reasons that we opposed clause 3 on enforcement, we would like to divide the Committee on clause 6.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
This clause relates to the collection of data and information that relevant authorities would undertake as part of their usual activities in support of ensuring that products are compliant with product and metrology regulations. Data collection may be instructive or informative for product safety and compliance, or in support of activities in respect of metrology.
The clause seeks for information to be shared with those with a legitimate need for access. That will support the identification of potential product risk and the prevention of serious accidents. Targeted action may then be taken in a more consistent way to prevent the same or similar incidents from recurring.
For example, a relevant authority may collate data and information in relation to electrical products that cause fire or where electric shock has been reported. That relevant authority may be able to provide information or data to another authority as to the frequency of fire incidents or about the use, time or some other relevant circumstance to do with the incident, such as where it has occurred and why.
In that way, a relevant authority, such as the Health and Safety Executive or the Office for Product Safety and Standards, may be able to discern some hitherto unknown physical characteristic or hidden issue that is relevant to a product’s safety or compliance, and recommend a specific course of action. In those circumstances, there is great benefit in the sharing of such information in support of delivering a consistent approach to such products and incidents.
I confirm that personal data is protected specifically by subsection (5), which provides that no metrology or product regulations may be made that require the processing of personal data in a way that would breach data protection legislation. Any information caught by the regulations that identifies an individual is therefore subject to all the same protections it would have in any other context.
I hope that Members can see why it is important that we are able to share data in that way. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We have not tabled any amendments to clause 7. My earlier point about the vague wording of “relevant authority” also applies to this clause, but the Minister has set out why information sharing under these provisions is necessary. We can see the rationale for that, so we do not intend to oppose or seek to amend the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Cost recovery
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 8 will allow enforcement authorities to recover compliance and enforcement costs. As we know, enforcement can come with significant costs, which are currently borne by the relevant authority taking the action unless costs are awarded by the courts.
The clause will enable regulations to be made to provide for the recovery of costs incurred by a relevant authority’s enforcement activities. The regulations may set out a wide range of provisions, including who will be liable for costs, under which circumstances they will be liable, the amount of the fee, how and to whom it is payable, and the possibility of appeal.
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 makes it clear that the court may award costs to an enforcement authority on conviction for an offence in relation to the contravention of any safety requirements or under a forfeiture order. The clause will allow regulations to replicate that, but it also allows regulations to provide relevant authorities with the power to impose costs themselves.
As we know, cost recovery powers are not new and are used by other regulators, such as the Health and Safety Executive, that employ a fee-for-intervention approach. However, we recognise that Parliament may be particularly interested in the impact of the proposed new powers, and we have therefore ensured that any new regulations made under the clause will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Again, I think we are in relevant authority territory here. We are talking about imposing fees in respect of any costs, and there are certainly some issues to note for the record. On the collection and recovery of payments, I spoke strongly earlier about fines and the interest payable on outstanding payments and so on. Those are material issues that could result in some very serious situations. Nevertheless, we have not chosen to table any amendments to the clause, mainly because the point about relevant authorities was covered earlier in the Committee’s proceedings, and we do not intend to oppose it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Application to existing product and metrology provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 9 is necessary to give full effect to the intent of the Bill. As Members will know, one of the central needs for the powers in the Bill is to keep our huge range of product regulations updated. That can extend from small changes to regulations to reflect new ingredients or components in a product, to more substantial changes to respond to new threats. The clause ensures that the powers in the Bill can be used to amend existing product regulations, if those regulations could have been made under the powers in clauses 1 and 5. Such regulations will be subject to the usual statutory instrument procedures, either affirmative or negative depending on which provisions of the Bill are invoked. Some of the regulations extend to many pages, covering a whole host of a factors that go into a product and the risk that it presents.
Without the clause, key parts of the powers—such as those to do with enforcement, standards, information sharing and cost recovery—could be used only on a revoke and replace basis. I do not think it would be a good use of parliamentary time to have to revoke and replace entire sets of regulations simply to make one change to a particular provision—not to mention the uncertainty that it may cause business. The clause is therefore technical, but it is a key provision in the Bill. It helps to deliver one of the Bill’s central aims: to allow us to keep our product regulations updated. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Clause 9 is one of the clauses that their lordships were particularly concerned about, because of its sweeping Henry VIII powers. Although I have not tabled any amendments to it, I reiterate the point that I made about relevant authorities, and I think it is only right that we test the Committee’s opinion on the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 10, page 10, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment would prevent regulations under this Act from amending provisions made by primary legislation.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 10, page 10, line 29, leave out subsection (4).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 10.
Amendment 8, in clause 12, page 12, line 6, leave out from “Act” to “may” in line 7.
This amendment would make all regulations under this act subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Amendment 9, in clause 12, page 12, line 10, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 8.
Amendment 12, clause 12, page 12, line 26, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations under this Act may not amend or repeal provision made by or under an Act passed—
(a) before this Act, or
(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 10.
Amendment 13, in clause 12, page 12, line 26, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(6B) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—
(a) conduct a consultation for a period of no less than six weeks;
(b) Publish a statement outlining the purpose and necessity of the proposed regulations, the expected impact on businesses, consumers, and enforcement bodies, and the outcome of the consultation.
(6C) Within six months of any regulations made under this section which amend or repeal primary legislation, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of that regulation and lay it before Parliament.”
This amendment requires that any regulations made under the Act that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Once again, the amendments would remove Henry VIII powers and make regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 10 relates to the amendment or repealing, in consequence of the Bill, of provisions made by the Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868 to 1978. We want to prevent regulations made under the Bill from amending provisions made by primary legislation.
Amendment 11 would leave out subsection (4), which provides:
“Regulations under this Act may, in consequence of any amendment or repeal made by or under subsections (1), (2) or (3), amend or repeal provision made by or under an Act passed—
(a) before this Act, or
(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.”
It is incredibly wide-ranging, as I am sure you can see, Ms Vaz. Again, the amendment would prevent regulations from amending provisions made by primary legislation.
Amendment 8 would amend clause 12 on regulations to remove a swathe of additional information in subsection (3), and amendment 9 would leave out subsections (4) and (5) of the same clause, again for the reason that the Bill will provide sweeping powers to widen the scope of criminal offences and all those other things that we have made the case are unsatisfactory under our constitution. Amendment 12 would also prevent regulations made under the Bill from amending provisions made by primary legislation. We think that amendment 13, which would insert various provisions into clause 12, is also extremely reasonable.
What we have tried to do with the amendments is come up with a range of sensible limitations to the Henry VIII powers that so concerned the other place, and that would concern any reasonable person—I think of the power to create the scope of a criminal offence and so on. Through the amendments, we seek genuinely to amend the scope of clauses 10 and 12.
Sarah Gibson
The Liberal Democrats are supportive of the amendments, specifically amendments 8 and 9, which would take the remaining regulations subject to the negative procedure and make them subject to the affirmative procedure. These powers raise serious constitutional concerns. They risk undermining Parliament’s role and shifting too much authority to the Executive. Such powers should be tightly constrained and used only when genuinely essential and accompanied by robust safeguards, including clear limits on the scope of the mandatory scrutiny procedure. We must be vigilant: laws passed by Parliament should not be easily rewritten by Ministers behind closed doors without full debate or democratic accountability. We are therefore supportive of the amendments, and I urge the Government to realise them.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Members for West Worcestershire and for Chippenham for the measured way in which they have put forward their concerns, which take us back to where we started this morning. One of the central debates about the Bill concerns the level and balance of the powers in it, and ensuring that the right level of scrutiny is applied to regulations made under it. I believe that we have demonstrated through our actions in the other place that that balance has changed, and that we have struck the right note.
Amendments 8 and 9 would make all regulations made under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. As introduced, the Bill required new regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure in a range of important areas, such as emergency powers and the creation of a criminal offence. However, having heard some of the concerns mentioned in the other place, we went further and amended the Bill so that the affirmative procedure would be applied to more areas, including when we impose product requirements on a new category of economic actor for the first time. We believe that that strikes the right balance between the need for scrutiny, appropriate use of parliamentary time, and the flexibility needed to keep our product and metrology regulations up to date. I will not remind Members of the quotes I gave from Ministers in the previous Administration who made similar points.
Amendments 10 to 13 are concerned with how the Bill may amend or repeal existing primary or secondary legislation. I understand the concerns about Henry VIII powers, but we heard the concerns and points expressed by peers and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and have removed almost all the Henry VIII powers from the Bill.
Alison Griffiths
Does the Minister not agree, though, that amendments 10 and 11 are morally necessary to uphold the role of Parliament as the supreme legislative authority in the United Kingdom?
Justin Madders
I am not sure whether I would say they are morally necessary. It is quite normal for there to be some Henry VIII powers in most legislation, and I will now explain why that is not something that we need to trouble ourselves with too much in relation to the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868, which I am sure all Members have familiarised themselves with. That is, as I have already demonstrated by reading its title, a very old and highly technical piece of legislation. It covers the parameters of the process of approving a firearm, including the archaic governance elements of the Birmingham proof house. It was passed in 1868, when there was a thriving Birmingham gun trade, which I presume no longer exists. To give Members some indication of—
Justin Madders
Do we have a guardian of the Birmingham proof house in our midst?
Laurence Turner
I rise merely to confirm that the trade does indeed continue, and that one of the two remaining proof houses is in the Digbeth area of Birmingham.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Indeed, I understand that that is now the premier proof house in the country, but some of the provisions in the 1868 Act show why we think these Henry VIII powers are appropriate. For example, sections 56, 65 and 66 set out that the Birmingham proof house must meet on Thursdays and that its annual general meeting must be held on the last Tuesday of April. I really do not think that parliamentary time needs to be expended on updating those particular rules.
The last Gun Barrel Proof Act was passed in 1978, when I believe some members of the Committee were not even born. That shows that this is not something that is at the cutting edge of our thoughts, although it does need modernising. It will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will also be subject to consultation with relevant stakeholders.
Amendment 11 would remove the power in the Bill to make amendments to legislation in consequence of the amending or repealing of the Acts specified in clause 10. That is a limited power that enables us to tidy up the statute book by ensuring that any cross-references to those Acts are updated as needed.
Amendment 12 would prevent any regulations made under the Bill from amending any primary or secondary legislation passed under other Acts. That goes to the core purpose of the Bill: to enable us to keep our product and metrology legal framework up to date and effectively protect consumers and support businesses. The power to make consequential amendments is a standard approach to legislation. We need to ensure that new regulations do not duplicate or overlap with existing legislation in a confusing way. That is vital for providing consumers and businesses with clarity.
Amendment 13 would make all regulations under the Bill that amend primary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. It would also impose a mandatory six-week consultation period and require the Secretary of State to publish a detailed statement in advance of regulating. As I have stated, the Bill already requires the affirmative procedure for regulations amending primary legislation, as set out in clause 12(4)(g). In any such debate, the Government would of course set out why they are regulating, and in the other place we introduced an appropriate consultation requirement and additional triggers for the affirmative procedure.
Some of the provisions currently in primary legislation, such as the detailed requirements relating to gun-barrel proofing or the margin tolerances for packaged goods, are very technical. Our approach has therefore been to apply the affirmative procedure to regulations likely to be of particular interest to Parliament, such as the creation or widening of criminal offences or new powers of entry.
The powers in the Bill are crucial to ensuring that our product regulation framework is agile, up to date and able to effectively protect consumers and businesses. We have taken great care and have listened to concerns, and we now have the right balance between taking powers to enabling us to meet the objectives of the Bill and ensuring parliamentary scrutiny for the exercise of those powers. I appreciate that Opposition Members may not agree, but that is the nature of debate. I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
What a welcome moment, Ms Vaz—my colleague from the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Chippenham, supports the rationale behind the amendments. The swelling in support for our amendments gives me a welcome opportunity to test the opinion of the Committee on each of them.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I seek clarification: are not the remaining amendments in the group to clause 12?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
So we will not be taking decisions on them now, but I would like to reserve the right to ask the Committee’s opinion later.
The Chair
Absolutely. We will do that.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
We have already had a substantial debate on clause 10 as a result of the shadow Minister’s amendments, so I will be brief. The clause repeals specified provisions within the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Weights and Measures Act 1985 that may be rendered unnecessary or duplicative by regulations made under the Bill. It also allows regulations to amend the repeal of the Gun Barrel Proof Acts, which we have debated extensively.
The Bill, as introduced, sought Henry VIII powers for the repeal of the Consumer Protection Act and the Weights and Measures Act, as well as for the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but we listened to concerns expressed about those powers and have amended the Bill to eliminate most of them. Instead, we are repealing only the necessary specific provisions in existing measures that are no longer needed on the face of legislation. Commencement orders will be used to repeal those provisions at the right time, through regulations made under the Bill, to remove duplication in the statute book or to provide for regulatory continuity.
The single Henry VIII power that remains in the clause allows us to update the Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868 and 1978. As I have explained, it is a very focused power to deal with the highly technical Gun Barrel Proof Acts. Subsections (3) and (4) of clause 12 ensure that any regulations that amend or repeal the Gun Barrel Proof Acts will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so the House will have the opportunity to express its opinion. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield will make himself available for any such debates. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Given that the Minister just admitted that the Government had to amend the clause in the other place because of its extensive Henry VIII powers, and that some remain in the clause, we would like to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 11 sets out the interpretation of key terms used throughout the Bill. Although many terms within the clause are commonplace, the definitions are set out so that the legislation is interpreted as intended, which is critical to the effectiveness of the Bill’s powers, as many of the terms are referenced throughout. It includes a definition of an “online marketplace”, which captures the range of different marketplace business models. We have already debated how that may well change in the future. Online marketplace sales are rapidly growing as a proportion of retail sales, reaching £29.3 billion in 2022, with an estimated growth of 70% between 2019 and 2024. It is therefore vital that product safety legislation captures online marketplaces as key supply chain actors.
We expect supply chains and e-commerce to continue to evolve, with the way in which UK consumers purchase products continually changing in ways that we may not be fully able to predict. Even within the past few years, we have seen new entrants and evolving business models of online marketplaces emerge. For example, since Temu launched in the UK in April 2023, it has amassed more than 11 million UK visitors per month. TikTok Shop launched in the UK in 2021 for businesses to sell products directly from social media videos. B&Q launched its online marketplace in March 2022, with a focus on selling via verified sellers. The proliferation of models is increasing.
It is vital that product safety regulation can keep pace with future changes. Clause 11 provides the power to amend the definition of an online marketplace, which enables the provision to be updated to include any future business models and types of online marketplace that might not be captured within the current definition. The use of the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure because amending the definition of an online marketplace in the Bill through secondary legislation is an important delegated power.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
On the surface, clause 11 looks like just an interpretation clause, but there is one provision about which I would like a little elaboration from the Minister. An online marketplace is defined as
“a service or feature of a service on…a website or part of a website…a mobile application, or…any other platform by means of which information is made available over the internet, which facilitates the marketing of products in the United Kingdom”.
That seems entirely reasonable. The Minister set out some of the new ways in which consumers in the UK are able to buy products here.
Under subsection (2), however, suddenly the Secretary of State
“may by regulations amend this section for the purposes of altering the definition of ‘online marketplace’”.
That strikes me as very strange. Exactly why is subsection (2) in the clause? Suddenly changing the definition of an online marketplace seems like a very wide, Henry VIII-type power. I see that the Minister is receiving inspiration for the answer to my question. I ask him to reply, and then we will decide whether we will press the clause to a Division.
Justin Madders
Inspiration comes in many forms. This is a rapidly evolving way of retailing, so we have discussed it with officials quite extensively. We are seeking to ensure that we are future-proofed for new business models. As I said, there are ways of selling items that I did not know existed until very recently. We want to make sure that, through subsection (2), we have the ability to update regulations when those new models emerge and do not tie ourselves in too much. I agree that definition (c) could cover everything, but we simply cannot predict how things will evolve in the future. It is important to clarify that any extensions to the definition of “online marketplace” will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which I hope gives the shadow Minister assurance that there will be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Will the Minister be kind enough to point out where that use of the affirmative procedure is set out in legislation?
Justin Madders
I will write to the hon. Lady, but that is definitely my understanding. It is certainly in the code of conduct, but we will make sure that we get that clarified for her.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Ms Vaz, you heard it. For the record, I think I heard the Minister say that it is set out in the code of conduct, which I think means that extensions to the definition would be subject to the affirmative procedure and a consultation. I am hesitant to allow the clause to become legislation without those assurances.
Justin Madders
We will seek to give the shadow Minister assurances. If she is not assured, she can table an amendment on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Regulations
Amendment proposed: 8, in clause 12, page 12, line 6, leave out from “Act” to “may” in line 7.—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)
This amendment would make all regulations under this act subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 12, page 12, line 20, leave out “7 to 10” and insert “7, 8 and 10”.
This amendment corrects a cross-referencing error.
Government amendment 1 is a technical amendment to the drafting of the Bill, so I will not take up much of the Committee’s time speaking to it, but simply explain why it is needed. It makes a drafting change to clause 12(4), which lists the regulation-making clauses in the Bill that are subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments. The current drafting includes clause 9 in that list. That is an unintended consequence of a previous amendment inserting clause 9 into the Bill. Unlike the other types of provision specified in clause 12, clause 9 does not confer a power to make a particular type of substantive provision. It specifies that regulations can amend existing provisions, as distinct from making fresh regulations. Government amendment 1 removes that unintended impact by removing the references to clause 9.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Forgive me, Ms Vaz; it is getting quite late in the afternoon. The Minister’s amendment to line 20 of clause 12 leaves out “7 to 10” and inserts “7, 8 and 10”. Could I clarify what the “9” is a reference to? In which clause is the “9” referenced? I am not following it, because clause 12 seems to have seven subsections.
Justin Madders
I do not have an answer to that at the moment. My understanding is that this is effectively a change in the numbering rather than anything more substantive. It is an erroneous reference, which we tried to bottom out in discussions, but there is nothing dodgy going on here.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am grateful that the Minister is as confused as I am by this; I thought it was just the lateness in the day. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to write to me to point out where the erroneous “9” exists.
Justin Madders
I am happy to do that, and I am sure that we will all be enlightened as a result.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 12, page 12, line 21, at end insert—
“(i) provision described in section [Product recall].”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Product recall—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make regulations on product recall processes.
(2) The regulations must include provision to ensure—
(a) the creation and maintenance of a publicly accessible, government-hosted online database of all active product recalls affecting the UK market;
(b) clear obligations on manufacturers, importers, and distributors to notify the appropriate enforcement authority and upload recall notices to the database promptly upon identification of a safety risk;
(c) that recall notices include details of the affected product, risks identified, corrective action to be taken, and information on how consumers can claim a refund, replacement, or repair; and
(d) minimum standards for direct communication to affected consumers, including by email, SMS, or postal notice where reasonably practicable.
(3) The regulations must establish consumer rights entitling individuals to—
(a) a full refund, suitable replacement, or repair of a recalled product within a reasonable timeframe;
(b) access to support and guidance through the recall process, including where a product is no longer in production.
(4) The Secretary of State must consult with consumer protection organisations, trading standards bodies, manufacturers, and other relevant stakeholders before making regulations under this section.”
This new clause would ensure that a centralised Product Recall Mechanism is established to protect consumers.
Sarah Gibson
Amendment 35 is a technical amendment that introduces a provision for product recall, which is set out in new clause 12. The new clause would establish a robust and centralised product recall system that truly protects consumers when safety risks arise. The current product recall landscape is fragmented, inconsistent and difficult to navigate, and the new clause is an attempt to fix that.
The new clause requires the Secretary of State to introduce regulations within six months of passing the Bill to strengthen and standardise product recall processes across the UK market. The product regulations must include several key elements, including the creation of a publicly accessible, Government-hosted online database listing all active product recalls in the UK. This is about visibility—people need a single, reliable source to check whether a product that they have bought is affected. The proposal sets out clear duties on manufacturers, importers and distributors to promptly notify the relevant authorities and to upload recall information as soon as the safety risk is identified.
The new clause also includes details of mandatory content for recall notices, including details of the affected product, identified risks, corrective actions and how consumers can access a refund, repair or replacement. It would also establish minimum standards for direct communication with affected consumers, which may be by email, SMS or post. The importance is that people are actively alerted and not left to find out on their own.
Importantly, the new clause also guarantees consumer rights during a recall, including a right to a refund, replacement or repair within a reasonable timeframe, as well as access to support and guidance, even in cases when the product is no longer being manufactured. Finally, the clause requires consultation with key stakeholders, consumer groups, trading standards and industry before the regulations are made. This ensures that the system is practicable, enforceable and effective.
New clause 12 is about building a centralised and transparent recall mechanism, which is long overdue. Unsafe products must be removed from circulation swiftly, and consumers must be able to take action easily and confidently. The existing system is not working and it is not always easy for people to know which products have been recalled. The new clause seeks to address that issue. I urge the Committee to support it.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Lady puts some extremely important and valuable questions to the Committee. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chippenham, for raising this important issue. The amendment is consequential on new clause 12, on product recalls. It is important to state first that the Government are reviewing product recalls, as well as the full range of existing enforcement powers available for product safety and metrology, as part of our work on developing new enforcement regulations under the Bill, so the hon. Lady’s concerns are certainly ones we are aware of. Elements of the developing proposals will be included in the broader consultation document that the Government have agreed to publish on Royal Assent.
Furthermore, consumers are already able to make a claim for a refund, repair or replacement under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and other routes for redress include the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. Supply chain actors are already under an obligation to report products that pose a risk to the relevant enforcement authority, as identified in legislation under the General Product Safety Regulation 2005 and sector-specific product regulations. Additionally, a publicly accessible, Government-hosted online database of product recalls—the “Product Safety Alerts, Reports and Recalls” database—is on gov.uk.
The exact requirements and capabilities of recall notices will be considered within the wider review of enforcement powers under the Bill. Part of that review will consist of extensive engagement with stakeholders. Placing a six-month time restriction on that—as suggested by the amendment—would therefore only restrict the amount of engagement possible. We do not believe that new clause 12 is needed, so the amendment that seeks to apply the affirmative procedure to regulations made under the new clause is also unnecessary. I hope that the hon. Member for Chippenham is assured that we take the matter seriously and will act on it when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Sarah Gibson
With that in mind, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment and therefore new clause 12, but as soon as Royal Assent is received, I will remind the Minister of exactly what he has said today. I will bring the subject up again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 13, in clause 12, page 12, line 26, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(6B) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—
(a) conduct a consultation for a period of no less than six weeks;
(b) Publish a statement outlining the purpose and necessity of the proposed regulations, the expected impact on businesses, consumers, and enforcement bodies, and the outcome of the consultation.
(6C) Within six months of any regulations made under this section which amend or repeal primary legislation, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of that regulation and lay it before Parliament.” —(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)
This amendment requires that any regulations made under the Act that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
Clause 12 is a standard clause that may be familiar to Members. It has two main functions: first, it sets out some general areas that regulations made under the Bill’s delegated powers may provide for—I note, importantly, that that is a “may”, not a “must”; and secondly, it sets out which parliamentary procedure the regulations made under the Bill must follow.
On the clause’s first role, the preceding clauses contain important delegated powers—which we have already debated—and each of those clauses includes some further detail on what can be achieved by regulations made under the relevant powers. It is therefore beneficial to have a general provision in clause 12 to provide some legal certainty over the implications of the regulations made under those powers.
Paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (2) are standard provisions that broadly make it clear that the powers can be used to differentiate for different scenarios and to provide detail about how or when things may or must be done. On paragraph (f), I note that legislation does not bind the Crown unless express provision is made in this respect. The Bill does not itself do that; however, it does allow scope for such consideration to be made in future regulations, should that need to be done.
Paragraph (g) enables the powers to be used to make transitional, consequential and saving provisions, which may be used to mitigate unfairness or provide legal certainty—for example, to deal with manufacturing or conformity-assessment processes that started before a change in the law, or where there are remaining overlaps or inconsistencies with existing provisions that need to be amended.
On the clause’s second function, we have sought to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny over the use of the Bill’s delegated powers. Since the Bill was introduced in the other place, it has been improved to address concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and by peers during debate. In particular, we have broadened the use of the affirmative procedure for future regulations made under the Bill’s powers, to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny.
Subsection (4) expressly specifies a list of certain types of provision that may be made under the Bill. Regulations made under the Bill that include any of these types of provision will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. That means the draft affirmative procedure will be required for any regulations made under the Bill that provide for the power to enter, inspect and search premises in connection with enforcement of both product and metrology regulations, as provided for by clauses 3 and 6; for arrangements for emergencies, as provided for by clause 4; for the creation of, or widening the scope of, a criminal offence, as provided for by clauses 3 and 6; for any provision made in relation to clauses 7, 8 and 10, which concern information sharing, cost recovery and the amendment of specific items of primary legislation; and for changes connected with amending the Bill’s definition of an online marketplace.
Let me address concerns raised in the other place. The Bill now requires statutory instruments to be laid using the affirmative procedure in additional areas: where requirements relating to the marketing of products on online marketplaces are introduced for the first time; where requirements on persons who control online marketplaces, or on persons who act as their intermediaries, are introduced for the first time; and where requirements on new categories of person under clause 2(3)(e) are introduced for the first time. I confirm that the clause provides that anything not specified as subject to the draft affirmative procedure will be subject to the made negative procedure.
Alongside those changes to parliamentary procedure, the clause has also been amended to include a consultation requirement, thereby reaffirming our commitment to working constructively with interested parties before making any future regulations. I know we have discussed these issues at length, but I hope I have shown that we have taken a proportionate approach, striking the right balance to enable us to deliver the aims of the Bill while providing appropriate parliamentary oversight. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is appropriate for me to put on the record how grateful we are for the scrutiny that the Bill received in the other place. We have just heard from the Minister how many changes had to be made because of the concerns raised by the Committee in the other place, which I have quoted extensively in today’s debates. We have covered a lot of ground in terms of concerns about individual clauses, and the Minister has helpfully set out the specific items that are subject to the affirmative as opposed to the negative procedure. Given that we have gone over this ground extensively during the debates on the other clauses, I shall leave it there.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 14 stand part.
Government amendment 2.
Clause 15 stand part.
Justin Madders
Government amendment 2 is a necessary technical amendment to correct an amendment that was inserted in the other place on Third Reading, to ensure that the powers in the Bill can be used effectively, such as by introducing cost-recovery provisions in accordance with clause 8. Without getting too technical, I understand that this is something to do with financial privilege.
Clause 13 details the territorial extent of the Bill. As we know, the Bill’s provisions extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Bill’s extent means we can introduce regulations that reflect the realities of the UK market—that is, businesses and consumers can buy and trade most products in all parts of the UK. Having regulations that help to protect consumers and provide clarity and certainty for businesses about their obligations is an important part of maintaining a well-functioning UK market.
The Government have been clear in their intention to ensure that the devolution settlements are respected in both principle and practice. Indeed, we have tabled a new clause that will place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments where regulations contain provision within their devolved competence. We will probably debate that on another day.
Clause 14 is, I hope, a non-controversial clause. It details that the Bill will come into force with immediate effect on the day on which the Bill is passed, with the exception of section 10(1) and (3), which will be commenced by regulations at a later date. This is typical for Bills that contain delegated powers. For this Bill, it will allow the UK to start making proactive choices about product regulation through laying statutory instruments soon after Royal Assent.
The Government intend to take action to modernise and clarify requirements for online marketplaces. That will improve the safety of products sold on their platforms to UK consumers. The Bill’s immediate entry into force will also allow the UK to proactively choose how to respond to the upcoming changes to EU laws that we currently recognise—it has been a while since we mentioned the EU, but I am glad we got another reference in. This will provide industry with regulatory stability and certainty, and support economic growth.
Finally, clause 15 is a non-controversial clause that sets out the Bill’s short title. It provides a more convenient name for the Bill. This is in addition to, and does not replace, the long title. I therefore commend amendment 2 and clauses 13 to 15 to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I think the Committee may well return to some of these themes at a later stage of our deliberations. Clause 13 concerns the UK internal market, which is an important topic that deserves considerable further scrutiny and debate. Clauses 14 and 15 essentially clarify when the commencement will be for the various clauses. It would be more sensible if I were to devote my time to a discussion of some of the new clauses that we have tabled, which will come later in the Committee’s deliberations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Short title
Amendment made: 2, in clause 15, page 12, line 37, leave out subsection (2).—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would remove the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
We were discussing clause 36 and I was attempting to reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, that his concerns were unfounded. We were discussing fees charged by particular public bodies for providing services associated with Transport and Works Act 1992 orders.
As I made clear, the power is subject to delegated procedures, ensuring that it is flexible enough to account for any changes in the provision of services in the future. I reassure the shadow Minister that the power allows for the charging of fees for services only on a cost-recovery basis. The regulations will set out any required safeguards, just as there are safeguards in place in regulations that relate to the charging of fees by authorities on nationally significant infrastructure project cases, for example. Subsection (4) makes it clear that applicants will be required to have regard to guidance that will provide detail.
The shadow Minister asked me about two specific points. On appeals, there is no set appeals process for the fees charging system, other than the ultimate recourse to judicial review on the basis that the fees charged to do not comply with the forthcoming regulations or are irrational. On small businesses, I recognise that there is potential constraint as some applicants for Transport and Works Act orders may be smaller businesses, such as heritage railway operators, and it may be harder for them to absorb costs, but I reiterate my previous point that the delays in the system that we currently experience are not cost free. We feel strongly that the benefits of the change proposed by clause 36 outweigh the disadvantages of extra costs, even for smaller applicants. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister is reassured and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Disapplication of heritage regimes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The purpose of clause 37 is to remove the need for Transport and Works Act order applicants to apply to multiple consenting authorities for separate authorisation requirements under relevant heritage regimes in England and Wales, such as listed buildings and scheduled monument consents. Instead, the clause provides for the consolidation of the application process for certain heritage authorisations, so that they can be obtained through the Transport and Works Act itself. I must make clear that it is for applicants to determine whether they want to proceed on the basis of existing arrangements, namely consulting multiple consenting authorities, or whether they want to obtain those consents through the Transport and Works Act itself, in which instance the Secretary of State for Transport would need to confirm that that could be undertaken via that route. The consents would be obtained as part of the TWA order process and the decision-making process that pertains to it.
In making this change, as with other changes that we have made in this part of the Bill, we would bring the Transport and Works Act order process in line with the Planning Act 2008, which provides a one-stop shop development consent order process for major infrastructure. To ensure proper oversight is maintained throughout the amended process, applicants will still need to consult the relevant consenting authorities before applying. I commend this clause to the Committee.
Schedule 2 amends the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as a result of the changes made by clause 37 of the Bill. As I have just set out, clause 37 enables an order under the Transport and Works Act to obtain certain consents through the Act itself, rather than requiring separate applications to each relevant consenting authority. Schedule 2 disapplies offences that would otherwise arise from proceeding without those consents or authorisations. The inclusion of this power is a prudent, practical and reasonable step to take to ensure the most efficient legal framework moving forward. I commend the schedule to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Opposition broadly understand the direction of travel that the Minister has set out and the principles underlying it are clearly quite sensible.
Will the Minister give us a degree of assurance, particularly about the process for determining the circumstances in which the authorities that are listed and the circumstances that are listed may be set aside? That is significant because significant infrastructure developments are often close to heritage railway buildings and historic sites where there will be a legitimate expectation from both local authorities and residents that a proper consultation will be undertaken.
We know that, in the past, the effect of that regime has been that in many cases developers, in places such as Royal Quay in my own constituency in Harefield, have chosen to put historic buildings back into use for a new purpose. For example, formerly industrial buildings connected with Victorian transport networks could be used for residential development, rather than simply demolishing and clearing the sites and losing that heritage asset in the process.
It would be helpful to understand how we will ensure, through the regime as set out, that those considerations are fully taken into account. I appreciate that we will debate the green belt later on, but there is significant interaction in the Bill between the different types of regime that apply, and we have already had much debate about the green belt and the grey belt.
I am aware that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government yesterday issued a decision with respect to a site just north of London, and the effect of her determination is that any land on a transport corridor located between, for example, a motorway and a village, even if it is currently in the green belt, will be considered to be grey belt for the purposes of developability. That will clearly have a significant impact in similar situations in locations with a significant heritage element that are close to railways, motorways and other such transport networks that would potentially, from a developer point of view, benefit from swifter development without a consultation being undertaken. However, from the perspective of local residents and the wider community concerned about heritage and land use, they are losing the opportunity to have this.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I rise to speak either against the clause or in favour of amendment 7, which is in my name. I am not sure which, but I am sure you can advise me, Ms Jardine. We have significant concerns about the clause, and I will spend a few minutes on them as it is, perhaps, more serious than it first appears. The clause would disapply the need for listed building consent, conservation area consent, scheduled ancient monument consent and notices for works on land of archaeological importance from Transport and Works Act projects.
Our heritage has benefitted from protection under criminal law since Lord Avebury in the Liberal Government brought in the Ancient Monuments Protection Act in 1882. The Act provides that anyone who damages a monument commits an offence punishable by imprisonment
“with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding one month”.
That protection, and much of the wording in that Act, has survived, and the relevant wording remains in the main and principle Acts for listed buildings: the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. My suggestion is that this is not the time to remove such strong statutory protection and criminal sanction from measures to protect ancient monuments and listed buildings.
I appreciate that the Government, in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, say that the approach is similar, but not as wide as the Planning Act 2008 approach, which the Minister has mentioned, and I fully understand the single consenting regime objective. It would be narrower in some ways because, in the proposed Transport and Works Act approach, it could be possible to be more selective about which measures are disapplied. However, the Planning Act 2008 approach is very different, because regulations made under it enshrine those same legal tests that go back decades—and, in some cases, centuries—so that they remain on the statute book and applicants under that Act still must comply with them.
If our country’s heritage is worthy of protection under criminal law, as the Liberal Democrats believe that it is, the same tests should surely be applied under the Transport and Works Act as under other legislation. Those are long-standing tests. In relation to listed buildings, the wording that many in the sector will know is that we must have
“special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest”.
Those words ring down the years. For scheduled ancient monuments, the requirement was to have regard to the “desirability of preserving” the scheduled monument or its setting and, in conservation areas,
“to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.”
Those are familiar words that, as I say, ring through legislation over many years. They should not be removed from the Transport and Works Act process altogether, which this clause would do. These are central principles of heritage protection that have lasted decades, if not centuries. The Government may point out that, as they say in the explanatory notes, section 12(3A) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 remains in place, which provides:
“An application for listed building consent shall, without any direction by the Secretary of State, be referred to the Secretary of State instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority in any case where the consent is required”.
Although that section is referred to, it does not apply here, because consent is not required. All the requirements for consent are disapplied by the clause in this Bill, so there would be no recourse to consent under that route.
Our recommendation is that the important statutory tests be repeated in the legislation for Transport and Works Act projects, just as they are for all other projects, including in regulations made under the Planning Act 2008.
Many heritage organisations share our concerns. The National Trust says:
“We have serious concerns regarding the scope of Clause 37 of the Bill which seeks to disapply existing heritage regimes. This clause enables Transport and Works Act 1992 orders to disapply authorisation”
for listed buildings, and so on. It continues,
“we have strong concerns about the possible disapplication of heritage regimes for transport infrastructure developments. There is a risk that this could enable harm to heritage assets without proper scrutiny and go further than the stated ambition of the Bill.”
The Heritage Alliance has stated:
“Until greater clarity and detail is forthcoming from government, we continue to have significant concerns regarding its potential to cause…unintended harm to heritage assets.”
Even the Government’s own agency, Historic England has said:
“Whilst the clause provides discretionary powers for the Secretary of State on whether to disapply the legislative provisions relating to heritage, as drafted there is a lack of clarity as to how and when this discretion would be applied. This risks resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency, which would undermine the policy intention…In addition, the disapplication of the legislative provisions for heritage does not provide any equivalent safeguards for the protection of heritage in relation to the authorisation and enforcement provisions for listed buildings and scheduled monuments, as exists at present”
in legislation. It goes on:
“The clause, as currently proposed, would therefore result in a weakening of heritage protection.”
It concludes that
“the current wording of Clause 37 may not actually deliver the policy intention of streamlining planning decisions, whilst having the unintended consequence of reducing heritage protection.”
In short, we are very concerned about the removal of such long-standing legal protections for our heritage. In our view, they must be put back on the statute book in one way or another.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Let me go over some of the points I have made to reinforce them, but also to respond directly to the challenges raised.
I think the principle of the one-stop-shop DCO process for major infrastructure is accepted as a beneficial aspect of the NSIP regime. We think allowing Transport and Works Act orders to take that holistic approach to all the consents required has merit. It would provide more certainty for applicants and ensure that some timelines and requirements were reduced, therefore benefiting the speed of the process. I very much recognise the concerns raised about heritage protections. The shadow Minister will forgive me for not commenting on a decision made by the Secretary of State, not least in the period when it is potentially still challengeable, but I note his concerns.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I urge him to consider regulations. That is the approach under the Planning Act 2008, which has worked and ensures that the Secretary of State for Transport will have to apply the same tests that local planning authorities’ inspectors and the Secretary of State have to apply under the 2008 Act. They have to apply their central and historical tests—ironically they are historical tests for historic parts of our heritage and should be retained. We strongly urge the Government to consider regulation in that regard. I am grateful that he has indicated he will consider that, no doubt among other options. We believe it should be statutory. On the basis of the assurance given, we will not press the matter to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. We will certainly go away and reflect, because it is broadly our intention to ensure that the Transport and Works Act is brought into line with other consenting regimes, not least the Planning Act regime and how that operates in respect of some of these protections. I commit to give him an answer by Report stage, either in terms of changes we think are necessary or reassurance that we do not think changes are necessary. One way or another, I will get him a clear answer on his, as I said, fair and reasonable challenge.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 38
Deemed consent under marine licence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 38 allows Transport and Works Act orders to include a deemed marine licence for projects in UK waters, where a separate authorisation is currently required. That removes the need for a separate application to the Marine Management Organisation, or MMO. It allows for a single process, again similar to the Planning Act 2008, which already allows deemed marine licences. Applicants will still need to consult the MMO before applying, ensuring that proper oversight remains in place.
The MMO will continue to enforce marine licence conditions under existing powers. This is another change that we believe creates efficiencies and removes duplication. As I have said, it aligns the Transport and Works Act with the Planning Act 2008 process, making it simpler and quicker for transport projects that involve marine areas. A streamlined approval process will save time and costs for applicants while maintaining important environmental safeguards. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Opposition wholly understand the intention behind clause 38, but I want to ask the Minister a quick question. How will enforcement responsibilities be co-ordinated to prevent confusion between the MMO and other authorities involved in Transport and Works Act orders? I accept that the core of the Bill, for good or bad, is to streamline and ensure the Government deliver their objectives quicker than at present, but can the Minister reaffirm that he is wholly assured, in line with his officials’ advice, that streamlining the process will not compromise environmental protections?
Matthew Pennycook
I can provide the hon. Gentleman with that assurance. In terms of enforcement, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if consent is granted under the Transport and Works Act, any breaches of marine licence will continue to be dealt with by the Marine Management Organisation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Authorisation of applications by local authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 39 removes the requirement that exists at present for a second local authority resolution after submitting a Transport and Works Act application, making the process faster and simpler. Currently, local authorities must achieve a majority vote from their local authority members both before and after submission of an application. Key stakeholders told us during the development of the Bill that the second resolution is unnecessarily bureaucratic and causes delays. Removing it will cut red tape and speed up transport projects. This is a simple and, I hope, uncontroversial clause, and I commend it to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We agree with the Government on clause 39. However, if local authority members need to give a majority vote on the first round, it makes the Minister’s claim that the measure will reduce bureaucracy seem a tad overstretched. We will not press the clause to a Division, but circumstances do change between the first and the second resolution. With great respect to the Minister, it is a bit of a stretch to say that simply not putting the second resolution on the agenda of a full council meeting or committee will overwhelmingly reduce bureaucracy. On that point, as well as on the slight undermining of transparency, we seek reassurance from the Minister.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that point. In no way am I implying that in a committee meeting, the process of putting hands up on another vote is itself onerous. What are onerous are the delays that can be caused by the need simply to reaffirm a vote that has already taken place. The Government think this is a simple and proportionate change to ensure that the Transport and Works Act is modernised appropriately.
As I hope the Committee saw this morning, the Transport and Works Act, which is over 30 years old, needs to be brought up to date and into line with other consenting regimes. Clause 39 deals with just another example of an element of that Act that requires addressing. All interested parties in a Transport and Works Act project will be able to make representations as they do now—the process will continue as it does now, but without the need for the second resolution.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Extension to Scotland of certain amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
This is another example of the way in which the Transport and Works Act needs to be tidied up, because there are currently unnecessary legal duplications. We want to address those, and that is what clauses 40 and 41 do. Previous regulations under the Act applied only to England and Wales. That created dual versions of certain Transport and Works Act provisions —one for England and Wales, and another for Scotland. Clause 40 removes the duplication by extending provision to Scotland so that there is only one consistent version of the text. This is a simple procedural fix. Scotland does not use the Transport and Works Act, so the change has no practical impact there. It simply ensures clearer legislation with no unnecessary duplication.
Reducing duplication makes the law clearer and easier to apply, and simpler to understand for all applicants. It also reduces complexity for legal and policy teams, making future updates faster and more efficient. This supports the Bill’s aim of simplifying and streamlining transport laws.
Clause 41 provides a power to make amendments to primary and secondary legislation that are necessary to maintain the effect of that legislation in consequence of clauses 30 to 40. The power cannot be used to implement changes in policy or make amendments for reasons unrelated to clauses 30 to 40; its purpose is simply to ensure consistency. If any changes are needed to primary legislation that already exists or is made in this parliamentary Session, the relevant regulations will need approval from both Houses. If any changes are needed to secondary legislation, the negative procedure will apply. The inclusion of this power is a prudent, practical and reasonable step to take to ensure the most efficient legal framework moving forward. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Fees for applications for harbour orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 42 amends the Harbours Act 1964 to enable fees for processing harbour empowerment and revision orders to be levied on the basis of hours of time deployed on any particular application, rather than on the basis of average costs. This is part of a package of measures that Government are taking to strengthen performance in the handling of harbour order applications, especially in England, after a backlog built up over recent years.
Relevant Departments, along with the Marine Management Organisation itself, are further addressing these challenges through various administrative initiatives alongside this provision. The clause applies to England, Scotland and Wales, consistent with the territorial extent and application of the original Harbours Act. The Bill does not determine the overall level of fees; there will be full consultation of ports before fees are altered by regulations.
Provisions for the new system of setting fees will come into effect two months from Royal Assent. To ensure that fees can still accompany harbour orders before regulations are made, the provision repealing the current power to determine fees will be commenced by regulations. The new fees system will take precedence over the current system upon the commencement of this clause, meaning that there is no practical need for the previous regime to be switched off for the new fees regulations to be made.
However, following discussion with the devolved Governments, a decision on the desired timing for this repeal in Scotland will be necessary. The Secretary of State would, as a routine matter, make the commencement order at a date chosen by Ministers in the devolved Government.
The clause further supports the Government’s growth and clean energy missions by improving the efficiency of harbour order processing, which will support our wider objective of improving transport consenting processes. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Installation of electric vehicle charge points
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 43 will remove the need for a section 50 street works licence when installing electric vehicle charge points on a public road, and instead allow applicants to apply for street works permits. Applying for a street works licence is costly, and it can take a long time for an application to be approved. The lengthy process of having to apply for a street works licence to install charge points on a public road is delaying the roll-out of this essential infrastructure.
The licence application process has previously been identified by installers as a significant barrier to installation. The application process and associated costs for those licences also vary greatly between highway authorities. On average, each street works licence can cost between £500 and £1,000 and take 12 weeks or longer to obtain. As a result, installing apparatus can be a lengthy and costly process, hindering the efficient roll-out of electric vehicle charge point infrastructure.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the Minister’s comments on clause 43. As we enter the world of net zero and increasing green travel, we need to have the infrastructure in place, so we support the Government’s attempts to make that easier. Whether I think electric cars are the future is not within the scope of clause 43—I declare an interest, in that I do not. I think we need to invest in other areas and that, eventually, we will see that the infrastructure simply cannot be delivered in the way that it needs to be, but that is for another day. [Interruption.] The Minister for Energy, who is doing his work in secret at the back of the Chamber, is shaking his head at me. We will have a chat in the Tea Room afterwards about how we should be investing in hydrogen instead of electric cars—but, as I say, that is outside the precepts of this clause. I will get back to the clause.
What safeguards are in place to ensure that EVCPOs meet their responsibilities, particularly when it comes to road reinstatement? I do not mean to dumb down this argument, but we have all had emails coming to our office about this: when road repair and utility companies do works, they are not often joined up. They are not often communicated to local people properly, and, when a local authority gives permission for works to be done by different utility companies, they are not often done in conjunction. An area of the road is dug up, then another organisation comes along and digs it up, and they do not put the roads back properly. Can the Minister outline whether, under current legislation, he is satisfied about that?
Companies being allowed to make these changes with reduced bureaucracy and at increased speed is welcome, but we need to make sure that local authorities use their responsibilities properly so that the consumer and the public are not put in the frustrating situation, which we have all seen before, of disruption and a lack of co-ordinated effort when utilities and other companies do works in local areas.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the Minister for speaking to this clause, and I am pleased to say that the Liberal Democrat Benches are keen to support it. I am also pleased to agree with the Conservative spokesperson on this, although I was disappointed to hear that his preferred method of transport involves hydrogen, rather than joining me on my bicycle, which I very much enjoyed riding in his constituency a couple of months ago.
It is important that we do everything we can to support the roll-out of electric vehicles, which is essential to our goals on air quality and climate change. The United Kingdom has a long way to go, with just 20% of vehicle sales last year being electric, compared with 90% in Norway. Hopefully, these measures will help us to close the gap.
I also welcome the Minister’s assurance that this will not undermine the requirements to make sure that street works are done professionally and repaired with full competence. For any Members with an interest in the subject, the Transport Committee is doing a detailed inquiry into it. Hon. Members are right to point out that that is often a major source of frustration for our constituents. I am very pleased to support this clause.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I strongly support the clause and was really glad to see that the Electric Vehicle Association England welcomes the change. It will make it easier, cheaper and faster to install public chargers for EVs.
There is a battery assembly plant run by JLR in my constituency. We are making more components for electric vehicles, but my constituents find it really difficult to make the jump to invest in an electric vehicle, because there are just not enough electric vehicle charging points in the town centres around my constituency. Anything that makes it easier and removes the blockages will be extremely helpful.
I echo some of the points made by the Opposition spokespeople. We must make sure that the charging points are installed carefully and thoughtfully, which means taking into account the pavement requirements of pedestrians, particularly those with pushchairs or using wheelchairs. Will the Minister explain how that will be taken into account?
I definitely welcome this change, and it is a huge step forward. Particularly in more rural constituencies like mine, people need to be able to drive their electric vehicles in and out of town centres for work, and to be able to charge them.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I support giving consumers choice and making it easier to install electric car charging points. This will be a massive help for people in flats—if they want to make the switch to an EV and cannot charge their vehicle at home, the more public charging points there are, the better—but we need to think about it carefully.
My constituents are fed up with multiple utility companies digging up the roads willy-nilly—sometimes, the same stretch of road. There does not seem to be any logic behind where roadworks will be, and multiple roadworks happen at the same time.
We need to issue guidance. If utility companies, councils and other authorities are going to install loads of charging points, it needs to be done in a logical way. What work are the Government doing with all the different companies and operators in this space? We do not want to see consumers turning up to different charge points that all have different connectors. We need to make this as easy as possible for the consumer, no matter what car they drive.
I reiterate that we cannot just dig up roads willy-nilly. What discussions are the Government having with the companies in this space to make it as easy as possible for consumers to access charge points?
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I welcome these proposals. This is a major reform that will allow the Government to speed up the delivery of vital electric vehicle infrastructure, to deliver on our climate targets and ensure that we can meet the growing demand for electric vehicles.
I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington in the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, on the future of electric vehicles. The Conservative party’s position is anti-business and anti-investment. Electric vehicles are the future, and they are going to create jobs.
Paul Holmes
I resist the temptation to say that the hon. Gentleman is picking me up on every point in this Committee. At no point did I say that I do not think we should have cleaner energy or better, cleaner and greener vehicles. I happen to think that the investment that is needed to bring the infrastructure up to scratch, alongside the emissions caused by the technology that is used in the creation of these electric cars, means that we need to diversify and find other ways to have cleaner cars.
In no way should the hon. Gentleman interpret my words as being anti-business. In fact, other areas, particularly the hydrogen sector, will deliver much more business investment in my constituency of Hamble Valley, and in his constituency of Basingstoke, through the proposals coming forward with the energy companies in the Solent.
Luke Murphy
I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention. I do not disagree. Instavolt, one of the largest public electric vehicle rapid charging network providers in my constituency of Basingstoke, fully supports these proposals.
The reason why I think the Conservative party’s position is anti-business and anti-jobs is that businesses are crying out for certainty—they want certainty about the transition, not big question marks about the future. I support the removal of the need for a street works licence under section 50, which will cut down on paperwork and costs. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth on accessibility, but I support this proposal, which will allow us to speed ahead and build a world-leading charging network.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I echo the points made by other colleagues: I absolutely support the roll-out of electric vehicles, which is more likely due to this change. To be clear, I think local authorities will welcome it. They have long been frustrated by the current framework, which means that as they seek to roll out electrical vehicle charging points they are met with a planning system that prevents them from doing so at the necessary scale. Clause 43 removes the burden from local authorities and also from individuals, who often want to purchase an electric vehicle but think twice because being able to get a charging point in the convenience of their individual home is too difficult.
Finally, the point about cost is important. When we speak to companies that manufacture vehicle charging points, they are clear that the number of installations helps them to reduce the cost per head. This measure will mean that it becomes easier to install at a faster pace, with the hope that the overall cost will be reduced. I support the measure and think it will be a crucial step in this Labour Government’s important mission to reach net zero.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the broad support on both sides of the Committee for the intended purpose of the Bill, which will mean that companies installing EV charge points can do so, as I have argued, using permits available online across England, and will no longer have to apply for costly licences, which can take several months to obtain, via a range of different local authority processes. That will speed up the installation of on-street EV charge points and help local authorities to co-ordinate works with other roadworks. I think the use of that digital platform will help local authorities to have an overview of all the installations taking place in their areas.
A number of points have been made. The hon. Member for Broxbourne raised the issue of street works and digging up roads. While I take his point, there is a difference between the installation of EV charging networks and general utilities works, and there is more that can be done to manage that process. If he will allow me, because it is a slightly separate issue, I am more than happy to set out for him in writing what the Government are doing on that particular point.
In general, however, the concerns I have heard relate to safeguards. There is a separate point about whether members of the Committee believe that the existing statutory requirements are fit for purpose or need to be reformed, but I want to make clear that this clause will ensure that the statutory requirements that are in place continue to apply to EV charge point installers. We are not losing any of the existing safeguards, including guidance and safety codes, so the inspections and reinstatements will continue to apply and installers will be obligated to keep their apparatus in working order. In addition, existing regulations already require installers to provide annual reports to the Secretary of State on the reliability of their network, and investigatory powers and sanctions are available to deal with non-compliance.
In relation specifically to pavement access, EV charge point operators will still need to comply with the safety code of practice, which sets out the requirements to ensure access while works are taking place. I can give hon. Members assurance on that point. I hope I have set out that existing statutory requirements will continue to apply, so no safeguards are lost; in moving from a street works licence to a permit, we are just ensuring that we can make it far easier for charge point operators to roll out vital infrastructure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Fees for planning applications etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 39—Surcharge on planning fees.
Matthew Pennycook
We turn to part 2 on planning, chapter 1 of which relates to local planning decisions. Clause 44 seeks to introduce, through regulations, the sub-delegation of planning fees to local planning authorities. It is an important change, and we feel it needs to be made. We know that a lack of capacity and resources in local planning authorities and among statutory consultees leads to delays in decision making and in the delivery of housing and economic growth.
I hope the Committee is aware of the changes that the Government are making, outside the scope of the Bill, to enhance local authority capacity and capability. The Chancellor has announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. On 27 February, the Government announced funding to support salaries and complying graduate bursaries to help with our commitment to appoint 300 new planning officers in local planning authorities. We have made changes, through regulations, to increase planning fees for householder and other applications, with a view to providing much needed additional resources for hard-pressed local planning authorities. More broadly, the Department’s established planning capacity and capability programme is delivering a wider package of support.
For local planning authorities, fees are an important contributor to resourcing requirements. Planning application fees are set nationally, and they are intended to cover the cost to a local planning authority of processing and determining a planning application. However, as things stand, the fees do not fully cover the costs of providing the service. Based on the most recent local government spending data for 2023-24, that has led to an estimated funding shortfall of £362 million per year. It means that local authorities are not adequately equipped to deliver an efficient planning service to developers and investors.
Clause 44 will tackle the problem by enabling local planning authorities to set their own planning fees and charges to cover their costs. It will do that by allowing the Secretary of State, through regulations, to sub-delegate the setting of planning fees and charges to local planning authorities. Allowing local planning authorities to set their own planning fees is the most effective way to increase resources in a manner that responds to the individual circumstances of each local authority. It will help to address capacity issues in the planning system by ensuring that planning authorities are adequately funded to deliver vital services.
We are also introducing safeguards to ensure that the fees are reasonable and directly invested in improving planning performance, and that they are not used to fund other council services. Planning fee charges will not be able to exceed the cost to local planning authorities in determining a planning application. That will prevent disproportionate or unjustifiably high fees being set. That is an important point, because one of the concerns we have had is about the ability, without the provision being in place, of local authorities that do not want to see development to set extremely high fees to deter applications. To ensure transparency, local planning authorities will also be required to consult on any fee increases and publish evidence to justify the fees that they charge. Finally, and most importantly, income received from planning fees will be ringfenced, as I have said, so that it can only be used in the determination of planning applications.
Clause 44 is another crucial step towards a more responsive and efficient planning system. I hope we can all support it. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Government new clause 39 seeks to introduce a new sustainable funding model for the statutory consultee system. Alongside local planning authorities, statutory consultees play an important role in the planning system, providing expert advice and information on significant environmental, transport, safety and heritage issues to ensure good decision making.
However, it is a concern that the statutory consultee system is not currently working effectively. The concerns expressed by local planning authorities and developers about the operation of the system are wide-ranging. They include statutory consultees failing to engage proactively, taking too long to provide advice, re-opening issues that have already been dealt with at a plan-making stage, submitting automatic holding objections that are all too often withdrawn at a late stage in the process, and frequently issuing holding responses that allow statutory deadlines to be met while seeking over-specific levels of information from developers over long timeframes. All of those concerns can cause substantial delay and uncertainty for applicants.
The Government are determined to return the statutory consultee system to meeting its goal of supporting high-quality development through the swift provision of expert relevant advice to inform decision making. In March, I set out a number of steps that we are taking to achieve this in England, including ensuring that the statutory consultee system works to support development and economic growth, limiting the instances in which statutory consultees should be consulted, changing the performance management of statutory consultees and, finally, developing a model to support sustainable funding.
The new clause will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to apply a surcharge to planning application fees. This would apply to development that is permitted by local planning authorities, and to other bodies that are able to charge planning fees under the Bill. It will be used to fund bodies, such as statutory consultees, that provide advice and ancillary support that enables good decision making.
Through regulations, we will develop detailed proposals that will establish the level at which any surcharge would be set, and the types of planning application it should be applied to. In doing so, we will be highly conscious of the need to balance the burdens that we are placing on developers with the benefits that will accrue to them through a more effective and efficient planning application system. We will consult on such proposals before any regulations are introduced.
I note that statutory consultees can already generally secure payment for voluntary pre-application work, and that will continue to be the case. A new funding mechanism for statutory consultees, alongside the sub-delegation of planning fees, as per clause 44, will allow us to address capacity and resourcing issues, and support a faster and better quality decision making process. On that basis, I urge the Committee to support the clause and the new clause.
David Simmonds
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley wants to raise some points, but I want to ask a couple of slightly technical questions.
The first relates to clause 44(6), on directions in relation to planning fees. The publication of a schedule of planning fees is part of the statutory council tax-fixing process, which every local authority is required to undertake. As we hear from our residents, that generally takes place in February and comes into effect at the start of the following financial year. If a local authority publishes its proposals, as the Minister described in respect of cost recovery, it needs to be confident that any change—in the form of a direction from the Secretary of State—will come in a timely manner that enables further consultation so that the lawful council tax fixing can occur. What provisions will be in place to ensure that any objection from the Secretary of State will come in a timely manner?
My second slightly technical question is this. My experience of planning authorities is that there is huge variation in their cost bases. That partly reflects a shortage of staff, but it also reflects different local arrangements. An authority with large numbers of householder applications may use an outsourced service to process them at a relatively low cost. However, if senior, experienced, in-house planning officers are responsible for managing all planning applications, that will significantly increase the cost. Neither of those things is illegitimate; each is a manifestation of the democratic decision making of elected politicians about what is appropriate for their community.
It would be helpful to understand what process the Secretary of State will go through in determining what a reasonable level of planning fees is. For example, will she consider the requirement for specialist input at a technical level because there is a significant amount of radon gas, which is found in certain challenging sites because of their topographical nature? Whether there is a requirement for remediation and specialist consultancy will be critical to a proper assessment of that planning application. Other local authorities may have development opportunities of a different nature. Will the Minister set out his thinking on that? That would be enormously helpful.
Rachel Taylor
When the Committee met the witnesses a week or so ago, we touched on section 106 agreements and the role of planning authority lawyers in that process. I think that the fees for processing and determining applications include the process for agreeing a section 106 agreement. Is it the Government’s intention to include costs arising from the legal department’s time and efforts in determining those applications in the ringfenced planning application fees? I am aware that there is a severe shortage of qualified and experienced property lawyers in both local authorities in my constituency, as well as a shortage of planning officers.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support the thrust of clause 44. For a very long time, we Liberal Democrats have called for local authorities to be free to set their own fees for planning applications, so we welcome the approach.
I seek a couple of clarifications from the Minister. Does clause 44 refer to planning applications and not to listed building consent? I think we all share a desire to keep listed building applications free of charge, so will the Minister let us know about that in due course? Local authorities are struggling for funding. In my own Somerset council, £2 out of every £3 of council funding is spent on care for adults and children, leaving £1 out of every £3 provided by council tax for everything else, including planning, housing, enforcement and environment, so funding is crucially needed.
Somerset council has asked for the freedom and flexibility to set its own planning fees. One challenge it faces, in common with other planning authorities and planning departments, is the market rate paid to professional town planners, who frequently find that the level of remuneration in councils is worse. Will the Minister confirm that local authorities will be free to set salaries above the market rate to attract planning officers in circumstances when the market conditions make that necessary? The Minister may not wish to answer all my questions now, but I hope that he can address them at some point.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I fully support what the Government intend to do in this clause. Those of us who have worked in local authorities or have supported the development industry over many years will know that there are many occasions when statutory deadlines are not hit, reports do not go to committee at the right time to enable consent within an agreed timescale, and reports have to be deferred because they have not been written well enough by an overstretched planning department.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the arrangements that will be introduced through this legislation. Will there be a backstop for local authorities that do not put a regime in place? Will he consider allowing local planning authorities and developers to agree bespoke fees for applications to be determined on a shorter timescale? Is the use of planning performance agreements, which are currently in common use, affected by the new legislation? What performance management arrangements do the Government want local authorities to put in place to justify the fee changes?
Paul Holmes
I welcome what the Minister has to say about this clause. In common with other hon. Members who have spoken, we welcome the general gist of permitting regional variation to planning fees as a general principle. In theory, that will create opportunities for local planning authorities to set their rates at a level that works best for them. How will the Government ensure consistency and fairness in planning fees across different local planning authorities, particularly for developers operating in multiple regions? Does the Minister have any thoughts on that?
In considering the need to support local planning authorities, what support will be provided to them to accurately calculate cost recovery levels and comply with consultation and reporting requirements? Given the ever-changing and growing costs to local planning authorities, which we all recognise, how frequently will they be allowed or required to review and update their planning fees?
Luke Murphy
I, too, rise to support the measures. The Committee heard evidence from developers that they do not at all mind paying higher fees as long as they get a fast, quality service that delivers quicker and better outcomes for everyone involved.
We know that planners are absolutely vital to planning the future of our communities, the places where we will live for years to come, and they cannot do that on a shoestring. For too long, we have seen many local planning authorities unable to cover their costs, which causes delays and cuts and has led to a doom loop in the planning system. It is great that the Government plan to give control to local planning authorities, with the safeguards that the Minister has set out, to set their own fees and ensure that we can have the proactive, effective and fast planning system that we all want.
Matthew Pennycook
I will set out a couple of points in response to questions raised by hon. Members. If I miss anything, I am more than happy to follow up in writing on the technical detail, including on some issues that sit outside the scope of the clause but are pertinent.
For example, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, raised the issue of salaries that could be paid to local planning department staff. That will be a consideration for local planning authorities attracting talent. He is right that over recent years we have seen, for a variety of reasons, a bleeding out of talent, particularly to the private sector. There is a challenge in attracting the requisite skills into the public sector to ensure that we can take our planning reforms forward.
The purpose of clause 44 is to allow the Secretary of State, through regulations, to delegate the power to set planning fees and charges to local planning authorities. It will be up to local planning authorities whether to set their own fees or remain on what will essentially become a default national fee rate. We will carry out a national benchmarking exercise, including engagement with local authorities, to ensure that the default rate is at an appropriate level.
For the process by which local authorities can set their own fees, if that is the route they want to take, the Bill has a number of safeguards to ensure that fees are not set too high. In the first instance, local planning authorities will be required to undertake public consultations and publish information to justify any local fees prior to their introduction. To respond to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that is in the process in which local planning authorities would be able to evidence particular challenges in their area that require them to have a skillset and resource base slightly different from those of other local planning authorities, but that would have to be properly justified.
For objections, there will be a process by which the Secretary of State can intervene and direct local planning authorities to amend their fees or charges when those have been set at an inappropriate level. I note the point, well made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that such directions—that intervention—would have to come at a point that allowed a local authority to ensure that the changes were made in a timely manner relative to its other financial responsibilities.
Any hon. Member is free to intervene if I have missed a point, but I hope that I have broadly reassured the Committee that the clause will provide for those who want to set their own fees—although I stress that an authority can remain on the national default rate if it wants—so that the fees can more fully reflect the cost of processing applications and thus ensure that we are providing a timely service. It is a beneficial change.
Gideon Amos
The Minister is generous in inviting interventions; I rise to make a small one. I technically ought to declare that I live in a listed building—a fairly shabby one—but that is not the only reason why I wanted to listed building consents to be free.
Matthew Pennycook
On that point I should say, although I hope this was implied, that we will set out detailed processes in the regulations. We will absolutely take into account points that have been made today. I give the hon. Gentleman my undertaking that the specific issue that he raises will be fully considered as part of that process.
Lewis Cocking
I have a question to gain clarity for local authorities. Will the Minister request local authorities to submit how much they spend on planning currently? If the increase in fees is to go into additional planning service, I would not want to see local authorities moving money out of their planning services now, and then charging additional fees so that the services still had the same budget. I hope I have explained that point sufficiently. Will he ask local authorities to submit how much they spend on planning now, to ensure that the additional fees that they will be able to charge go into additional service?
Matthew Pennycook
That is an interesting point. That would be a fairly extreme measure for a local authority to undertake but, if I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, it could drain its planning department budget, foreseeing that it would be able to set a fee at an appropriate rate to make up for that, and therefore in a sense evading the clear stipulation that we have here to ringfence planning fee charges to the provision of planning services. I will say a couple of things on that basis.
As I said, local planning authorities will have to consult publicly and test their fee level. As part of that, they will have to consider the benchmarking exercise that we will undertake for the default national rate—so we will have a sense of what different local authorities are charging. However, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall go away to reflect more fully on how—as I hope is clear we have been thinking today—local authorities without the best intentions might seek to game the system.
Matthew Pennycook
The final point I will make before giving way is that, were a local authority to seek to evade that ringfencing provision by reducing the amount of resource going into its planning department—a not particularly sensible route to take—and then, potentially, it were not able or allowed to charge a fair and proportionate fee set in that regard, it would come under the usual planning performance dashboard, where the Department can look at the local authority for not providing a timely service or performing appropriately. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a set of intervention powers would be available to national Government, were that the case.
It is far more likely, however, as we have heard from local authorities, that they would use the power to set local fees that reflect the cost of services, using it to bring more resource in and—generally, this is what they want to do—to start processing applications in a more timely manner than they can now.
David Simmonds
The Minister’s response has been excellent. Clearly, there will be a number of different arrangements at a local level. That should encourage us, as a Committee considering the legislation, to reflect a little further.
In the example that the Minister talked about—the behaviour of local authorities—it may not be about those who have ill intentions. Some local authorities may have a planning and building control department—although the two regimes are separate, there is great commonality of skills—while others may have outsourced one or both those functions, or have them in-house but entirely separate.
As part of the published council tax fixing, there is a requirement to set out a schedule of fees for building control. Some local authorities may choose to bundle that together, so when people put in a planning application, they pay for both; but others may do that separately. Some developers, including householders, may choose to purchase the building control privately, even though they could purchase it from the local authority. A lot of factors will determine what a reasonable cost base is. It would help if the Minister shared with the Committee some further thinking on how the Government might seek to establish a baseline, in particular in the light of potential challenges in the future by developers who feel that the level of cost at a particular spot is other than reasonable.
I press the Minister a little on how that interacts with two further points that he made. Government new clause 39 refers to the power of the Secretary of State to implement a surcharge as a percentage of a planning fee that has been set. From what I understand of what the Minister said in his commentary, that will principally be to fund the work of the statutory consultees. Clearly, the imposition of a surcharge will then form part of the planning fees that have to be part of the statutory consultation on the legislatively fixed timetable that the local authority has to follow. How will the Government ensure that that timetable is respected, so that they themselves are not subject to the challenge?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for pressing those two points. I am more than happy to come back to the issue in more detail, but as a general point, a lot of further detail is yet to come post consultation and the regulations’ being laid. We will provide further detail then on some of the technical questions as to how the power will be implemented.
The surcharge introduced by Government new clause 39 will provide the ability to fund the statutory consultees and other bodies that provide assistance and advice in relation to the planning application process. For example, we may wish to fund training and guidance for local planning authorities so that they can better engage with statutory consultees. However, the surcharge, which, as he rightly says, comes as an additional amount on top of the fees for processing applications, is very much intended to address the particular challenges that we are facing in terms of how statutory consultees are able to engage with the process in a timely manner, so that we get that advice up front.
David Simmonds
May I press the Minister a little further? That is a really helpful answer in illuminating the Government’s thinking, but could he explain to the Committee how that will interact with the existing arrangements for planning performance agreements, which are very common in respect of larger-scale planning applications? Clearly, if a developer required to engage with all this wider statutory-consultee process is already entering into a voluntary agreement with the local authority to fund the process, there is a risk that that will have an impact. It risks either reducing the ability of the local authority, because that surcharge is effectively being taken by the Secretary of State, or increasing the cost base and therefore opening up the question whether the planning fees are reasonable in the first place.
Matthew Pennycook
I would say two things in response to that, and then perhaps, Ms Jardine, in the interests of making progress on the Bill, I will happily write to the Committee to set out further details of the operation of the surcharge.
First, on how the surcharge will be processed and distributed, it will, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, be paid by the person collecting the fee to the Secretary of State in a manner and at a time prescribed by regulations, which are forthcoming. Outside the regulations, the proceeds will then be earmarked for distribution to bodies that provide advice and assistance in the planning process, including by way of consultation responses.
Secondly, the question has been asked several times whether the Government have properly considered the cumulative impact of fees and charges—are we getting the fees right? We are very aware that the surcharge will increase the fees that are already out there—it is an additional levy in that sense—and that other measures in the Bill may already result in fee increases. I repeat that we are committed to consulting on the proposed rates and the type of application that this should apply to—not least to allow the development sector to fully engage with those proposals.
On that basis, I think it would help the Committee if I set out later—chapter and verse—how we think both the clause and the surcharge will operate, on a very practical basis, and how local authorities can understand the Government’s intent in bringing them forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Training for local planning authorities in England
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 152, in clause 45, page 58, line 3, at end insert—
“(c) require that any training accredited under this section includes content on—
(i) inclusive design principles in the built environment;
(ii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document M, Volume 1: Dwellings of the Building Regulations 2010, with particular emphasis on the M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard and the M4(3) wheelchair user standard;
(iii) the requirements and intent of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations 2010;
(d) require that all members, elected members, and officers of a relevant local planning authority who carry out any function relevant to planning undertake mandatory training comprising the content set out in paragraph (c).”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, in clause 45, page 58, line 15, at end insert—
“(7A) This section applies in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a mineral planning authority as if references to a local planning authority were to a mineral planning authority in England.”
This amendment has the effect that (if regulations under inserted section 319ZZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are made) members of a mineral planning authority in England who have not completed any training required by the regulations will be prohibited from exercising certain mineral planning functions on behalf of the authority.
Clause stand part.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I did not prepare anything in advance—apologies—but I do think it is important for the Committee to consider amendment 152, tabled by an hon. Member from another party. The amendment asks the Government to consider using the opportunity offered by the Bill to ensure that the training provided—which is essential for those involved in planning decisions, whether elected members or officers—includes a specific focus on accessibility.
This is a really important issue. If we are to be an inclusive and equitable society, it is vital that planning decisions are made in a way that takes into account the importance of accessibility. It is also an increasing issue. We are an ageing society: in 2022, 19% of our population was over the age of 65, but in 50 years’ time that will be 27%—half as many people again. We know that disability is associated with age; we know that 45% of people over the age of 65 report a disability, and half of those disabilities are mobility-related. So, accessibility of buildings—accessibility of all the areas that come within the remit of planning decisions—is a crucial aspect.
I ask the Minister to comment on the suggestion made in amendment 152. Does he recognise the importance of these issues? Would he consider taking this away and exploring whether the clause could be amended to make this minor but important additional change, to ensure that all planning decisions going forward recognise the importance of accessibility?
Jim Dickson
Just before I speak to the amendment, I will say that I fully support what the Government are doing here. As a former member of a local authority, I have seen good training, but in other contexts I have also seen very poor training for planning committee members. I know that most local authorities have a scheme in place, which is obviously welcome, but it is variable. Having some national guidance and trialling it in legislation is extremely important.
My point on the amendment is that accessibility is vital. I hope it will appear in guidance that the Department produces further to the legislation. We might wish to see a whole range of other considerations in that guidance, too, but I hope this one will be in there. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us that these important issues will be included in guidance. He might make the case that it is much better to have them in guidance because it can be changed regularly, rather than in primary legislation, which is changed via a much more torturous process. It would be interesting to have the Minister’s insights on the full range of the guidance.
Lewis Cocking
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.
I have a few questions for the Minister. I am pleased to see this clause. When I was leader of Broxbourne council, we changed the council constitution to do exactly what the Government are trying to do here. I want to know how many local authorities will be affected, because I know that many of them already have mandatory training for planning committees in their constitution.
What I have not seen in the Bill is how often council officers will be required to carry out the training—will it be once per term of office, which means once every four years, or annually? I cannot seem to find any detail on when elected councillors will be required to do the training. I would like the Minister to comment on what he envisages as a workable interval. Obviously the training has to be timely, because there are always changes to the national planning policy framework and local plans, but not too exhaustive, so that councils can still make planning decisions.
The Minister speaks about speeding up planning decisions. I would not want councils to fall into the trap of not having enough people with the right certificate, and the right training at the right time, to carry on their quasi-judicial function of planning. I should be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Rachel Taylor
Amendment 152 is well intentioned and sets out a number of matters that planning authorities should take into account when organising training. There are also other aspects of the planning process to consider, including how we make better provision for electric vehicles. The last major piece of planning legislation from 1990—it has endured for 35 years—is very prescriptive about the content of training for members and officers, but it will be extremely difficult to encapsulate everything that is needed.
I certainly think that the requirements for people with disabilities and for climate and nature are sometimes conflicting. I have seen a number of planning schemes where trees are put in the middle of the road or pavement. Although those environments look nice, they do not accommodate people with disabilities, such as sight or mobility problems.
We have to adapt as things move on, and this is exactly the sort of thing that I would ask the Minister to consider in guidance that could be regularly updated, as opposed to it forming part of the Bill. I certainly support the amendment’s intention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for tabling it.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support amendment 152. The Liberal Democrats have a similar measure on the amendment paper, new clause 11, which also refers to the accessibility of housing. We are pleased to support this amendment, and we support training for planning authorities in general. In the Minister’s summing up, can he address the concern of some organisations that, as well as accessibility, the training needs to include conservation and heritage?
Paul Holmes
Clause 45 relates to mandatory planning training, which is long overdue. It could be a huge benefit to local planning authorities to have trained planning committee members.
When many members of the public—and many Members of Parliament—saw the mandatory training element of the Bill, they probably shouted, “Oh good God, thank you!” There is a massive variation in the outcomes of planning committees, as we will come to in debates on other clauses where we disagree with the Government on planning committees. To strengthen planning committees and ensure that they all perform—and that members of planning committees perform to the best of their ability and are trained to make the complicated decisions that local planning authorities and committees have to make—is a good thing.
I declare an interest that, as a former chair of a planning committee at Southampton city council for two and a half years, I really enjoyed the training. The planning training at the time, when the council was under Conservative control—I will say that it does it now under Labour too—was automatically given to newly elected councillors on the committee. It was exemplary.
Councillors could not pick and choose whether to go. Instead, the council very clearly said from an early stage, “If you do not attend this training, we will not defend any decision that you make, and we will not put you on the planning committee, despite the best wishes of group leaders from all parties.” That is a commendable approach, and one that I know other local authorities also take.
Planning decisions are sometimes the most user-friendly decisions that are made; although they are not necessarily the most important, they are where a local resident will have the most interaction with their local authority. Apart from when a bin is not collected—or, in a unitary or county council, when someone is going through problems with education or an education, health and care plan—planning decisions are the bread and butter of the public facing element for locally elected politicians.
Later in Committee, we will talk about how the Opposition feel that the Government are trying to take some of those responsibilities away, but the precept of this provision to allow locally elected councillors to have the best training that could possibly be provided, so that they make decisions that they are proud to stand by and are legally defensible on appeal, is long overdue and is of huge benefit to local authorities. We welcome clause 45.
On Government amendment 49, the Minister may forgive me a slight rant. I absolutely agree with this amendment on mineral planning authorities. I suggest that officers and managers of highways authorities, particularly those in Hampshire, should also undergo some training, given how woefully Hampshire county council officers have dealt with a mineral extraction facility in Hamble in my constituency. I know that the Minister cannot comment on that in his semi-judicial capacity, but I can because I do not have those responsibilities.
Locally elected councillors, who should make the decision and have had the proper training, refused Cemex’s application. When it came to appeal, local planning officers removed the rug from under people’s feet by refusing to defend that decision, so the local community has had to find £75,000 to try to defend it—thank God for the constituents of Hamble who are defending it. I know that the Minister cannot comment on that case, and I am being slightly facetious, but perhaps we need an audit of the way that officers engage their responsibilities as mineral and waste planning authorities. Other Committee members are aware of the case in Hamble, and, although I will not ask them to speak on it, I know they will be sympathetic to my call.
I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for moving amendment 152 on behalf of the hon. Member for Shipley. It is well intentioned, but it would create a burden that is already met by national equality and planning legislation, as well as local authority planning guidance and locally set planning regulations. This is a slight role reversal, but I hope that the Minister will agree—I am not writing his lines for him—that accepting the amendment would create more bureaucracy for councillors on planning committees.
There is already provision, through national guidance, national legislation and local guidance, to ensure that developments are accessible and that accessibility is at the forefront of any proposed development. The Opposition do not support the amendment, because we believe that we have made great advances over recent decades in ensuring that developments are accessible and that local authority members and planning officers take very seriously their responsibilities when it comes to accessibility in the planning system.
I wholly welcome clause 45, which is a great thing for the empowerment of local authority councillors. It will bring councillors, their constituents and their residents closer together. Some of the most difficult decisions that I had to defend in my time as a councillor were those I took on planning applications as chair of the planning committee, particularly on the big blue IKEA in Southampton, which other hon. Members might have been to. Yes, I did that—I am looking to other Hampshire Members, who may have been there.
That decision was controversial, but I was able to defend it because I had had the training. When some of my or my committee’s decisions were challenged, I had a detailed knowledge from that planning training, which officers provided, so I could be questioned at appeal and make sure that the decisions were sound. We lost a few, but we defended a few; that is the nature of local democracy. I say to the Minister that I am deeply encouraged by clause 45, which we wholeheartedly support. We do not accept amendment 152. We wholly agree with Government amendment 49.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the considered and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I will set out the purpose and effect of the clause, address amendment 152 and speak about Government amendment 49.
As we heard in the contribution of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, planning is principally a local activity, because decisions about what to build and where—although not decisions about whether to build at all—should be shaped by local people. That is why we believe that planning committees have an integral role to play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. As I have said, I have been a local councillor and sat on planning committees, as have many Committee members—the hon. Gentleman just set out his experience. Planning committees are comprised of dedicated elected members, and in most instances the decisions are well informed and robust.
It is, however, vital that in exercising their democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. One of the ways we want to achieve those outcomes is by ensuring that all planning committee members receive adequate training to support their important work, which can be extremely complex when it comes to certain challenging applications.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne rightly made the point that lots of local planning authorities already have some form of mandatory training in place. Data from the Planning Advisory Service suggests that more than 80% of councils do, but a percentage do not, and approaches to training vary quite widely across the country. That leads to inconsistencies in knowledge relating to planning law and in practice among planning committee members, which obviously has an impact on their ability to apply the relevant laws and policies when making planning decisions.
David Simmonds
I am struck by the Minister’s point about the need for consistency. We will all be conscious of the level of inconsistency in delegated planning decisions, which make up around 95% of decisions on planning applications. Does he have a programme in mind to achieve the level of consistency for those decisions that this measure will bring to decisions made by democratically elected members?
Matthew Pennycook
If I could probe the hon. Gentleman in turn, does he mean consistency in the decisions made by expert planning officers rather than on individual planning applications?
David Simmonds
Actually, the answer is both. We will all know of people’s experience with local authorities: they meet a planning officer to discuss a delegated planning decision and they receive advice, but when it is submitted, it is considered by a different planning officer who takes a completely different view. Given that that is how the vast bulk of planning applications are dealt with, if the Government’s aim is to bring consistency and certainty to the process—it is a laudable aim—it will be necessary to focus on the more than 90% of decisions that are already made under delegated powers, as well as this measure, which is for that small number considered by the planning committee.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a fair and reasonable point. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him to set out the Government’s thinking on that issue. If it is available—I fully expect that it will be— I will give him some sense of the level of refusals on appeal for decisions made by committees versus decisions made by expert planning officers, which I think would be relevant. In general terms, in many instances, we think that expert planning officers have the relevant expertise to make good decisions on the basis of planning law. We are trying to ensure through this clause that elected members also have that experience in place through mandatory training.
As has been rightly said, the clause is about building on existing good practice—there is very good practice out there—and ensuring that it is implemented consistently across the country. It is worth noting that mandatory training for committees was strongly supported by the sector as a whole in the responses to the planning reform working paper where we set out ideas in this space, lots of which we are taking forward.
We will introduce regulations to specify which planning functions are covered by this measure, what the training looks like—its nature and content, and how it will be delivered—and details about the certification process. Those regulations will be subject to further engagement with the sector and I will reflect on all the points that have been made today.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is being very kind; he just mentioned a point that I forgot to mention. I do not expect certainty, and he has said that he is bringing forward regulations, but what work has the Department already done with organisations that may have the capacity and the desire to provide that training to local authorities?
There may be situations where a planning officer within a local authority may be confident that they can provide that training, as was provided to me, but we also had the Local Government Association and other private KCs—QCs at the time—who could be paid to provide training. How does the Minister anticipate the training will be provided and by whom? Has his Department started the work to see what parties might be interested in providing the training?
Matthew Pennycook
We have had a huge amount of engagement with the sector, both in working up the proposals and in the feedback that we have received to the planning reform working paper. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the Planning Advisory Service that already provides local authorities with support, and there are other organisations in this space that have a direct interest in planning and training. I am happy to provide him with further details if he wishes but, as I say, through the introduction of regulations, further detail will be forthcoming.
I should mention—Opposition Members will particularly enjoy this one, I think—that the Mayor of London can act as a local planning authority in respect of applications of potential strategic importance, so the training requirement will apply to him too.
Paul Holmes
I might as well pack up and go home— I did not hear any “hear, hears” in response to that—because the Minister has given us the best news that the Mayor of London requires planning training, after the failure of his authority to deliver the housing numbers that it wants and now the announcement that he thinks that he has carte blanche to build over the green belt with his blessing and that of the Secretary of State. I am delighted that under a Labour Government’s proposals, the Labour Mayor of London might actually learn something about planning in his authority.
Matthew Pennycook
What is there to say to that? In no way did I imply that the Mayor of London requires planning training—I think he has had extensive planning training—but the training requirement set out in this clause will apply to him, because he acts as a local planning authority in respect of applications of potential strategic importance.
Likewise, it will apply to mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities where they have functions corresponding to the Mayor of London conferred on them. The requirement will also apply to any persons authorised to act on their behalf, including, for example, deputy Mayors in London and other such figures. A mandatory requirement for training in planning matters will improve the overall decision-making process and decrease delays in delivery of much-needed homes and other crucial developments.
Before I turn to amendment 152, I will address a very well made point raised by the hon. Member for Broxbourne. Through regulations, we will set out the timing of when training is required, but he asked an important question about what happens if training is not in place when a decision is required and whether that would stall the process. As he will know, local authorities have their own codes of conduct. We trust local authorities to ensure that committees are carried out in accordance with the rules and regulations set out by the clause. We are aware of the need to ensure that undue delays are not caused, so for that reason any decision reached by members who are in breach of the measure will not be invalidated, but the requirement will still apply to local authorities. We are reliant on their code of conduct to enforce it.
Amendment 152 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and spoken to by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. As other hon. Members have said, it raises the excellent point that development must form an inclusive and safe environment for everyone. We wholeheartedly agree that that is of paramount importance.
The national planning policy framework makes it clear that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible. We want to ensure that our mandatory training supports members of local planning authorities to make decisions properly, in accordance with the relevant planning policies, including those I have just mentioned, and other material considerations. That is why we will work closely with the sector to design the mandatory training.
We do not think it is necessary to specify details of all the matters covered by mandatory training in the Bill, as to do so would be exhaustive and would pre-empt the forthcoming regulations and the further detail that I have referred to. I assure the hon. Member for North Herefordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, who tabled the amendment, that we will consult on the content of the training to ensure that councillors are appropriately supported in making decisions in this area.
Gideon Amos
I invite the Minister to go slightly further. Will he say today that the regulations will include the requirement for both accessibility and heritage training?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member understandably tempts me to start to specify what will be in the training, but I will not do that. Further details will be brought forward in due course, but I have certainly heard the case made by Committee members about what the training should include in respect of accessibility and other issues.
Finally, Government amendment 49 is a minor and technical amendment that clarifies that members of mineral planning authorities should also undergo training in planning matters. Mineral sites deal with complex planning issues, so it is only right that members of mineral planning committees, acting on behalf of mineral planning authorities, should be included in the requirement to undergo relevant training.
Along with amendments 50 and 51—which we will come to shortly—this amendment clarifies the position of mineral planning authorities for the purposes of the Bill. To be clear, we want to remove any doubt as to the requirements of the Bill with respect to the training of members of mineral planning committees, and that is what this amendment achieves. For those reasons, I humbly invite the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to withdraw amendment 152.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 49, in clause 45, page 58, line 15, at end insert—
“(7A) This section applies in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a mineral planning authority as if references to a local planning authority were to a mineral planning authority in England.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment has the effect that (if regulations under inserted section 319ZZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are made) members of a mineral planning authority in England who have not completed any training required by the regulations will be prohibited from exercising certain mineral planning functions on behalf of the authority.
Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Delegation of planning decisions in England
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 46, page 61, line 39, at end insert—
“(7) Sections 319ZZC and 319ZZD and this section apply in relation to a relevant planning function conferred on a relevant mineral planning authority as if references to a relevant local planning authority were to a relevant mineral planning authority.”
This amendment has the effect that the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring certain planning functions conferred on mineral planning authorities in England to be discharged by certain persons or by committees of a certain size and composition.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 51
Clause stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
As I have set out, the Government recognise the vital role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions about what to build and where are shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. Under local government law, local authority planning decisions must be a committee function, not an executive one, and presently every council has its own scheme of delegation to identify the circumstances in which planning decisions are taken by the planning committee rather than delegated to officers.
While the vast majority of planning decisions for local planning authorities are made by committees— around 96%— there is some inconsistency, which can create risk and uncertainty in the system. Clause 46 therefore seeks to build on the existing approach by giving the Secretary of State the power to introduce a national scheme of delegation. I reassure the Committee, as I have at other stages, that these measures are not about taking away democratic oversight but about spreading good practice, and there is good practice out there already.
A national delegation scheme will set out which planning functions across the country should be decided by officers and which by planning committees. It will also give the Secretary of State the power to set requirements around the size and composition of planning committees, so that we can have a uniform arrangement across the country as to what is effective in that regard. That will help to address some of the issues that we have identified around the operation of planning committees, which include a lack of consistency and clarity on which applications will be determined by committee; too much time spent considering applications that are compliant with the local development plan, or considering niche technical details including post-permission matters; and a lack of transparency on committee decisions and their consequences.
There is lots of good practice out there, and we know that in almost all instances, committees make good decisions on the basis of planning law and relevant material considerations. However, we are all familiar—in particular those of us who have served in local government and on these committees—with examples of where a development proposal was on a site allocated in the local plan, and in line with all policy expectations, but the committee refused the application against officer advice, and the subsequent appeal was upheld, unnecessarily costing the local authority significant sums of money and creating delay.
Paul Holmes
Does the Minister not understand that local plans are usually formed by an administration and executive of the council, and that it is up to local ward members who may be affected by appointed or adopted sites within that local plan, and who feel that they want to have a say, to request that that is called in? If a planning committee decides that it should not go ahead, that is their decision. Does he not see that there is a separation between the power of the executive to meet the guidelines that the last Government and his Government have set out, and the willingness and ability to allow the planning committee to make decisions, even if it is on sites that an executive has already approved in the council’s local plan?
Matthew Pennycook
A number of points here are worth pulling out. We have just discussed on mandatory training the need to ensure that all elected members across the country who serve on committees are cognisant of planning law and other considerations to which they must adhere.
I would gently press back. We know there are instances where committees take a decision on allocated sites against officer recommendation, out of line with planning law and those considerations, because it is easy to do so in certain instances—they might be responding to pressure from the gallery. I have had direct experience of that. It is deemed a cost-free decision to refuse an application on that basis, but it is not cost-free to the local authority and it introduces unnecessary cost and delay, and all the burdens that come with appeals.
Lewis Cocking
Does the Minister recognise the other side of that coin? There are examples, and I can give him some from my local authority, of where officers recommend a planning application for approval, the committee turns it down, it goes to appeal and the planning inspector has agreed with the committee. It is not one size fits all; there are two sides to the argument and there will be examples of both. This measure puts a lot of trust in, and gives even more power to, planning officers.
Matthew Pennycook
It does, and we think that is right. We think we should trust and empower expert planning officers. The appeals process will remain in force. I recognise the scenario the hon. Gentleman outlines. Local planning officers do not get every decision right. To gently challenge him, he is making the case for no scheme of delegation at all. Schemes of delegation are in place across the country. We are not saying that we do not trust expert planning officers to make the decisions on any applications. We trust them in lots of local authorities to make lots of decisions. As I said, 96% of applications go through planning officers.
There are two issues at play here, which we will perhaps draw out in the debate. We should be honest about them. Members may reasonably take the view that there should simply be no national scheme of delegation—that providing that consistency on the basis of a uniform national arrangement is wrong in principle. If that is the case, I respect that decision. That is not the position of the Government. We think there is a case for a national scheme of delegation.
Then there is the detail of what should go into that national scheme of delegation. Have we got the balance right in terms of the applications that should come before planning committees and should go to planning officers? We already trust expert planning officers to make decisions on a host of delegated applications across the country. The problem is there is huge variation in how those local schemes of delegation apply.
Lewis Cocking
In the current scenario, local planning authorities can go through their own scheme of delegation, and if there are lots of objections or a significant public interest, they can determine that instead of doing it through the scheme of delegation, they can bring it to the planning committee, which they will not be able to do under the national scheme of delegation.
Matthew Pennycook
I refer back to my point: the hon. Gentleman may take the view, which is a perfectly coherent and respectable view, that a national scheme of delegation is wrong in principle. That is not the Government’s view, because we think there are significant advantages to be had from introducing greater consistency and certainty about what decisions go to a committee, so we can have a uniform approach across the country.
Rachel Taylor
Does the Minister agree that very often the controversial decisions that go to planning committees and are declined by them, leading to an appeal, result in higher council tax for residents, because of the huge cost of appeals, reviews and so on? A national scheme of delegation, where it is clear which decisions can be made under delegated authorities and which cannot, will therefore simplify the process for developers, remove the delays and costs for them, and keep costs down for local residents.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is not a cost-free decision to refuse an application where a committee does so on grounds that are not robust. That does not apply in the vast majority of instances. As I say, most committees are comprised of elected members who are diligent, considerate and aware of the risks. Through the mandatory training that we have just discussed, we are trying to get to a situation where elected members are trained and are more cognisant of planning law and the considerations they have to take forward. We want to ensure that there is consistency across the country.
As I say, there are two issues at play here. Some Members may take the view that a national scheme of delegation is wrong in principle. If Members do not take that view, which is not the Government’s view, the debate that we should be having, and will have—as I said on Second Reading, we will bring forward details, so that we can consider them alongside the Bill—is what the most appropriate national scheme of delegation would be, to achieve the right balance between making sure that the most controversial, major applications come before committees and entrusting expert planning officers to make other decisions.
Paul Holmes
I wonder whether the Minister has given any thought to political proportionality when it comes to any future national scheme of delegation. I will give him an example. Forgive me if this is slightly out there; if so, I can write to him, or we can have a conversation in the Lobbies later.
Say a local authority was 87% made up of one party, and there was one councillor from one party and another councillor from another party. In my constituency, we have a local authority that is overwhelmingly dominated by one party. For many residents, the planning system feels like it is out of touch, because the leader creates a different committee that allows just his party to make a decision—or, in the usual planning committees, local residents do not feel like the administration’s wishes are being taken into account, because the planning committee is overwhelmingly dominated by one party.
Will the Minister please assure us that any national scheme of delegation will not exacerbate that situation where local authorities have very strong political control one way, and political decisions within the planning system are taken by an overwhelming political administration? Will he assure us that we can have future discussions about that, so that such a situation in any local authority would not be made worse by a national scheme of delegation? I hope I explained that right.
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister did explain that correctly, and I recognise the challenge. I would say two things: first, I assure him that party political considerations have not factored in any way into the development of the clause. The measure that we are proposing will improve the situation in the sense that, if there are very clear rules about which applications can come before a committee and which should go to national expert planning officers, as per a national scheme of delegation, some of the potential to use specific applications that might not be the most major, controversial applications that should come before a committee, in a political way, will be removed. As I said, the detail regarding what the national scheme of delegation will entail will come forward in due course.
As I mentioned, the clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the size and composition of planning committees. Best practice suggests that having smaller planning committees can lead to more effective debates and decision making. We have seen some extremely large and unwieldy planning committees across the country. We want to ensure that there are, within reasonable parameters, some prescriptive views on what the most effective size is.
Our views have been tested with the sector. In response to our working paper, there was broad support for the principle of the proposals from the local government sector, and we will continue to take on feedback as we refine our detailed proposals. That will, as I said, include a formal consultation on the regulations through which the new powers will be exercised. That is a requirement imposed on the Secretary of State by the clause and must happen prior to the regulations being made.
As I said, local democratic oversight of planning decisions remains essential, but it is vital that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. Clause 46 is about ensuring that skilled planning officers in local authorities are trusted and empowered in their roles, while retaining important democratic oversight on those sites that local people care about most. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Government amendments 50 and 51 are both minor and technical amendments clarifying that the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring relevant planning functions to be discharged by committee, sub-committee or an officer, and regulating the size and composition of a planning committee, also apply to mineral planning authorities. As the Committee will be aware, a local planning authority is not necessarily also a mineral planning authority; it depends on if and where there is a minerals site.
Mineral planning authorities are a special type of planning authority, and it is only right and proper to include them within these provisions to ensure greater consistency and certainty within the planning system. We must be clear about which local authorities are to be caught by this clause. The amendment clarifies that mineral planning authorities, where they exist, are to be subject to the provision in the clause.
Paul Holmes
We will oppose the clause. Our reason for doing so is that this chapter of the legislation is a massive power grab and piece of centralisation. The whole Bill—in particular its planning reform elements and this clause—reeks of this Government’s centralising zeal, as I said on the Floor of the House on Second Reading.
I tried to explain our point of view in my interventions on the Minister. He rightly challenged people to say whether there should be a national scheme of delegation, and Conservative Members wholly say that there should not be. I am grateful that he recognises that that is a not an opportunistic viewpoint; it is one that we sincerely believe.
Local authorities should have the power to do what they wish to do, because they are elected by their constituents and their residents. They, too, have a democratic right to exist and to undertake the responsibilities placed on them by the residents of their wards. They have a democratic right and duty to undertake those responsibilities and to participate in their accountability structures as local councillors, delegated to make decisions on behalf of their residents, and of their towns, cities and villages all over the UK.
As I said, we are concerned that the clause is just another attempt to centralise and to give the Minister and the Secretary of State the ability to build 1.5 million homes without necessarily allowing democratic checks and balances to be in place. In further amendments later in the Bill, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State actively try to take power away from local authorities and locally elected people.
Has anyone on the Labour Benches who was in a local authority—I asked this on Second Reading—been approached by their local councillors saying that they are not happy? Former council leaders and former councillors sit on this Committee, and I ask them whether councillors have told them that their own party is taking away councillors’ power and ability to speak for their residents. Members of Parliament in Committee are actively allowing that to happen if they vote for this clause to stand part.
Many local authorities are allowed to choose the way in which they do their business. That is why we do not believe that there should be a national scheme of delegation. In my own regional structures, the county council has a regulatory committee and two planning committees, and the borough council—although I have vast disagreements with how Eastleigh is managed—has local area committees that are accountable to the local wards in their localities. Such committees are actually more democratic, because different parties might represent the ward on them. When I was a councillor in Southampton, we had one planning committee that looked after everything within the authority boundary. All of that is because local authorities, through their own delegated schemes and democratic structures, pick how they wish to conduct their business. The clause will simply stop those local authorities being able to do that.
I am not talking to the Minister only about the size of the committee and the principles behind that. All the way through this clause are regulations for the Minister to lay, not only about the size and composition of committees discharging such functions, but requiring which functions are to be discharged. Local authorities already have that. We believe that local authorities should be able to decide that.
I challenged the Minister on one of his examples about local plans that are drawn up by an executive but can now be challenged by locally elected members of a planning committee. We do not see anything wrong with that. Local council members represent wards affected by local plans delivered by an executive. Whether that is an executive of the same political persuasion as the councillors who have concerns or of a different political persuasion, councillors have their rights under a local scheme of delegation.
That planning application should be able to go to a planning committee and be called in by a member under the rights that they have as a councillor. If, after its members have been trained through the excellent provision proposed by the Minister, the planning committee still decides to reject the application, that is the power and right of the locally elected councillor, and this Government are taking that right away.
Nesil Caliskan
Does the hon. Member not recognise that a local plan has to be approved by full council? That already gives every single councillor the ability to have their say at a full council meeting. Democratic oversight sits not just with local planning committees, but with different local authority functions. Democratic oversight is at its best at full council, and local plans are approved at full council, with a vote for every member.
Paul Holmes
I accept what the hon. Lady says, but I do not agree that a local ward member who may disagree with the local plan should not then have it considered in planning committee later on. Of course, a full council does meet to approve the local plan, but I go back to my original point: that is an executive decision.
Paul Holmes
It is an executive decision. An executive is required by legislation to put five-year housing land supply forward under a local plan, and a local plan is approved by full council. That work is undertaken by officers, signed off by a lead member for environment or planning under their responsibilities, and put forward to full council. The hon. Lady is absolutely right about that, but why does she then say that if a ward member wants to call in a planning application that affects the constituents who elected them in the village they represent, that should not be allowed to go to a planning committee and be decided on by that committee, whether or not it is against the executive’s local plan?
Nesil Caliskan
Does the hon. Member not recognise that once a local plan is approved at full council, it is a regulatory framework that has legal standing? That is the framework on which a planning committee bases its decision. I take the point that members may want to voice a view, but in the context of a regulatory framework, all we are doing is setting people up for failure and costing taxpayers money for decisions that will be overturned on appeal.
Paul Holmes
Again, I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, but it is still within the rights of the appointed planning committee to say yes or no to the detailed development proposals. Local plans talk about numbers and locations. Planning applications that go before officers but are then called in by the committee are discussed in detail: what the developments look like, how many affordable houses there are, and what roads and community infrastructure there will be. That is the right of local planning committees, and under these measures this Government will take that away.
Why does the Minister feel that he and the political leadership of his Department should say what functions should be discharged by a committee, sub-committee or officer, and what conditions local authorities should abide by? I say that that is the right of the local authority, and that a scheme of delegation drawn up through consultation by local members in a full council or a committee role should perfectly satisfy the democratic checks and accountability that local people expect.
We said earlier that one of the only ways in which people engage with their local authorities is through the decisions that their councillors make on planning applications. This Minister and this Government are potentially taking that away from a huge number of people across the country, just because they want to get their 1.5 million houses through. They are doing so based on what they think is acceptable, despite the fact that local councillors may not find it acceptable to them. That is a disgrace. This is the way in which this Government have decided to go forward on delivering their 1.5 million homes—through mandatory targets in urban versus rural areas, a national scheme of delegation, and taking power away from local planning authorities, local councillors and lead members.
The Opposition say that that is a disgrace. That is something that local members should be doing. At every sitting of this Committee and at the later stages of the Bill, we will always say that locally elected councillors should have the power and right—they have the democratic responsibility and the democratic mandate—to make local decisions for local people. This Government are taking that away. We will oppose this clause and push it to a Division, because it is simply not right for the people in this country, who elect their councillors to speak for them. Every hon. Member on the Government side of the Committee whose councillors and constituents are affected by planning decisions is effectively saying to those councillors that they are not good enough to make decisions on behalf of their ward members, and that those ward members should not be making decisions on behalf of their councils. I look forward to them explaining that at their AGMs.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I would like to speak on amendments 50 and 51.
Portsmouth is a part of a minerals partnership and collaborates with Hampshire county council, Southampton city council, New Forest national park authority and the South Downs national park authority. Together, they have developed and adapted Hampshire’s minerals and waste plan. Does the Minister agree that amendments 50 and 51 will support administrative efficiency, particularly for those fully urbanised authorities such as mine in Portsmouth, where we have no or very few mineral resources to extract? Releasing such authorities from having full mineral plans and duties could reduce future duplication and free up much-needed planning resources, allowing us to work on plans that are relevant and specific to our area.
Gideon Amos
We support the delivery of 1.5 million homes, but a confrontational approach, whereby elected representatives are longer allowed to take decisions on behalf of local people, will alienate people from the planning system, create more conflict and make it harder to deliver the homes that we need. Taking powers away from local elected representatives is taking powers away from local people. So much of planning is already predetermined by national guidance and policy.
Only last Friday, I had two parish councillors at my surgery. They came to ask why Government guidance on highway planning overrides everything that they, local people and their own transport planning expert know about highway safety in their village. Those objectors wanted to support the housing scheme in Cheddon Fitzpaine, but they were asking for a previous commitment to secondary access to be honoured. The councillors were told that there would be costs of £400,000 if they did not follow Government transport planning guidance, and they had no choice but to accept the application without the road. Not for the first time, after that meeting some of my councillors came to me and said, “What is the point of being a councillor if local resources are so constrained that there is no money to provide local services?” Even on planning committee, the Government are taking away decision-making powers from local people. It is totally unacceptable.
Matthew Pennycook
This is an important point to try to tease out. The decision the hon. Gentleman has just referred to took place in an instance where, if I have understood him correctly, local residents took issue with the application of national policy and guidance on a planning decision. I do not think it is the position of either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats that national policy and guidance should not exist, and that it should all be completely localised. We may have disagreements on the spectrum, but we all recognise that national frameworks should be in place in some instances. The NPPF is a good example, as are other policies and guidance.
That is why I think we should have a more rational and proportionate debate—we may disagree at the end of it—about the pros and cons of a national scheme of delegation, and, if one is in favour of it, as the Government are, what it should include. There is this idea that, at present, local authorities and local elected members can do whatever they want—that they are completely free, and their mandate gives them scope—but, no, that is not true. They are constrained in several respects. In fact, we have debated that at length in this Committee. The NSIP regime was introduced in recognition of the fact that certain applications should be determined on a national basis, not by local committees.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect and expand on why in this area, local discretion should be untrammelled—if I follow his argument—whereas in other areas he would rightly support the idea that national guidance and policy should be in place. He may differ with the content of that guidance, but local planning authorities are subject to frameworks and guidance that I think we all recognise should be in place.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention, but guidance and policy are guidance and policy. We are talking about giving him and all future Ministers, of whatever party, the power to write the delegation arrangements for each local council in the country and tell them what they may or may not be allowed to decide. The difference is that national infrastructure projects are huge projects that have a national justification and are decided by an elected Secretary of State, but the Bill will forcibly delegate to an employee of a council decisions that will quite often be completely disagreed with by every single member of a council but will stand as a decision of that council. It cannot be logical.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a separate argument, but the hon. Gentleman cannot pray in aid the case that he has just cited, which was made on the basis of a national scheme of delegation not being in operation, and where his local residents just took issue with national policy and guidance, which he thinks should be in place. He has recognised, quite rightly, that elected members of the Government can take views about what national framework should be in place.
We strongly feel that there is a good case for a national scheme of delegation that does not remove, in the apocalyptic terms that the shadow Minister outlined, all decisions and all ability to input into applications from local residents, but simply sets out where appropriately elected members in committees should make decisions and where decisions should be left to expert planning officers.
Gideon Amos
I completely accept that policy and guidance exist, but there is a degree of discretion when it comes to policy and guidance. We are dealing with primary statutory legislation here, and there would be no discretion over its implementation.
I think the Minister should accept that this is not about a fluffy national scheme of delegation that we all agree with; this is about removing the right of councillors to recover decisions to democratically elected members of the council. They may not; they are not allowed to. The clause is very clear that the Local Government Act 1972 will be changed so that councillors may not recover those decisions, and they will be made by employees.
This is not about a national scheme of delegation. We could all agree on a recommended scheme and have a standard scheme of delegation. This is about the law. I am surprised that the Minister is so lightly giving all future Ministers power to deny decision making by local councils.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is making a very reasonable argument. Does he agree that we could be having a very different debate today if the Minister and the Secretary of State had not been so heavy-handed in legislating on what local councils can do? We could be having a conversation about national guidance for planning committees. This overreach and this democratically reductive approach are the reason why the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington I are so concerned about the Government’s measures.
Gideon Amos
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, the Local Government Act will be changed so that councillors may not have permission to recover such decisions, even if every single member of the council disagrees with a decision. This would be better described not as a national scheme of delegation, but as a forced removal of planning powers from councillors.
In response to a statement in December, a number of Members from across the House challenged the idea of taking these powers away from planning committees. The Minister said that the measure would be in relation to “minor reserved matters” applications—that is from Hansard on 9 December 2024—but the clause we are presented with has no limits at all. The Secretary of State may draft regulations in relation to any relevant function, so there is no such qualification and no limitation on any future Minister or Secretary of State.
Let us look at the history of planning in this country. It began as a local system and has gradually become more and more centralised and nationalised in its approach. Surely to goodness, that is exactly what will happen again with this huge power that is being given to future Secretaries of State.
Breaking the link between elected councillors and decisions made by their councils is so anti-democratic, and it will undermine trust in politics further. Councillors are coming to me and asking me, “What is the point of being a councillor any more?” Imagine their voters’ response if councillors say that they no longer have any ability to affect a whole tranche of decisions, and what decisions they are allowed to make will be determined by Ministers in Whitehall, not by their council.
By dint of this clause, the Government’s message is, “It doesn’t matter how much you engage in the planning system. It doesn’t matter which councillors stand for election, what they stand for, what their manifestos are or who gets elected. All decision making is directed by Whitehall, and local people must keep out. They have no say over what their employees will decide at the council.”
The enforced removal of decision-making powers is completely unnecessary to sustain the granting of the permissions and consents that everyone wants in order to provide the housing that the country needs. The vast majority of planning decisions—some 97%—are already made by council officers. Councillors and committees are not blockers; they approve nine out of 10 of all applications that come before them.
Nesil Caliskan
I have heard comments about the planning system during the debate, but less focus on the fact that we have a housing crisis that has manifested itself in record numbers of people living in temporary accommodation, with young people unable to buy properties and many people priced out of the communities into which they were born and in which they live. A national housing crisis requires a national solution.
I do not believe that the proposed changes in any way hinder or damage democratic oversight from a local perspective. The reality is that with the existing framework, it is not possible to deliver planning approvals at the scale that is required to meet the national housing crisis, and a national delegation will help to speed up delivery. We cannot simply depend on a handful of brave councillors who too frequently find themselves in the firing line of decision making for schemes that it is clear to everybody should already have been approved.
I hear what Members say about local authorities, and what the LGA has said. However, the LGA is also clear about the housing crisis our communities are experiencing. The national scheme of delegation gives clarity not only to local authorities and planning officers, but to the industry that we so depend on to be able to build homes up and down the country. The scheme will also speed up processes. The speed at which planning permissions could be granted means that developers are more likely to put bricks on the ground and build homes. It is about recognising the severity of the housing crisis in this country and its impact on millions of people, and choosing whether one is willing to take action to address that need.
Ellie Chowns
I absolutely recognise that we have a housing crisis in this country, but does the hon. Lady recognise, in turn, that it is not just a question of building our way out of the housing crisis? Does she recognise that we have nearly 1 million empty homes in this country, that we have an incredibly unequal housing system, and that financial mechanisms such as the introduction of buy-to-let mortgages had a huge effect in making our housing system even more unequal and unaffordable for many people? Does she recognise that a key part of resolving the housing crisis has to be for Government to take a more direct role in funding the development of more genuinely affordable social rented housing?
Nesil Caliskan
I recognise a number of those points, but supply of housing is the fundamental reason why we have a housing crisis in this country. The amendments being proposed sit alongside many of the solutions that she is seeking. Without our ability as a country, including local authorities, to see housing delivered at the necessary speed, we will never see the number of affordable homes we need or a buy-to-let market being constrained in the way that it needs to be. Supply is the No. 1 reason why we are experiencing a housing crisis. We cannot deliver the number of homes we need without fundamentally looking at the planning system.
Finally, on councillors having their say, the idea that councillors run for public office only because they want to sit on a planning committee—it sounded as if a number of Members were insinuating that—is, I am afraid, a little out of touch. There are lots of ways in which local authorities and councillors can make a difference. Planning committees are indeed one of the most attractive committees, but there are multiple layers of regulatory policy in a local authority that members not only can have a say on, but get to vote on. Earlier, I referenced a local plan that full councils are required to vote on.
An officer making a decision on an application that will not go to a planning committee does not remove a local authority’s ability to put out for consultation. Members of the public, and indeed councillors, will still have the opportunity to submit their views through what will be a statutory consultation period. Local authorities and planning officers will be obliged to take those views into consideration.
I want to underline the point that if we accept that there is a housing crisis in this country and that the planning system is broken, surely planning has to be an aspect that we look at in recognition that local authorities are sometimes being hindered by the existing framework. The speed at which we can deliver housing through a more streamlined planning system, putting faith in professionals in a local authority alongside councillors, will allow us to deliver the 1.5 million homes that we so desperately need.
David Simmonds
I will start where the hon. Member for Barking finished. We know that the planning system has delivered consents for 1.5 million new homes in England, where the development sector has failed to step up. One of the things much debated among political parties is the fact that that seems to suggest that, although there are undoubtedly issues, the planning system has been good at producing the opportunity for those new homes—the challenge has been the inability of the development sector to step up to the plate. That should be the priority to address.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley mentioned the Mayor of London’s recent decision about going into the green belt. That is in the context of a capital city that already has 300,000 unbuilt planning permissions for new homes. The Opposition’s argument is that the priority should not be increasing the stock of unbuilt planning permissions but delivering the homes that our country needs.
Gideon Amos
As an illustration of the hon. Gentleman’s point about unbuilt planning permissions, in Somerset there are permissions for 11,000 new homes that have not been built, while the new NPPF requires a 41% increase in the allocation of permissions. There is no record of these pressures having led to an increase in the number of houses actually being built.
David Simmonds
If we look at the statistics from the ONS on new household formation and the balance between that and the delivery of new homes, we see that they are reasonably in balance at the moment. We know that many people would like a bigger home or a different type of home, and that is why we have consistently argued that we need to focus on the nature of the homes we are delivering, not just on the units being delivered through the planning system.
Members have consistently made the point about centralisation. The UK is already an exceptionally centralised country: we have fewer democratically elected politicians per head of population than most other developed democracies in the world. Our concern with these measures is that they further reduce the voice of a local resident through their democratic representative about a decision that may be the most significant thing affecting their home or their neighbourhood in their entire life.
By creating a national scheme of delegations, we go beyond a point of saying that all local authorities must ensure, in the delivery of a quasi-judicial process, that they are following the law. We begin to say that this is no longer a delegation: it is compulsory. We are taking away the democratic power of the local authority, under which it delegates those decisions to planning committees and to officers, and we are deciding in Whitehall who will make those decisions.
While I absolutely respect what the Minister is saying about expert planning officers, having served in the last Parliament as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and planning and worked very closely with the RTPI, I think we need to be realistic. In many cases, when the Minister says “expert planning officers”, we are talking about newly minted graduates who do not live in—and have no experience of—the local area. They arrive and undertake a desk-based exercise to make these decisions. They are not highly experienced people with a level of local insight who understand why particular aspects of design, materials, or the nature of a development will have a real impact on a neighbourhood.
There are specific examples; one is applications by elected members themselves. I know from my time as a councillor in Hillingdon that a standard rule to ensure transparency is that any application by an elected councillor must be heard by a committee. If someone wishes to change the windows in their home, or build a loft extension, it has to go through a planning committee, even when those things are covered by permitted development rights. That was to ensure that level of transparency. It is not clear how such issues are dealt with through this proposed scheme of delegation.
Matters of detail can be critical: ensuring the acceptance of a proposed development at a neighbourhood level may often come down to issues like overlooking or how it respects the privacy of neighbours. Does it have tree planting, to screen developments that people are unhappy to see? Will there be mitigations around noise? Those are not trivial matters; they have a huge impact on people’s quality of life. The ability of elected representatives to say, “This decision made, entirely in accordance with planning law, needs to be taken transparently in public so that these representations can be heard” is critical.
Olly Glover
I am conscious that we are reaching that time in the afternoon when we may be feeling a little fatigued, so I shall attempt to keep my remarks concise. First, it is important to bear in mind in this discussion that the Minister’s and the Government’s desire to take action to increase our ability to deliver the housing the country needs is sincere. The debate, of course, is whether the measure is an effective way of doing that.
I say to the hon. Member for Barking that there are many reasons why people decide to become local councillors. However, going by those in my constituency, it is because of a deep passion and care for their community. Major developments, of course, have major impacts on communities—hopefully for good, but sometimes for ill. It is entirely understandable that councillors would wish to have the full opportunity to scrutinise such proposals.
I was encouraged to hear the Minister say that national guidance and context are important for planning officers; I therefore hope that he will be receptive to some of our amendments and proposals in subsequent clauses. We must be clear that we are not attacking planning officers in this debate; they have a difficult role in balancing the national guidance and statutory requirements with strong local sentiments from councillors and residents. But that is why it is so important that councillors do continue to be involved.
One of the challenges is that we make the assumption that more house building automatically leads to more affordability, which sadly is not necessarily the case at all. The issue is all about the type of housing being delivered, and perhaps the current market-dominated approach is not always so effective. For example, in my constituency of Didcot and Wantage, in Oxfordshire, we have seen 35% population growth in 20 years. I have never opposed a housing development—neither in my current role as a Member of Parliament, nor before election. I do not intend to change that, because, yes, we do need more housing.
However, the housing growth has led to the fact that, in the town of Didcot, where I live, the average house price is now 15 times the average annual salary. South Oxfordshire Housing Association highlights a serious shortage of social and affordable housing, particularly for one or two-person households. A fairly small two-bedroom terraced house from the mid-’90s costs nearly £300,000, despite some of the fastest house-building growth rates in the country. So the issue is not just about the volume; it is also about the type.
I will give another example, then conclude my remarks. In Valley Park, to the west of Didcot, an outline permission request for a 4,000-plus home development came before the planning committee in 2021. The planning application was recommended for approval by officers, but the councillors on the committee felt that it did not include any provision for healthcare—something already under pressure in the town—and that cycle and walking provision was also poor. Because elected representatives made speeches during the meeting, outlining the issues, the planning decision was deferred for a couple of months and those things were able to be added in. That is an example of the real value that councillors can add.
Another example is that an application for a Lidl in the town of Wantage was recommended for refusal, but the planning committee and the councillors, having heard from local people, realised that it would be a well-used amenity and granted approval. Those are just two examples of where councillors in my constituency have added huge value.
In this time, when we are seeing a perhaps unprecedented loss of faith in politics—I am certainly thinking of the recent elections and, shall we say, some interesting voting patterns—keeping the local link and making sure that local people are brought into the planning process, and that planning is done with them rather than to them, continues to be very important. Councillors play a key role in that, and that is why they should retain their current positions and influence on planning committees.
Lewis Cocking
I am beginning to get fond of the Minister, but we do disagree about clause 46 specifically. It is an attack on democracy. I have already made the point that, within my local authority of Broxbourne, we have a scheme of delegation that delegates some decisions to officers, but there is an ability to change that: if lots of residents are particularly concerned about a development, or even about a dropped kerb, that can go to committee.
I have served on a planning committee and overturned officers’ recommendations, both for approval and for refusal. On one planning committee, after we overturned an officer’s recommendation for approval, the issue went to the planning inspector, who wrote back, saying, “I uphold every reason that the planning committee has given for refusal. I fully support the decision it has made.”
I am really concerned about the lack of accountability because, at the end of the day, whether council tax goes up because of planning decisions made by the council that it then needs to defend at appeal, or bad planning decisions are made, the electorate can have their say at the May local elections. They can say, “Do you know what? We don’t agree with any of the decisions that this council is making, and we can vote for someone else at the ballot box.”
A national scheme of delegation removes councils’ ability to be flexible. This should not be one size fits all. There is also no accountability. We work with some brilliant planning officers, but we also work with some who are not as good in their opinions on planning applications. I have many examples within my own local authority. Speak to one planning officer, and they will say that something is a brilliant idea that fits the national planning policy framework; speak to another, and they will take a completely different view. There is a lack of accountability in what the Government are doing. Let me make a broader point: I do not know what councils have done to offend the Government. They want to abolish lots of them, create super-councils and take away their planning powers.
When we adopted our local plan in Broxbourne, I think it was the second local plan in history to be adopted virtually; because of the covid regulations, we had to meet online. I gently push back on the arguments that councillors at full council—I know that they have to vote on a local plan at full council—have had their say on a development. A local plan is not that specific. It will set out areas for development. It may set out some principles, such as wanting a school or a community centre on a site, but it will not go into detail on design, or the look and feel of the community.
The idea that councillors have had their say on the local plan and now everything will be approved and can go through is nonsense. I have made the point in the House that we really need to think about the communities we want to make. We can approve as many house building targets or applications as we want, but we have to give some thought to the communities.
Amanda Martin
Does the hon. Member accept that two thirds of local planning authorities in England—around 206 councils—do not have an up-to-date local plan?
Lewis Cocking
Both of mine have a local plan. A number of authorities do not have one; it is a long and arduous process, and I welcome discussions about how we can streamline it. As I said, if a local plan has been approved, a site may have been allocated for development, but the minutiae or detail regarding the design of that development will not have been gone into. I have always maintained that the reason developers struggle to get through the planning system is because they try to build absolute rubbish. If they came forward with lots of really good schemes, councillors would not give them as hard a time as they do.
Lewis Cocking
The hon. Lady shakes her head, but I have sat on a planning committee and seen developers come forward and make planning applications in line with local plan allocation on outline, which means that we are just discussing the principle of development, or potentially the numbers or the access, with all the detailed designs left to the full planning application. It is set out in gold. We get everything we want. We get a good 106 negotiation. There will be a new doctors surgery and a new school. Lo and behold, when that same developer comes back with a full planning application, it is completely different, but because the principle of development has been established it is very difficult to then turn down. Developers are taking some councils for a ride, and we need to be careful of that.
Nesil Caliskan
The hon. Gentleman will recall that he and I worked very closely: we are part of a small percentage of ex-council leaders who actually saw through a local plan.
Nesil Caliskan
We had to work together on a statutory basis to consult each other’s local authority, so I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman makes around the pressures of the planning system, particularly as we both have scars on our back, having seen local plans through. However, I ask him to reflect on the fact that a number of the issues that he raises can be effectively dealt with through local guidance and design principles—an authority within the administration that has set out clear guidance, not just for the public in their place but for applicants.
Those are very separate issues from what the Government propose around a national delegation scheme, which is about speeding up the process for what will be a national framework to agree to a number of houses to meet a target. His points are really important, but they would not be lost through what is proposed in the amendments.
Lewis Cocking
I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady; we worked closely together as leaders of neighbouring authorities. I would push back slightly. The point has been made before. I do not necessarily think that the hold-up is the planning system. There are lots of unbuilt planning applications out there—I can reference loads of applications in my constituency from when I sat on the planning committee nearly two years ago where a single house is yet to be built. The Government have an ambition to build 1.5 million homes. If they want to achieve that ambition, they should be going after all the planning applications that are yet to be built out.
The hon. Lady makes some valid points on design codes. I would welcome more guidance so that local authorities can use them more effectively—I think lots of local authorities would agree with that—but design is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. Lots of planning officers do not live within the local planning authority in which they work. Local councillors who stand in a local authority area have to, by law, either live or work there. They are part of the community. I am really concerned about removing the power of planning committees and local councillors to determine planning applications in their area.
This works both ways. As I have said, I have voted to overturn where officers have recommended a refusal. Councillors have to be brave sometimes on planning decisions, as the hon. Lady well knows, and as I well know from being on a planning committee. I am really concerned about the attack on democracy and the lack of accountability.
When the Minister sums up, can he comment on how we will hold planning officers to account if they make the wrong or bad decisions? This is not just a policy where someone has stood for election because they want their bins collected on a Monday and not a Tuesday. Once planning permission has been granted and the application has been built out, the result is there for decades. It is very difficult to retrospectively change that if mistakes are made. Ultimately, the public have their say at the ballot box, but with unaccountable officers, they do not. How will the Government hold planning officers to account under this national scheme of delegation?
Matthew Pennycook
Let me first say that, for entirely understandable reasons, this has been a passionate debate. People feel very strongly about the local planning system, the role of elected members in it, and the role of residents in inputting to those decisions. That is because local planning is principally a local activity. It is for that reason that we as a Government are putting so much emphasis on ensuring that up-to-date local plans are in place in every part of the country, because we think that they are the best way to shape development in a particular area, but we want to ensure that planning committees function effectively.
I will make a couple of points in response to the issues raised. The first is on outcomes. I slightly chide the shadow Minister, because it cannot be true on the one hand that this is a measure, as he alleges, that we are introducing to build our 1.5 million homes and then, on the other hand, to say that it will essentially make no difference to the current arrangements.
Outcomes-wise, we think this is an important part of the reforms that we are bringing forward, because it will ensure that decisions are made in a more consistent and more timely manner. That is why I gave the example on Second Reading of reserved matters applications. I do not know what the views of Members are, but I certainly do not think that every reserved matters application should come back to committees. I think that often delays the process.
We can discuss many of the other challenges that we face in the planning system. It is absolutely true that there is more that we can do on empty homes; we are giving that consideration. There is more that we can do on build-out—watch this space. There is more that we can do on all these things, but it is still the case that the planning system is too inconsistent and slow, and that there are things we can do about that.
To come back to the point on build-out, and we do need to take action on build-out, it is this Government’s view that we need to oversupply consents into the planning system to ensure that we are building out at the rate that meets the housing crisis, because whatever anyone thinks about the rights or wrongs of this reform, we are not building homes at the scale that we need in order to meet housing need and housing demand. We have to do things differently. In terms of outcomes, we think this measure is impactful.
Gideon Amos
Another time, I would be interested to discuss what level of oversupply will actually work, because we have huge oversupply permissions already. My point is in relation to reserved matters. The last reserved matters application I dealt with was for a waste site that had 770 objections. I think local residents would have been incredulous to be told that their local planning committee was not allowed to decide that application. There were more objections to that than to any other application in the council area for years. The Bill does not say that this relates to just reserved matters, but even if the Government did bring forward a proposal to say that, does the Minister not see how controversial and significant even reserved matters applications can be?
Matthew Pennycook
I take the point, but let me be clear about what I said: every reserved matters application should come back before a committee. I will come back to the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises, but in terms of outcomes we think this measure will be impactful.
My second point is about straw men. Parts of this debate have generated more heat than light, if I am honest, and many allegations have been thrown around. Some said that this measure rides roughshod over local democracy, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne alleged that the Government are saying that once a local plan is in place, every decision will just be shoved through. That is obviously not the case, so let me be very clear about what we are talking about.
Local schemes of delegation are in place across the country. In lots of those, lots of decisions are delegated to planning officers. In principle, we all agree that expert planning officers should be allowed to make decisions on certain applications—I do not think that is contested—so let us put what we are discussing in proportion. We are not changing the consultation rules on planning applications. Representations are and will continue to be considered by the decision maker, whether that is the planning committee or the planning officer. In that sense, I will continue to argue that the proposed change does not remove democratic oversight.
My third point is about what is decided. There are understandably a lot of assumptions about what the national scheme of delegation will suggest. I would wager that in a couple of years’ time, when we look back at this, a lot of the concerns raised will seem to have been unfounded. I hope the Government allay those concerns when we bring forward the precise proposals about what we want the national scheme of delegation to entail. It is not the case that the controversial and significant applications that several hon. Members have raised, which we agree should absolutely come before committees, will be ruled out in the national scheme of delegation. The assumption about the amount that we are removing from the system will prove to be unfounded.
Paul Holmes
I would say to the Minister that significance is in the eye of the beholder, but may I bring him back to something that he said? I do not want to do him a disservice, but I believe he said that planning officers’ decisions, rather than local committee decisions, would not change under a national scheme of delegation; they will still be there. Can he assure us that any ability that currently exists within local schemes to call in a decision made by a planning officer will not be affected by the national scheme of delegation that he proposes?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand why the hon. Gentleman is doing so, but he tempts me to announce the proposals that we will bring forward. I would like to do that as a package so the House can see what the Government are proposing. As I said, at that point I think some of the concerns will have been assuaged.
My fourth and final point, which is the crux of this debate, is that we can have a very sensible discussion about the type of things that should or should not be in a national scheme of delegation. The shadow Minister just inadvertently went down that route, and I am happy to have that conversation. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington gave the game away, in a sense, when he argued that if we were just talking about a scheme of standardisation across the country, that would be fine, but a national scheme of delegation is not. We are, in a sense, talking about a standardised scheme that will ensure consistency in the system about what comes forward.
Matthew Pennycook
I will just make this point, then I will give way for a final time. This debate has revealed a very principled difference of opinion, sincerely held, about whether it is appropriate at all to have a national scheme of delegation. I feel very strongly that, just as the Government set frameworks in other areas, it is right that we have a say on schemes of delegation that apply in local areas. I think that is right, both in terms of the outcomes that will be secured and to reduce uncertainty and risk in the system. I understand that Opposition Members feel differently and think that a national framework should not be applied. That is a perfectly reasonable view, but we disagree.
Matthew Pennycook
But the conversation that we will have to have, because we have the numbers, is what the national scheme of delegation should incorporate, not whether we bring one forward. Three Members want to intervene. We have a few minutes left.
Gideon Amos
My point was about the distinction between a voluntary guideline and putting in statute the removal of powers from councillors. I repeat: does the Minister not have any qualms about giving all future Ministers and Secretaries of State in future Governments the power to make any regulations they want to take these powers away from councillors?
Matthew Pennycook
I think it is perfectly appropriate that we introduce a national scheme of delegation, and that we bring forward, through a regulation-making power, those details in due course. Any future Government would have to consult on changes and take them through via secondary legislation, and it would be up for scrutiny.
I am tempted to comment more widely on regulation-making powers, but I gently say to Opposition Members that some of the placeholder clauses that I saw in legislation in the previous Parliament make this one seem very minor, in relative terms. We can debate that more widely, but I think our approach, both in outcomes and in a reasonable balance between democratic oversight and trusting expert local planning officers, which we all do in certain circumstances, is the right one.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister has been generous with his time. Could he comment on how we will hold planning officers to account? At the moment, we can call in planning applications democratically. How are we going to hold planning officers to account under a national scheme of delegation?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that point. It is a point well made, and it was also made by the shadow Minister on another clause. I will go away and reflect on what more, if anything, needs to be done in that regard. It is rightly put that, just as we want to ensure consistency in decisions by elected Members, we want consistency in the decisions and recommendations made by expert planning officers at a local authority level. I will happily come back to the Committee on that.
David Simmonds
I gently say to the Minister, who I look up to in many ways, that it is a challenge for the Committee to rely upon, on the one hand, an argument that this is not a big deal because it would affect hardly any planning applications, and on the other hand, an argument that it is so important we have to push it through via a national scheme of delegation. The concern that Members have is considering the 4% of applications that go to committee as a major problem, when in fact, by general acceptance in today’s debate, they are not really much of an issue. We lose the important element of local democratic accountability without any corresponding benefit in planning delivery.
Matthew Pennycook
I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, we do think there is a corresponding benefit, because we think the change will remove a large element of risk and uncertainty in the system and ensure some very important applications are made in a more timely way. I end by inviting the shadow Minister, at the point we publish our proposals, to come back on whether we have got the balance right. I am more than happy to continue the conversation about what we take forward on the regulations. On the principle of introducing a national scheme of delegation, the Government feel very strongly that it is the right thing to do.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk and to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. It will probably get very hot, so if you would like to take off some of your layers, that is absolutely fine.
Clause 21
Long duration electricity storage
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. On that cheery note, it is great to be back in Committee this morning.
The clause is about long-duration electricity storage, or LDES, which is an incredibly important part of an electricity system, allowing us to store cheap renewable energy when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, and to generate electricity when people need it most. It is a crucial part of our clean power mission.
Across Great Britain, we already have 2.8 GW of LDES on the grid. I have had the pleasure of visiting some pumped hydropower stations that have been part of our system for decades. They allow excess electricity to pump water high up to a mountain reservoir, where it can be released when we need it to drive turbines and generate electricity. The most recent of those sites, however, was completed more than 40 years ago. The clean power 2030 action plan suggests that we need another 1.2 GW of LDES in the next five years. The National Energy System Operator suggests that we could need up to 15 GW by 2050, so a significant increase on where we are today.
Despite low operating costs and high system-wide benefits, which in 2024 were estimated at £24 billion, the large up-front capital costs to build such stations in the first place, and the revenue uncertainty over such a long lifespan of an asset, have deterred private investment in LDES over the decades. The clause therefore introduces a cap and floor scheme to develop new long-duration energy storage in Great Britain.
Those wishing to develop an LDES asset will be able to apply to Ofgem for protected revenues, conditional on satisfactory delivery and operation and on sharing excess profits with consumers. That provides the revenue certainty needed for investors, giving the green light for the next generation of those important assets. We expect—we have set out deliberately—that this will be technology-agnostic. We therefore expect that we will have more pumped hydro, as well as more novel technologies such as liquid air energy storage.
The clause imposes a duty on Ofgem to establish and operate a cap and floor scheme to encourage the development of LDES assets across Great Britain. The clause also defines the minimum eligibility requirements for the scheme: assets will need a minimum power output of 50 MW, and to be able to discharge at full power for eight hours without recharge. Simply meeting those requirements, however, will not guarantee success, and Ofgem will only select the projects that are most useful for system-wide benefits and for consumers. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to update that definition by regulation. It also defines in broad terms how Ofgem will set the cap and floor, and how it will fund floor payments.
This is a really important step. As I say, after 40 years of not building long-duration energy storage in this country, we are incredibly excited to be building it once again. It is also crucial to how we deliver the clean power system in the future. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to see you again. I welcome both Ministers to their places. As soon as you said that we can start removing layers, Mrs Hobhouse, my button suddenly popped off. I apologise, and I guarantee that I will not remove any more layers, for fear of disrupting the Committee.
The clause amends the Electricity Act 1989, requiring the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to implement a cap and floor scheme for long-duration energy electricity storage or LDES. We are concerned that the clause introduces unnecessary bureaucracy and will distort the market with the introduction of the scheme. I have several questions on this. Can the Minister explain what criteria will determine the initial cap and floor levels? More importantly, how frequently will they be reviewed to stay responsive to market changes?
We know that the scheme aims to provide financial stability to LDES for operators by setting revenue caps and income floors, and to encourage investment in this technology. However, will LDES operators and investors have a role in reviewing or adjusting the scheme to ensure that it reflects real-world conditions? Will there be eligibility criteria for a formal application process for operators to access the scheme, ensuring fair access for all players? Those concerns, we would argue, highlight the need for clarity and effective integration with broader energy policies and to ensure the scheme’s success. I look to the Minister for clarification on those elements of the clause. We do not intend to divide at this stage, but we will provide further scrutiny at further stages of the process.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse, it is especially a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. Liberal Democrats are supportive of a scheme to encourage long-duration energy storage and, for that reason, are generally supportive of the clause. Long-duration energy storage is crucially needed, including, of course, battery storage.
There are instances of fires in battery storage facilities, but there is no reason why they should not be built safely—they can and are built safely. We ask the Ministers to consider whether fire brigades should be statutory consultees in applications for battery storage proposals. That is not the case at the moment, which seems perverse, given that there is an acknowledged fire risk that needs to, and can, be dealt with. We should have fire services as statutory consultees to ensure that happens.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I rise simply to support the provision. The first point to note is that this sort of technology has always been critical for the electricity system, which is why we have plants such as Cruachan in Scotland—which I commend to everyone as a great place to visit on their summer holidays—and Dinorwig in Wales. We need more investment in this.
As someone who has been involved in the energy sector for almost 30 years, the simple fact of the matter is that this technology will not be invested in without additional support. The plan for a cap and floor mechanism is well worked through, and has a reasonable pedigree in the electricity industry for supporting investment. Clause 21 seeks to introduce that. Quite properly, it is technology-agnostic, because there is a great deal of innovation in this sector. The provision is important for decarbonisation, energy security and jobs across the British Isles; I therefore support it.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members to please indicate a little bit more clearly to me—preferably at the beginning of a debate—whether you want to speak.
Michael Shanks
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and their recognition, first and foremost, of the important role that long-duration energy storage plays in our system. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East referred to Cruachan—the hollow mountain —and I think there is barely a person in Scotland who has never been on a school trip to there. I would recommend it to anyone; it is a fantastic example of not just how important this is to our energy system, but the engineering that has lasted a significant number of decades and still runs on our system. It plays an incredibly important role.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, raised a number of important questions. Ofgem has consulted on the process for the first window of the cap and floor scheme. It has published detailed, technical guidance on what we would expect those projects to be able to deliver. We, and Ofgem as the regulator, have very deliberately been technology-agnostic to allow more of these innovative projects to come forward. That first round will run its course, but we absolutely would expect that Ofgem and the Government will look at the results of that review and see if there are areas that we might improve on for a further round if that is deemed necessary. We will keep the scheme constantly under review.
The cap and floor scheme that Ofgem has run for interconnectors has been an incredibly successful way of delivering value for money for consumers and of giving that revenue certainty over the long term. It is a model that works very well. We will review the projects that move forward in the scheme. As I outlined, there are technical requirements that they must meet, but there will also be a process of ensuring that the projects deliver value for money for consumers.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly recognises the role that LDES plays in the mix. We could see some battery projects coming forward in this round. Traditionally, they have not been part of long-duration energy storage, but that technology is moving forward rapidly and some might be able to bid into this process. There are some really innovative projects in that space.
It is important to take the question of how we deal with safety risks for batteries in a balanced way. There are safety incidents for a whole range of infrastructure in our country; some get a lot more attention than others in the media, and we need to be careful not to draw more attention to one particular technology at the exclusion of others. But the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is right that safety should be paramount in everything we do with every energy system and every part of infrastructure.
We are looking at the wider question of how we might introduce additional safety measures on battery storage sites more generally, not just as part of the LDES scheme. The Health and Safety Executive has a key role in regulating battery designers, installers and operators to ensure that they take the necessary measures to ensure health and safety. It is an important step, and one that we take seriously.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I want to press the Minister on the point raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. On a visit to the London Fire Brigade I learnt that there is a particular set of risks associated with batteries—essentially, the difficulty of putting the fires out.
In the grand scheme of things, batteries are not more serious than, for example, oil storage, but they require different equipment and differently trained and equipped crews to respond. Will the Minister say more about how, as batteries become a more significant part of the energy mix, he will ensure that fire brigades are able to take a view at the planning stage and are made aware of the risks—just in case they have to respond?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which we will take onboard. It is already part of what the Health and Safety Executive and the Fire Service are looking at nationally in terms of guidelines, but the Government continue to take an interest. The hon. Gentleman is right that as the schemes expand across the country, more fire brigades that may have not had experience of these incidents in the past will have to gain experience. It is an important point and we take it seriously.
On a general point, I am glad that hon. Members across the Committee recognise the importance of LDES. It is genuinely an exciting moment for the country that we will build some of these important engineering projects to deliver the long-duration energy storage that the country needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Benefits for homes near electricity transmission projects
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 22, page 29, line 33, after “benefits” insert
“of £1,000 per year for ten years”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 102—Community benefits from major energy infrastructure projects—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme under which communities with a specified connection to a major energy infrastructure project are entitled to financial benefits.
(2) In subsection (1), ‘major energy infrastructure project’ and ‘specified connection’ have such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that any such definition includes all newly consented renewable energy projects.
(3) Financial benefits provided for by a scheme under this section must—
(a) be provided by the owner of the relevant major energy infrastructure project, and
(b) amount to 5% of the annual revenue of the relevant project.
(4) Where a major energy infrastructure project is onshore, regulations made under this section must—
(a) provide for two-thirds of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid to the council of that community, and
(b) provide for one third of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the council.
(5) Where a major energy infrastructure project is offshore, regulations made under this section must provide for the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the relevant council.
(6) Regulations made under this section may, among other things—
(a) specify the powers, purposes, responsibilities and constitution of a council strategic fund;
(b) make further provision determining which communities are qualifying under this section, and defining community for this purpose;
(c) confer functions in connection with the scheme;
(d) provide for delegation of functions conferred in connection with the scheme.”
This new clause sets out a scheme for providing financial benefit to communities in areas connected with major energy infrastructure schemes.
Paul Holmes
Amendment 83 was tabled by the shadow Scottish Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). We welcome clause 22, which empowers the Secretary of State to establish a financial benefit scheme for people living near new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. It is vital that people living locally to such works, who will see their life disrupted, should receive fair compensation for their trouble. I said in the last Committee session, as did other Opposition Members, that we support the Government’s move to do that and to involve local communities, following on from some of the provisions that the Conservatives made in government.
Where there is a disagreement, however, is on the level of that compensation. Amendment 83 would require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme under which persons with a specified connection to qualifying premises are entitled to a financial benefit of £1,000 per year for 10 years, provided directly or indirectly by electricity providers. We believe that this would be able to be monitored under the current scope of the legislation, particularly where it says that the Secretary of State may provide funding from Parliament to those administering the scheme.
Provisions would also be made for complaints, procedures, appeals or dispute resolution related to the scheme. The regulations would be subject to an affirmative procedure—we do not see any need to change that. The clause would apply to England, Scotland and Wales and come into force on Royal Assent. We would argue that the level set out in the amendment would not need to change the Bill. The scheme would allow eligible residents, mainly through electricity suppliers, to receive benefits based on the proximity to above-ground transmission projects, including past projects, which are fair and proportionate.
Under our amendment, any scheme established under proposed new section 38A(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 would have to include provision for, for example, homeowners residing within 500 metres of qualifying premises to be entitled to financial benefits of £1,000 a year for 10 years. The Minister and I did not argue—we never argue—but debated last time, and the Opposition accept the nature of what the Minister intends to do, but we feel that there needs to be more clarity for the consumer and for local people. There were stories on Sky News that the consumer benefit for homes near electricity transmission infrastructure would be set at about £250 a year, so I would be grateful if the Minister would state what he expects the level of compensation to be and clarify that for the rest of the Committee.
Whether the Minister chooses to accept our very reasonable offer of £1,000 a year or not, will he answer how errors or instances of fraud will be handled within the administration of the benefit scheme? What rights do residents or other parties have to appeal decisions or penalties related to the benefit scheme? What role will the Secretary of State play in ongoing monitoring and enforcement of the scheme, with particular regard to regulatory powers?
As I said, I do not want to go over the arguments again, but the Opposition believe that we must take communities with us, when it comes to consumers and people affected by large-scale planning decisions through centralisation and an attempt—to be fair to the Minister—to reduce the bureaucracy and deliver the infrastructure that we need. We talked last time about community benefit under other amendments and clauses of the Bill. The Opposition believe that residents and local communities deserve to know that there will be a certain amount for a certain period, and we believe that £1,000 a year for 10 years is something that local people would welcome. I commend amendment 83 to the Committee.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak briefly on clause 22, which I welcome. This scheme is key to delivering the key Government commitment to ensuring that those who are closest to new electricity infrastructure feel the benefits soonest. Also important is the Government guidance that will be brought forward on how developers will ensure that communities hosting transmission infrastructure can benefit, including through funding for community projects, sports clubs and leisure facilities. I welcome this key commitment.
It is disappointing that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, is not here to explain further his comments in the newspapers today. He has moved from saying that he opposes electricity pylons to the issue of scientists themselves, suggesting that climate targets are not, in fact, science-based. It is disappointing that he is not here to defend his amendment, but I very much welcome the Government’s proposal.
The Chair
I remind Members that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine cannot be here because he is not on the Committee, so he is excused.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise in support of amendment 83, in which the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland sets out a fair and reasonable system as to what benefits people living near new energy infrastructure should be able to get. It is important to note that the House of Commons Library says that the Government are minded to set aside £2,500 a year for 10 years. The Government should be able to find it within themselves to support our amendment, considering we do not even go as far as the provision that they suggested, according to the House of Commons Library. This amendment should be an easy step to get to where the Government want to go.
I do have some concerns. It has been raised in Committee before that this provision cannot be a simple solution to not doing any consultation. We still need a belt-and-braces consultation, and I want to hear some clear words from the Minister to say that this will not replace that—residents will still be able to have their say, and there will still be a full and proper consultation when new energy infrastructure comes forward.
I am disappointed to see in the legislation hardly any detail about what the community benefit scheme will be. I have said before that if we leave too much ambiguity, electricity providers and developers will want to get away with paying nothing at all or as little as possible. We should not allow that to happen. We should allow people—our constituents—who live near energy infra-structure projects to get the best deal possible, considering that they will have to put up with a lot of disruption. I have some constituents who live near large housing developments. There is a lot of disruption during the construction phase, so I want more detail about what the Government intend to set out.
As I have said, a House of Commons Library paper said that the Government were minded to go to £2,500 a year. The Government should therefore have no issue supporting the amendment because it does not go as far as that. It sets out reasonable benefits that everyone should expect across the country, leaving less to ambiguity and putting power into the hands of this Parliament scrutinising this legislation rather than developers and electricity providers because, as I said, they will want to get away with paying as little as possible.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to new clause 102, which stands in the name of the Liberal Democrats. This would ensure that all communities hosting major energy infrastructure—solar farms, wind farms, major battery storage, gas, nuclear or other power stations, as well as transmission infrastructure, which is already covered by the Bill—would receive a benefit of 5% of the annual revenue of that project.
Safeguarding the future by tackling climate change is vital, but we are only going to achieve that if we bring communities with us and make it affordable for households. We recognise, and of course welcome, the provision in the Bill for community benefits for those near transmission lines, but those living beside nuclear, gas, coal-fired or other power stations are not eligible for any community support. For example, I supported the development of Ham Farm solar park in Taunton, but none the less the community gets no benefit for the significant impact it is having on that community.
It is time that we had a system that gave community benefit for all energy infrastructure if we are to persuade communities and work with communities to host that infrastructure. If we are going to move Britain to a low pollution energy future with more home-grown energy—something the Liberal Democrats strongly support—we must be willing to compensate those expected to live with and host these enormous developments. It is time, in short, that local people benefited from national energy projects.
Liberal Democrats have consistently led the way on community benefit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) brought in the first community benefit system of this kind. In 2013, when he was Secretary of State and making the UK the biggest offshore energy generator in the world, he said:
“Communities hosting renewable energy installations play a key role in meeting the national need for secure, clean energy. It is only right that local people should be recognised and rewarded for that contribution”.
He continued:
“developers already offer community benefit packages on a voluntary basis, we challenged them to do more”. —[Official Report, 6 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 116WS.]
He then announced an increase in the recommended community benefit package in England from £1,000 per megawatt of installed capacity per year to £5,000, which remains the basis of the system today. Now it is time to extend that benefit to all energy, and to make it proportional to the revenue raised by energy projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), who is a real champion for his constituency, proposed a scheme such as is set out in new clause 102 to Highland council back in 2021. It is important to recognise that the industry has contributed in this area, and in renewables especially.
In February 2024 the Government, in their document, “Developing Local Partnerships for Onshore Wind in England: Government response”, endorsed the 2013 system of £5,000 per megawatt installed capacity. Our new clause would mean that 5% of revenue from all energy projects goes to local communities. To put some figures on that, Grubb and Garjardo at UCL Bartlett estimate that, in a good year for energy generators such as 2022, UK revenue from renewables was £15.5 billion. Put that across 53,000 megawatts of installed capacity, meaning that £288,00 revenue per megawatt of installed capacity was raised, and 5% of that would be around £14,000 in community benefit per megawatt of installed capacity. In less good years, such as 2021, it might be around £7,000 per megawatt of installed capacity.
With average electricity bills in households being £730 in the UK, it is also important to secure reductions in bills by adopting the Liberal Democrat policy in our manifesto of finally decoupling electricity prices from the wholesale gas price. Based on Energy UK’s figures, that would mean a reduction in electricity costs per household of around £200 per year. The sums yielded to communities through the new clause—around £7,000 in 2021—would be comparable with the volunteered figure of £5,000 from the industry, but with the added benefit that when revenues increase, the community benefit would also increase.
So far the Government have taken only limited steps, which are welcome; but as part of the proposals that we put forward for a similar system in a debate in Westminster Hall in October, we were encouraged by the Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen, who said:
“On community benefits in particular, we are continuing—at pace”—
that key word—
“the work started by the previous Government to review how we can effectively deliver benefits for communities living near this infrastructure.”
He said that they were,
“developing clear guidance on community benefits for both the infrastructure and the transmission networks.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 276WH.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire provides an example from the highlands. It is in the periphery of the UK—the highlands and elsewhere—that many of the biggest energy projects are located. Typically, they are areas where there are high levels of fuel poverty, limited access to affordable housing, lower wages, and high costs for electricity connection and heating. Rural areas, where many major projects are built across the UK, share the characteristics of departing young people, sparse and remote public services, especially after the ending of the rural service delivery grant, and poor infrastructure.
Other countries provide compelling examples of what can be done. Denmark, for example, requires new renewable projects to offer at least 20% ownership to local residents. In Germany, local authorities, or Länder, such as Munich, develop their own offshore wind farms, and community benefit comes from the tax revenue that they provide.
Our new clause would see two thirds of the benefit funds designated for the community, by which we mean to be spent in the council ward affected, where community groups themselves could and should be delegated with the power to manage and distribute those funds, with one third used for community benefit at a more strategic level for the council area decided by elected councillors. Fuel vouchers, affordable housing and investment into health and social care could be among the priority candidates for the spending of these benefits. It is unacceptable that these communities, which provide the backbone of our energy revolution, often see little financial benefit from hosting such infrastructure.
Michael Shanks
I thank all Members for an interesting debate. Amendment 83 was tabled by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. He is ever present in these discussions, but never present—
Luke Murphy
Can I withdraw my criticism about the absence of the shadow Minister for Energy?
Michael Shanks
The Minister for Energy made it on to this Committee; the shadow Minister for Energy could have made it on to this Committee as well, so my hon. Friend should not withdraw his criticism so hastily. Anyway, he is ever present in these discussions and we enjoy his contributions from beyond the Committee room.
Paul Holmes
I will try not to take that personally. The Minister should be grateful for what he has got. If he wanted a shadow Energy Minister on the Committee, he could have made that known through the usual channels.
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. I will turn to the substance of the amendment before I get into trouble, Mrs Hobhouse.
The amendment seeks to set the level of benefit at £1,000 per year over 10 years. First, I should say I welcome the fact that across the Committee today there is support for that principle. That is really important, because the principle that we want to recognise—to be fair, the previous Government did when they launched the consultation—is that if we host nationally important energy infrastructure, particularly transmission infra-structure, which so often has less of a community benefit in the communities that it passes through, there should be some benefit from it. That is a really important point.
The balance that we sought to strike was to find a way to give a benefit to those households affected by the transmission infrastructure, but also make sure that the wider bill payers across the country that will pay for those community benefits are not saddled with a significant bill as a result. So the balance that we struck was £250 per year over 10 years. I would never seek to question the House of Commons Library, but I think perhaps the hon. Member for Broxbourne might not be correct in his interpretation of its figures. It would be £2,500 over the course of the 10 years that the scheme would be in place. I think that is what he was referring to.
In our view, the point here is that this still provides a significant benefit regarding bills for those households for a substantial amount of time—10 years—but at the same time does not result in significant amounts being added to the bills of other people right across the country who will pay for this. We think £1,000—which we looked at carefully as part of this process—is too much.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the Minister, and I absolutely recognise the importance of the principle of community benefit. However, would he not agree with me that it becomes problematic if we put in specific numbers, such as £250 or £1,000 a year? Inflation will change what that means, so is it not more relevant and logical to place a requirement more like the amendment advocated by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which talks about a community dividend that is in proportion to the revenues generated by the project rather than an absolute number?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Lady for that point; I will come to the new clause shortly. The difficulty with that approach for transmission infrastructure is that by definition it goes through so many different communities in a linear way that it would be really difficult to divide up that funding among communities. How you define each community is quite challenging, whereas defining households that are within a certain distance of pylons, for example, is very easy, and we want to give a direct benefit to those households.
Ellie Chowns
Logically, we could divide by the number of miles of transmission infrastructure in each community.
Michael Shanks
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but a transmission line goes through a significant number of communities in a linear way. For a wind farm, you could draw a line around it and benefit all those communities; a transmission line does not work that way, so we would be giving to a significant number of communities who have maybe one or two pylons near them. That is why we think what is most important is that the households closest to the infrastructure get the direct community benefit.
To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, this is not the only part of the Bill—we will also have a community benefits fund for infrastructure like substations, where if there is one particular piece of infrastructure built in a community, with all the disruption that goes with building that, wider community benefits come from that as well. It is not one or the other; we are doing both, but in a legislative sense, we only have to legislate on the Bill discount scheme, which is what we are talking about in this amendment.
The shadow Minister asked for detail on some important points—including that we should set out in secondary legislation the specific level of benefit and the duration over which it will be paid. Of course, the £250 a year is a “minded to” position that we have come to as a result of the consultation that the previous Government did and the evidence that we have seen, but that will be set out in secondary legislation, which—to the hon. Lady’s point—allows us to alter that over time if the scheme is successful. This is, in some ways, a trial to find out whether the intended policy outcomes result. I hope that for those reasons—I will come to some others—the hon. Member for Hamble Valley might withdraw his amendment.
Clause 22 is about creating a financial benefit scheme for eligible households living near certain new or significant increases in network transmission infrastructure, and inserts new sections into the Electricity Act 1989. It empowers the Secretary of State to establish and determine the overall design of the scheme, including qualification criteria, scheme administration, enforcement, and provisions requiring the benefit to be passed on.
The “pass-through provision” is outlined in new section 38B(2), and is essential to ensure that the right consumers benefit and to ensure that when an intermediary sits between the electricity supplier and the end user—as happens in some cases—the intermediary will be required to obtain the full benefit and then pass it on to the end user. If this is not complied with, new section 38B(3) allows regulations to provide for the withdrawal or recovery of benefits made to intermediaries.
To enforce compliance with the scheme, new section 38C details the enforcement provisions that may be made in regulations, and I hope this answers the shadow Minister’s point around potential fraud in the system and the imposition of penalties that we will make through secondary legislation for instances of regulations not being complied with. Finally, new section 38D deals with provisions around data collection for the purposes of administering the scheme. Overall, it is worth remembering the purpose of this clause: it is to improve the public acceptability of network transmission infrastructure.
Lewis Cocking
I appreciate the Minister’s correction of what I said—the Government are less generous than I interpreted, in terms of the £2,500 over 10 years. But can he give us some warm words about this not replacing any consultation and say that it is on top of all of the consultation and residents being allowed to have their say, and that we will not allow electricity companies just to pay some money and then get away without doing any consultation at all? Can he give us some reassurances on that?
Michael Shanks
It is a very important point, and this will come through in the discussions that we will have more generally in this Committee around community consultation, but it will continue to play an important part. I think it is important to separate out any question of compensation from community benefit.
This is not a compensation scheme, and landowners that currently are compensated for infrastructure being built will continue to be compensated through whatever channels that is decided in. This is a community benefit, so it is additional. It is about recognising that it is critical for the future of the country that we build new grid infrastructure, and that if someone hosts that infrastructure they should gain some benefit from doing so. This is our proposal for doing that, alongside the community benefit funds that we have announced.
The Government believe that it is appropriate to set out the full detail on this in regulations, as is the case in many such schemes that have been set up over the years, due to the technical level of detail that will be required, and have drafted this clause to make sure that it applies only to transmission infrastructure, as it is not the intention that it should apply to other technologies. I commend clause 22 to the Committee.
That brings me to new clause 102, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which seeks to introduce a scheme that would ensure communities are provided with financial benefits from hosting major energy infrastructure projects from a range of technologies. I welcome the intent of this measure. Indeed, I have had a number of conversations with the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on this very topic over the past nine months in which I have had the privilege of having this job, and spoken fairly recently to his colleague, the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr Angus MacDonald)—I was in his constituency yesterday, seeing the investment that this Government have made in port infrastructure in his constituency.
We therefore agree broadly with the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington’s point about how communities should benefit from all this energy infrastructure, but the new clause is not the right way to do it. We are already considering—he quoted myself to me, and I was delighted to hear I was fairly coherent in that debate—the question of wider community benefits. Clearly, at the moment most such community benefit schemes are voluntary schemes run by developers. It is important to say that some of those are actually hugely successful, and communities welcome the collaborative approach in drawing them up, but others are very unsuccessful, and leave communities without the genuine benefits that they should get. We are therefore looking at this really closely at the moment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke noted, we published guidance in May 2025 on community benefit funds for those who live near electricity transmission infrastructure, and shortly we will publish updated guidance for onshore wind in England, which, of course, follows the 10 years of the previous Government’s ban in England. We are also exploring options for our overall approach to community benefits, to provide consistency across different technologies and to maximise the ambition from that. We have left on the table the option of that being mandatory in every case, but we want to look closely at how that would work, and how the design would work to ensure that we are not setting a scheme that does not suit the flexibilities that individual communities might want to take advantage of.
I reiterate that communities are providing a service to this country when they host clean energy infrastructure and there should be a benefit from it. Towards the end of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he rather veered off community benefits and into an equally important space on community ownership, which is something that I have also had a number of important conversations about. We see ownership of energy by communities as a really important step as well, and that is a step up from community benefits.
Gideon Amos
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for addressing the serious points in the new clause, and particularly for saying that mandatory schemes will not be taken off the table. He was coherent back in October, except—if I might suggest—for the phrase “at pace”. Could he explain what “at pace” means in this context, in terms of what the timescale might be?
Michael Shanks
That is a question that I have asked myself many times over the past nine months. The problem is that we inherited a number of these things from the previous Government and we are working through them.
I have regular meetings on the subject. It is really important that we get this right, because we need to strike the balance: ultimately, the community benefit funds will, one way or another, be paid for by bill payers, but we want communities to have a real benefit. The balance has to be right because we are trying to bring down bills for everyone across the country. The Conservative amendment would increase people’s bills, but we are determined to try to bring them down. There is a balance to be struck.
We feel that this is an exciting moment to drive community ownership forward. A key aim of Great British Energy will be to drive forward the local power plan, so that communities do not just have benefits from infrastructure, but own some of those benefits. A number of hon. Members across the House have mentioned the real benefits of communities having a stake in projects—they can spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on, rather than on what a scheme might define. The two go hand in hand.
The bill discount scheme is an important step to drive forward community acceptance of new network infrastructure. We will develop proposals at pace for the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and for communities right across the country on the wider aspects of energy infrastructure. I hope that he will not move his new clause 102.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to the Minister for some of the answers he has given—
Paul Holmes
Well, I am grateful to him for trying to give all the answers, but I only agree with some of them, as he would expect. I wish that he would accept the amendment, but he has stated clearly that he will not. The amendment is ambitious and would give clarity to the consumer and local people about what they should expect.
I understand what the Minister said about the amount of money given to local people being legislated for in secondary legislation, but there is a question about why he will not put that into primary legislation. He could be clear—the £250 a year was clearly leaked to the press a few months ago—but the Government have still not produced any legislation to give certainty to the consumer. That is symptomatic of the Government: in lots of areas of the legislation, they simply have not provided any detail to the people it affects. We will get to those other examples later, when we come to the specific issue of planning reform.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke seems to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Opposition politicians’ quotes; I suggest that the Whips Office makes more use of him, given his ability to get an Opposition quote quickly, just like that. He might want to get a hobby, I don’t know, but he is good on quotes.
Luke Murphy
I do not need to have encyclopaedic knowledge to read the newspapers this morning, which is where the shadow Secretary of State made those comments.
Paul Holmes
I do not know which newspaper the hon. Gentleman reads, but it is obviously not a very good one, because it takes the comments of my hon. Friend the shadow Scottish Secretary and acting shadow Energy Secretary out of context.
My hon. Friend did say that the target date was not based on evidence, but he was talking about the arbitrary nature of the 2050 target for net zero; he clearly did not say that there was no science behind the concept of climate change. The hon. Member for Basingstoke is a doughty champion and fiery Back Bencher, destined for high ministerial office. He would be a good Minister, but he needs to read out the whole of a quote and give the genuine context of any comments by Opposition politicians.
To come back to the amendment, Mrs Hobhouse—I feel your beady eye upon me—the shadow Scottish Secretary has a clear record. In his earlier comments, he talked about bills going down, but bills are up by £300 a year. There was a manifesto commitment to reduce energy bills for people by £300 a year, and that is simply not happening because of the record of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. At the moment, it is closing down oilfields and relying far too much on renewable energy, without getting to the sustainable level at which energy bills could come down. The Minister keeps saying that he wants to bring them down, but when will they come down?
We understand and support the aims and ambitions of new clause 102, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. However, we think there is some question about its practical implementation, specifically taking into account
“5% of the annual revenue of the relevant project”
and the provision
“for two-thirds of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid to the council of that community”.
We do not necessarily think that that is how the money should be distributed. As we discussed in the last sitting, and I agree with the Minister entirely, if a local authority gets money dedicated for a community, that does not necessarily mean that the money will get to the community. That is part of the flaw of the section 106 system and the community infrastructure levy. We all know examples of when money has been given, with the good intentions shown in this honourable new clause, but the community that needed to be helped simply was not. We feel that is not the best way to distribute the money; I believe the Minister feels the same, following our lengthy discussion on whether he can or cannot award money to Scottish Ministers or local authorities. I am sure he will come back to that line another time.
On new clause 102, the point is what the Minister said earlier about lines going through multiple local authorities; the well-intentioned money would not get to the right people at the right time. It would be diluted, and we do not think that that is the right way forward. However, we absolutely support the Liberal Democrats in their ambition to make sure. That is why we put a specific figure into our amendment 83: we absolutely want to make sure that the people desperately affected by some of the infrastructure investment genuinely get some of that money. We also understand and endorse the element of community improvements, which I know we will come on to in other areas of the legislation.
The Minister is a good man. We entirely endorse him and will work together on the need for benefits for the people affected. But he needs to be more ambitious—he should have come the Committee today with a specific figure; he should not have said to the Committee that he is “minded”. He could have put in primary legislation the amount the Government were willing to give. I put down in my notes too soon that the Minister was very tight, with £250 a year—I think that was unfair to him.
But the Minister needs to be more ambitious: he should match our commitment to £1,000 a year and to local people affected by such infrastructure knowing that they would be guaranteed that for 10 years. Most people are responsible when spending their own money; we believe they would put that into the community, which would benefit it and improve its infrastructure. I commend amendment 83 to the Committee, and we will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Before we move on to the next clause, I remind Members that, although I recognise the importance of the principle and the discussion of community compensation and benefits, we need to press on and get through our agenda of line-by-line scrutiny. It is important to discuss the principles, but please also remember that we have a very long agenda in front of us.
Clause 23
Electricity transmission systems: extension of commissioning period
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
We come to the most exciting clause in the Bill: the offshore transmission owner, or OFTO, regime. I can see everyone is on the edge of their seats.
This is an incredibly important clause. It provides a competitive market for offshore electricity transmission, which is important because it helps us to achieve cost-effectiveness in the building and operation of offshore wind farm connections on to the national grid. The clause is part of our efforts to ensure the regime supports the UK’s continuing ambition to be a world leader in offshore wind.
The clause extends the time that wind farm developers who build their own transmission assets have to divest those assets to an independent offshore transmission owner. That time is currently 18 months and the clause increases it to 27 months. That period is known as the generator commissioning clause, or the GCC.
The clause addresses the increase in size and complexity of wind farms since the GCC was first introduced. My Department issued a call for evidence on the OFTO regime, which closed in February 2024 under the previous Government. The responses suggested that the GCC period was too short and should be extended due to the increase in the size and complexity of wind farms, which has led to an increased risk of developers experiencing technical faults, and has meant more time is required for more complex commercial negotiations.
Without the clause, we would expect to continue to see many offshore wind farms needing to request individual transmission licence exemptions, which we bring to this House for decision, if they are unable to transfer transmission assets within the current 18-month period. The vast majority of offshore wind farms entering the process since 2016 have needed to apply for one of these exemptions, with each exemption requiring a separate statutory instrument to be considered each time.
The clause is therefore expected to reduce very significantly the number of offshore wind farms requiring an exemption. The requirement for an exemption leaves wind farms at risk of shutting down, taking a source of renewable energy off the grid and endangering the UK’s energy security, which is of course something we all want to avoid. This is a technical but very important clause and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Use of forestry estate for renewable electricity
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
The clause enables the generation of electricity from renewable sources within the public forest estate through inserting a new section into the Forestry Act 1967.
Our public forests are a national asset, providing vital environmental, social and economic benefits. They also offer an opportunity to contribute to our clean power by 2030 mission through the development of home-grown renewable electricity proposals. The clause will support this by enabling Forestry England to undertake activity relating to both small and large-scale renewable electricity projects on the public forestry estate.
Developments may take place on both forested and non-forested land within the public forest estate. There will, however, be no reduction in size of the estate and sites will be carefully selected. These powers will see us integrating technologies including solar, hydro and wind energy into our natural landscape, accelerating progress to net zero and helping to tackle climate change.
Principles underpinning renewable energy developments include ensuring that there is no net loss of woodland area, positive habitat restoration and maintaining a sustainable home-grown timber supply. Forestry England has already developed around 40 small-scale renewable energy installations, but under current legislation any excess electricity that Forestry England generates is wasted and cannot be exported to the grid. That includes rooftop solar and biomass heating to generate energy used at their various visitor centres and offices. The new powers will allow Forestry England to export electricity generated from its own projects to the national grid.
Without this change to legislation, there would continue to be an imbalance between English activities in this space and those that take place in Scotland in connection to renewables. Public land being managed by the forestry authorities in Scotland is currently able to be used to generate renewable electricity at commercial scale. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I welcome the clarity in the Minister’s opening remarks on the clause. While the theory of generating renewable energy, and deriving income by selling electricity generated from renewable sources, on public forestry land is positive, several concerns need to be addressed that do not lend support to the Government’s initiative. I issue a word of warning to the Minister from experience: measures that concern public forests can be very divisive. As the previous party in government, we still have the scars on our back when it comes to forests. However, we accept that there are clear precedents in Scotland for what the clause will do.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister on these very well intentioned measures. Again, there is a need for clear consultation with people who live locally. We accept that these forests are run by experts, and we pay tribute to them for the way in which they run our forests across the country, but there will be people who have an absolute passion for our forests. Believe me: we saw them in our inbox when I worked for an MP. We need some clarity on that.
My first question is how the powers will balance commercial activity with conservation duties. The Minister said that there are examples of where we have done that before. It is a genuine question. We must make sure that when there is a drive to allow this to happen, some of the conversation elements are not lost in the management of the forests, and that renewable projects do not undermine biodiversity, recreation or climate resilience.
Secondly, what criteria will determine when ministerial consent is required for projects? As I am sure we agree, clear thresholds are necessary for consistency and community confidence. Within that, there must be consultation of local people. As I said, it can be an incredibly emotive topic when people find out from their local forestry commission that it is engaging in some electricity generation. When it comes to our beautiful forests, such wording can mean that people need to be told about it properly and consulted properly. What is the Minister doing to ensure that that will be at the forefront of these projects? As I said, we have been there before.
Does the Minister have any concept of how income from renewable generation will be managed? Oversight mechanisms will be vital to ensure transparency and accountability in these commercial activities. Are there limits on the scale or type of renewable projects on public land to prevent industrial-scale developments, and how will local communities be engaged in decisions affecting their access to public land?
While the clause offers opportunities, it poses risks that need careful management, so I urge the Government to provide more details to ensure that the powers are used responsibly, and that there is no mission creep at the end of the day from this very well intentioned clause.
Luke Murphy
I rise briefly to welcome the clause, which underlines the Government’s commitment both to tackle climate change and to restore and protect nature. As the Minister said, we have seen how Forestry and Land Scotland has been able to make use of its estate to install more than a gigawatt of generating capacity, which has been a major source of revenue for it to continue its conservation, preservation and reforestation mission. Once again, it underlines the Government’s commitment to protect nature while tackling climate change.
David Simmonds
My great-grandfather spent his entire working life at the pit in Cwmcarn, which is now a forestry commission site. There is evidence of the coal that was dug for centuries on that site, which is now a place that is enjoyed for leisure by all. Broadly, I echo the comments about welcoming the clause.
On page 35, line 20, the excluded types of fuel are listed, to determine what may be considered to be renewable. Waste to energy is not included; nor is the sustainable fuel mandate, which is currently focused on aviation fuel, but ultimately involves producing a gasoline product entirely from waste the purpose of which is to create energy. The fuel may go into aircraft, but it could be used for other purposes. The concept of waste to energy means, essentially, building an incinerator on forestry land to burn waste and generate electricity. By implication, that is something that the Government envisage as a result of that subsection. Could the Minister say more about that?
Michael Shanks
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley has taken the right tone, which is that our forestry land is to be treasured and protected for future generations, but there is a balance to be struck—we strike it every day in relation to how much the public can access and enjoy that land, and use visitor facilities. Stewardship of our forestry land is the responsibility of all of us. I thank him for his remarks.
We expect the footprint from the projects to be incredibly small. In fact, the most successful projects in Scotland are often on the rooftops of visitor centres, alongside toilet blocks, and in those sorts of places, so we are not talking about cutting down huge areas of forest to build ground-mounted solar. However, the point the hon. Gentleman made about consultation is critical. There will be comprehensive public and statutory consultation, and I fully expect Forestry England to carry out an even more detailed engagement process, given its stewardship role for certain pieces of land.
In fact, in Scotland, where some projects have been carried out, groups of people who frequently use the forest have been involved in designing the projects and deciding what the money will be spent on. There are real benefits to that. Although there is sometimes short-term disruption from construction, often the projects have resulted in accessible routes being opened in Scottish forests, including new wheelchair-accessible paths, so previously inaccessible land is being made accessible. However, the hon. Gentleman is right about consultation.
On the subject of revenue stream, we expect the measures to enhance Forestry England’s wider role and its existing objectives, which do not shift as a result of the measures. Of course, those objectives relate to environmental conservation. In fact, the revenue, which is currently being wasted—the critical point is that these projects cannot export to the grid—could actually create a net benefit, and we would expect it to do so. That is an important point, as is the issue of mission creep. We will certainly keep that in mind.
Paul Holmes
The Minister has satisfied me with his answers and is adopting a constructive tone regarding the clause, but I want to press him on the criteria used to determine ministerial consent. He is right to say that we do not want mission creep, and that we would usually expect minimum amounts of development around visitor centres and in the existing infrastructure of forests. Can he outline where the Government might set, not necessarily restrictions, but additional criteria regarding the size and scale of energy projects under the clause?
Michael Shanks
Again, there is a balance to be struck: we do not want to create a fixed set of national guidelines that preclude larger scale projects that would not disrupt existing forestry. I do not want to suggest that every piece of forestry land is the same, and therefore that the guidelines should apply in the same way. None the less, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will write right to the Committee about it.
I say the same to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. As I think he would expect, schemes such as those he mentioned are not intended to be part of these measures However, I will consider whether we can tighten the guidance. The clause is intended to be about using land that, in some cases, already has some of these projects on it, but they cannot export to the grid. Small-scale solar or hydro—those are the sorts of schemes that we see as fitting alongside the wider mission of Forestry England. The hon. Gentleman raised an important point, and I am happy to write to the Committee about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Fees for certain services
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse.
Chapter 3 of part 1 of the Bill deals with reform of transport infrastructure. Its various clauses—all of which, I hope, are uncontroversial—are designed to streamline and improve the efficiency of delivering transport infra- structure projects. Clauses 25 to 29 of the chapter make various amendments to the Highways Act 1980.
As hon. Members will be aware, local authorities and statutory consultees provide advice, share information and prepare responses to consultations on proposed highway projects. However, they currently do not have a statutory basis on which to recoup the costs associated with the work they do to review the applications. That can lead to delays in processing applications due to a lack of resources, or information being received late in the process.
Clause 25 inserts a new section 281B into the 1980 Act, providing a new regulation-making power for the Secretary of State in England and for Welsh Ministers in Wales to charge applicants for services in connection with certain schemes and orders on a cost-recovery basis. To be clear, it will not allow them to make a profit; instead, it will support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities and statutory bodies to carry out those processes, which in turn will encourage timely and high-quality inputs into the process.
The charges will apply to parts of the Highways Act associated with approving new roads, making changes to existing ones and making other legal orders necessary for highway projects. Furthermore, we will use a proportionate delegated power to ensure that cost recovery and the provision of services remain flexible and responsive in the light of changing circumstances over time, such as inflation.
The clause will bring the Highways Act into line with cost recovery provisions established under other infrastructure consenting regimes. By resourcing the input from critical stakeholders, this power will contribute to the acceleration of highway infrastructure project delivery, supporting the Government's economic growth mission now and in the future. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome clause 25, and I welcome the Minister to his position. He has a lot to live up to after those clauses, and I will continue to be nice to him. I say well done also to the other Minister for the constructive way he has been working on this Committee. Opposition Members do appreciate that. Because we are not stupid, we realise it is sometimes a challenge to win votes. Although the votes we undertake here are closer than the ones on the Floor of the House of Commons, let that not be an encouragement to us to call more.
As I said, we welcome clause 25, which allows public authorities to charge fees for services related to specific highway schemes. None the less, some clarity is needed on several points. While recovering costs is reasonable, the clause must be carefully implemented with safeguards to ensure fairness, accessibility and consistency across England and Wales.
The Minister has stated that this is a reserved matter for certain statutory bodies and local planning authorities, but will he outline how this goes with his perfectly admirable stance on devolution? Will he look to allow new combined authorities and mayoralties to take on some of the powers, or is he planning for them to be devolved even further, to mayoral authorities coming on stream rapidly from the Department under this Government? We would like some clarity on how he sees the powers being amended once local authorities and some of those statutory bodies no longer exist or are reformed.
Has the Minister considered the impact of the fees on small developers, charities and community groups? Could they create barriers or delays in any process? Will there be provisions allowing fee waivers or reductions for certain applications, such as for community-led or rural projects? How will disputes about fee fairness be resolved, and will there be an appeals process? What guidance will there be to ensure consistency in fee application across regions, to avoid significant variations from one local authority or statutory body to another? Finally, could the fees delay or discourage essential infrastructure development, especially in areas with planning capacity challenges?
Rachel Taylor
I acted for developers before coming into the House, and I know their biggest concern was always delays, not the fees that the local authority charged for doing these things. As a result of the lack of capacity in local authorities, there has been a move to more unadopted roads on small estates, which has its own problems for property owners going forward. I really welcome this provision, because it lays sensible steps toward making it easier for developers to complete their projects sooner, which enables them to make more money.
I think that the offset in costs will be welcomed by small developers. This provision is particularly important in the small authorities that cover large geographical areas, because it will enable them to go out and make visits. To give an example, my client was required to build a pavement but could not do so while there was a vaccination centre up the road. The local authority could not, under the fee structure, find the time to come out and visit the site, which would have enabled it to make a more sensible decision. In general terms, this provision is really welcome and developers, both small and large, will see this as a very positive step forward.
Lewis Cocking
I have a few comments, although I support the principle of this provision. There is not enough capacity in some planning departments, so I agree that fee cost recovery and some of the additional fees, particularly those relating to highways matters, are really important for local authorities, but I have a few questions. When will the money be paid? Will it be paid before the development has started, so there is capacity in the system? People sometimes make planning applications and get planning permissions but do not actually build out the development, so will the fees still need to be paid in those cases?
I have some concerns that I would like the Minister to comment on. Some authorities still have section 106 agreements, and I am concerned that developers will just move money from those section 106 agreements—money that is to be put into education or healthcare, for example—by saying in a viability assessment that they now have to pay these fees to the local authorities, particularly around highways. How can we stop it being the same money, just moved around? These fees should be additional to the money from section 106 agreements that the council was already getting, as they are going directly into capacity issues within planning departments. I am worried that developers will try to play games by just moving the same money around the system or cutting the same pie in a different way, which will not help local authorities. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to those comments, but I wholeheartedly support what the Government are trying to do in this specific case.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome both the broad support for the intent behind the clause and the very reasonable questions that have been put to me by members of the Committee. To be very clear, because we have strayed into pavement applications, section 106 applications and other things, this clause very specifically relates to allowing local authorities and statutory consultees to recover the costs that they incur when providing services on highway-related applications only. We may discuss later some of the other matters and the general position of planning authorities and the challenges they face in capacity and capability. I just wanted to make that point.
All the clause does is bring the Highways Act 1980 into line with the cost recovery provisions established under other infrastructure consenting regimes. It is broadly accepted that we need to support local planning authorities and statutory consultees to process applications in a timely manner. We think that will drive high-quality and timely—
Matthew Pennycook
I will address the hon. Member’s point, if he will wait, and then he is more than welcome to come back in. As I said, it help to drive timely and high-quality inputs into the process, which will speed up the delivery of highway infrastructure projects and avoid extra costs. This is an important point to make: there are costs associated with the fact that applications are not taken through in a timely manner. If they are delayed or time out, that can result in design changes or the process to reach a decision being extended, which brings extra costs. In general terms, we want to ensure, as with many of the provisions in the Bill, a more streamlined, certain and faster consenting process.
It will be for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to set out in regulations those bodies that are able to charge the fees; they may include bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England. Regulations and guidance will set out in more detail what advice and information will be covered by the cost recovery process, as well as other matters, including how fees are calculated, when fees can and cannot be charged and the point at which fees are charged.
We will get into separate issues relating to build out, but to respond gently to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I cannot see how a very specific highways-related application will necessarily bleed over into section 106 negotiations. None the less, I will reflect on that point, as we do not want cost recovery provisions in the clause to allow developers to reduce section 106 contributions on the basis that they are having to pay this charge. As I said, delegated powers will ensure that the cost recovery power is future-proofed by ensuring that it is flexible enough to account for changes, not least in inflation, which we have discussed before.
Lewis Cocking
I completely understand where the Minister is coming from on specific applications just for roads. I suppose my comments were related to new towns or garden villages, where there will be lots of facets to those applications—house building, new roads and what have you. I therefore welcome the Minister’s comments on the fact that he will look at those issues that I have raised.
Matthew Pennycook
I certainly will do so, and, just to stress the point once again, what we are trying to do here and in a number of other clauses in this chapter is broadly about bringing the processes under the Highways Act 1980 and the Transport and Works Act 1992 into line with other consenting regimes. As I said, in this case, it is about ensuring that cost recovery provisions established under those other infrastructure consenting regimes apply in the case of the Highways Act. However, I certainly will be more than happy to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s point, and on those made by other members of the Committee. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Power of strategic highways company in relation to trunk roads
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 26 will allow National Highways to handle the majority of the administrative actions for creating or changing the status of a trunk road. As I am sure all Committee members are aware a section 10 order under the Highways Act is used to designate or declassify a road as a trunk road.
Trunk roads are major routes in our highways network that are managed by National Highways instead of local authorities. Having the power to make a road a trunk road is an essential step in ensuring that key roads are maintained at the national level. Trunk roads perform an important role in enabling safe, reliable and often long-distance journeys by both people and goods between our major towns and cities, and provide access to our international gateways.
The current system places much of the process for handling requirements of these section 10 orders—namely their preparation and publicity—on the Secretary of State, rather than the highways body itself. Clause 26 will simply transfer the administrative control of the application from the Secretary of State to the strategic highways authority—National Highways. It will also align the handling process with the way in which applications under other parts of the Highways Act are currently managed.
I stress that the Secretary of State will remain the ultimate decision maker on the application. However, by removing the administrative burden from the Secretary of State, clause 26 will create a more efficient process, which we believe will lead to faster decisions on new and upgraded trunk roads. This will help to deliver road improvements more quickly, support economic growth, enhance transport links and reduce congestion.
Paul Holmes
On that point—depending on the Minister’s answer, I may not have to make a speech and detain the Committee—the Minister has outlined that the strategic highways authority is National Highways; does he envisage that for some roads, particularly across England, the county council is the strategic highway authority, and will have to apply the section 10 changes? Is he not worried that, because of the financial implications for some county councils—regardless of politics—there could be a kind of enticement for people to get rid of some of the strategic parts of their local road networks? It may be a complete lack of understanding on my part, but could the Minister outline whether county councils could be included in some of that process?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister about the role of county authorities in managing the highway network, and how the Highways Act and the consenting regime applies to them. I do not think his point is pertinent in this respect, in the sense that the clause transfers administrative functions related to section 10 orders under the Highways Act from the Secretary of State purely to National Highways. It does not change the legal decision-making authority, which remains the Secretary of State’s, but the administrative burden, in terms of the final preparation, publishing and consultation of the necessary documents, would be done by the applicant—National Highways. But I am more than happy to provide the shadow Minister with further detail about the interaction with county authorities.
Paul Holmes
Please do not write to me on that. I say that not to offend officials but because I do not want them overworked and the Minister has clearly outlined what he means, for which I am grateful. The question was obviously to clarify my understanding of the legislation. I asked it because I just wondered whether strategic highways authority included county councils. My county council controls a large number of roads, and I wondered whether it was enveloped under the proposal—under the meaning of strategic highways authority. The Minister has answered that, and I am perfectly content not to make a speech.
Matthew Pennycook
I very much welcome that intervention, as will my officials, I am sure. It saves them a letter—although letters may be forthcoming in the course of debate if we require further detail on very technical points. I will just stress the point again: I think the confusion lies in the fact that section 10 orders apply only to National Highways, if the shadow Minister needs reassurance in that regard. But broadly, these are procedural changes that just allow, as I have said, the administrative burden to be transferred from the Secretary of State to National Highways.
David Simmonds
Just to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister—again, at the risk of placing officials in need of writing a letter—we can consider London, where we have Transport for London, Highways England and various other agencies or companies that manage the miles and stretches of those motorways. Very close to my constituency we have the M40/A4 motorway, which is literally the same road but transfers from being a Highways England road to a TfL road at the boundary of Greater London. There could be significant issues where, for example, local authorities that are responsible for neighbouring roads would need to be consulted, so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify, particularly in respect of where we have TfL, red routes and things like that, all of which I think would be within the scope of the clause, that that has been fully considered so that we can ensure that we do not see unnecessary friction as a result.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think that in any circumstances we would see friction on elements where the Secretary of State remains the body that takes forward the administrative process. I cannot envisage a way in which that would cause friction. Just to be very clear, a section 10 order under the Highways Act is used to designate or declassify a road as a trunk road. That is action carried out by National Highways, as I have said. We simply want it to take the administrative actions for creating or changing the status of a trunk road. I am more than happy to write to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—apologies to my officials —on this administrative change as to who takes on those actions, namely National Highways rather than the Secretary of State, and how that interacts, which I think was his point, with the boundary of roads managed by the Greater London Authority, which is not covered by this clause of the Bill.
David Simmonds
I am just reflecting on my experience as a councillor in local government. There are often disputes. For example, the creation or designation of a red route clearway as a trunk road removes all parking along the length of that route and also affects things like bus services along it, so there are situations in which there may be a difference of opinion between a local authority, which is the current manager or administrator of the route, and a trunk road manager, who wishes to designate it as such for the benefit of an infrastructure project but clearly will not be subject to the consequences that that would have for bus routes, parking and other issues under the ambit of the local authority. I am just looking for clarity that there is a process by which those issues will be resolved and that there will be a relevant level of consultation, so that the kind of tensions that we saw around low traffic neighbourhoods with a dispute between Transport for London and a local authority about what was going on in a local area are not replicated.
The Chair
I remind everybody of the tightness of the parameters within which we need to keep this debate. Otherwise the Committee will have to find another day to sit. By no means do I want to stifle debate, but it is also up to the Minister to allow interventions or not.
Matthew Pennycook
I think we will all know where to place the blame if that scenario arises—we will not need to add an extra day.
I gently say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, that he is comparing apples and pears. To be as clear as I possibly can be, all the requirements set down in the legislation in respect of preparing and publishing materials, and the fact that the Secretary of State remains the decision maker, remain in place. The clause purely changes the body overseeing the administrative actions associated with those applications. On that basis, I think this is a fairly uncontroversial procedural change. We have committed to write to the hon. Gentleman about any possible interactions with the Greater London Authority’s management of red routes. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Deadlines for consultation and decisions on certain orders and schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 27 will reduce the objection period for applications under the Highways Act 1980 from six weeks to 30 days. Such applications could be for the construction of new roads, changes to existing ones and other necessary legal orders for delivering highway infrastructure. The objection period refers to the timeframe during which interested parties can view application materials and provide comments.
Reducing the objection period will speed up the consenting process without sacrificing the safeguards that are essential for the fair consideration of objections. An objection period of 30 days aligns with the relevant objection periods for other transport consenting regimes, such as the Planning Act 2008. Again, I draw the shadow Ministers’ attention to the fact that, as per the previous clauses, we intend to align the Highways Act provisions with those in other consenting regimes, to provide for a more uniform arrangement across the piece.
Additionally, the clause will introduce a 10-week deadline for the Secretary of State to make decisions on these schemes and orders. Currently, there are no statutory deadlines for the decision-making stage for the relevant processes, unlike in other consenting regimes, such as the Planning Act 2008. Bringing the Highways Act into alignment with other consenting regimes will improve certainty and the efficiency of the process. The power for the Secretary of State to extend the decision deadline, if necessary, ensures flexibility in cases where additional time may be required.
By shortening the objection period and setting a clear decision timeframe, the clause makes the process more predictable for all stakeholders. Faster, more predictable decisions will result in more efficient delivery of transport infrastructure projects, contributing to better transport networks. We think this change strikes the right balance between improving speed and maintaining fairness, ensuring that the process remains transparent and accountable. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
May I say, Mrs Hobhouse, that you are absolutely on fire? We are getting through things very quickly, and I will adhere to your instructions.
The clause updates the objection and decision-making timelines under the Highways Act 1980. Although the goal is to align with other planning regimes, several concerns remain. First, the clause reduces the objection period in England to a minimum of 30 days, but maintains it at six weeks in Wales. What justifies that discrepancy? Should there not be consistency across all authorities?
Furthermore, is it not the case that reducing the objection period may limit the time available for affected parties to prepare responses? I know that this is outside the remit of this very prescriptive clause, but many constituents will say that they did not get the letter or see the things that were posted, or that local people simply were not able to see things. I really think that this 30-day restriction will harm many average Joes—I hate that term, but I do not know how else to put it. People out there, who have busy lives, busy jobs and families, and who are working on their daily lives, will really struggle, in the first place, to see things within 30 days. However, they will also not know that the period is now 30 days and may therefore not be consulted on some of the actions that authorities may take.
I ask the Minister to assess whether 30 days is the right length of time. I am not talking about having an unrestricted length of time for consultation, and we absolutely need to make sure, if we want to deliver on some of these policies, that the timeframe is reasonable. However, I question whether 30 days is far too rapid and will cause more harm than good to the consultation rights of the British public. I would also ask what systems will be in place to notify stakeholders of deadline changes and extensions in individual cases, to ensure clear and accessible communication.
I have a last question. While the intent of the clause is to streamline processes, we must ensure fairness, transparency and quality decision making, allowing stakeholders to engage meaningfully. We absolutely accept that there is currently no statutory deadline. Ten weeks is adequate, but on the 30 days element of the consultation period, when we think about people out there with busy lives, I think could cause a huge problem for democratic accountability and for the transparency of the system in allowing local people to have their say. I ask the Minister to look at that 30 days again, but we will not press the clause to a Division.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his response and questions. Again, I make the point that with a number of these provisions we are trying to align the Highways Act with other consenting regimes. I do not know whether his position is that the statutory objection period in those other consenting regimes—for example, the Planning Act 2008—should be lengthened. I would argue that such an extension would add time and complexity. We think that should be brought into line with the others.
We think that 30 days is the appropriate period, that the existing arrangements, which set out a period of not less than six weeks, are too long, and that we should bring the Highways Act into line with the other regimes. On that basis, we do not think that the clause sets a precedent for the shortening of objection periods, because objection periods of about four weeks, as I have said, can be found in other infrastructure consenting regimes. That is an adequate period of time in which to submit objections.
The shadow Minister asked another, separate question about the Secretary of State’s ability to extend deadlines from the 10-week period. Again, in any such instances, the Secretary of State would need to send written notice of the extension to the relevant parties in those cases, setting out why an extension is required. I hope that on that basis the shadow Minister is reassured about the use of that particular part of the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Procedure for certain orders and schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause seeks to address the fact that under the existing system, a statutory instrument is required to approve applications under sections 16 and 106(3) of the Highways Act, and for orders under section 10, which are made by the Highways Authority in the form of a draft statutory instrument, whereas a simpler confirmation process exists for other applications under that Act.
An SI is currently required for applications to make or unmake a trunk road or special road, to construct a special road, or to build a road bridge over or road tunnel under navigable waters. Those statutory instruments are not subject to any parliamentary procedure, but they take extra time to prepare. That represents an unnecessary and disproportionate burden of bureaucracy in our view.
As I have mentioned, the Highways Act already contains a quicker process for confirming other types of application via a confirmation document issued by the Department for Transport. The clause will simply allow the applications to which I have referred to be confirmed via a confirmation document issued by the Department. In short, that again aligns the handling processes across the relevant parts of the Highways Act. That will support the Government’s goal of speeding up the consenting of transport infrastructure by streamlining the process.
To maintain transparency in the decision-making process, the clause ensures that a confirmation notice must be published in the public domain. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Compulsory acquisition powers to include taking of temporary possession
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause concerns compulsory acquisition powers in relation to projects undertaken under the Highways Act 1980. No clear provision is currently available to allow Highways Act project promoters to temporarily use and possess land, such as for construction purposes, by compulsion. In lieu of such a provision, if a project promoter cannot come to a commercial agreement with the landowner or owners for a licence to access the land required, the project promoter will typically apply for powers of compulsory acquisition to enable it to buy and use the land. That approach is disproportionate when the land is needed only temporarily for construction purposes. Additionally, the current arrangement offers the landowner no legal right to regain their land.
The intention of the clause is to provide clarity that project promoters, under the Highways Act 1980 regime, can temporarily use and possess land by compulsion. It does so by introducing a clear and proportionate legal power to require authorities that have already identified a piece of land as necessary for the planned construction of the proposed highway works to temporarily use land when they cannot reach agreement with the landowner, while also protecting landowner rights to regain their land and support compensation mechanisms.
By reducing legal ambiguity, the power will help to shorten often protracted land negotiations, speeding up the process to submit an application for highways works, ultimately thereby delivering transport projects quicker. In doing so, it will contribute to the Government’s ambition to simplify the consenting of major transport infrastructure projects.
David Simmonds
Broadly speaking, the Opposition support the intention set out in the clause. Improving the efficiency of such works is clearly a very logical step. Could the Minister say a little more about how the power will interact with the powers and duties that apply to statutory undertakers? I am thinking, for example, of where it is necessary to divert a gas main or water main, or other significant infrastructure, where there are already legal rights in place that can be used for that purpose. An issue we are all familiar with is the disruption caused to transport networks when major works are being undertaken. Will there be a process for ensuring a degree of co-ordination? Will there be a requirement or expectation for consultation so that, where a highways body wishes to undertake that work, it can possibly be co-ordinated with the work of other statutory undertakers involved in the same project, to minimise the disruption?
Will there be an assurance that that process will provide for an appropriate level of compensation for the landowner whose land is being taken temporarily, as that often seems to be a source of dispute? This should not become a back-door way by which a highways agency, as the lead body, says, “We are going to take that at no recompense,” rather than going through a process of negotiation to achieve an agreed sum in respect of the loss of amenity to the owner of the land.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that contribution and I recognise the reasonable concern he raises. If he will allow me, because it is a very technical aspect of the Bill, I will write to him with full details of how we see this power working, particularly in respect of compensation measures. I think his remarks recognised that the present arrangements do not provide the necessary certainty for landowners that they can regain their land. They force applicants to use disproportionate powers. We are trying, through the clause, to provide certainty that there is a way to take possession of land temporarily when required.
It is worth saying that there is a temporary possession power in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. It is a different mechanism; it has not yet been enacted. We are trying to achieve a fairly simple clarification through the Bill, which will not require us to enact powers that are above and beyond what is required under the simplification to which the clause gives effect. It is an uncontroversial procedural change that will make the process more certain and efficient for both parties and provide them with reassurances.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Replacement of model clauses with guidance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clauses 30 to 41 make various amendments to the Transport and Works Act 1992. I would hope that the Committee has a shared recognition that that Act of Parliament needs to be more efficient for applicants applying for transport infrastructure schemes such as new railways or tramways in England and Wales. This will allow transport infrastructure projects to be delivered as efficiently as possible, providing faster decisions and support economic growth.
Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales the power to move template model clauses from legislation into guidance. The model clauses are intended to streamline the drafting of Transport and Works Act orders, but they can currently only be amended through secondary legislation. Setting them out in more flexible guidance, rather than legislation, will allow them to be updated more regularly via a more efficient and faster process. That supports the Bill’s aim of simplifying and streamlining transport rules, ensuring that we have a more efficient legal framework moving forward. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Removal of special procedure for projects of national significance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I hope that on this clause, at least, we can avoid detailed questioning by the Opposition, because there is nothing with which issue can be taken. It is a simple tidying up of the statute book. The Transport and Works Act requires updating to reflect the wider changes that are to be implemented in the planning sector. It was, as I have mentioned, given Royal Assent in 1992.
The purpose of clause 31 is simply to remove a redundant section of the Transport and Works Act, which refers to schemes considered to be “of national significance”. Since the Planning Act 2008 was introduced as the consenting regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects, with clearly defined thresholds for what is considered “of national significance”, it has effectively rendered that part of the Transport and Works Act entirely redundant.
The effect of the clause is a simple procedural fix. By removing outdated references, the clause will make it easier for developers and public bodies to understand and apply the law, while also reducing administrative burdens. I commend the clause to the Committee.
David Simmonds
Throughout proceedings on the Bill, we have flagged up the important point that is highlighted by subsection (3), namely the lack of retrospective application. I would like the Minister’s response on a point that is of concern to the Opposition. There is always a risk that powers that are due to expire will be used and exploited in advance of new legislation coming in. What measures does the Minister have in mind to ensure that that does not turn into a problem?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. As ever with his points, it was well made. I will go away and reflect on it, but I struggle to see how the use of the clauses we are considering in the Transport and Works Act—as I have said, they have been rendered entirely redundant since they were superseded by provisions in the Planning Act 2008 that clearly define thresholds for what is deemed to be nationally significant infrastructure —give rise to the challenge that he posits.
David Simmonds
The Minister has served on a planning Committee, and he will be aware of the challenges that arise where, for example, a historical permission is secured on which a developer subsequently seeks to rely. It is clear that the intention is, quite rightly, to remove those redundant clauses. The concern I am highlighting is that when permission rights have arisen under the clauses that have been made redundant and a developer later relies on them, we must ensure that the process is effectively managed.
Matthew Pennycook
If I have understood the point correctly—I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister and set this out in detail, but he can intervene if I have not got this right—the challenge is about applicants who in the past have relied on the provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992 that we are today arguing are redundant, and how permissions obtained on that basis prior to the Planning Act 2008 interact with the changes in the clause. It is essentially a concern about retrospection in relation to the clause.
David Simmonds
We are zeroing in on the issue that I seek to highlight. The statement in subsection (3) says that the clause does
“not apply in relation to an application in respect of which a notice”
has been made
“before this section comes into force.”
Early on in his remarks, the Minister referred to sections of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 that have not come into force, eight years after they underwent scrutiny in a Committee like this one and Parliament passed them. This clause may not come into force for some considerable time after we debate it in Committee and the Bill becomes law—indeed, it may never come into force. If the previous legislation remains the relevant legislation for an extended period, or if a developer sees advantage in securing a permission now, under the previous legislation, before the new measures take its place, do we have an appropriate process for dealing with that?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand the point, but I think the shadow Minister is conflating an application under the relevant provisions in the Transport and Works Act and what the clause seeks to clarify, which is when schemes are considered to be of national importance. As I said, with the Planning Act 2008, we have an Act of Parliament that provides very clear thresholds for when schemes are considered of national importance.
I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister with further detail, but I think he raises a valid point. We think the redundant section 9 should be removed from the Transport and Works Act to give developers and public bodies clarity on how the law should be applied going forward, while also reducing administrative burdens. The easiest way—mindful of your strictures, Mrs Hobhouse—to move the Committee on and ensure that we can debate important clauses later in the Bill is for me to commit to writing to the shadow Minister with exhaustive detail on that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Duty to hold inquiry or hearing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clauses 32 and 33 relate to public inquiries under the Transport and Works Act. Clause 32 will amend the circumstances in which an objection is considered to an application under that Act. Currently, if an objection is raised to an application under the Act, a public inquiry or hearing can be required to be held, even if the objection is deemed to lack substance. That can result in costly and lengthy public inquiries taking place, even where objections lack merit.
The length of the inquiry process can range greatly depending on the complexity of what is being examined, from six months to two years. Clause 32 will mean that a public inquiry is held only when an objection is raised that is considered by the determining authority to be serious enough to merit such treatment. A streamlined process for considering objections saves time and cost for applicants. All objections will continue to be decided—I want to stress this point—entirely on the merits of the arguments put forward. This not about removing the voices of individuals or communities; instead, it ensures that the objections process remains proportionate, so serious objections are given due attention.
Clause 33 makes amendments to section 11 of the Transport and Works Act regarding decisions on costs arising from a public inquiry. It will enable an inspector conducting the public inquiry to make decisions on those costs, unless the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers direct that a cost decision is to be determined by them. Currently, the inspector must write a report with recommendations of costs to the Secretary of State based on the conduct of parties taking part in the public inquiry. That approach contrasts with the Planning Act 2008, where cost decisions are made by the examining authority.
By delegating the decision-making capability to the inspector conducting the inquiry, we will ensure that claims are resolved more quickly for all stakeholders. That will reduce administrative burden in determining such cases and save time, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. The Secretary of State in England, and Welsh Ministers in Wales, will retain the ability to direct that a cost decision is to be determined by them should they not wish to delegate responsibility on a potentially contentious case. The clauses, as I have argued, will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative burdens, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. I commend them to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I rise to query some of the provisions. We understand that the Government’s proposal would effectively remove the automatic right to call a public inquiry. The Minister knows we are concerned that the Bill seeks to remove people from the process, and to remove the opportunity for objections in the planning process. That is a very serious concern for us. The clause proposes a public inquiry only where the Secretary of State
“considers that the objection is serious enough”.
Matthew Pennycook
Hopefully I can provide the hon. Gentleman with further clarification. I recognise and appreciate the valid concerns he raises. As things stand, it is not the case that any objection to an application of the kind we have described results in a public inquiry or hearing, but it can in many instances give rise to one.
For example, when an objection comes from a landowner whose land would be affected by compulsory purchase; when a local authority for the area concerned receives an objection that they do not consider frivolous or trivial; or when other concerns are raised that need to be considered, a public inquiry or hearing takes place. In many circumstances, that is appropriate. In others, it may be the case that an exchange of correspondence, for example, can achieve the same goal without the need for a lengthy and costly public inquiry. I hope that gives him some reassurance as to the type of circumstances—
Matthew Pennycook
I am pre-empting what the hon. Member is going to intervene on, so I will finish making the point and he can come back to me. I hope he is reassured as to why we consider the change necessary, and the outcome that we are trying to achieve.
The hon. Member raises an entirely valid point about the fact that it will be for the Secretary of State for Transport to decide on a case-by-case basis when objections meet the test that he rightly reiterated. I will reflect on how we might provide further clarity, perhaps through guidance on the circumstances in which that test should be applied, but I recognise there is a fair challenge about what cases will come through this route.
I hope the hon. Member will recognise that the problem we are trying to resolve is that under certain circumstances, as things stand, a public inquiry or hearing can be triggered where it is not necessary, and there may be a far more proportionate way of moving things on and responding to objections—for example, in an exchange of correspondence. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman somewhat. As I have said, I am happy to reflect and come back to the Committee with further thoughts on this point.
Gideon Amos
I simply say that doing away with, effectively, an automatic right to a public inquiry in certain circumstances, as the Minister has clarified, and replacing that with the words “serious enough” is a big leap. I strongly encourage the Minister to put on record guidance on what relevant parties can expect will be considered serious enough to merit a public inquiry.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not have much more to add. There is a genuine problem with the current arrangements that we need to resolve. As I have said, in some circumstances a public inquiry or hearing is not necessary; things can be dealt with in other ways. Under the current arrangements, public inquiries and hearings can be triggered even if an objection is considered to be lacking in substance. That is onerous and disproportionate, but the hon. Gentleman raises a fair point about the basis on which the Secretary of State for Transport will determine whether the objection is of the relevant level of seriousness to require a public inquiry or hearing. I am more than happy to come back to him on that point in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Deadline for decisions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 34 provides a power for the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to introduce statutory deadlines for the determination of Transport and Works Act order applications. Unlike other infra-structure consenting processes, the Transport and Works Act process does not have statutory timeframes to govern the duration of its decision stage, and that can lead to uncertainty and delays. The clause will bring it into alignment with other planning consenting processes, such as the Planning Act 2008 process, and introduce greater accountability of decision makers.
Clause 35 seeks to modernise the way decisions under the Transport and Works Act are communicated. It enables the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to issue a notice online when publicising a decision on an application for a Transport and Works Act order and removes the requirement to publish the notice in the London Gazette. Moving to digital advertising will mean that notification of decisions can be done on the same day as decisions are finalised, which will ensure that there are no delays in communication and provide a more efficient service to interested parties. The clause also provides that any legal challenges must be filed within six weeks, starting the day after the notice is published, bringing the timeline in line with other consenting regimes.
By making use of modern technology, we will bring the Transport and Works Act into the 21st century, helping to speed up the process and deliver transport schemes more quickly. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Fees for certain services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales to make provision in regulations for public authorities—limited to certain statutory bodies and local planning authorities —to charge applicants for their services in connection with Transport and Works Act orders. Currently, public authorities cannot recover costs for this work, and that can lead to delays because of a lack of resourcing. The clause will apply to parts of the Act associated with approving the construction or operation of railways and tramways, externally guided buses, monorails and certain other types of guided transport.
Supporting the capacity and capability of local planning authorities and statutory bodies will encourage timely and high-quality inputs into the process, which will speed up the delivery of highways infrastructure projects. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the clause and the clarification and certainty that the Minister has given, but I want to put some questions, along similar lines to those we have asked before, about transparency and limits or caps on the fees that authorities can charge.
We believe that without clear limits, there is a risk of inconsistent or excessive charges and a disproportionately wide range of fees across authorities. What mechanisms will be in place to allow applicants to challenge or appeal fees that they consider unreasonable? What impact does the Minister think this measure may have on smaller companies in the supply chain, which may be less able to absorb the costs that will be imposed? We do not disagree with the principle of the clause; we just have some questions about the detail.
Finally, how will the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers review or update the regulations? As costs and administrative practices evolve, it is crucial that the regulations are reassessed regularly to ensure that they remain fair, relevant and effective. Will the Minister remark briefly on that and on some of the smaller businesses that may be affected?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for those points. The clause only allows for the charging of fees for services on a cost-recovery basis. I think there is broad agreement across the Committee that cost recovery for applications is a fair and proportionate way to proceed. Organisations will not be—
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
Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities
(1 day, 3 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
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of churches and religious buildings on communities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am pleased to have secured this important and timely debate with the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). Today, I speak with two hats on, as the MP for Battersea and as the Second Church Estates Commissioner.
It is undeniable that churches and religious buildings have a positive impact on our communities in constituencies across the country, and I intend to show examples of this throughout my speech. Churches such as St Mary’s in Battersea do valuable work in their communities every day, and their contributions are often delivered at no cost to the state but with such a great return for the communities in which they serve. That is part of their vocation to serve—their desire to reflect the values of Jesus Christ through their faith, love, hospitality and service to their neighbours. I hope that this debate will allow us to recognise the incredible work of our local churches and other religious organisations.
A parish church is often central to the community. It is a hub around which a village, town or city has grown. It gives a great sense of place. Parishes have a specific duty to serve all their communities, regardless of faith, background or affiliation. Our churches are not just there for Sunday services; they are active seven days a week.
I must declare my interest as an attendee of Holy Trinity Clapham, or HTC, which is a grade II listed building. The church supports the needs of its communities through services for victims of domestic violence and young families’ support services, as well as by serving breakfast to more than 200 people every week. Similar Church of England churches and cathedrals support more than 31,000 social action programmes annually. They deliver more than 14,000 of those projects themselves, while other projects are hosted by churches and carried out in partnership with volunteers and supported by donations.
The National Churches Trust’s “The House of Good” reports, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister has seen, clearly show the community benefit of churches: every £1 invested in any church creates a return for the community of £16. Dare I ask where else the Government could get a return like that?
Although a core activity of churches is worship, they do so much more. They are pillars for community, social action, culture and heritage. They support the national economy, offer apprenticeships for key trade and craft skills and are collectively one of the largest commissioners of the arts in the UK. They are drivers of regeneration and place making. They are well on their way to achieving net zero by 2030 across all their buildings. They are involved in running or supporting food banks, groups for the elderly or vulnerable, and parent and toddler groups, often in the places where they are most needed. They offer warm spaces during the winter. During the winter months in Battersea, St Peter’s, St Michael’s, St Barnabas’s and the Ascension church host night shelters, which I had the pleasure of visiting last winter.
The UK has 15,000 historic listed places of worship in use across all faiths and denominations: churches, chapels, synagogues, mosques and temples. Approximately 12,500 of them are Church of England churches or cathedrals, and in the past decade the number of listed places on Historic England’s heritage at risk register increased to 969, some 911 of which are Church of England buildings.
The listed places of worship grant scheme was introduced by the last Labour Government under the then Chancellor Gordon Brown, and it has been a lifeline in maintaining those buildings. Although the Church welcomes the continuation of the scheme for an additional year, the reduction from £42 million to £23 million a year and the new cap of £25,000 per place of worship jeopardise the ongoing future of many projects.
We know that 94% of applications are under the £25,000 cap and will not be affected, but 260 Church of England churches will be. Although that makes only 6% of claims on the scheme, the impact will be huge. The retrospective implementation of the new scheme is causing immense difficulty, preventing responsible budgeting, commissioning work on multi-year refurbishment schemes and good stewardship of the buildings.
It is preventing craft businesses, such as masons and glaziers, from taking on apprentices, as they are unable to guarantee work. Obviously, it is adversely affecting our communities, particularly those most in need of support. There is no doubt we need a long-term solution beyond the year-on-year extension.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The hon. Lady and I have had a number of exchanges in the Chamber on this issue. In her role as a Church Commissioner, given the concerns she has raised about projects failing and craftsmen being put out of work, has she had any reassurance from the Government that schemes already started, even if above the £25,000 cap, will be allowed to progress so that the projects can continue?
Marsha De Cordova
The hon. Member is right that we have had many exchanges. He knows that I am firmly committed to ensuring that the scheme is extended and, more importantly, that schemes in train will be protected. I will come to that shortly.
It is time to give stability and certainty to these treasures of our built heritage. I will not list all 260 churches, as we do not have time. My own church of Holy Trinity, Clapham has raised more than £6.2 million for vital repairs designed to make the church more accessible to the local community. As I said earlier, it provides local communities with huge amounts of support, such as advice and advocacy on debt, providing hot meals and sport and social activities.
Other examples include Sunderland Minster, another grade II building, with a long-standing ministry to refugees and asylum seekers. It holds drop-in and collection days for food, clothes and children’s toys. All Hallows-on-the-Wall, London hosts a young person’s programme in its nave, which for 30 years has supported thousands of challenging and excluded young people across the city into work. Wells Cathedral’s “warm rail” initiative provides free donated clothes and winter coats, and offers a warm space and hot refreshments. Many churches support the warm welcome campaign in response to the cost of living crisis.
I share those examples to show the significant impact those churches have socially and economically. I know the Government recognise their impact and would not want to see any listed places no longer able to make their vital contributions to the communities they serve.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The hon. Member gives an eloquent account of how churches active in communities can have an impact. Another point concerns those buildings no longer being used for religious purposes. The Church of Scotland is divesting itself of a number of churches, including in East Neuk in my constituency. Does she agree that, even if those buildings are not being used for religious purposes, they need to continue as the community hubs she describes, with Government support?
Marsha De Cordova
The hon. Lady makes a really important point: churches are a place of worship, but they do so much more in their communities.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for the work she does on behalf of the Church. She occupies a very important role and commands considerable respect for what she has been doing. I wish to add to the point that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) just made about the closure of churches, particularly in rural parishes, which is becoming an increasing problem. In my constituency, we have experienced difficulty getting the Church to recognise that it too has an obligation to stand by the side of local communities when those wonderful and precious buildings are to be closed as places of worship, and that it must help find a community purpose for them. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Church cannot ignore its responsibility?
Marsha De Cordova
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I fully agree.
I turn to some of the work that churches do. The Church Commissioners already contribute considerable sums from their funds to provide grants to Church of England dioceses and support many projects, particularly in underserved communities. The Buildings for Mission project has provided £9 million for dioceses for 35 locally based church building support officers, and grants for minor repairs and improvement. Through the cathedral sustainability fund, the Church Commissioners have provided £30 million of targeted funding for cathedrals since 2017.
But no one organisation can provide support on its own; we all need to pull together to support these treasures. A bid to the National Lottery Heritage Fund or other grant funding may rely on the listed places of worship scheme to match funding. Last year, the Heritage Fund announced £100 million to support places of worship over the next three years, and parish giving continues to be a form of local support, but I say again that that will not be enough to support the work that every church needs to undertake.
Aside from their social and economic impact, church buildings contribute to the creative and performing arts by providing hundreds of locations for amateur and professional arts of all genres for the Government’s Arts Everywhere initiative. England’s heritage generates a £45.1 billion gross value added impact, supporting more than half a million jobs, and our cathedrals attract millions of visitors, fostering local economies and preserving our cultural heritage. I am sure the right hon. Member for Salisbury will touch on that in his remarks.
Does the Minister agree that our churches make an invaluable contribution to our communities? Will he raise with his colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport the following three key things that the Government could do to support these valuable community assets? First, will the Government make the listed places of worship scheme permanent, without a cap, for each place of worship beyond March 2026? It is vital that those churches are supported so they can continue to serve their communities.
Secondly, will the Government prioritise support for projects that are already under way and/or for which contracts were signed before the cap was introduced? I highlighted a number of churches in that position; the overall figure is estimated to be 260.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Would the hon. Lady’s second question for the Minister include All Saints Mudeford, which burned down two years ago? The rebuilding process cannot be started because of the extra burden of VAT, so the church is raising money for that.
Marsha De Cordova
If that church is on the list of 260, it would be, but I would be very happy if the hon. Gentleman follows that up with me after the debate so we can look into it.
Thirdly, will the Government consider establishing a new capital funding scheme for listed places of all faiths and denominations? Finally, would my hon. Friend the Minister, when he is liaising with Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, agree to meet me and representatives of some of the churches that are affected by the changes to the listed places of worship scheme, to listen to their experiences and find a solution? I think we can all agree that if we do not find a way forward, the impact will be great.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I remind all Back-Bench colleagues to bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I commend my friend, the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for opening this co-sponsored debate, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. This is a useful and important opportunity for colleagues across the House to draw attention to the considerable impact that churches and church buildings play in their communities.
I will make some points about the listed places of worship grant scheme, and I will reflect on and amplify some of the points that the hon. Lady has made about the social impact of church buildings. I will also spell out some of the opportunities that the Government could consider with respect to capital grants. However, I first reflect on what the hon. Lady said about her own church, Holy Trinity Clapham. Jago Wynne, rector of that church, has been a personal friend of mine for 25 years. Let us not underestimate the leadership role that many rectors and vicars play, outside their core remit of preaching the gospel, in raising funds to maintain and extend the missions of their churches. Next year, Holy Trinity Clapham will celebrate 250 years of existence; it is rooted in the Clapham Sect. Jago said to me this morning, “This is a mission project, so that the building can be a blessing to the community, not a barrier.” The church now finds itself £1 million short because of the changes to the terms of the listed places of worship scheme. As the hon. Lady has set out, there are 260 other churches facing similar challenges. They have undertaken a considerable fundraising effort, the works are under way, and now they face a deficit. Some may be able to meet the gap, but others might not.
I am privileged in Salisbury: I live in the shadow of the cathedral and worship at Saint Paul’s.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I would like to reflect on the words of the hon. Gentleman. My three brothers spent many happy years as choristers at Salisbury Cathedral. As the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) said, churches are the backbone of our communities; as she also said, some 969 in England alone are at risk due to crumbling roofs and vanishing heritage funding. Recently and famously, my party was mocked for fixing church roofs, so I can only surmise that the more Liberal Democrat MPs there are, the better. Having said that, instead of leaving congregations and communities up and down the country seemingly praying for a miracle, can the Minister comment on whether the Government will commit to making the listed places of worship scheme permanent, and to removing the cap?
John Glen
I am trying to avoid making party political points, but the hon. Lady does tempt me, because at St Paul’s in Salisbury—where I go to church and where my grandmother went 100 years ago—we recently had a win in the local elections over a member of her party. That says something about the commitment that Chris Taylor has to the St Paul’s community.
I have visited many churches in Salisbury—including St Mark’s, and St Mary and St Nicholas, the famous Italianate church in Wilton, where the Rev. Mark Wood does a fantastic job—where we are seeing growth in the congregations, but also constant anxiety about how the fabric of those buildings can be maintained. The buildings are integral to the vibrancy of the communities that they serve. They are a source of great encouragement and a convening point for community activities, which have a big impact across all age groups.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The point about community activities is ever present in my constituency of Carlisle, so I profoundly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is almost 35 years since St James Church in Carlisle, the church I was christened into, set up an op-shop in the community of Denton Holme to repay the loan it had taken to expand its parish centre. I am delighted to say that that op-shop remains today. It has been joined by a coffee shop, which is a real community hub in Denton Holme. But more than that, the diocese of Carlisle took on that op-shop model. Today, there are five shops, all specifically located in communities on our larger estates in and around Carlisle where there is real need. It is not just the goods that they are selling, but the fact that they have a model that is about outreach into those communities. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the ability of our churches to diversify and innovate is one of their great strengths?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I observe that interventions are getting progressively longer. If those who want to speak are going to be able to speak, we will have to have shorter interventions.
John Glen
I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s point. Every Member present today will have a vivid portrait in their mind of an impact that a church makes in their community. It is quite different in different places, and evolves according to the needs of that community. I will not go through every single church that I have visited over my 15 years as Salisbury’s MP, but the range and depth of their impact is considerable.
Andrew Rumsey, the Bishop of Ramsbury in the diocese of Salisbury, is, coincidentally, the co-lead on church buildings for the Church of England, which has 16,000 buildings, 42 cathedrals and 300 major parish churches. Of those, 12,500 are listed. That is nearly half of grade I listed buildings in our country. Contrary to elsewhere in Europe—France, Germany and Italy, for example—there is no central church funding for building works. While it will always be right that people look to the local community to raise funds, we have to examine what we have done in the past and what we might do in the future, given that churches and church buildings are a delivery vehicle for community services alongside local authorities, and how we can embed that understanding in public policy so that churches are supported and become a sustainable force into the future.
The first point I want to make is about the listed places of worship scheme. The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) gave an assurance of continuity for one year, which I suspect is related to the spending review. On 11 June, we will have some clarity over what is happening on a multi-year basis—that cannot come soon enough. The point has been made about the 260 buildings that are in progress and outside the cap. The Government need to address that. Typically, this excellent scheme, which Gordon Brown set up in 2001, was underspent— I remember being Chief Secretary and seeing that the line was £42 million, and it was usually in the 20s. That money will be netted off at the end of the year, but I respectfully say that this is so valued that the Government must reconsider stopping those 260 buildings and putting them at risk of not achieving what they need to complete the works so that we are not left with a deficit.
In my constituency, I think the figure in the last year was £93,855. That is a considerable amount of money, and it makes a lot of difference on individual projects. That will have covered 15 or 20 projects.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Church of St Mary Magdalene in Stockland Bristol in my constituency has been planning since 2019 for extensive repairs and to turn the church into a community hub. Due to the changes in the listed worship scheme, it finds itself £300,000 short. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an enormous sum for a small community to raise?
John Glen
It is, and I wish St Mary’s parishioners well in all their endeavours. There is scope for the Government to come out of this in a very positive way in June by looking back over what they can do to put this right.
For my second point, I want to spend a few moments reasserting the impact that church buildings have on local communities. The hon. Member for Battersea mentioned “The House of Good” report. One of my constituents, Luke March, has been working for 10 years as chairman of the National Churches Trust, which put that report together, and it makes for interesting reading. We are talking about enormous support for communities, working with local authorities. The National Churches Trust report talks about how the care for those in need is worth twice as much as the total spend on adult social care by local authorities. There is a risk—I recognise this from my ministerial experience—that we say, “Well, this is going to happen anyway,” so we can bank that, and then worry about our overall budget. The Minister must recognise—he will know this from his own constituency—that there is often a synergy between statutory-funded local authority provision and the provision of churches working together. We need to look at embedding that understanding in policymaking.
The hon. Lady mentioned the value of church buildings as a source of encouragement and fun, through arts and cultural experiences. I massively recognise that at Salisbury cathedral: the flower festival this week, Sarum Lights, the number of visitors to evensong, the “From Darkness to Light” services—all of those things. Sixty-two per cent of church spaces are useful for leisure-time music performances, and they are used as such. Then there is the other side: the food banks, warm spaces, or acting as a venue for Alcoholics Anonymous, debt counselling, grief counselling, youth clubs and parish meetings.
Last year the independent Khan review looked into social cohesion and resilience. As the Minister will know, it understandably focused on the financial vulnerability of councils, but I reinforce the point that churches can surely be an effective and investable vehicle to deal with some of those deficits. Putting right the issue with the grant scheme can give more security to more buildings going forward. In its report, “Pillars of Community”, the Centre for Social Justice asserts that 12 out of its 29 policies for community thriving are supported by the presence and role of churches.
My third and final point is about capital grants. There is a considerable precedent here, although, as a former Chief Secretary, I feel anxious about that constant demand for more money. I recognise that, but we did find money from 2014 to 2018 for the first world war centenary cathedral repairs fund, which benefited 57 Anglican and Catholic cathedrals. The roof repair fund gave £55 million over a similar timeframe and was administered by the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The heritage stimulus fund gave grants for programmes of major works as part of the culture recovery fund after covid in two tranches in 2021 and 2022.
The public finances are clearly challenged, but there is enormous willingness in many communities where the Government are doing something to match that funding. There is an enormous opportunity for a multiplier effect. It is usually easier to secure capital funding than revenue funding. A Chancellor is always looking for small items, or good news stories, as George Osborne did back in the day, so I urge the Minister, when he plans his budget and finalises what is happening in these final weeks, to recognise that this would be a great opportunity to find a capital grant scheme for match funding from philanthropic and charitable giving that would be really popular and welcomed across the House.
I will not detain colleagues for much longer, but I want to emphasise that we must fully acknowledge the enormous contribution that our church buildings make and the value-add that they provide—spiritually, socially and in looking after the most vulnerable people. I call on the Minister to take to heart the cumulative effect of all that he will hear this morning and reflect on the impact of church buildings, which is felt across our country. There are just four weeks until the spending review on 11 June. There is time for a late addition and to put a few things right; this would be a great opportunity to do so.
I also want to give thanks to all those church leaders—not only in the Anglican Church, but in all denominations—who do so much to achieve positive outcomes for people in our communities. They do so alongside their formal ministry of preaching the gospel, but the impact they have, and what they speak of Jesus Christ to their communities, is instrumental in the mission they have. I hope that we and the Government can acknowledge that and assist them in the maintenance of this vast estate of church buildings, which is so important to our country.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We will need to move to Front-Bench speeches at just before 10.30 am, so if colleagues can keep their speeches to around three minutes, we might get everybody in.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing the debate and giving us the opportunity to hail the amazing contribution of churches and religious buildings in our local communities. It is not an exaggeration to say that almost every religious building offers invaluable service to its local community. We see that especially in times of national hardship, such as during the pandemic and in the cost of living crisis, but we also see it in everyday life. Holy Trinity Clapham, which is in my constituency and which is my hon. Friend’s church, is a clear example of the impact that churches and other places of worship can have on their local community. It is the largest Church of England church in the diocese of Southwark, with around 800 worshippers each Sunday, a number that has tripled in size over the past decade.
The work of Holy Trinity Clapham has touched so many people in the community. Like so many other churches that we have already heard about, it ran a significant food bank during the covid pandemic, supporting those who were unable to afford basic goods or to get to a supermarket. To carry on that work, the church has established a breakfast club that feeds approximately 200 people every week. It also runs youth clubs, works with ex-offenders, puts on courses for those who have suffered from domestic violence, prepares couples for marriage, and does so much more. Holy Trinity Clapham is not just a place of worship; it is a community hub.
Members may also be intrigued to know that Holy Trinity Clapham is the church where William Wilberforce and the Clapham sect worshipped. Continuing that legacy, Holy Trinity has worked with other organisations to help to tackle modern day slavery. It has also extended support to other churches and communities in the area, having sent teams of people to help revitalise other struggling churches and communities in Brixton, Vauxhall and Mitcham. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea and the right hon. Member for Salisbury have expressed words of support for Holy Trinity’s vision and I am sure the church is very grateful for that.
To facilitate the plans to expand its work, Holy Trinity has begun a project to make its building more suitable for the modern day. It has raised a total of £6 million, with £4.5 million coming through donations from the congregation and the remaining £1.5 million coming from successful grant applications. That is a huge amount of work that the church has already done on its own. The whole project is a massive undertaking, but Holy Trinity has managed to raise the funds and the works will take place over the next 12 to 18 months, or so we hope. As we have heard today, the changes to the listed places of worship grant scheme, and particularly the £25,000 cap, have put those plans in doubt. Holy Trinity had assumed that it would be able to recoup most of the VAT on the £6 million project and it entered into a number of contracts on that basis and on the assumption that the scheme will continue. Now it faces the prospect of an extra £1 million in expenditure.
The church does not have that money, nor does its already generous congregation. However, without finding that extra £1 million—or unless the Government introduce an exemption for places of worship that had already signed contracts for projects set to conclude in 2025-26, before the cap is introduced—the project will have to be brought to a temporary halt and potentially a permanent one. I am sure Members will agree that that would be a great shame, with hugely negative repercussions for the local community and those who rely on the church’s services, as well as more widely in the boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth, which the church was hoping to reach.
Holy Trinity Clapham is not the only church impacted by these changes. It serves as a very clear example of the impact they will have on the estimated 200 churches across the country whose restoration projects have been placed in jeopardy. Will the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to support churches that have already begun their restoration projects, and stick to the agreement—or the belief—that the churches had when they began them? This morning’s debate has been filled with many shining examples of the crucial role that churches and places of worship play in their local communities, and it would be a great shame to lose that. I hope the Minister shares that sentiment.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the joint sponsors, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), on obtaining this very important debate, which highlights the important role that churches play in our local communities. I will give a few examples of that.
Last week, we marked the 80th anniversary of VE Day. Yes, there was a grand national service across the road in Westminster Abbey, but there were civic services up and down the country to mark the occasion. I attended one that had been arranged by the Mayor of North East Lincolnshire. He is a Catholic, so we attended the Catholic church last Thursday evening. Amazingly enough, while we were there, we heard of the election of the new Pope. Just as an aside, I would say that perhaps the Catholic Church has something to teach the Church of England in the speed with which it appoints its head. We desperately need a head of the Church of England, and that it takes a year to come up with a candidate is staggering. I am sure the hon. Member for Battersea has relayed that point already, but I emphasise it again. VE Day showed the importance of church buildings and the role of the Church within our national and civic life.
On Sunday, it was National Fishing Remembrance Day. Part of my constituency has a ward in Grimsby, which is noted for fish. Sadly, the deep sea fishing industry is no more, but many people in the area worked as trawlermen or were connected with the industry. It is still vital to the area. At the service I attended, Canon Mullins from Grimsby Minster drew links between VE Day and the fishing industry. The great west window in Grimsby Minster depicts St Peter and the fishermen going out into the Sea of Galilee. In 1943, two bombs landed on the minster, or St James’ church as it was then, shattering every window in the church. The original drawings still existed, so many of the windows were recreated, but the new west window paid tribute to the fishing industry.
Any country church or churchyard tells the story of the local community. This weekend was an open weekend for many churches in Lincolnshire, and on Saturday, I visited St Mary’s in Broughton, a village close to Scunthorpe. I heard there from a local historian who lives across the road from the church. He was extremely knowledgeable about the history of virtually every brick in the building. He pointed out to me that it was one of four churches in Lincolnshire to predate the Norman conquest, and guided me to the evidence for that. I was a bit disturbed by that because the church that I attend regularly in Scartho in Grimsby, St Giles and St Matthews, has what is claimed to be an Anglo-Saxon tower dating to 1042. I pointed that out to the historian and he said, “Oh no, it must be at least 50 years later than that”, but nevertheless, it points to the long history of the stories that churches tell of their local communities.
One of those other four churches in Lincolnshire that was referred to as pre-dating the conquest is St Peter’s—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Before the hon. Gentleman gets on to any more churches, I gently pointed out to him that he is well over his three minutes. It is not a formal time limit, but I am trying to get everybody in.
Martin Vickers
My apologies, Sir Jeremy. In that case, I will conclude by saying that our churches and cathedrals play such an important part in our local communities. The National Churches Trust is conducting a survey at this time, which I urge Members to take part in to refer to the importance of the churches in their local communities.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on securing this important debate.
Our churches and religious buildings are so much more than the stone and bricks and mortar that they are made from, but if their walls and roofs fall down, then what we lose is far greater too. In Derby, we are blessed to have churches, Sikh gurdwaras, Hindu temples and Muslim mosques, and in the middle of our city, we have our cathedral. Next year, it enters its 100th year as a cathedral, although its tower dates back to the 16th century. It is our tallest building at 212 feet—that height is rather firmly imprinted on my memory, having abseiled from the top of it for charity alongside my then nine-year-old. Inside the tower is the oldest ring of bells in the world. The oldest is more than 500 years old, older than the tower itself, and they peal out across the city. At our VE day celebration, there was a commemorative peal that lasted three hours, which was no small feat for the bell ringers, the youngest of whom was 10 years old.
The coming together of people of all ages always strikes me in our churches and religious buildings, and the churches in our city have groups from the little nippers to the university students coming together at St Alkmund’s or the monthly tea for older people at St Peter’s. I had lots of really interesting studies and stats about loneliness and crossing generational divides, but given the three-minute limit I will have to leave those out.
We have heard from many Members, and I am sure we will hear more, that the work done in our churches is so often there to meet the wider need in our communities, with food banks, community cafes and warm spaces such as that at St Philip’s church in Chaddesden, to name just one. Often, it is in our churches and religious buildings where we see examples of humanity at its best and looking after one another. Nearly 80% of Church of England buildings host more than 31,000 social action projects a year, and His Majesty’s Treasury Green Book estimates that for every pound invested in our church buildings, the benefit to communities is over £16.
Our religious buildings are often opened up for wider cultural events as well as social action. At Derby cathedral, people have heard Queen by candlelight. Again, I had a whole list of other events, but Members will have to look them up for themselves. The incredible sound of Derby cathedral choir fills the cathedral most days, giving moments of peace and reflection in busy lives and what feels like an uncertain world.
I would like to give a final example of the work of our church going out beyond their walls. Derby cathedral has a music in schools programme that is currently working with more than 900 children weekly across 17 different schools. To hear their voices fill the cathedral creates moments in time that nourish the soul. Those buildings were built with the knowledge that they would build communities and lift the health, education and culture of Derby and of every part of our country. I would ask that the Minister ensure that all the social good carried out within the bricks and mortar—but which extends so far beyond them—is taken into account when decisions on funding are made.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for leading today’s debate. I extend my heartfelt thanks to all who are gathered here today and, furthermore, to all who support the work of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, of which I am privileged, honoured and humbled to be the chair.
I want to give a perspective on churches and their impact on communities, and I will describe three countries where they are important. Churches and religious buildings have long played an essential role in our communities. They are places not only of worship but of support, guidance and service. In my constituency of Strangford, I have seen churches that run food banks, offer support to the elderly, provide youth programmes and bring people together across the community—including my own Baptist church in Newtownards, which I love and am grateful for. Those buildings serve the whole person—not just spiritually, but practically—and it is important that we do that.
I want to focus first on Morocco and the challenges that religious buildings face around the world. The recent destruction of minarets—symbols of religion and cultural identity—has caused great distress. Those structures are much more than buildings: they are central to the spiritual life of the community. For many Moroccans, the minaret is a sign of their faith and history; losing it is about not just architecture, but identity, culture and the right to express their beliefs.
Secondly, just a week or 10 days ago, on a parliamentary visit to Egypt—I encourage our Christians here to do the same—I had the opportunity to visit one of the evangelical churches in Cairo. It is a congregation of 1,800, with 600 children who attend its services on a Sunday morning. Pastor Youssef Samir’s words were, “It’s a golden age for churches.” That should be encouraging for each of us here—although we see persecution and discrimination across the world, we can also see a country trying to come to terms with that.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On that point, unfortunately, it is not a golden age for churches everywhere in the United Kingdom. We need to do more to highlight what those buildings offer, because many people take them for granted and put them to one side, simply because of their age and historical context.
Jim Shannon
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.
To put the situation in Egypt into perspective, each church, irrespective of denomination, has the police and army on guard 24 hours a day. In 2013, Christian churches were burned and Christians were murdered. Today, however, the opportunities have changed, and there will be a new church in upper Cairo.
In Jordan, churches and mosques have been working hand in hand to support Syrian refugees by offering shelter, food and education. Those interfaith efforts are rooted in the power of religious communities, and the spaces that those communities occupy serve as a powerful reminder of what is possible when freedom of religion or belief is respected and protected. That includes ensuring that places of worship remain accessible, protected and supported.
I end on a Scripture text, as I often do in these debates, because I think it is important. Isaiah 56:7 says:
“Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.”
That is not just a call to protect buildings; it is a call to safeguard the freedom to worship. Every individual, regardless of faith, should be able to worship freely without fear of persecution or obstruction. When such places are attacked, it is an assault on the fundamental right to practise our faith, to live according to our beliefs and to do so without fear. Let us continue to support efforts to ensure that churches and other religious buildings remain places of peace, welcome and faith. Let us speak out for those whose right to worship in safety is still denied.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
We have five more speakers and about 10 minutes left, which means, I am afraid, about two minutes each.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I will speak quickly. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.
In a Westminster Hall debate earlier this year, I was pleased to note that there are an impressive 138 listed places of worship in my constituency. I am very proud of the work they do; they enrich our lives in so many ways. More disappointingly, I recently noted that I am the Labour MP with the highest number of places of worship on the heritage at risk register—13. I hope that reflects the sheer number of churches locally, rather than our desire, or not, to look after them.
Earlier this year, I was delighted that, despite the difficult economic situation the Government inherited, they confirmed that they would extend the listed places of worship grant scheme, providing £23 million to enable important restoration work. That includes many places in my constituency that have been busily co-ordinating their improvement plans, because churches, particularly in such rural areas, are often the heartbeat of the community.
A couple of weeks ago in the village of Welney, on the Norfolk and Cambridgeshire border, I was pleased to join St Mary the Virgin church to mark its 100th community coffee morning. That initiative was started during covid by Laura and her husband Antony, along with Marie, Guy, Sue, Karen, Shirley and Tracey. They estimate that they have now had more than 3,000 visits, which is very impressive for a small village. As nice as the cake was—as I can attest—they also, more importantly, provide a warm space in the winter, bring people together, reduce isolation and much more. I commend them for their efforts. It was through the church in Welney that I heard about fen skating—I urge hon. Members to look it up; it is a really important part of our heritage in South West Norfolk.
Although I am the Labour MP with the highest number of churches on the heritage at risk register, the second on that list is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I gently suggest to the Minister that I am sure that the Prime Minister will be very interested in ensuring that the Government continue to support churches and commit to a long-term plan for the listed places of worship grant scheme.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for leading the debate. Let me be clear: we do not own these buildings. We are simply their caretakers and custodians for a future generation. Our job is not to profit from them, but to protect them—ideally without charging them 20% for the privilege. These places, whether they are cathedrals, churches, mosques or gurdwaras, are much more than bricks and mortar; they are history books made out of stone and community centres made out of marble.
Let us take, for example, Leicester cathedral: a 12th-century gem so ancient that it gets a shout-out in the Domesday Book. It gives our town a sense of awe and is a much-needed break from the concrete jungle around it. It is also home to King Richard III, who spent 500 years lying low in a car park before getting the royal treatment. Some even say it was his reburial that triggered the greatest miracle in modern sporting history—Leicester City winning the premier league. Was that a coincidence, or was it divine intervention?
Those buildings do not just have beautiful backstories. As many hon. Members have mentioned, they are where the lonely find company and the hungry are fed. Just last week, I visited the Geeta Bhavan mandir in the Clarendon Park area of my city, and the commitment to sustainability and the environment was much more progressive than in half the tech start-ups in Shoreditch. Another example is the local gurdwara, the Guru Amar Das, which serves hundreds of meals daily with no questions asked. In fact, the only question asked is, “Do you want some more?”, to which the answer is always, “Yes”.
This unity and service crosses boundaries—I am a Muslim, and I volunteer for a Sikh charity, the Midland Langar Seva Society, which operates out of a church and serves people of all faiths and no faith. That is what community looks like and what Britain looks like—it is not an island of strangers. I say to the Minister that we cannot put a price on such things, so let us not be the generation that taxes them; let us be the generation that funds them for future generations. Beauty, service and spiritual refuge deserve relief and not receipts.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I will keep my remarks fairly short. As many Members present know, churches in my constituency are much more than just places of worship. They are vital hubs for community cohesion and provide crucial resilience in the face of events such as Storm Éowyn and Storm Arwen, particularly for the most rural parts of the constituency. They are marks of local identity and symbols of the rich history that Northumberland, the north-east and Newcastle have to offer.
Northumberland is often called the cradle of Christianity due to Holy Island, also known as Lindisfarne, but Members will appreciate that, in my view, the west of the county has far more to offer than the coast—my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) is not here. We benefit greatly from that religious history through the great amount of tourism coming in and the huge involvement of local communities.
Organisations and churches operate throughout the Tyne valley and the more rural parts of the constituency, particularly the Holy Cross Anglican church in Haltwhistle, St Mary the Virgin in Throckley, St Mary Magdalene in Prudhoe. Hexham abbey is one of the most iconic buildings that my constituency and the north-east have to offer, not just because I will be getting married there later this year, but because there has been a church on that site for around 1,300 years. For anyone interested in history, it has been there since Queen Etheldreda made a gift of lands to Wilfrid, the Bishop of York, in roughly the year 674.
The constituency is home to more than just Hexham abbey. Bywell is the only village in England with two surviving Anglo-Saxon churches. In Bellingham, St Cuthbert’s has been attracting worshippers for over 800 years, dating back to at least the 13th century.
Such churches are not simply relics, attractions or bits of our history that have seen their day and are now merely decorations. They are the beating heart of our communities and they provide a community spirit in Northumberland that is unparalleled elsewhere in the world. I am tremendously proud to represent all of them. They also provide a crucial venue for hosting constituency office surgeries and for meeting individual members of the community.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Yeovil has some truly beautiful religious buildings, and polling of the general public shows that 75% of people agree that church buildings are important for society. Holy Trinity runs a baby bank, supporting three to four families each week with essential items for newborns, such as nappies and baby grows. The church also has a thriving eco-garden cared for by volunteers. St John’s has the Gone Fishing café, which is very popular in the community. It also hosts Christians Against Poverty once a week, providing support services.
Almost half of all grade I listed buildings in England are historic churches. Over 900 churches are at risk, according to Historic England’s heritage at risk register. That is why the listed places of worship grant scheme for church repairs is so important. The scheme allows congregations of all faiths to recover the value added tax costs of vital repairs to the listed buildings, making it the most universal and accessible source of relief.
I was glad to see that, following public pressure, the Government extended the scheme until March 2026, but with a lower cap of £25,000 towards repair costs. I thank the Minister for writing to me to confirm that following my early-day motion on the topic. I am concerned about the introduction of the cap, and I urge the Government to make sure that existing claims are honoured under the previous agreement where no cap existed.
In conclusion—I am under time, which is good—churches are not just for the faithful, but for all communities, whether that is local groups and clubs, charity workers and the vulnerable, or people celebrating weddings and christenings or mourning the passing of loved ones. Religious buildings play an important role in key moments throughout our life, bringing us together as a community. That is why we must do all we can to support these fantastic buildings as cornerstones of our British society and culture.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity, as I am sure is Brian Mathew.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I also thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for leading the debate.
For over 20 years, the Government have run the listed places of worship grant scheme, which allows listed churches, chapels and other places of worship to reclaim VAT on the costs of repair. That grant scheme has been renewed every few years, and it needs to be renewed again in full if communities are to be allowed to keep what is often their heart and soul in good order, and in doing so, keep themselves healthy.
Any reduction in the scheme would be a disaster for listed places of worship. Nearly half of all grade I listed buildings in England are churches. Those buildings are largely run by volunteers who have to raise the funds needed for repairs. The ability to reclaim VAT on such works makes an enormous difference, particularly when the cost of all building work has increased substantially.
Historic churches are not only places of spiritual importance, but architectural and cultural landmarks. They offer a window into our past, reflecting the diversity of our communities and our shared history. They also do a tremendous amount to support local communities, often hosting or helping to run services such as food banks, youth clubs, and drug and addiction support, which contribute to health and social welfare across our country—from rural idylls to inner city neighbourhoods.
Without the scheme, many historically and architecturally significant buildings will quite simply face neglect, and even closure. That would not only have a severely negative effect on local communities, inevitably impacting the most deprived communities the most, but result in a loss of this hugely significant heritage. By continuing the listed places of worship grant scheme, the Government can ensure that those treasures are protected for future generations as places that promote beauty, education, community cohesion and tourism.
I have received 40 letters from 24 church communities in my constituency of Melksham and Devizes. Those churches are quintessential to what makes up the best of our nation; they should be celebrated, visited and utilised, because that is what they were built for in the first place.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank all hon. Members for their co-operation and self-discipline. I now call the Front-Bench speakers, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), on securing this important debate.
As a Liberal Democrat, I am primarily interested in the fixing of church roofs, as the Leader of the Opposition has so keenly pointed out, so it is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate. Actually, I take her statement as a compliment, because such work shows an interest in our communities, which is what we have all displayed during the debate.
Across the United Kingdom, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other places of worship have long stood at the heart of our communities. They are not just architectural landmarks, but vital, living institutions, and it is the people who make them. They are the anchor points of community life, and today, more than ever, they remain places of refuge, service and solidarity. Historically, churches have provided more than spiritual guidance, although that is their primary service. They have funded hospitals, built schools and supported the most vulnerable long before the modern welfare state. They were, and still are, the institutions to which many of us turn first in times of hardship and crisis.
Today, their role has evolved. The 40,000 churches across our country offer mental health services, youth clubs, after-school programmes and warm spaces. Churches are responsible for running the majority of food banks in the UK. They often step in where the state has stepped back. Before the pandemic, churches and other places of worship were co-ordinating around 35,000 social action projects, including 8,000 food banks, 4,000 parent and toddler groups—more about them later—2,600 breakfast clubs and 2,400 night shelters for homeless people. Around 2.6 million in the UK sought help from churches during the cost of living crisis, the majority for food but a significant number to access a warm space, too. These are extraordinary numbers: they represent not just acts of charity, but the fabric of care that binds our communities together, thanks to the dedication of the religious institutions that continue to serve them.
I know this from personal experience. Prior to my election last summer, I was a full-time dad—I think I am the only newly elected MP who was a full-time dad in the lead-up to my election. With my daughter, I regularly joined the Highbury congregational church play group, just around the corner from my house, and Little Notes baby music class at St Mark’s. I am particularly thankful for the role that those two churches have played in our family life.
I would like to thank the religious groups that support our most vulnerable in my town. At St Michael’s church in Whaddon, the Cornerstone centre plays a vital role in looking after people who need a bit extra to get by, ably supported by the Rev. James White, who is a truly wonderful man. It also hosts community counselling services to help people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. I have seen that work in action when I have visited and the responses of the people who use those services. It is truly moving to see the change that those services can stimulate in the people who need that. At St Gregory’s Roman Catholic church and among those who attend the Quaker meeting house in Cheltenham, there is a community working very hard to support refugees and asylum seekers. They do not ask for our thanks, but they deserve it in bucketloads.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for securing the debate. I know my hon. Friend is a big fan of soft play centres, so will he join me in thanking the deans, priests and vicars of Brecon cathedral, St Mary’s church in Brecon, Kensington church in Brecon and St David’s in Llanfaes—unfortunately, I cannot name all the churches and religious institutions in my constituency—for providing soft play centres that are much needed and much appreciated by local residents, and in thanking them for all of the other services that they provide to young parents in our communities?
Max Wilkinson
Absolutely—as the parent of a toddler, soft play centres are a vital service that I use. I am sure that all around my hon. Friend’s vast constituency, there are far more soft play centres in the various churches, and I join him in saying thank you. The individuals who volunteer deserve our thanks, although they never ask for it.
Churches also act as an economic driver. Anglican cathedrals alone contribute £235 million to local economies and support around 6,000 full-time jobs. The tourists visiting those sites—I almost said Tories, although I sure they like to visit churches, too—spend an extra £128 million per year. The heritage value of the buildings is a testament not only to the faith of Britain but to our enduring cultural history.
In the centre of my constituency is Cheltenham minster, which is our oldest building at more than 850 years old. It now sits next to one of our newest buildings, the Minster Exchange development, which is a hub for tech and cyber businesses. The fact that Cheltenham’s oldest building sits next to a building at the forefront of modern technology is a testament to the enduring social utility of religious spaces throughout the ages. That is why it should concern us that so many churches—more than 900, as I understand it—are on Historic England’s heritage at risk register. The Church of England’s repair bill of more than £1 billion is a matter of huge concern for the cultural life of our nation.
We welcome the Government’s recent decision to extend the listed places of worship grant scheme until 2026. That is good news, and we seek confirmation that it will be renewed after that. However, we remain concerned that the new £25,000 cap may limit its effectiveness, and believe that outstanding claims under the previous, uncapped arrangement should be honoured. We are also concerned about the long-term sustainability of these institutions. In the past decade, more than 3,500 churches have closed in the UK. In Scotland, 40% of churches are at risk of closure, and in Wales nearly a quarter have already shut their doors. This is not just about religion, but about community life. We ignore the value of that at our peril.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing the debate. I also thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner for all that she does for churches, and for her eloquent speech and argument. My right hon. Friend highlighted the important role of churches in the community, especially when it comes to leadership. I thank both Members for making the case for Holy Trinity Clapham.
Last week, we celebrated VE Day. During the day’s events, I was struck by the many references to community and spirit, which often related to street parties and dancing, but also frequently to the important community role of parish churches, chapels, cathedrals and minsters, both 80 years ago and today. I attended a moving beacon- lighting service at Elmdon church in my constituency. I was privileged to meet a 96-year-old veteran and ex-para, Frank Spencer, whose charitable endeavours included jumping out of a plane at the age of 92—perhaps an idea for the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), if she wanted to graduate from abseiling down churches.
With the peal of bells echoing throughout the country as part of a nationally co-ordinated effort, it was clear how important churches and religious buildings are to local people. Many people’s real-world experience of places of worship is not of the grandeur of St Peter’s or St Paul’s, but often of an ancient, parochial building or hall used as a meeting place or hired venue for birthdays, or as a soft play centre, as has been mentioned. It may be a space that offers some quiet time at Christmas or Easter for reflection and a sense of something deeper. Other communities open the doors of the local synagogue, mosque or temple, which fulfil a similar function and sit just as prominently and importantly in local life.
Just a few weeks ago, I visited the Balsall common Parkinson’s café at the Balsall common methodist church, where I met a 30-strong community group committed to helping people with Parkinson’s. Crucially, the church offered the venue free of charge, providing the group with an invaluable space to support local people in navigating the complexities of life with Parkinson’s.
Over this last cold winter, which saw the Government’s cut to the winter fuel payment, an army of churches and other places of worship, including 485 Church of England churches, played a vital role in providing safe and warm spaces for those in the cold. Communities also make countless donations of food and clothes every year via places of worship—a point eloquently made by the hon. Member for Battersea. I thank all our places of worship, especially our churches, for all that they do.
For many churches, however, the future of their support schemes looks far bleaker than they perhaps expected. Many will be celebrating the election of the 267th supreme pontiff—I send my warmest congratulations to Pope Leo XIV—and others might be getting ready to welcome a new Archbishop of Canterbury; I am less brave than my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), so I will not be commenting on church affairs. However, hundreds of these churches will also be looking to the future. They will probably be less thankful to the Government for their cut to the much-valued listed places of worship grant scheme. The scheme has been a lifeline for many churches and other places of worship seeking essential and fundamental repairs by helping to cover the VAT incurred on repair costs, within certain limits. I will focus on churches, because Historic England’s heritage at risk register found that of the 969 places of worship at risk in 2024, 959 were churches. Indeed, between 2023 and 2024, 55 places of worship were added to the list.
Nationally, the established Church of England—the mother Church of global Anglican communion—has a backlog of repairs to churches estimated at more than £1 billion, with an annual repair bill of about £150 million. Hon. Members might think that, confronted with those worrying statistics, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport would be working tirelessly to ease the burden on places of worship, but unfortunately they would be wrong. The Government’s response to the repairs crisis has been one of delay, confusion and cuts. After leaving those community assets in the dark by continuously delaying the announcement on the scheme’s future, the Government finally came to this place to confirm the fears of many: there will be cuts to the scheme and to the lifeline of many of our historic churches and places of worship.
As I have previously said in this Chamber, many of my Meriden and Solihull East constituents have told me about their concerns about their beloved places of worship. One told me that the cut
“would be a disaster for listed places of worship”,
and that the ability to reclaim VAT
“makes an enormous difference, particularly at a time when the cost of building work has increased substantially.”
Many Members have made that argument in this debate.
Sir Philip Rutnam, chairman of the National Churches Trust, said, after the funding was slashed, that the scheme
“simply does not provide enough certainty or support for”
churches,
“who need more time to plan and deliver repairs…We strongly believe that the scheme should be made permanent—it’s vital to help these buildings stay open, serving local people, and it’s the poorest and most isolated who will suffer most if these buildings are forced to close.”
He highlighted that local people—indeed, communities—will suffer if places of worship are forced to shut their doors for good due to the miserly actions of a Government way out of their economic depth.
Furthermore, this all comes despite the fact that the scheme offers tremendous value for money. As the National Churches Trust has shown, every £1 invested in a church generates £16 of social good.
I call on the Government to end the dithering and ensure that this is the final time they leave our community assets in the dark. The Minister must confirm whether the Government plan to continue the scheme beyond the one-year extension, which does next to nothing for the confidence of those responsible for the affected buildings and communities. They must protect our national heritage with pride, not leave it crumbling in the dark shadow of bureaucratic delays. I gently say to the Minister: the Opposition often ask the Government to stand for something, so why not stand for our churches?
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Good morning to everybody in the Chamber. I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing the debate and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for the significant work that she does.
I will respond to some of the points that hon. Members raised and set out the Government’s position on this topic. Given the subject of the debate, it seems fitting to begin by reflecting on some religious terminology. I understand that among Christian communities it is common to remind one another that, biblically, “church” refers not only to a physical building but to a gathering of people assembled, united by their Christian faith. Nevertheless, for most the word “church” invites images of Christian places of worship, be they the Gothic cathedrals in the shire counties or the churches of all denominations in towns and cities across the country, which were built not just as places of worship but as anchors of the communities they serve. They serve not only the community’s spiritual needs, but its social needs, and many stand in support of the local school, the community hall and more. Many churches, including in my town of Oldham, are buildings of note whose status and heritage have stood for generations.
There are many modern parish churches on estates around the country. Town planners would often draw up the ideal community, with local schools, shops, pubs and, alongside them, places of worship, which were always seen as integral to a thriving community.
We also know that church buildings often welcome through their doors not just Christians, but those of all faiths and none, because they are a wider anchor of the community. That can equally be said of places of worship belonging to other faiths and belief communities, including mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras and temples. The public service and care for their neighbour enacted by faith and belief groups are not just words; they are seen in actions that are often very practical and grounded in the place they live in and represent.
That brings us to the focus of this debate: the importance and impact of religious buildings in communities. There are an estimated 40,300 churches in the UK, according to the National Churches Trust, plus many places of worship belonging to other faiths and beliefs. The invaluable contribution of religious buildings to the built landscape of our nation cannot be overstated. My noble Friend Lord Khan, the Minister for Faith, has made more than 120 visits since last July, including to places of worship, and seen at first hand how they serve their communities.
Only last week, the Minister for Faith spoke at the Shah Jahan mosque in Woking, marking VE Day and the sacrifice of Muslim soldiers in defence of our country. The mosque, built in 1889, is the oldest purpose-built mosque in the country. The Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha gurdwara in Birmingham, which the Minister for Faith visited in December, was built in the 1970s, following the arrival of Sikhs from India and East Africa. The Nishkam campus includes not only a place of worship, but a school, a health centre and a social enterprise that serves all members of the local community, regardless of faith.
We have heard numerous examples of how religious buildings are being used to build more compassionate and resilient communities. I can think of a number of churches, mosques and temples in my area that reach out and offer support to the homeless, provide food banks and do an amazing amount of charity work. We have heard about services based in those buildings for older people, younger people and marginalised groups, from food banks and community kitchens to vaccination centres and now modern family hubs. I will add the work that my Department funds through the near neighbours cohesion programme, which often operates out of places of worship, bringing together people from diverse background to collaborate on initiatives that improve their local community.
Sadly, because these buildings matter, they can become the focus of hate for those who seek to sow division in our communities. We saw that in the wake of the tragedies in Southport last summer, when the local mosque became the target of thugs participating in violent disorder. What those criminals did not anticipate was the response of local people, Muslims and many non-Muslims alike, to protect and rebuild that mosque. But protecting religious buildings from violence cannot be just the responsibility of local citizens. The Government are committed to protecting the right of individuals to freely practise their religion at their chosen place of worship, and to ensuring that our streets and communities are safe.
That is particularly important at a time when attacks on synagogues and mosques in the UK, and worldwide, have risen. In 2025-26, up to £50.9 million is available to protect faith communities and their places of worship. That includes £18 million for the Jewish community protective security grant, £29.4 million for the protective security for mosques scheme and for security at Muslim faith schools and £3.5 million for the places of worship and associated faith community centres of all faiths.
We know that those measures, though vital, do not necessarily address the deep-seated issues that lead to the need for such protections in the first place. I am sure we all wish they were not needed at all. That is why my Department is leading the cross-Government effort to develop a longer-term, more strategic approach to community cohesion, working in partnership with communities and local stakeholders, including faith and belief groups, to rebuild, to renew and to address those deep-seated issues.
As part of that ambition, the Government recently announced a plan for neighbourhoods: £1.5 billion to invest in 75 areas over the next decade, highlighting the Government’s commitment to repairing fractured communities, bringing people back together and ensuring that people see a visible difference and improvement in their communities. Local neighbourhood boards will provide a space for community representations, which could include those from faith and belief communities, to help shape how the funding is delivered through their local neighbourhood. That could include discussions on the role of places of worship in serving their local communities.
Religious buildings help to make up not just the physical, but the social fabric of our nation. They are a record of our history, a resource for our present and an asset for the future. That is why this Government have continued to fund the listed places of worship scheme. It was due to the difficult fiscal circumstances that we inherited that the scheme’s budget was reduced to £23 million from April 2025. Despite that, the evidence of previous years suggests that that sum should meet the demand, with 94% applying to the scheme for less than £25,000 and more than 70% applying for less than £5,000.
It is worth noting that there is also a range of support for listed places of worship via DCMS and the Department’s arm’s length bodies. For instance, the National Lottery Heritage Fund has committed to investing around £100 million between 2023 and 2026 to support places of worship. In exceptional circumstances, listed places of worship may also be eligible for Historic England’s heritage at risk funding, and in February DCMS announced an additional £15 million for 2025-26 for this sector.
The Churches Conservation Trust also funds repairs to and maintenance of more than 350 churches in its portfolio. Moreover, town and parish councils are civil local authorities, and in that capacity may choose to support the upkeep of religious buildings, which support the development of other community assets.
In addition to the critical day-to-day work of providing spaces that help to meet the needs of local people, churches and religious buildings also often host events of national commemoration and celebration. Examples include the funeral of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, His Majesty the King’s coronation and services of remembrance in every community across the country—moments when religious buildings become sites of history and stir the nation’s collective soul. That has also been movingly evident in the images of St Peter’s basilica in Rome over the last few days and weeks, with great crowds gathering to pay their respects to the late Pope Francis, and scenes of jubilant celebration to mark the election of Pope Leo XIV.
I thank the Members who secured this debate, the right hon. Member for Salisbury and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, and those who participated in it for providing the opportunity to demonstrate—
Marsha De Cordova
I thank the Minister for giving way. He is making a good speech responding to the debate, but I raised three points at the start: making the scheme permanent, prioritising support for those projects that are already under way and looking at a capital fund. Will he respond to those specific points?
Jim McMahon
I did my best to outline the range of different funding available to local churches and places of worship; this fund is just one of a number. On my hon. Friend’s particular point about the continuation of the fund, Members will appreciate that any matter of future funding is a matter for the spending review, and every Department across Government will make a submission to that.
John Glen
Of course the Minister is absolutely right in what he has just said. However, he will also be very aware that within the budgets he is responsible for, there will be capital underspends in-year, so there will be an opportunity for him to make the case to his Secretary of State and to the Treasury, to say, “Should some of that underspend be allocated to these works in progress—the 260 projects that anticipated a VAT return that they do not have?” I urge him to consider taking that opportunity. It would be a very savvy and politically sensible way of proceeding, and would earn him a lot of credit.
Jim McMahon
What I can say is that the passion, enthusiasm and commitment shown by all Members here today in talking about the importance of these places of worship—not only the historical status they give to a place in terms of belonging and sense of pride, but how they act as a community anchor for the future—is absolutely appreciated. Our wider work in terms of the plan for neighbourhoods, with the £1.5 billion that we have announced, and the wider work that we are doing, for example on community ownership, is all part of this process.
In my own constituency, the Holy Rosary Catholic Church, which was built in 1955, has now unfortunately closed. Members might think that a 1955 church would be quite mundane in its feel and architecture, but there is a significant grade II listed memorial in that church, designed by George Mayer-Marton, which is a significant focal point for that community. We are working locally to see how we can marshal funds from different places. I give that as an example of how—as everyone in the Chamber will know from their own communities—there is never just one fund that provides answer to the question; we must blend different funding streams together to make these schemes add up. The importance that Members have given to these local schemes is appreciated and supported by this Government.
To directly address the question from the right hon. Member for Salisbury about capital underspends, we will look at that in the round and across the whole range of interventions that the Government take to support local communities. However, I will certainly take the enthusiasm of this debate back to other Ministers in DCMS and make the point to the Minister for Faith, who I am sure is following today.
In a way, we finish where we started: recognising, through the contributions that Members have made, just how important these buildings are as both places of worship—something that has an important role to play in our society—and as places to convene. They are places for people of all faiths and no faith to get the support they need to live a decent and fulfilled life in their community.
Marsha De Cordova
I think Members across the Chamber will agree that this has been a good-spirited debate. It has not been party political, because churches and places of worship are present in all our constituencies. We have heard some good examples of the significant role and impact of our listed places, whether they are providing a breakfast club, a warm space or wonderful musical recitals—I feel I need to be invited to Derby cathedral at some point. The Government cannot afford not to act to ensure that these places are protected, so I hope that the Minister will take that message back.
I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for co-sponsoring this debate, showing how we can work across party on issues of common interest, and my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who made a wonderful speech on the importance of our church, Holy Trinity Clapham—a thread throughout the entire debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers); I will take back his point about the speed with which we appoint our archbishop.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam)—let us hope that one day Leicester will be back in the premier league, not least for my own family interest—for Yeovil (Adam Dance), and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for their speeches. I also thank the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox), the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for their interventions.
Finally, I thank the many church leaders for their leadership, for their selfless service and for the incredible work they are doing in our communities and constituencies up and down the country. I thank each and every Member who spoke, and all those who continue to raise this important issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of churches and religious buildings on communities.
Venture Capital: Access
(1 day, 3 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
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to venture capital for people from ethnic minority and other underrepresented backgrounds.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Venture capital in the United Kingdom is a unique and valuable industry that supports many smaller innovating companies with high growth potential. Our VC market accounted for £8 billion of investment in 2023. It is the largest VC market in the world after the US and China, and the largest in Europe by a considerable margin. As the CEO of the UK’s trade body for venture capital, the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association, eloquently put it:
“Venture investment helps turn ideas, research and development into thriving businesses, generating economic growth, stimulating innovation and creating jobs and opportunities across all nations and regions in the UK.”
However, while our VC market is growing and strong, it is highly inequitable. For ethnic minorities, women and many other communities which there is either insufficient data or insufficient time to discuss today, our system of venture capital does not work. Businesses with founders from those communities receive a disproportionately lower percentage of VC deals and of total VC funding. With their priority of growth, the Government must do more to ensure that the venture capital market in the UK is inclusive and accessible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. In Northern Ireland we have the Minorities Recognition Awards, which launched the innovators grant competition for ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland. It has been a successful collaboration that offers entrepreneurial individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds who are resident in Northern Ireland and have a novel business idea a choice to apply for a grant of some £10,000 to further develop their ideas. But to make it go further and work better, does the hon. Lady agree that the devolved institutions could benefit from further funding for the likes of these grants to potentially bridge funding gaps and ensure that people from all backgrounds can have the opportunity to succeed? I believe that many people have that ability.
Sarah Olney
I entirely agree that we need to do more to bridge that gap. I am delighted to hear about some of the efforts already being made towards that goal in Northern Ireland.
In 2022, 10% of first-time equity deals went to all-ethnic minority teams, with 19% of total investment value. However, while I welcome the broadly representative nature of these first-time equity deals, they are unequally distributed within ethnic minority communities, with only 0.24% of venture capital funding between 2009 and 2019 going to black founders. On a similar note, all-white teams accessed a mean investment of £224,000, whereas teams with one or more ethnic minority founders received an average of £49,000. All-ethnic minority teams received an average of £94,000—less than half of what all-white teams received.
I am proud to be a member and former chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ethnic minority business owners, which has not only supported ethnic minority business owners, but considered the intersection of diverse characteristics, including gender and ethnicity, on access to finance, which I will come on to later. I am proud to welcome Diana Chrouch, who provides the secretariat for the APPG and does amazing work on behalf of ethnic minority founders.
I am pleased to note the recent successes in the financial industry. In particular, I welcome the work of the Lending Standards Board on creating their access to financial services for ethnic minority-led businesses code. While that was an important and significant step towards greater equality, the Lending Standards Board does not directly cover venture capital, instead covering other financial instruments for investment. With the LSB acting as living proof that positive change can happen, and given the statistics I have mentioned, it is time for the Government to step up and ensure that that success is replicated in venture capital, and that we can tackle the inequality within VC.
Lack of equality for venture capital investments is not only an issue in relation to ethnic minority communities; female founders are also far less likely to secure this kind of investment. In 2022, a report by the British Business Bank found that only 13% of first-time equity deals went to all-female founder teams, representing 6% of total investment value, and that there had been no statistically significant improvement in this during the past decade. The data is even more worrying for women from ethnic minorities: only 0.02% of the total amount invested through VC went to black women entrepreneurs. One of the most damning statistics of the inequality within the venture capital system is outlined in a 2023 British Business Bank report: only 3% of individuals in senior investment and non-investment positions were women from ethnic minority backgrounds, and concerningly, zero black women were found in positions of seniority in VC firms at the time of the study.
I am sure that many of us are aware of this as an issue affecting founders and business owners across the country. However, this inequality was highlighted to me by a constituent of mine in Richmond Park, who is the founder of Parli-Training, a business that has supported the Northern Irish and Scottish devolved Governments, NATO and even parliamentary offices in this very House. In the years leading up to and including 2024, it employed 170 people and, at its peak, generated a £250,000 in turnover. Despite that strong performance over many years, my constituent, who is a woman from an ethnic minority community, was recently denied investment from the Greater London Investment Fund. In her correspondence with the fund manager, she was told that the fund would not be viable for someone like her because she would be viewed as a risk, that those who access the funds usually come from wealthy backgrounds, and that the only funds available to female-led businesses in London usually take the guise of a grant. My constituent was told that she should try to find a grant that suited her business, or start a GoFundMe. Clearly, something has gone wrong.
Of course, a long discourse on the issue at hand can only go so far. What entrepreneurs from affected communities need is for the Government to take meaningful action to ensure that the UK’s venture capital industry is accessible and inclusive. The first thing we need is greater transparency in the reporting and recording of data, particularly for venture capital deals. That has been championed by many leading voices in the venture capital sector and by the APPG for ethnic minority business owners.
Ladi Greenstreet, CEO of Diversity VC, has said:
“There is a significant amount of power in reporting. Simply measuring the problem creates momentum for change”,
whilst the July 2023 British Business Bank report stated:
“Venture capital firms should participate in industry-wide surveys and make D&I data on their investments public”—
an effective action to improve diversity.
Furthermore, a November 2023 report by the British Business Bank in collaboration with other leading trade bodies outlined the
“scarcity of comprehensive data on ethnic minorities particularly at the intersection of gender and ethnicity.”
One measure that I hope the Government will consider is integrating the reporting of diversity data within venture capital tax reliefs. As recommended by the Treasury Committee’s 2023 report, provision of diversity statistics as a requirement for eligibility to receive the enterprise investment scheme or the seed enterprise investment scheme tax reliefs and the venture capital trust tax reliefs may be an effective way to improve reporting statistics, and to push companies to act on this important issue.
Secondly, I urge the Government to take more robust action to support women in finance and venture capital, including through the Treasury’s women in finance charter and the British Business Bank’s investing in women code. Despite their success, the schemes continue to be voluntary initiatives with relatively low levels of uptake, meaning that their progress in improving diversity in venture capital is too slow and restricted. For instance, the women in finance charter is currently signed by 400 companies covering 1.3 million employees, but there are more than 80,000 companies and 2.5 million employees in the UK’s financial services industry. On the other hand, signatories to the British Business Bank’s investing in women code accounted for 47% of venture capital deals, meaning that over half of VC deals would not fall under the code. Therefore, I echo the calls made by the Treasury Committee in 2023: will the Government consider mandating the Treasury and the British Business Bank to adopt a “comply or explain” policy with regard to both the WFC and the IWC?
I should note that the Treasury Committee also outlined that, should diversity statistics and reporting not improve quickly enough, it would be wise to consider calling for compulsory membership instead. With these changes, the Government can strengthen existing processes to ensure that women are not negatively impacted.
Another key call from groups including the British Business Bank concerns diversity at the top, referring to the lack of diversity in key bodies, including investment committees, which often have ultimate decision making on where capital is allocated. Too often, investment committees are made up of members with similar characteristics and backgrounds, leading to groupthink and the preservation of the status quo—a status quo that we know is inequitable.
In its July 2023 report, the British Business Bank recommended pushes for greater diversity in these leading committees as a crucial opportunity for greater accessibility and inclusion, with a correlation between diverse investing groups and diverse investment recipients. As recommended by the APPG for ethnic minority business owners, would the Minister consider requiring VC firms to adopt and implement a strategic investment inclusion framework, modelled after the Lending Standards Board framework, to dismantle structural barriers?
In conclusion, the Government have said that their priority in this Parliament is growth, but what good is growth if it is not accessible to all our communities? We are cutting ourselves off from a key source of that growth if we continue to enable barriers to accessing investment for all the excluded groups I have mentioned. The Government are committed to supporting businesses, but what good is that commitment if a number of businesses are excluded, whether deliberately or not, from finance and investment?
Our venture capital system continues to be unrepresentative of our communities, and the Government must do better to tackle the issue. The Government have long championed themselves as a Government of change, but many entrepreneurs looking for venture capital have so far seen more of the same from this Government. I hope that the Minister has heard the points made in this debate and takes meaningful steps to resolve the injustice we see in our venture capital industry, which hinders businesses, damages growth and continues a legacy of inequality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
I will begin in the usual way by congratulating the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this debate. I also acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who seems to represent the whole of Northern Ireland in Westminster Hall. The hon. Member for Richmond Park rightly referenced the impressive work of Diana Chrouch, as the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group for ethnic minority business owners. I am grateful to her for the challenge that she poses to Government on this issue. Perhaps unusually for a Minister, I hope that she will continue to challenge us in this space. She is absolutely right to say that although there has been some progress, we need to do an awful lot more.
It was a pleasure to join the hon. Member for Richmond Park and other members of the APPG for ethnic minority business owners at the King’s awards for enterprise reception in April, recognising current holders of the King’s award and encouraging more ethnic minority business owners to apply. There were some really inspiring stories from some of the ethnic minority business owners there who had won the King’s award. I welcome the work of the APPG in encouraging other ethnic minority business owners to apply for the award.
We do not do enough in this country to encourage and celebrate entrepreneurship among a range of under-represented groups, be it ethnic minority owners, on which the hon. Lady has rightly concentrated, or disabled entrepreneurs, women-led businesses or businesses led by veterans. We know there is more to do in this space, which is one reason why, last month, we launched a call for evidence on access to finance, to look at a range of issues facing small businesses in their access to finance. As part of that, we are considering particular challenges for ethnic minority business owners and other groups that I have referenced.
Preparing for today’s debate, I was struck by the quote from Meghan Stevenson-Krausz, the joint CEO of Diversity VC, summarising the latest findings from the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association. She said,
“Progress? Absolutely. Enough? Not even close.”
That is an excellent summary of the position and reflects the collective sense of urgency right across the VC industry, which I welcome. The BVCA study, to which Meghan was referring, is a good example of the progress that has been made, but, as a result, it underlines how far we still have to go. That 2025 report on diversity in UK private equity and venture capital covers 370 firms and over 14,000 employees, which is a significant proportion of the industry. It differentiates between roles, such as membership of investment committees, which take the key investment decisions, and junior or middle-ranking posts.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park cited an earlier report from the British Business Bank in her speech. That more recent report focuses on the VC sector itself. I will share some of the most striking findings. The encouraging headline is that 18% of investment professionals in the study are from an ethnic minority background, reflecting the UK population as a whole, and one third of that cohort are women. That matters because the most significant predictor of backing diverse entrepreneurs is the diversity of the decision makers themselves. One argument made is that the 18% overall figure masks a concentration in more junior roles, and there is some truth in that criticism. It takes time to progress to a decision-making position on the investment committee, so one would hope and expect that that disparity lessens as overall numbers improve. It is less pronounced than I expected. The study found that the proportion of ethnic minority staff was 25% in more junior roles, 19% at mid-level and 16% on the investment committee. The numbers at more senior levels have risen since the last survey and the trend is going in the right direction. But, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park rightly said, there is still more progress needed.
The final point I found striking was the representation of different ethnic groups. Within that 18% total, 11% were from an Asian background, while just 2% identified as African or Caribbean. For a black entrepreneur seeking investment, that 2% is perhaps the most relevant figure. As I am sure the hon. Lady and other hon. Members would agree, it is the individual experience that matters. Each individual has their own identity, which the term “ethnic minority” does not fully capture. When it comes to levels of venture capital itself, I welcome the data that the hon. Lady cites on first-time equity deals, with the number of deals for all-ethnic minority teams rising from 5% in 2013 to 10% in 2022. I share her concerns about the unequal distribution across different ethnic minority communities and agree that there is certainly more to be done, as I have previously alluded to. I was disappointed to hear about the very unfortunate experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent in applying for investment from the Greater London investment fund.
We have said that progress is happening but is insufficient. What more can we then do? The hon. Lady made a very eloquent case for compulsory data gathering and membership of industry codes. I will certainly reflect on the arguments that she makes on each of the different points that she raised. The hon. Lady will understand that I am, sadly, not the only Minister that has to be sympathetic to her case. I will certainly draw the attention of other colleagues in Government to the points she has made.
Taking her example of the investing in women code, that is growing year on year. The hon. Lady noted that signatories already accounted for some 47% of venture capital deals. When this year’s report is published, she will find that that figure has grown further. I have asked my officials to ensure that the hon. Lady gets an advanced copy. The power of a voluntary code or a pledge, such as the women in finance charter, is that it signals a shared commitment. Membership of a compulsory scheme perhaps merely signals compliance. For example, the invest in women taskforce has successfully raised a £255 million fund from its members to invest in women entrepreneurs. This private sector-led, Government-backed initiative has been effective in part because it is voluntary and not constrained by moving at the speed of the slowest.
Sarah Olney
I just want to highlight that part of my pitch was that we could do more to encourage that voluntary take up. Anything compulsory would be very much a last resort. We should be encouraging voluntary take up in the first instance.
Gareth Thomas
I am completely with the hon. Lady on that point and recognise that is exactly where Government can play a useful role in getting behind industry-led initiatives. We have certainly been doing that in the context of the invest in women taskforce and are also working with the Lending Standards Board on the code that it is developing. More broadly, we have the benefit of world-leading experts in this area, notably Professor Monder Ram, who leads the Centre for Research in Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship at Aston University. Professor Ram’s comprehensive report “Time to Change: A Blueprint For Advancing the UK’s Ethnic Minority Businesses”, which was prepared in partnership with NatWest, was launched in 2022 and sets out the £75 billion potential in unlocking growth of ethnic minority businesses. As a Government committed to growth, that is a huge win for the UK if we can do more to unlock that potential. My Department plans to become an implementation partner for Time to Change, joining organisations such as the West Midlands combined authority and Be the Business. We will be working in partnership with Professor Ram’s centre to implement the recommendations of the report. I can tell the hon. Member for Richmond Park that by happy happenstance, I will visit Professor Ram at Aston University later this week.
To shift the dial, there has to be a shared drive to improve things. I pay tribute to the pressure that the hon. Lady and the all-party parliamentary group for ethnic minority business owners are placing on Government and on the industry more generally. I hope hon. Members will see the issues of access to finance for under-represented groups addressed in the Government’s small business strategy, which we aim to publish later this year.
Just yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the launch of the Lilac review here in Parliament. Its report considers the experience of disabled entrepreneurs and how investors and the financial services sector can better meet their needs. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Michelle Ovens and Small Business Britain for their work in driving that review. It was a genuine pleasure to co-chair the review and in a similar way to this, many of the issues that came up around access to finance in that work generate significant questions for Government that we will seek to address in the months ahead. There are obviously similarities between our discussion here today around the needs of ethnic minority business owners and the needs of disabled entrepreneurs. For example, we know from research published by the British Business Bank that ethnic minority-led businesses are not as likely to be using external finance as white-led businesses. There is no lack of demand, but what ethnic minority-led businesses are pointing out to us is that when they apply for bank loans they are significantly more likely to be turned down, at 49% compared to 32% for white-led businesses. That appears to reflect differences in credit ratings, which suggests that that form of assessment may be insufficient. That view is supported by the fact that community development finance institutions, which are relationship-based, perform much better. In 2023, 24% of CDFIs’ business lending went to ethnic minority-led businesses and 41% went to women-led businesses. Similarly, the British Business Bank offers start-up loans for new businesses, of which 21% have gone to ethnic minority entrepreneurs and 40% to women.
Information is a key enabler to closing the finance gap. The British Business Bank research that I referred to earlier found that under-represented entrepreneurs are, overall, less confident about obtaining information on the different finance types and providers available. I urge all Members to point ethnic minority-led businesses in their constituencies to the resources available to them—particularly to start-up loans if the business is less than three years old, which are run through the British Business Bank, the CDFI that serves their local area, and more generally to the range of online information available from the British Business Bank.
The small business strategy, which the Government are working on, will begin to address the information gap and enhance our business support offer later this year. In the meantime, my Department has participated in events such as the UK Black Business Show, and we will join Founderfest 2025 to support entrepreneurs. We will continue collaborating with NatWest, Professor Monder Ram and the all-party group for ethnic minority business owners and others to advance this agenda.
I return to the summary from Diversity VC:
“Progress? Absolutely. Enough? Not even close.”
I welcome the constructive challenge that the hon. Member for Richmond Park posed of Government policies, and I share her sense of urgency on this issue. Through our industrial strategy and small business strategy, and partnerships with the private sector, we will seek to accelerate progress so that all entrepreneurs have a fair chance to secure the investment they seek to unlock the potential of their businesses.
Question put and agreed to.
Local Housing Need Assessment Reform
(1 day, 3 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
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered reform of the standard method for assessing local housing need.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse.
Everyone agrees that across much of the country, homes have become far too expensive either to rent or to buy. There is less consensus on the best way to get things back under control. I will argue that throughout the history of the standard method for assessing local housing need, that method has been part of the problem, not the solution.
For a long time, the free market ideology we followed was to build houses randomly until the price came down. Ever since the days of Margaret Thatcher, who single-handedly killed off the public sector contribution, we have never got anywhere near to keeping up with demand. In recent years, the strategy has been to set stiff compulsory building targets and, to that end, the Government introduced the standard method.
We were told that the method would produce clear, objectively determined house building targets for every local authority. We were assured that they would be equally and fairly distributed in line with genuine local need. We can now confidently say that that failed. Many authorities got nowhere near their number. Sometimes that was through dragging their heels, but often it was because their individual targets were outright bizarre and unachievable.
Meanwhile, the system has kicked up terrific public anger and opposition, which in itself gets in the way of success. At times, the Government have resorted to wielding a bigger stick or they have backed off in the face of Back-Bench pressure. Under the present Government, we are heading back towards the big-stick approach. There is almost no attempt to win consent.
I will argue not only that the standard method failed to do what it says on the tin, but that the failure was inherent from the first. It never stood a chance. Far from solving the affordability crisis, the method has significantly contributed to making that crisis worse, and it will continue to do so even under the remodelled version announced before Christmas, because it is based on a false premise.
To be absolutely clear, this is not about national targets. Whether we aim nationally for 200,000, 300,000 or 400,000 homes a year is a separate debate, and I hope we will not get sidetracked by that today. It is easy to tweak the standard method to meet whatever national target we want it to meet, but in practice, national targets have been not much better than slogans, such as Boris Johnson’s 40 new hospitals, which never existed in reality. Instead, it is the local target as applied to individual planning authorities that matters.
Broadly speaking, the standard method compares local house prices to local wages to estimate an affordability ratio, and it adjusts targets upwards if that shows prices to be unaffordable. The sums have been fiddled with many times since the method was introduced, and I do not doubt that such a process will continue. That is where the first big failure comes in: the standard method is supposed to provide an objective assessment of local housing need but, if we were honest, we would acknowledge that it is actually designed to reflect national need.
For example, in my constituency, the growth target based on existing households should now be 527 a year, but our poor affordability ratio takes us all the way up to 1,329 a year, and that is before we add on more for our neighbours. That is a whopping uplift by any stretch of the imagination. The face of Horsham district is changing at breakneck pace. Villages such as Billingshurst and Southwater are on the way to doubling in size in less than a decade. That is not because Horsham is experiencing some kind of spectacularly large birth rate; it is just an arbitrary calculation.
Once again, to be clear, I wholly accept that this is a national problem and that we need national solutions. Every area, including Horsham, has its role to play, but it is insulting people’s intelligence to describe that as a local need, when we plainly have nowhere near enough locals to go around, and they mostly cannot afford the new homes anyway. If we keep telling obvious lies to people, how will we ever win public consent? This brings me to the next big failure of the standard method, which is that there is no meaningful public scrutiny. Most local councillors do not understand how it works, sadly, let alone the general public. The standard method is never an election issue, yet it has a massive impact on our communities. In this case, ignorance is not bliss. It is a big reason why Conservative councillors have, election after election, proclaimed their commitment to allocating brownfield sites over greenfield yet somehow ended up doing the exact opposite. They cannot do anything to stop the logic of their own inflexible system. The standard method is a kind of mathematical bulldozer, sweeping aside our open spaces.
The single worst failing of the standard method is that it fails in the very purpose that it was supposed to be designed for. In Horsham, as in many areas, the average price of a new house is higher than that of our existing stock. Ironically, the more houses we build, the worse our affordability ratio gets, and the higher our target will be next time around. The standard method does the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do. The more housing that is built, the more the method asks to be built, with no obvious mathematical limit.
I stress again that I completely agree that building many more houses than we have over the last 40 years is an essential step on the path to affordability. However an obsession with one arbitrary number, without thinking what goes into it, does not work. It is actually getting in the way of success. We have to focus attention on the type of housing we are permitting, not simply the raw total. The standard method is based on a false premise, because many things affect prices besides the house building rate.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and sorry I missed the first minute of his speech. I warmly congratulate him on the point that he is making. I agree that what he describing is a false premise, in the same way that the targets themselves are based on a delusion. The delusion is that private developers would be prepared to collude with Government to drive down the price of their final products in order to deliver affordable homes. That clearly is not the case. The combination of these two things is working against what the Government are trying to achieve, which is to meet housing need.
John Milne
I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. The system is working almost to the reverse of what was intended.
In my constituency of Horsham many people either work for London businesses or perhaps have traded down from a more expensive London property. From their point of view, Horsham represents excellent value. The official affordability ratio does not reflect real working conditions in Horsham for locals, and therefore overstates local targets.
Local councillors all strive to get the best for their communities, but the way we receive targets under the standard method destroys our negotiating position with developers. Developers are not stupid. They can work out as well as anyone else how many sites are needed to meet our targets. They have no need to concede on civil amenities or on affordable housing because they know that, at the end of the day, they have got the council over a barrel.
I have no issue with a private developer seeking to make a profit—what else do we expect them to do?—but do not rely on them to do social planning. In areas like Horsham, years of free market ideology have turned councils into mere editors of private developer proposals. We build on greenfield sites because they are the only ones that get presented. There is literally nothing else to choose from in Horsham. The free market approach to affordability does not work for the housing market. Competition has driven prices up, not down. In Horsham we would arguably be better off if we granted a monopoly to one single developer and let them push down local land prices.
To add insult to injury, we also have the standard method’s bullying friend, the housing delivery test. I am not sure whether there ever was a carrot in this process, but the HDT is definitely the stick. Failure to meet targets can ultimately result in losing local control over planning altogether. It is a Catch-22 situation: the developer controls the rate of delivery, but the council pays the price if targets slip. Heads they win, tails we lose.
In fact, the single biggest factor that influences prices has nothing to do with house building. It is availability of credit. If interest rates were to double tomorrow, the price of a mortgage would soar and we would see a house price crash, yet all that would happen without a single new home being built. A succession of policies under the Conservatives only served to make the problem worse, not better. Subsidies such as Help to Buy or stamp duty holidays simply inflated prices further, like a giant Ponzi scheme. The market adjusts, and the subsidy ends up in the pockets of developers until the next upward turn in the spiral.
Therefore, any analysis of UK house building must take into account the key role of finance. Since Thatcher, houses have come to be seen not simply as homes but as investments. In line with that, the explosion of the buy-to-let market in the 1990s correlates suspiciously closely with overall house price inflation. Older generations benefited from decades of property asset inflation, but today it is getting harder and harder to board that train. Putting all that together, it is clear that the standard method is getting its social sums all wrong.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. He mentioned some of the incentives for first-time buyers. Through the stamp duty discounts, we saved the typical first-time buyer around £6,000 on their purchase, which helped about 640,000 young people get on to the housing market. Is he saying that he is not interested in that and that it was the wrong thing to do to help those first-time buyers on to the housing ladder?
John Milne
For the individuals who benefit, no one can argue with it. It is the same with the sale of a council house—if you are the family that gets it, it has clearly given you a massive uplift. What I am saying is that we have a national societal problem to solve in the housing market in general. We have a certain amount of money to put towards it. That was a subsidy. There are far better things to do with that subsidy that do not inflate prices further, as that simply eats up the subsidy.
As I was saying, putting all that together, it is clear that the standard method is getting its social sums wrong. The affordability ratio is actually a lousy proxy for actual housing need. What we need to do is factor a proper analysis of local housing conditions back into the system. That should include an assessment of local homelessness rates, the need for social housing, pensioner poverty and all the other factors that make communities tick. We also need to find a clear role for neighbourhood plans. Neighbourhood plans started as a great way to bring local consent and local knowledge into housing, but from the day the standard method was introduced, they have been effectively overruled. In the latest planning reforms, they were completely marginalised and were not even mentioned.
How can we change the standard method to do the job it is supposed to do? I suggest at least two inputs: a local needs calculation, which focuses on helping local people into the homes they need, and a national needs top-up. Having a separate national needs figure will help us to focus on the delivery of new towns. When our housing needs are as great as they are, new towns are essential. In contrast, the standard method spreads targets indiscriminately across every area. It leads to endless incremental add-ons to existing settlements until they begin to lose their identity altogether. In rural areas such as mine, the standard method has an inherent tendency to create low-density suburbs. Not only do they tend to be more expensive houses, but they use two or three times as much land as they strictly need to.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this valuable debate. Does he agree that, as well as causing the issues he described, incremental building contributes to problems with the sewerage systems? If a developer builds 50 houses here, 50 houses there and 50 houses elsewhere, and each one is considered on its own merit, it does not warrant an upgrade to the sewerage systems, so the water companies do not upgrade, systems become overloaded and we start getting sewage in the water.
John Milne
Yes, it makes strategic planning very difficult. Provision of infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, is a major problem and not sufficiently built into the planning system to compensate for it. It is easier in urban centres where the infrastructure is already in place.
This is the reason we have contrived to have perhaps as many as 1.5 million unbuilt permissions nationally, at the same time as a national housing shortage. That is because too many of them are permissions for unaffordable and, therefore, unbuildable homes. There is a degree of land banking but, for the most part, developers build as fast as they can sell. If they are serving only the top end of the market, that will be slowly. As Oliver Letwin described in his excellent 2018 report, sadly unacted on by the Government of the day, we need far greater variety in housing type.
As much as 80% of housebuilding is aimed at the top 20% of the market. The fastest way to fix that is to build a guaranteed quota of social housing. My party is asking for 150,000 a year. I guarantee they would be snapped up like hot cakes, as fast as they could be built. There is a fundamental difference between permissions and actual, physical houses. If all we ever think about is permissions and alleged impediments to permissions, we will never get to grips with the problem. Wrong permissions do not increase supply, they suppress it. Wrong permissions bake high land prices into the system. Handing out more permissions like confetti simply chokes the system with unbuildable sites that will hang over the market for a generation. There are lots of ways the standard method could be reinvented, but any future form must empower local authorities to deliver social housing in significant numbers from day one. How we do that is up for grabs, but somehow it must be done.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
I intend to give the lead Member two minutes at the end of the debate at 3.58 pm. I will call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats at 3.28 pm. I will not impose a formal speech limit for the time being. I hope there is time for everybody to come in.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for bringing this timely debate for all of us to consider. Before I come to the main thrust of my speech, I should say that it is universally accepted that, irrespective of the Government in power, over the past 20-odd years hardly any housebuilding has happened. The last time there was a proper housebuilding programme in place was in the ’70s, ’60s and ’50s. I am going back in time, but it has not happened in a number of years. It does not matter which political party has been in charge.
Kevin Hollinrake
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s giving way. By way of correction, during the period of our last 10 years in office, there was an average of 207,000 net new home additions every year, which was higher than in the 1970s.
Yasmin Qureshi
I know, but that is still not a sufficient amount. Some of those houses did not come through. There was an amount of housing that needed to be done and was not done. It was done in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, which cannot be denied. We need to build more homes, including more affordable and social homes. This is an important debate because it asks Government and builders to look at how to assess local housing need.
In Bolton, more than 20,000 individuals are on the social housing waiting list. Families face an 18-month wait for a three-bedroom house, with 800 to 900 applicants for each available home. Many are referred to the private sector, where of course the rents are very high, increasing the financial strain on already struggling households.
The current methodology for assessing local housing need fails to capture the realities on the ground. It overlooks income disparities across our country, the availability of affordable housing and the specific needs of our communities. That disconnect results in inadequate housing provision, leaving many without suitable options. There are homes out there that could be used to reduce housing waiting lists, but they need substantial work to bring them up to standard.
In my constituency recently, I hosted a roundtable with housing providers as well as homelessness charities, and one of the things that they asked for was a ringfenced fund to help social housing providers to make their stock fit for purpose, release more housing and give more people the homes that they desperately need. In the private rented sector, what is called affordable housing is often not affordable, because many of my constituents are on the minimum wage or living wage and they are not able to afford homes that people in the south or in other parts of the country might think are reasonably affordable. They are not affordable for those living in Bolton and the surrounding areas, because “affordability” is based on market prices, not what people are earning locally. It is all about the central, national figure, whereas we should be looking at local wages and what is affordable to people there, as opposed to somebody in a more prosperous part of the country. Of course, the current system also allows landlords to charge higher rents and make profits because they are taking advantage of the fact that the need for homes is greater than the availability.
We have to understand that housing is not merely about shelter; it is about dignity, stability and opportunity. It is not a coincidence that often the people we find in the criminal justice system have come from an economically and socially deprived background, and housing is a big part of that. We saw during the covid time that in poorer areas, where many people live in one house, there was a higher rate of covid being spread among them as opposed to people who lived in large houses, where they could properly and safely quarantine themselves. In a lot of the smaller houses where many people were living, they were not able to do so.
There are a lot of reasons why a decent home is important for everyone. What I ask is that we all work collaboratively, and certainly I try hard to ensure that individuals and families in Bolton South and Walkden have access to safe, affordable and appropriate housing. I therefore welcome the Government’s plan to create 1.5 million homes. I wish them luck and hope they will be able to achieve that. It is a welcome—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton may laugh, but at least it is an initiative. It is a great initiative, a great thing to work towards, a great aim to have, because if we do get there, that should hopefully alleviate a lot of the challenges.
I wish the Government great luck on this and hope it will happen. In the meantime, could we have some additional funding, especially for social housing?
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Mrs Hobhouse, it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair—I think, in my case, for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing the debate and bringing us together to discuss this important matter.
It is very good to see this Minister in his place. I thank him and his Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government colleagues for their engagement on these issues. I have been in this place on more than one occasion to talk about related issues, including about how national parks work relative to local authority planning areas. I am grateful to his colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning for also meeting me separately as well as corresponding. Today, I am going to talk not about those issues, but about the algorithm overall and how it works and, in particular, about the affordability ratio and how it works—or, more correctly, does not work.
We know that the Government are looking for a big uplift—a 50% increase—in the number of housing completions, but in areas such as mine in Horsham, the increase is much greater than that. In my local planning area the target is up from 575—already a pretty punchy annual target—to more than 1,100, which is effectively a doubling. It is not a north/south thing, it is a rural/urban thing. Rural areas throughout the country have some of the biggest increases, such as in the rural far north-west and far north-east. There have been really big increases in the target, and at the same time major conurbations are seeing much lower increases in their numbers—typically 16% or 17%. Some places, including parts of London and Birmingham, are actually seeing the numbers go down at a time when we are trying to build many more homes. Sometimes it is thought that this is correcting a historical imbalance—that homes have not been built in the countryside for all these years—but that is not the case. Proportionately over the last couple of decades, in the rate of additions of homes per 1,000 existing dwellings, the predominantly rural areas have seen a greater build-out rate than predominantly urban areas.
I do understand that the Government need a formula—the 0.8% of housing stock multiplied by the five-year average affordability ratio, minus five, divided by five, multiplied by 0.95, plus one. It looks okay. Trust me: it looks logical if we break it down, but the truth is that in practice, it is not working. It is not delivering what all of us want to see, or what the Government want to see, which is a material, sustainable increase in housing stock in the places where people need it.
The affordability formula matters so much more now because of that 0.95. It used to be 0.6, but since it has gone up, it has made the affordability ratio do that much more work. There are multiple aspects to query, such as whether to use workplace-based earnings or residency-based earnings. I think both of those things are relevant, and a comprehensive formula would probably use both. Whether earnings or income is used makes a difference, because it means capturing only the working population or the retired population as well. Crucially, the formula lumps all types of housing together, so it does not distinguish between the cost of a starter home and a two-bedroom flat, a one-bedroom flat or a three-bedroom house in these different places.
Echoing what we heard from the hon. Member for Horsham, I have lots of people coming to my surgery who are unable to afford a home; probably everybody in this room has lots of people coming to their surgery in the same position. Some of those people are looking for social housing and there is a shortage of that, but when most people come to our surgeries and talk about the unaffordability of homes, they mean the affordability of a home they can buy—a decision that, I am guessing, most of us made at some point in our 30s or 40s. However, many more homes get built every year and I still get the same number of people coming to my surgery saying that they cannot afford to get on the housing ladder.
We want there to be more affordable homes in both senses, both the public sector sense, in what I call “capital A” affordable—social rent, part-ownership and all that—and for young couples and young families to be able to buy a home and invest in their security and that of their children. But the problem is that, other things being equal, the best returns for developers are on larger, five-bedroom or four-bedroom executive homes in large plots of land outside of town centres, which are very aspirational homes for people to buy. Although there is nothing wrong with that, it does not address the needs of the people coming to our surgeries saying that they cannot afford to get on the housing ladder. Therefore, because we have high unaffordability ratios, we get lots more houses being built but they tend to be five-bedroom, four-bedroom executive homes disproportionately. That makes the area even more unaffordable on average, because the average price of a new build house is greater than the median price of the existing housing stock, so over time the formula ratchets up the price. It just says, “However many more homes you build, you will need to build more and more.” Honestly—there is no mathematical logic to it. We should be trying to address the actual need.
I ask Ministers to look again at the formula, not to get rid of it but to change it. Development targets must be sustainable and reasonable in different areas of the country, and crucially they must target the addition of homes that people can afford to buy, so that over time affordability ratios improve.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing the debate. I intend to keep my remarks relatively short. I want to make it clear from the outset that I am speaking not to score political points or to point a finger, but to share my experience, which I hope will be useful.
I recognise the immense challenges that local authorities, such as mine in Harlow, face. Only yesterday, housing officers, led by the wonderful Cara Stephens, supported a number of families forced to leave their homes because of fire safety concerns. The challenge is partly caused by a lack of social housing.
Before I came to this place, as well as being a local councillor, I spent two years working for a homeless charity in Harlow called Streets2Homes, so I saw the challenge from both sides. Like the hon. Member for Horsham, I saw the reliance on the private rented sector. I have raised this issue a number of times, not because I think the previous Government had any malicious intent—absolutely not—but because when they raised the housing allowance of universal credit, it led to the private sector in Harlow raising rents, which ultimately meant that the state spent more money on benefits and it just went into landlords’ pockets. I ask the Minister to consider that point.
Streets2Homes had the resource to do what local authorities often cannot: sit down with those making homeless applications and really get to the root of the problem. Clients often said to me that during the process of applying for council housing, they felt dehumanised. The lack of council housing meant that it often became a tick-box exercise for housing officers. I recognise why that is the case, but for the person applying for housing—if they face homelessness, they may be suffering a huge amount of anxiety and mental health issues—it was not suitable.
On the substantive point that the hon. Member for Horsham made about housing need and local allocation, there is cross-party agreement about the need to build council and social housing in Harlow, although there is a limit to the amount of housing we can provide. I often say that Harlow is a very small district, and it is very much built up to its borders, so would the Minister comment on how local government reorganisation will potentially impact that? I have regular conversations with the Conservative leader of Harlow council, and we both agree that we need to build housing, but Harlow is limited in where it can be.
The new standard method includes consideration of the affordability ratio and average wages. I enjoyed the maths equation from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds)—as he knows, maths is one of my favourite things to talk about. Will the Minister touch on how the method will help constituencies such as mine?
I am concerned that the increase in the cost of private sector renting means that more and more people are reliant on social housing, so there is even greater need. I did not agree with the local authority’s decision to remove band 4. In Harlow, when there is an application for a council house or a homeless application, there are four bands: 1 to 4. The administration decided to remove band 4, which I opposed, mainly because I think it just pretends that the issue does not exist. There is a need for social housing, given the increase in the cost of the private rented sector.
Permitted development, which was a quick fix by the previous Government, has had a huge impact in Harlow. I echo the points that the hon. Member for Horsham made about housing conditions. He is right to champion new towns. Harlow is a fantastic new town—I am obviously proud to represent it, and I am proud of its sense of community—but one of the issues that new towns face is that things were built at the same time, so the houses need repair and wear out, almost, at the same time. I will never again defend anything that Margaret Thatcher did, but one thing I will say about the right to buy is that it allows housing stock to go into private ownership, so that repair is not then an issue for the council. However, my issue with right to buy is that it did not replace the stock and led in part to the issue we have now.
The other issue that Harlow faces—I am just throwing them all at the Minister now—is land banking. I take the hon. Member’s point about there not necessarily being a desire to land bank, although I think there is an element of that in Harlow. Finally—I said I would not speak for very long and I have managed six minutes, so apologies for that, Mrs Hobhouse—the housing crisis is without doubt one of the biggest crises this country faces. I absolutely welcome the Government’s attempt to tackle it, and I will do everything I can to support them to do so, because I have seen at first hand the impact that a lack of housing has on my community.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate.
In West Dorset we face growing housing challenges. Young families are struggling to find homes in villages where they were raised, key workers cannot afford to live close to their jobs, and older residents wanting to downsize find too few suitable options. We need more homes, but they must be affordable, well designed and rooted in the needs of the people who live in them. For the record, our landscape is—in my totally unbiased opinion—the most beautiful in the country, with over 70% of West Dorset falling within the protected national landscape, or area of outstanding natural beauty, as it was formerly known. It is a landscape at the heart of our £320 million tourism economy. Housing policy must reflect the balance we need to strike between delivering homes for our residents and protecting the places that define our communities.
Building more homes must not mean building the wrong homes in the wrong places. The standard method for assessing local housing need currently fails to reflect the complex reality of rural communities such as West Dorset. Rigid housing targets, imposed without flexibility or enough local insight, risk forcing inappropriate developments on these precious areas, undermining the very qualities that sustain our economy and our environment. We need a system that empowers local authorities to deliver the right homes in the right places and with the right infrastructure.
In West Dorset, 78% of homes are under-occupied, with nearly 46% having two or more surplus bedrooms. It is not a crisis of space; it is a crisis of sustainability. Nearly half our population is over 55, and many older residents are living in homes that are simply too large for their needs and are unable to downsize while staying in the communities that they love, while young families are priced out of moving in, or moving back to the communities where they grew up.
It is not just about numbers; every home must come with the infrastructure it needs. Too often, developments in our area go ahead without the GPs, schools, dentists and roads needed to support them, let alone the sewerage system. In West Dorset, our sewerage infrastructure is outdated and overwhelmed. Last year alone, we saw 4,200 sewage spills. It is an environmental and public health disgrace, yet water companies are still not statutory consultees when housing need is assessed or developments are approved. This must change. If the Government are serious about protecting our environment while building new homes, they must require water companies to be involved from the outset, to ensure that the infrastructure can cope and that new homes do not just add to an already failing system.
In constituencies such as mine, many homes sit empty for most of the year, driving up prices and hollowing out our towns and villages. We must give councils the tools to tackle this through planning powers and council tax premiums, and by properly assessing the impact of holiday lets and second homes when calculating housing need. The Liberal Democrats believe that this should be a local authority-driven process. Councils know their areas best. They should have the powers to set planning fees, buy land at fair prices and shape the future of their communities. Development should be community led, not developer led.
If the Government want to build 1.5 million homes, which are sorely needed, then we must reform the standard method so that it reflects reality. Let us give local councils the tools and flexibility to deliver the homes and residents they need in ways that infrastructure and environment can support, as well as taking occupancy rates into account, in order to identify the needs of people to downsize and stay in their communities, and also make water companies statutory consultees, because we cannot build a sustainable future on crumbling foundations. West Dorset does not need imposed numbers. It needs good, affordable homes that work for local people, protect the land and restore trust in the system.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for setting the scene so well. I always bring a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate.
Jim Shannon
It is good that we understand the importance of these issues. The Minister is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland and as he engages with relevant Ministers there, as he always does, he will be asking these questions and talking about the matter. I look forward to his response.
The hon. Member for Horsham set the scene well. I am flabbergasted to hear from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) that the water companies do not play a role in planning. In Northern Ireland, there cannot be any planning application without contacting Northern Ireland Water. It is important to have the input of a major facility that looks after sewerage and storm water and that will set out the systems for any development. I understand the Liberal Democrats will possibly table an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on that and it would be great if Government accepted it. That would be the easy way of doing it. I am sure when they listen hard to what others say, they will understand that is the way forward.
I have heard the comments made by the hon. Member for Horsham on the issues surrounding local house prices and the comparison to the cost of living and people’s wages. In my constituency of Strangford, and specifically within the Ards and the North Down borough, new house builds are more expensive than current housing stock, causing higher targets to be set and ultimately limiting affordability for people to buy. The University of Ulster has stated that the average house price in Ards, Strangford and North Down as of 2022 was £221,000. The Northern Ireland average was £200,000, so we are already above the norm in my constituency. That was three years ago, so it will be even higher now.
The banks of mum and dad and of grandpa and grandma are so important to many young people. I am not better than anyone else and never profess to be, but we will help our children achieve their home goals. Where there is the ability to do so, it is important to do it and help them get on the first rung on the ladder. The thing is that not everybody can do that, and that is why it is important that Government have an input into the process.
In late May 2024, it was announced that 100,000 private and social homes would need to be built over the next 15 years, so by 2039. One third of those, about 33,000, will be social homes. It is so important to have social homes in place and to have availability of social housing stock for those who cannot buy their homes and get on the first rung of the ladder. To look realistically at waiting lists, nearly 48,000 households are on the waiting list for a social home and about 36,000 of those are in housing stress, meaning that they are in priority need. In the social sector there is a huge need for additional homes and there is clearly a disjoint between the need for homes and the allocation by which people can get one.
One of the biggest issues I had as a councillor back when I was first elected in 1985 was housing. Housing matters took priority. It is probably more about benefits now than it is about housing, but at that time it made me very aware of the need for those who wished to have social housing. Again, I am not better than anyone else but I have always pushed for extra social housing in my constituency. We will have a fairly major development in the Castlebawn site in Newtownards, which is a brown site that will have about 120 social housing units of all sorts—for disabled people, families and elderly people, and there will some flats in there as well. It will be a mix of all that is needed in the Ards area. It will only scrape at the surface, as we need many more.
I have been proactive in ensuring that social housing units become the norm. Yet it seems we see the housing reality focused on new developments that range between £200,000 and £250,000 to purchase, which is not within everybody’s pocket. For the majority, it is simply not doable. That is not to mention the need for social housing accommodation due to the extortion that is the private rental sector. Again, remembering that the wages in Northern Ireland are lower than they are on the mainland, rental accommodation in Newtownards is between £750 and £1,000 a month for a two-bed property. In many cases it is completely out of touch with the issues that need to be dealt with.
I will conclude, Mrs Hobhouse, as I know others wish to speak. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Horsham for raising these issues. They are applicable to all our constituents across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in one way or another. There is hope that over time we can do better to look at the issues on the ground as opposed to the overall targets in figures.
I wish the Government well; it is churlish of anybody not to wish the Government well with the 1.5 million or 1.4 million new houses that they wish to build. It helps the economy and provides housing opportunities for those who can purchase them and for those in need of social housing. At the same time, more must be done in engagement with the devolved Administrations to tackle the issues. I am very keen to see the Minister engage with and speak to those in the Northern Ireland Assembly, in particular to the Minister responsible, to see how we can learn from each other. These great nations can learn from each other: the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish and English. We are better together. The Scots Nats are here together, so they cannot object to that. We can learn from each other and do better as a result.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse, for the first time, I think. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this vital debate. My constituency of Chichester has been grappling with serious housing challenges, which have been continually worsened by a deeply flawed planning process. The demand for social housing vastly outstrips supply. Private rentals are prohibitively expensive, and sky-rocketing house prices have made home ownership increasingly out of reach for those who have grown up in my constituency.
Housing developments should enhance our communities, delivering affordable, sustainable homes alongside essential infrastructure, but the current approach does the opposite. The standard method for assessing housing need imposes arbitrary national targets on local authorities, which ignore the specific needs and constraints of each area. It fails to deliver genuinely affordable homes and does little to reflect local demand or geography. As my hon. Friend highlighted, the standard method fails to address above-inflation house price rises. Our average house price in Chichester, according to the Office for National Statistics, is £454,000. In just one year, to February 2025, the price of a semi-detached house in Chichester rose by 8.1%, yet Chichester has seen huge-scale development in recent years. Meanwhile, the average salary in my constituency is under £30,000, which is below the UK median.
When new homes are delivered, they often enter the market at prices higher than the local median, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned. That artificially inflates the affordability ratio, which then increases future housing targets, creating a vicious cycle that drives prices even further out of reach. It does nothing to address the real challenges that my constituents face in getting on the housing ladder. Instead, it leaves new developments affordable only to those who are moving into the area, not those already living there. At the same time, councils face an uphill battle in trying to ensure that developments, required by the same standard method, include adequate levels of social and affordable housing.
At present, we have over 2,000 families on the wait list for social homes in Chichester. Any development of 11 homes or more is expected to provide at least 10% as affordable housing. Both Chichester and Arun district councils, which sit within my constituency, request 30% social and affordable housing in their local plans to address some of the unmet need locally, but those targets are continuously undermined by viability assessments submitted by the developers, because of the high land prices in our constituency.
A recent example is a 2,200 home development to the west of Bersted, approved by Arun district council on the basis that it was included in the Conservative local plan from 2022. There is strong opposition in the community to the proposal, not only because those homes will add to the strain on local infrastructure, but because only 10% of those homes will be “affordable”. The very definition of affordable is fundamentally flawed when even 80% of unaffordable is still unaffordable for so many people. The developer claimed that a higher proportion of social and affordable homes on the site would have made the project commercially unviable, so the council was left with no power to enforce its requested levels of social and affordable houses.
That is why I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, calling on the Government to adopt a separate social housing target. I am sure that would be welcomed by local authorities up and down the UK, because they are best placed to know what their communities need, not the developers that are trying to build in them.
The standard method also fundamentally fails to consider any geographical constraints, which ties the hands of councils during land allocation. In my area, 70% of Chichester district is covered by national park, with an additional 5% designated as national landscape at Chichester harbour. That means that our ambitious housing target, which has doubled under the Labour Government, must be met within just 25% of available land, yet the housing target remains unadjusted.
We need a method for assessing local housing that actually works for communities—one that recognises local constraints, delivers genuinely affordable housing, protects the national landscape and ensures that every development contributes positively to the places that we call home. This will not change until the top-down approach of the standard method for assessing local housing need is reformed to genuinely reflect community need, and until local authorities are given the power to challenge and regulate developers effectively. I beg the Minister to look again at the standard method so that we can truly address the local housing need for areas such as mine in Chichester.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) not only on securing the debate, but on the very erudite manner in which he took us through the issues and correctly analysed the weaknesses of the system. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). I note that, before her, the omnipresent hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to the importance of seeing this across the piece—not only in Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland—but he forgot to mention Cornwall. Well, I will forgive him for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham recognised the need for a needs assessment, as it is an essential building block to resolving the issues. It is the methodology currently used that is both flawed and inevitably inaccurate, and sometimes leads the process in the wrong direction. I do not think it is ill-conceived in itself; rather, the interrelationship between that and the target-setting process is flawed. The target-setting process ends up with house building targets—we have housing need and then we have the house building targets.
If we were to set targets to reduce need—rather than for developers’ greed, if one were to put it in pejorative terms—we would approach the matter in an entirely different way. Let us take Cornwall—I know it well and I live there. I have also worked there as a professional in the sector as a chief executive of a housing charity delivering affordable homes—during my nine-year sabbatical from this place—so I know how this market works. Over the last 60 years, the housing stock in Cornwall has almost trebled—it is one of the fastest-growing places in the United Kingdom—yet the housing problems of local people have got worse. We cannot necessarily deduce from that fact that building homes is therefore harmful to meeting local housing need; however, the build targets are not in themselves the answer. The answer ought to be setting targets to reduce need, and that can be done if one has a robust method to do it. Not only would that be better for planners, councillors and others who want to meet the local need in their communities, but it means that when applicants come forward with their planning applications, they would have to demonstrate not how many homes they can build towards a target, but how much need they can address by delivering their projects. Although the Government’s aims and policies are laudable, they need to look at the dynamics of how need and their build targets interrelate with each other.
In my intervention, I referred to the delusion—it is a belief adopted by successive Governments of all parties, including, I am sorry to say, our own—that developers will somehow collude with the Government to drive down the price of their final product. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester referred to the unviability of schemes that cannot be delivered with enough affordable homes, but that is only because of the way in which the methodology is used to permit those developments to go ahead in the first place. Once planning permission is granted, not only does the setting of high targets often create hope value on every piece of land around every community—which starts to make them unaffordable before the planning process has even started—but once the planning process is established, the value of the land becomes so great that the scheme becomes unviable for delivering affordable homes. The whole system is built to fail.
I am afraid to say that we need to look at the methodology for delivery—that is, the building of a new lower rung on the affordable housing ladder of “in perpetuity” intermediate market homes, which needs to have a life of its own. We need to address the problems that a lot of social housing providers have in delivering homes, which is that they are prevented from delivering homes in low house price value areas, and low-income areas, because of the cost-to-value ratio. A lot of people probably do not understand that the places that need the homes most, where the incomes are lowest, are the most difficult to deliver on because of the cost-to-value ratio, which has to apply before providers can go forward with their schemes.
There is a whole set of other methods that could be used to address the issue, but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham on what he has achieved. I hope the Government are listening, because this is a constructive debate. We are not attacking the Government, but urging them to adjust their approach in order to achieve the outcomes we all want to see.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this debate, and hon. Members from across the House on their excellent contributions. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am still a sitting councillor at Teignbridge district council.
The Liberal Democrats support housing targets, but believe we need to win the case for that housing within the communities we represent, and that enforcing them from Whitehall without community consent will continue to fail to deliver the homes we need. Homes must be built to meet local need and not be driven simply by developers seeking the highest profits. Development has brilliant potential for providing a wealth of opportunities to rural communities, but that can be realised only by genuinely involving those communities in the decisions that affect them. That means the right houses in the right places.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to make housing a priority, given the desperate number of people denied the basic right to a safe and warm home. The Conservatives’ poor commitment to house building has left 8.5 million people in England with unmet housing need. The Conservatives let developers get away with building housing to poor standards, and without GP practices, schools and community infrastructure, which are badly needed. They also let them off the hook for leaving land for housing unbuilt and new homes empty. We believe everyone has a right to a safe and secure home, but without more support for councils, more people will be left without access to quality and affordable housing. The previous Conservative Government forced councils to do more and more with less and less, plunging many into financial crisis.
Although we have welcomed this Government’s commitment to our call for multi-year funding settlements, with additional pressure on councils to accept national insurance contribution changes, it is essential that they are funded robustly to achieve those aims.
We have been disappointed by the Government’s reluctance to commit to a target for social house building. In addition to an overall target for new homes, the Liberal Democrats would target 150,000 new social homes to tackle the housing shortage and homelessness crisis. We are committed to ensuring that house building does not come at the expense of our environment. The Government should not be either delivering house building or protecting our environment; they can and must do both.
We welcomed the Government’s recent announcement that they are adopting the Liberal Democrat policy and wording mandating all homes to be built with solar panels, in a solar rooftop revolution. We also welcome the measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill to ban no-fault evictions and create a national register of licensed landlords. We believe that these steps are crucial to overcoming the housing crisis. Liberal Democrats have long called for leasehold reform to make house ownership fairer and more accessible—we have been campaigning against leasehold since Lloyd George introduced the people’s Budget.
On the specifics of the standard method, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, who pointed out that it does not and cannot work—as did the right hon. Member for, I believe, the Isle of Wight.
Martin Wrigley
My apologies to the right hon. Member.
Since 2018, when the Conservative Government introduced the so-called standard method, which was supposed to calculate housing need, the country has suffered from a top-down, dysfunctional system that fails to prioritise the importance of affordability or the infrastructure necessary to support new development. The constant tinkering, with the introduction and subsequent withdrawal of various failed algorithms, has led to the near paralysis of our planning system. That came on top of the central Government’s starving local planning authorities of the resources they need to function, and the lack of direction as a result of no fewer than 13 changes of Conservative Housing Minister in the nine years from 2015.
It is illiberal, and contrary to the interests of a community-led planning system, to remove options for how to assess housing need from local communities. Although the standard method of assessing housing need is likely to be followed by most authorities, councils with the resources and ability to assess housing need in ways more suited to their areas should be permitted to do so. All housing need assessments are, in any event, subject to the same scrutiny by the Government’s inspectors.
In the district of Teignbridge, in which my Newton Abbot constituency sits, the average house price in 2019 was just under 11 times the average income. After a substantial increase in housing targets due to the standard method calculations, that ratio is going up, and the average house price is now over 11 times the average income. Housing developers build homes only as fast as they can sell them and at the price they need to protect their profit and viability, given the often extortionate prices they have paid for the land. Asking them, via the flawed standard method, to build more to reduce the price is much like asking the owner of a gold mine to increase extraction to a level that reduces the price of gold. It will not happen.
A big part of the solution is to build more council homes, and I am proud to have overseen the resumption of council house building at Teignbridge for the first time in 30 years. I urge the Government to help more councils build more council homes to help more people.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and congratulate him on securing this important debate.
I am afraid this is just another example of the two-tier society that this Government are presiding over. We have had two-tier taxes and two-tier justice and now we have two-tier targets. That is the reality, and it militates against the basic British principle of fairness. I will go through the numbers in a second, but Labour’s own council leaders have called the Minister’s targets unrealistic and impossible to achieve. The leader of West Lancashire council used exactly those words: “impossible and unrealistic”. The targets are unachievable.
I am in no way, shape or form a nimby. Unlike 15 of the Minister’s colleagues in the Cabinet, I have never objected to any developments in my constituency as a Member of Parliament or as a member of the public. I am absolutely on the side of young people who want to get on the housing ladder and those on lower incomes seeking affordable homes. The only way to deliver that is to deliver more homes. I am not against the Minister’s 1.5 million target, but it will be very challenging. We should look at the data: over the last 10 years we were in office, average net housing additions were 207,000 a year. That was the highest level for 50 years—even higher than in the 1970s, because we were knocking down an awful lot of houses back then.
The targets have been driven by the change from assessment of housing formations to a measure of stock already delivered in an area, with a multiplier on top for affordability, but they are totally unfair. London has seen an 11% decrease in its target, Leicester a 32% decrease and Birmingham a 38% decrease. Coventry has seen a 55% decrease in its housing target, yet the neighbouring authority of North Warwickshire has had a 123% increase. That is despite the fact that North Warwickshire, like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said of his authority, has over-delivered on its housing targets. Nuneaton, another bordering authority that is over-delivering, has had a 75% increase in its housing target compared with Coventry.
I am trying not to be too parochial but in my neck of the woods, York, which has been under-delivering massively against its housing target for years and years, and had not had a local plan since 1956—it has just got one in place, thank God—has seen a 19% increase, yet neighbouring North Yorkshire, which is my local authority, has had a 199% increase, despite significant over-delivery.
Of Members who have spoken in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has had a 100% increase in his area; the hon. Member for Horsham a 48% increase; the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) a 63% increase; the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) a 72% increase; and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) a 66% increase. I like the Minister and we get on very well, but his authority in Nottingham has had a 32% decrease. How can that be fair? It is against the basic principle of fairness. Yes, there is a 50% increase in delivery across the board, but why have some targets been decreased and others massively increased? That is simply unfair.
Those are not anecdotal cases. Based on information from the House of Commons Library, across the board, mainly rural areas are seeing an average 71% increase and urban areas an average 15.6% increase. On top of that there is the duty to co-operate and strategic planning, which is likely to see even more houses going into rural areas. There is no justification for that unfairness. It also sits against the principle that the Government say they adopt, as we did, of a brownfield-first approach.
Brownfield development is the least controversial approach, and it is what we would all like to see, but it is complex and costly, particularly in a world of increased costs of delivery. Over the past few years, developers have seen a 40% increase in costs of building. On top of that is the building safety levy, the Building Safety Regulator, biodiversity net gain, the future homes standard, section 106, the community infrastructure levy and the remediation of brownfield sites. Those things, and the Government’s policy on grey belt, will mean that more and more development will be pushed from urban areas into greenfield and green belt.
What the Government are doing with the national planning policy framework cannot be divorced from the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the Trojan horse that they called grey belt. What they sold to the public as being a few former garage forecourts or wasteland is far from that. It is greenfield and green belt. The Minister cannot shake his head. There used to be protections between villages to stop them merging, and they have gone. There used to be protections to stop villages merging into towns, and they have gone. This is not about grey belt; it is a fundamental change to green belt.
Of course, this is not about targets. It would be pointless to have this debate and just talk about targets—we have to talk about delivery. The 1.5 million homes are a huge ask. The reality is that to hit that target for England, for the rest of this Parliament, delivery will need to hit not 207,000 a year, which we averaged, but 375,000 a year. That is a 180% increase—a doubling.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate you, Mrs Hobhouse, on your chairmanship and the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing the debate, which has been well-mannered and thoughtful on all sides. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is giving a fighting and boisterous speech, but I remind him that we both stood on manifestos that contained numbers of new homes that we would build. In fact, his party’s number was bigger than the Government’s: it was 1.6 million. If we are going to talk about facts and how we deliver these things, let us talk about sense and pragmatism, and not rhetoric, because, unfortunately, what he is saying now is not what he said at the election.
Kevin Hollinrake
Good for the hon. Gentleman for reading our manifesto—not enough people did, I am afraid. He is right: we did set a more ambitious target, which I am not against. As I said right at the start, I am in no shape or form a nimby. However, I am for honesty and fairness. The point is that the housing targets have been moved away from certain types of area where people tend to move. They tend to move from rural to urban to take their first job or start their first business, as I did, but the targets are going from urban to rural.
The Minister faces many challenges alongside the huge number he has set himself. The Office for Budget Responsibility and Homes England have said that the number targeted is impossible. Let us see. I wish him well for delivery, although not on the skewed figures that we have discussed today. There are real challenges here, as the Minister knows: things such as the Building Safety Regulator; the skills issue; small and medium-sized enterprises, which build a far smaller proportion of homes than they used to; and making sure that we get first-time buyers on to the housing ladder.
We have tabled a number of amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that will solve all these problems, and I very much hope that the Minister will look at them. One of them proposes no solar on any best and most versatile land. I am sure that the Minister will look at that, because it would potentially leave space for more British farmland to produce fantastic food. We have also tabled amendments on protected landscapes—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has a significant section of protected landscape in his patch, which is bound to constrain supply, but no recognition has been made of that—and on ensuring that there is no plus or minus beyond 20% in any of these targets, which would be fairer. We will also seek to amend the national scheme of delegation, which disgracefully removes votes from councillors, and restore the protections for the green belt. As some in this excellent debate have said, we need a better mix that is more suited to demand in local areas.
I very much hope that the Minister will support those amendments, but, because I feel that he will not, I will make one plea to him: please, look at the Building Safety Regulator. There is a queue of 18,000 homes with planning consent that are waiting six months or more for an answer from the Building Safety Regulator. That is a huge bottleneck in supply. I hope that the Minister will at least touch on that point.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
I know that the Minister has quite a lot of time, but I ask him to leave two minutes for the Member in charge to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
Thank you for that clear direction, Mrs Hobhouse; it is very helpful.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate and on his leadership. He clearly articulated his concerns on the revised standard method for assessing local housing need. He set us off on a good course: this has been a very strategic debate, which is not always the case with debates about housing. I have a disclaimer that I and colleagues in the Department always read out at this point about our inability to comment on individual matters or individual local plans, but colleagues have not tempted us in that direction. That is very important, and it set the tone for an excellent debate. I will cover many of the points that the hon. Member and others made in the course of the conversation.
The debate has been relatively non-partisan. I think the shadow Secretary of State slightly missed the memo, but I like him as much as he likes me, and I know he does not mean it and that his instinct is always to work constructively. I have no doubt that he and his colleagues will want to do so. At this very minute, colleagues from all parties are upstairs discussing in great detail the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will provide us with a vehicle for many important changes. Clearly, there will be lots of debates to come on very important amendments.
Multiple members have said that we are in the middle of a really acute housing crisis. I get out of bed every day, as do my colleagues, because 160,000 children live in temporary accommodation. As mentioned by the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), that is the tip of the iceberg of the multiple millions who are under-housed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) said, their housing and under-housing has profound impacts on their opportunities and life chances. That has been in the spirit of this debate. We made that signature commitment at the election to build 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament exactly for those people, because they need decent housing to build decent lives and decent communities.
Home ownership is out of reach for too many. Too few homes have been built, and too few are genuinely affordable. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the bank of mum and dad—that ever-present and indeed growing feature that now seems inevitable for people of my generation or those who are perhaps are a bit younger, but was not a feature of my mother’s generation. That is such an important issue of social justice. We must build more homes, and they must be in places where people want to live and work. The planning system has to underpin that, but as the hon. Member for Horsham said, the history of that is chequered. Indeed, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said, we have all had our stake in that. I certainly approach this in the spirit of humility. We want to get this right.
I will now turn to the work of the previous Government. We must have a method that is clear and transparent. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) talked about what it looks like in detail. At least it is there in detail for people to say, “I don’t like this element of it. I think this is weighted wrongly”. It is clear, it is transparent, it is there, and it produces the numbers. That is the basis for plan-making. I do not want to make a political point out of this, because the right hon. Gentleman is proud of the previous Government’s record on housing, but we have had a little test of the alternative in the final year of the last Parliament, and there was a sense that targets were out the window. I do not think that was a very effective decision, and the impact on housing starts is a matter of public record.
I do not think we have heard much of an argument for not having a method at all, but without one, the situation tends towards stasis. That is why last December, following consultation, we implemented a revised method that is aligned with our ambition of a million and a half new homes over this Parliament. There is one point that I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Horsham about, although I appreciate that it may well be a separate debate: I do not think we can decouple the national target and the local target. If the local target does not meet the national target or the national target does not tally with the local target, there will be disconnect and frustration.
This target and this method point us towards 370,000 homes. The formula incorporates a baseline of local housing stock and is adjusted upwards to reflect affordability pressures. Areas where unaffordability is most acute see the largest adjustment. We think that supply is an issue here alongside demand—I disagree slightly with a couple of colleagues on that point. However, I think it is really important for those watching to hear this stated from the Front Bench: this method does not exist in a vacuum. It is the underpinning of the development of local plans, which have been and will be the cornerstone of our planning system. The plans take into account all the development needs of a local area, including affordable housing.
I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) about the challenges facing her local authority in ensuring that its plan holds, but the fact that it has that 30% target is a sign that local authorities can put on record the nature of housing that they want in their communities. Notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for St Ives, if it is an arm wrestle with developers, it has that guiding document at least to halt it, because we know that the alternative is a lack of planning that exposes communities. They make up the bedrock, and we want all communities to have one. York is always a prime example—I am overjoyed that York has got to that point after more than six decades. That community is better protected in terms of development, and it will also deliver more effective development. It is a win for all.
I cannot concede the point made by the hon. Member for Horsham that councillors do not know enough; I think that they do. There is a point about local authority resourcing and planning, and we made that commitment at the previous Budget. We want councillors to have the skills to feel empowered, but crucially, as the hon. Gentleman said, local communities also need to feel empowered. I cannot agree that housing and development is not an election issue; I think that it is. The 1.5 million homes target was very much a feature of what we said at the general election. I want to empower local authorities and people to have their say on plans, because they are a bedrock. If they want development that is sustainable, of the right type and in the right place, perhaps on brownfield sites, the local plan is the route to that. It means engaging with it in a way that goes beyond the questions of, “Should there be development? Is our development target too high?” We need to get to, “Where is it going to happen? What type does it need to be?” That is, I believe, the way to deliver the development that they want.
A number of colleagues, including the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), have mentioned local circumstances. Indeed, last week, he and I were talking about West Dorset in the context of having the right parking in the right places. Things like that are facilitators and enablers of place. The standard method is a starting point to inform the preparation of local plans. Once local need has been assessed, authorities can establish the number of new homes that are to be provided in the area. That takes into account evidence showing what land is available and any constraints on development—for example, those relating to national landscapes, areas at risk of flooding and other relevant matters.
That approach recognises that some areas—as, I think, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said—will not be able to deliver the figure provided by the standard method. If they can justify that fully in their local plan during examination by an independent inspector, they can make that case. However, of course, they must only adopt a plan that is legally compliant and sound. It must be consistent with national policy, supported by evidence, and we want the views of local people to be taken into account.
A point was also made about brownfield sites. We want local authorities to make sure that they maximise those sites, and I think local authorities want to do that too. We also want them to be sensible about where they review green-belt land. I think there are different types of land within the green belt. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire characterised it as a Trojan horse; that is not our intent. Who is best placed to make that assessment? It is, of course, the local authorities, by leaning into it. The right hon. Gentleman made an interesting point, as did the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, about whether it is a question of urban versus rural. I do not think that that is the case. Hon. Members will see in our approach to growth in city regions the importance of those regions to the economy; they are places where people want to live, or where people cannot currently access housing.
As the Minister for town centres, I can say that we are enthusiastic in the Department about communities taking control of their town centres, notwithstanding challenges about permitting development. In future, town centres will not be purely retail; the mix will be retail, leisure and, of course, there will also be a need for accommodation. That mix should be locally owned. In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Horsham mentioned new towns. It will not be a case of: is it urban, rural or new town? It is going to be everywhere; the mix will be a bit of everything. Similarly, it will involve big builders and SMEs. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton shares my enthusiasm for getting SMEs building. It is going to be the entire mix.
I am conscious of time, but I want to address the points made by the hon. Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about water and local housing. Of course, water is important. National policy is clear that housing must have water infrastructure. There are clear expectations that local authorities should work with each other and the infrastructure providers to ensure that housing has that infrastructure. I think that, in general, they are doing that and ensuring that the water supply is sustainable. The companies have a statutory duty to provide new water and sewerage connections. I appreciate that the subject needs to be seen in the round, but that goes back to the need to have an effective, comprehensive local plan, which local authorities can use as their guiding document. They can then say to the water companies, “We do not want you to look at 50 houses at a time; we want you to see it in the round.” That is the sort of leadership that we want.
There are larger issues that colleagues have raised frequently. I would be stretching the scope of this debate if I talked about the behaviour of those who manage water, but we could have a whole new debate on it. Of course, there is an independent review ongoing on the regulation of the water sector for the UK and Welsh Governments. I assure the hon. Member for Strangford, as I often do, that we are very active in talking to the Northern Ireland Executive on a variety of issues, particularly on building safety. I always talk to my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about their approaches.
On strategic planning, this is a chance to have a higher level but still localised view of the best sites, working and collaborating with local planning authorities. That is an exciting innovation. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) asked how that will butt up against local government reorganisation. Of course, those partners will be part of that, but there will still be a local planning authority so that people can submit their views on a local plan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, the hon. Members for Chichester and for Horsham and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) talked about affordable and social housing. There can be no doubt about the commitment of this Government and the Deputy Prime Minister to social housing, genuinely affordable homes and homes for social rent. We have already put our money where our mouth is by committing £800 million in-year for the affordable homes programme, and a further £2 billion injection at the 2025 spring statement. Alongside that, there are new flexibilities for councils and housing associations within the AHP and in how they use right to buy.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I commend the Government on their work to change the local connection rules to ensure that veterans can access social housing. In our region, the local authority has come in off the back of that and given veterans the highest priority banding for social housing. Will the Minister take a moment to commend our local council for that reform, which comes off the back of the work that the Government are doing?
Alex Norris
That excellent innovation by the local authority reflects one of the needs that the public want to see met.
In my final minute, I want to address the point that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton made about the Building Safety Regulator. It is right that we have a regulatory framework in place; we have seen the consequence of not having one. It has to protect people but also enable building. There is a moral imperative to ensuring that people are safe in their homes, but also to ensuring that people have homes. The BSR is a relatively new regulator—it has only been in place for a couple of years—and obviously the Building Safety Act 2022 is a relatively new part of the scene.
We are working very closely with the BSR to ensure that its operational processes are as effective as possible. Where that is a challenge, we have made more money available. I speak with the industry about that in great detail, as I am sure the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton does, so he will know the conversations that we are having. I totally accept that we need to ensure that the BSR is working effectively, because it is a really important part of having a safe system.
I reiterate our determination to build the homes that the country needs. Through the standard method, we have the right tool to get to 1.5 million homes. In that context, local people will have the leadership they need to deliver what that looks like locally.
John Milne
I thank the Minister for his reply and all Members for their very interesting contributions. One thing that is really striking is that we see the same problem up and down the land. It may manifest itself locally, but it is a national problem.
Like many Members of this Parliament, I come from a local council background—I was the cabinet member for planning in Horsham district council—so I have personal experience of trying to get what we needed for the community out of the plan and developers. It was a battle. My reaction to the changes made to the standard method and to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is currently in Committee, is to say, “Would that have given me the tools I needed to do the job? Would it have improved my chances?” I feel that the answer is, “Not really, no.” That is the standard by which I judge it.
Changes to the standard method could really enhance—make or break, actually—what the Government are doing in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is not just a technicality on the side, but a crucial interface. I realise that the Minister will be a bit distracted, given that the Bill is going through Parliament right now, but I hope that in the fulness of time he will take a closer look at the measure, because it can be revised at any point and does not require legislation. I again thank everybody for a very good-natured debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered reform of the standard method for assessing local housing need.
Defence Industries: North-East
(1 day, 3 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
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Luke Myer will move the motion and the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for defence industries in the North East.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this important debate on how the Government can step up to support the strong defence industry in our region. I thank my hon. Friends here today and the many manufacturers, both big and small, from across the region for meeting me recently to discuss the issues that they face. This topic is of great importance to our constituents and to our nation, and I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions.
Last week marked the 80th anniversary of VE Day. It was a moment to remember not only the courage of those who fought on the frontline, but the grit and sacrifice of the men and women who powered our industry at home. The north-east has never stood on the sidelines when it comes to national defence. Our proud industrial capabilities have always served this country well, in times of peace and conflict. Our region forged the steel that built the tanks, ships and munitions during those years. Our docks sent supplies to the front. Our communities gave sons and daughters to the war effort. That legacy is written in the fabric of the towns and villages in our region and it lives on today.
In our region, there are some 2,500 jobs directly in the defence sector and many thousands more in the supply chain. There are large prime contractors—for example, BAE Systems, which has had a footprint in our region since world war one and today employs more than 400 staff in Washington, and the nearby Rolls-Royce, which runs excellent apprenticeship programmes. It was a pleasure to meet one of its apprentices, Lucy from Gateshead, in Parliament recently.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to underline the importance of the defence sector right across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Something that is also important and that he has rightly spoken about is the need for apprentices. The Government have given a contract to Thales in Northern Ireland, and through that there will be 200 new jobs and 20 new apprentices. Does he agree that when it comes to defence contracts right across this great United Kingdom, they need to involve apprentices, to build for the future and to ensure that we have those skills?
Luke Myer
I absolutely agree. The investment that is coming to Thales will mean thousands of advanced air defence missiles that will be supplied to Ukraine. That is a really important cause, and of course there will be a benefit to the entire supply chain across the United Kingdom as well.
Strong national defence starts well before the battlefield. It is about the skilled workers in our factories—
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) for giving way. I wanted to intervene just after his description of the excellent existing capabilities and proud defence industry history in the region, to add the caveat that nowadays, sadly, we have the fewest defence jobs directly supported by Ministry of Defence spending of any of the regions—there are 1,600 according to recent MOD figures—and the lowest amount of MOD spend by region, at £380 million. Those jobs and that spending are obviously welcome, but the figures are below those for the next lowest region, which is Yorkshire and Humber, and in some regions, such as the north-west, which obviously has a significant cluster with BAE, Barrow and things like that, spending reaches £7 billion.
Does my hon. Friend agree that that imbalance represents something of a missed opportunity, given the region’s defence heritage and the passionate, patriotic nature of the workforce, who would probably love to work in the defence industries? Does he agree that we need to ensure that when the increased national spending is rolled out, some of that imbalance is addressed and the north-east is restored to its historical role as one of the flagship regions for defence manufacturing in the UK?
Luke Myer
I agree. The increase in defence spending an opportunity to uplift regional economies and tackle regional inequality. However, I do not want to talk down our region because we do have firms, large and small, that are contributing to our national security and industrial resilience, including Babcock in Newcastle, Nifco in Stockton, Merlin Flex in Hartlepool, Draken at Teesside airport, Tees Components in my constituency, and many others. I am proud to champion Tees Components, a family-run business based in the small village of North Skelton. It delivers world-leading precision engineering for projects including our Astute-class submarines. That is our region in action.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Merlin Flex from my constituency. I had the pleasure of visiting Merlin Flex recently, and people there have talked in such positive terms about the growth and expansion that they are seeing. Does he agree that the unprecedented, record injection of cash that the Labour Government are putting into defence has the ability to transform regions such as ours? Does he also think that it is critical that we support the small and medium-sized enterprises that need help to access those funds?
Luke Myer
I completely agree. I have one note of caution for our region: although we have fantastic manufacturers and SMEs, it is important for our regional economy—the one my hon. Friend and I share—to have a proper skills pipeline. There is a real job for our combined authority and our mayor to step up and work with education providers to ensure that proper planning is in place. My hon. Friend has a fantastic college in his constituency—Hartlepool college, which has inspirational leadership from its principal, Darren Hankey—but such colleges need to be joined up with local manufacturers, so that there is a proper skills pipeline.
All those manufacturers are vital for delivering local skills. Many of them offer advanced training and apprenticeships and ultimately provide high-quality, well-paid jobs in the areas that need them most. I recently met various manufacturers, both prime and SME, to discuss the issues that they face. They strongly welcome the Government’s decision to identify defence as one of the eight growth sectors in the industrial strategy. One manufacturer told me that it “puts defence in a different place” from where it was before. Manufacturers also welcome the decision to increase defence spending to 2.5%, the strategic defence review, the progress on trade with the US and the decision to step in to save British Steel. This Government are stepping up, not stepping back, and putting our strategic industries on a secure footing.
Just four months ago, I spoke in this Chamber during a debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on the challenges that SMEs face in defence procurement. I called for better access for SMEs to the pipeline. I was therefore pleased to see the Government’s recent commitment to set direct SME spending targets, and I hope that the Minister will provide further clarity on when those will be published. As it stands, SMEs in the defence sector are often contracted for one-off, short-term jobs, and that can create challenges. The unpredictable, project-based nature of the contracts makes it difficult for companies to commit to the up-front capital investment needed to grow.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her recent visit to our Teesside defence and innovation cluster, where many small businesses, such as those my hon. Friend described, experience challenges in accessing procurement contracts. Does he agree that it is important for the Ministry of Defence to try harder to engage with small businesses further down the supply chain to help them develop capability, and to create visibility for them so that they can be sure of continuity of contracts and can invest in their own businesses and future growth?
Luke Myer
I agree. The best way to ensure that we are building the right approach to procurement is by listening directly to the SMEs that operate on the procurement frontline. I am grateful to the Minister for visiting Teesside to meet the defence and innovation cluster, and for visiting NETPark to meet other businesses. It is clear that she is listening, and that is welcome and appreciated.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
This Government are absolutely determined to reset public procurement for SMEs. In places such as Darlington, we have fantastic SMEs that employ local people, drive local growth, have great terms and conditions, and are a source of local pride. For too long, those SMEs have been missing out because they do not have the bandwidth on a day-to-day basis to put in bids for these contracts, let alone to then offer huge incentives and massive savings, as some of the bigger clients and players in the field can. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be great to hear from the Minister about the work that she is doing with the Cabinet Office to strengthen public procurement, and to make sure that public money gets into our communities in Darlington?
Luke Myer
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. By boosting SMEs we boost not only the defence industry, but other sectors, because many of these SMEs are working on dual-use technology, which has a strong crossover with other areas.
Ultimately, growing our sovereign capacity by building more in Britain is a smart and strategic move that will pay off in the long run, both for our national security and our economic growth.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for this excellent debate and the Minister for the leadership that she is showing—I was grateful for her recent visit to NETPark in Sedgefield in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another significant benefit of more work going to SMEs? Warfare is changing at such a rapid pace that we need to take hold of innovation and the innovative products being delivered by our SME community in Sedgefield and around the country, so that we are battle-ready for the future.
Luke Myer
Absolutely. One of those innovative projects in my hon. Friend’s constituency is a semiconductor plant, which the Government stepped up to save with £20 million of investment. That is exactly the kind of active Government and leadership that we need.
The previous Government set up procurement processes with a singular focus, which was awarding contracts to the lowest bidder. That may seem sensible on the surface, but in fact, it has stifled British growth and ultimately cost the taxpayer more. To give an example from Middlesbrough, a local company was forced to step in and finish works that were initially being done by a contractor in south-east Asia, which had been chosen purely because it was the cheapest at the time. Time and time again, we have seen Conservative Governments make decisions on industrial policy that erode our manufacturing base, see jobs disappear overseas and weaken British industry. That Middlesbrough business was there to pick up the pieces and finish the job, but the delay was wholly unnecessary. It ended up costing the British taxpayer more than if we had simply built in Britain from the start.
We need an approach that prioritises British values over mere price. This is about not just securing the cheapest deal but ensuring that every pound we spend strengthens our national security. We must grow our sovereign capacity and put British business first, and support our local economies in the process.
It is also time that we took a more intelligent and long-term approach to defence procurement—one that does not cost us more and builds the kind of capacity that we need here at home, especially in the current global climate. For industries to invest and grow, and train apprentices and support communities, we need to move away from short-term projects and annualised budgets. Businesses need long-term clarity. That will give them stability to plan for the future with confidence.
One SME I spoke to feels that the industrial strategy will help with that, but we can do more to give further confidence to the supply chain, especially through rapid and clear decisions on projects and support for the up-front capital investments that they need to make. This is about investment not only in specialised equipment, but in people. In our region, the jobs in this industry are high-skilled, well-paid and secure, and many of the manufacturers invest strongly in skills and apprentices.
Lola McEvoy
In my Darlington constituency, we have a fantastic engineering firm called Cummins. I recently visited the plant, and I want to bring hon. Members’ attention to the fact that they have automated a lot of their processes and, in doing so, have grown their workforce. They have upskilled, reskilled and hired more on the basis of bringing in new technologies. That kind of employment practice is second to none, and we want more of that across our region. As I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, our values around hard graft mean that we are ripe for more defence and manufacturing investment.
Luke Myer
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which just goes to show there is a false dichotomy between jobs and automation. A business can be grown well by embracing the future, so I commend Cummins on the work it is doing in her constituency.
The industry needs a strong skills pipeline. There is a role for Government to support these businesses by making sure our workforce has the skills to meet the demands of the coming decades. As I mentioned before, there is also a role for our regional mayors to play in making sure there is a more joined-up local skills landscape and working with education providers and manufacturers to get the best people into the best jobs.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I was lucky to go a secondary school that was sponsored by BAE systems, and we benefited from that investment. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is focusing on not only the importance of the Government procuring British, but the social value that employers can add, which includes ensuring that they offer apprenticeships and invest in training. Does he agree that we should be encouraging the Government to prioritise the businesses that demonstrate good practice in these areas?
Luke Myer
I agree with my hon. Friend. He and I both worked in the education sector prior to coming to this place and working in policy. It is about joining up those two things, and making sure that people have access to opportunity. So many people across our region have the can-do attitude to succeed, but they are held back by lack of opportunity. Through skills and training we can make sure that they can get into industries such as this, where there are decent well-paid jobs for the future.
One group of people who can bring an extraordinary skillset to our workplaces is veterans. Not only can the defence sector support our armed forces but our armed forces can support the defence sector by establishing routes to civilian employment for those who have served. In my constituency I have recently seen the strength and tenacity of our veteran community. I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for Veterans and People for coming to my constituency to listen to veterans, particularly on the issue of mental health. Operation Valour, which was announced last week, will help to join up employment, health and other services for veterans across the north-east. I believe that by trusting our veterans and giving them opportunities, we can contribute to their mental health and wellbeing and offer them purpose and community after their service, as well as strengthen our businesses.
This is an important time for the Government to strengthen our defence industry in the north-east. We have already seen the Government stepping up, with £20 million to save the Aycliffe semi-conductor plant, the £173 million contract for Draken at Teesside airport, the creation of steel jobs for Teesside, the £9 billion contract for Rolls-Royce to power Britain’s nuclear submarines, and the clarity brought by the strategic defence review and the industrial strategy. This Government are making significant investments in Britain’s security. By going further for British defence industries, we not only strengthen our national security, but support local jobs and regional growth. There is no better time to act than now, and there is no better place to invest than our region, where we have the track record, the potential and the drive to lead the way.
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
It is great to be here under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) on securing the debate and shedding light on the vital defence industry in the north-east, and particularly his part of the region.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland), for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), and for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for accompanying him to show the great strength of will among elected representatives in the north-east to boost and push the development of their defence industries. I congratulate them all on the contributions they made. I have managed to visit some, but not all of the constituencies represented here today. I know that people will now ask me to go to the other ones, and we will have to bear that in mind as time goes on.
As we heard today, defence makes a considerable contribution to the north-east in terms of jobs, investment and growth, but my hon. Friends have also made clear that a huge contribution could be made beyond what has already been done. The nation as a whole needs us to boost our defence industries, and this Government are determined to do that. It is clear that the world is becoming much more dangerous and Britain is facing rising threats. At the same time, the Government face the challenge of rebuilding and reinvigorating our armed forces to meet those threats better, after a decade and a half of underfunding and hollowing out.
We are conducting the strategic defence review to assess fully the threats we face and to determine what capabilities we need to meet them. It is also why we brought forward an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027, with plans to raise it to 3% in the next Parliament; and it is why we are working hard on defence reform and the new defence industrial strategy. We cannot continue to spend money in the MOD as we spent in the past. We have to get better value. There is no point in increasing spending if we pour some of it down the drain. We have to do things better, and that is what defence reform is about.
The defence industrial strategy is in part about how we can transform procurement to unlock the potential of suppliers across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke about the need for us to do procurement better and reform it. He mentioned some very good small firms, including Tees Components, which I know to a degree. It is a family firm in a small community that does wondrous things.
There is enormous potential in north-east communities for innovation and dual-use technologies, but the way we do procurement now positively excludes small companies from being able to participate, partly because it takes us so long to do it and partly because of the requirements on the firms to prove all kinds of things and produce all kinds of documentation that they do not normally have the staff to produce. BAE Systems might, but a small family firm does not. The system excludes small firms and they end up, at best, in the supply chains of the primes, which is fine as far as it goes, but does not enable them to show us what they can do in terms of agility and innovation.
My hon. Friends will recall the Chancellor’s announcement in her spring statement that we are going to reform defence procurement. Part of that reform will be to speed up getting to contract. The average time to contract is six years, which is ridiculous in the current situation. Procuring a nuclear submarine might take a bit longer than procuring the latest drone, so we are going to segment our procurement arrangements to recognise the fact that not every contract is the same.
We will do this in three layers. One layer will be major programmes, on which we will aim to cut the time to contract from the current average of six years to three years. The second layer is developing new upgrades—a new radar for one of our platforms, for example. For that segment, we aim to get to contract within one year instead of within three. At the faster end—I will not say the smaller end—we aim to get to contract for novel and agile dual-use technology within three months. That will challenge the MOD, but we are determined to do things better and make sure that our spending gets better value and better capability faster into the hands of our warfighters. Many companies in the north-east will be able to benefit from this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland will recall that the Prime Minister announced the formation of an SME hub, which ought to enable small firms to plug into the available opportunities and help them to know where to get finance, which is a problem for small firms. We need a clearer idea of what the capabilities are to enable them to plug their ideas and their dual-use technology into the opportunities that are available.
The establishment announced by the Chancellor of UK Defence Innovation, with a £400 million ringfenced budget this year, which has already started, means that there is more money available for dealing with innovative and novel technologies. The Chancellor also committed us to making sure that there is a ringfenced budget that will increase to 10% of our acquisitions budget.
I therefore think the prospect is good for our small and innovative firms. When I go to trade fairs, go on constituency visits and do roundtables to find out what industry wants, I meet many of these small firms from around the country, including the north-east—I have met some on a couple of occasions in the north-east. Many of them say the same thing: “We need a way in. We need to know what you are doing, and what you want and when you want it. And we need to be able to engage faster and more effectively.” I hope that we will be able to do that.
It is going to require wholesale reorganisation, and us to learn how to do things differently, but I will just say to this Chamber and to my hon. Friends that the efforts we have put into supporting Ukraine show that we can do things faster, we can procure better, and we can ensure that we get capability into the hands of warfighters who desperately need it on a much faster timescale than we have done traditionally. The people who have done that are the same people in the MOD who have traditionally done the slower, more long-term, more stately work. It is just about risk appetite and about what we want them to do.
With the strategic defence review publication coming up shortly, in due course, and with the defence industrial strategy also to be published—not at the same time, but not too far away from that—we ought to have an obvious and transparent framework, backed by resources that are guaranteed to be increasing into the future. That is not something that industry has had in the past, which is something that it has always complained about, telling us, “We need a demand signal. We’re not going to invest until we know that you really want this long term.”
I think we will have the kind of ecosystem and opportunities that small firms and large firms in the north-east, in the constituencies of my hon. Friends who are here today, will be able to take advantage of to grow and bring forth their agility, ideas, energy, and patriotism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland said, many people in the north-east who work in the defence industry are very proud of doing so and really do want to support our country in its defence and security needs. They will be that much more motivated because there will be more opportunities.
I know that my hon. Friends, who are here in numbers today to represent the north-east, will make sure that I know what the opportunities are in the north-east and what more can be done, and I will rely on them to do that. I cannot get out of the office as much as I might like, so I rely on right hon. and hon. Members to let me know what is going on, what the issues are and what the problems are. I hope that, between all of us, we get into a position to boost our defence industries in a way that not only increases our defence and security, and our ability to deter our potential adversaries and, if needs be, make sure that our warfighters are properly equipped, but leads to regional growth and job opportunities, real lives and careers for our young people and our older people who work in the defence industries and in dual-use technologies, and also enables us to grow our economy as a whole, nationally.
I know that if we get this right and harness the skills, capabilities, commitment, good sense and effort of people who work in the defence industries, we will be in a much, much better place. It is a win-win for all of us—not only for my hon. Friends, but for the north-east and for the nation as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities
(1 day, 3 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
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered flooding and planning and developer responsibilities.
It is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, and to discuss how we can help the Minister to tackle the tsunami of inland flooding that is sweeping so much of the country—not just my beautiful Mid Norfolk constituency, but many other areas. The presence of so many colleagues from different parties and counties speaks volumes about the scale of the problem.
I will start in December 2020, when I fully woke up to the scale of what was coming. It was a lovely Christmas in Mid Norfolk when the phone started ringing, as it did for many colleagues in our part of the world. Along with many people, I spent that Christmas week baling out constituents, clearing out sewage and getting Anglian Water to pump out houses. It happened in not just one village, but seven or eight across Mid Norfolk. At that point, I realised the scale of what was coming and why the issue had been becoming increasingly prevalent in the constituency letterbox. Following that, I set up the Mid Norfolk Flood Partnership with the 14 worst affected villages, as a result of which we set out 15 very practical things that we in Norfolk could do. We set up the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance with the county council, and this year we held the first Norfolk flood summit.
I want to update colleagues on some of that work and flag some of the things we have identified. I commend the Minister for the grip she has exerted on the problem since arriving in office. She is on the cusp of having the chance to do something quite significant for generations to come. I want to highlight the things we are particularly suffering from in Mid Norfolk, explain what the problem is in our part of the world—it is different in different parts of the country—and set out some suggestions that I hope the Minister will take on board in the flood review that she is leading.
To that end, I have arranged an all-party flood summit on 2 June with the four all-party parliamentary groups. It says something that four APPGs have been set up—standing room only—in order to deal with flooding. Of the 400 or so new MPs who have arrived in Parliament, I think 100 have put flooding very high on their list, so this is a big issue; it is no longer marginal. I want to say something about the importance of gripping it at scale, so that future generations do not have to experience the horrors that our constituents have. In other words, I want to put wind in the Minister’s sails to do something that Whitehall often struggles with. As a veteran Minister myself, I know that the sticky-tape solution is often the tempting one to reach for, but this issue, as the Minister knows, requires a structural change in the way we think about water across our economy.
Mid Norfolk—the clue is in the name—is not a maritime constituency. I am talking today about inland flooding, although I appreciate that there is also a coastal flooding problem. One of the issues in Norfolk is that we have had so much coastal flooding that the focus has been on that, and not so much on inland flooding. My constituency is largely made up of Breckland, the glacial clays and sands—a clue: it should not be flooding. It is dry—very dry. Where there is water and sand, there is very productive agricultural land. Yes, we have some lower-lying, very beautiful areas—the chalk streams, the Wensum valley, the Yare and the Tud—where we should not be building, not least because they are sites of special scientific interest and hugely strong habitats, but they are also prone to flooding.
So why is Mid Norfolk flooding? That is the question I hear hon. Members asking, because it should not be flooding. Other areas should be, but not Mid Norfolk. There are several answers, but I will first explain the scale of what has happened in the last five years. There has been serious flooding in 22 of my villages, by which I mean sewage washing between houses, and more than five houses affected at one time. There are plenty of houses that are near a ditch or river and get some flooding; I am talking about at-scale, serious flooding, with chronic consequences for the people affected. I will give an example. At Mill Lane in Attleborough there is a culvert that was terribly designed in the 1970s. No one has taken responsibility for it, and the four houses at the entrance to the culvert have flooded every year for 10 years. Last autumn, 100 houses around Mill Lane flooded. That is when people really started to wake up and understand.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. As soon as I walked in, a colleague looked at me in astonishment and said, “Is there flooding in west Hampstead?”, and I said, “Actually, there is.” It takes only a heavy rainstorm to fill all the homes in my constituency with water and sewage.
I intervene at this point in the debate because we, too, have a Mill Lane—not the same one—in west Hampstead that has been flooded. The risk of surface water flooding has not been taken seriously, which is strange, because properties in danger from surface water flooding outnumber those in danger from rivers and seas by two to one. I am proud that our friends in City Hall are actually publishing their surface water strategy tomorrow, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that developers also have a role to play in managing surface water flooding? I am sure he will address that, but I want him to know that there are others in this room who agree with him about the role of developers.
George Freeman
The hon. Lady makes a brilliant point; at the risk of opening the floodgate of interventions too early, I will absolutely come on to her point at pace, so that Members from across the House can pile in.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is absolutely right. One of the problems—if I can put forward the reasoning behind what he is referring to—is the old system of building houses, not just in Norfolk, but right across this whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Having the storm drain and the sewage within the one system is the way they did it 40 or 50 years ago, in the houses we grew up in. That creates a problem for the houses built around that time. Every time there is heavy rain—rain no longer comes lightly, but comes in hurricane-like storms—it brings a deluge of water. The system is not able to cope with that, so does he have a solution for moving forward? This is about not just new developments, but the old developments and the old houses. What was okay years ago is not okay today.
George Freeman
The hon. Member—I am tempted to say my great and hon. Friend, since we have spoken in this Hall together so many times—is absolutely right. My constituency has 130 villages and three towns. At the last boundary review, I lost Wymondham because the rest of my patch has had 10,000 new houses built in the last 10 to 15 years. Very few constituencies, apart from possibly that of the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), have had as many houses built as mine.
That is part of the issue, but another part of it is that developers are tending to build on the outskirts of villages and towns, because it is the easy place to dump commuter housing, but they are not upgrading the drains. Little villages that have happily existed and been able to drain themselves for years and cope with some growth, are now finding huge problems with the existing drainage infrastructure not being able to cope, which leads to the sewerage problem.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. On the point about new developments, does he agree with the Liberal Democrats that making the water companies statutory consultees in the planning process would mean that developers cannot build where the infrastructure cannot account for the new houses?
George Freeman
That is a very good point, and I do agree—in fact, I will go a lot further than that, if Members will allow me to get to the radical, central elements of my Bill. However, I do agree that that is absolutely something we need to do.
Across Mid Norfolk, the 23 villages—I will not list them all—go from Old Buckenham in the deep south east, through Wretham, Hockham, Rocklands, Thompson, Watton, Saham Toney, Cranworth, a cluster of co-adjacent villages, north Elmham, Billingford, Lyng, Elsing, Yaxham, Mattishall and right up to Weasenham in my north-west frontier, which should not be flooding. That tells us that this flooding is not just geomorphological. It is the result of housing and the lack of investment in the drainage infrastructure.
The truth is that the patient people in Mid Norfolk—they are pretty patient, given that they have had me as an MP for 14 years—are getting really impatient with this. There is a contract between the state and the citizen whereby if they pay their taxes and buy a house, while they do not expect that much these days, they do expect that their house will not flood because of systemic and structural failures of national infrastructure. When it does flood, and they call, hoping that someone will come and pump it out, they expect the water companies, to whom they are paying very high bills, to be there and to help. However, the service and the responsiveness has not been there—at least until they are able to sit on the answering machine and ring enough times that eventually a tanker arrives. People are fed up with that and with the fact that this has been coming for quite a long time, so they are very excited by the fact that the Minister is gripping this issue.
Let me spin through the problems, as I have experienced them in Norfolk. It is, of course, climate change; let us not undermine the importance of that. Last year we had the eight wettest months on record, one after another. That is not happening for any weird, strange, unexplained reason; it is happening because of climate change. The issue is also that in my part of the world we are building a lot of houses—but the country has to build them, so I do not think that not building houses is the answer. The devil is in the detail.
Another problem is that our agricultural practices have changed. In my part of the world, a proud farming county, we now have a lot of contract farming. The big landowners are often things like pension funds and are remote. The farming is not done by a local landowner, but by contract farmers on a very tight, low-margin contract, with huge bits of kit, roaring around trying to get the job done and scratch a living. In the old days, on the farm I grew up on, in a rainy month we would go and mend the fences and clear the ditches, but that work does not tend to be in the farming contracts. Our county councils have also seen their budgets hammered by the rising cost of social care and through some of austerity 1.0. There is a basic maintenance problem.
We also have a big planning problem. The point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) was a good one, but the real problem in my patch has been that because of the five-year land supply, good planners have said, “Well, we don’t want to build here, and we shouldn’t build there,” as well as holding statutory consultations. Many of the big developers have then land banked—they have taken their permissions where they know they are going to get them and have not built them out—and then invoked the five-year land supply.
The five-year land supply was a sensible coalition policy designed to ensure that a 20-year plan could not be ignored, but it has been used to blow the whistle and say, “You are not building out at your five-year land supply, so we will now invoke the freedom to dump where we want.” It is a win-win. They then dump 100 houses outside Yaxham and 200 outside Mattishall—they want to go near Norwich, dump on the outskirts of a village near a road, move on and not invest. That is what has driven a lot of the problem.
Statutory consultation is fine, but this is also a planning issue. Part of what my Bill addresses is that we must somehow ensure that when developers are building like that, it should not just be that they are statutorily consulted and go through the tick boxes. The only way to make them take this seriously is to say, “Look, if you build, and within five or 10 years of your building there is significant flooding that never used to happen in that area, you’re going to be on the hook for upgrading the drains. You’re going to be on the hook for doing the repair work.” We have to create a fiduciary financial liability that makes the directors of those companies say, “I think we’d better upgrade; we’d better do the investment up front, rather than relying on consultations.”
In the end, somebody has to pay. To be fair, the water companies have got to pay more, but we are also asking them to pay billions to improve pipes, build reservoirs and stop leaks. Somewhere in the system we have to find a bit more money to do the upgrade of the traditional drains and improve the infrastructure. It behoves us all to give the Minister some solutions. Where will the money come from? Nobody in Mid Norfolk wants to pay more council tax; it is already very high and it is going on social care. One answer is from the developers.
There is another problem, however. When someone in Mid Norfolk picks up the phone and asks who is in charge, there are 36 organisations in Norfolk with responsibility for flooding prevention. In Whitehall that probably seems like a low number, but in Norfolk people only want one. We do have one: it is called the local flood authority. It is great, but it has no money and no power.
The good news is that in addition to the LFA we have the internal drainage boards, which have been looking after flooding since about 1550; they really know their ditches and dykes. Colleagues with agricultural constituencies—I can see them nodding—will know that these are the very local experts who know about hydrology and water and how it all works. The problem is that their budgets have either been cut or not maintained to keep pace with demand.
There are quite a small number of areas—I think15 to 20 districts—particularly in the east of England, such as the fens, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and other areas, that have a very high incidence of flooding. The other problem is that where they are being hit, the IDBs have to be propped up by the district councils, which means the residents in those areas are then penalised as funding is—quite properly—diverted into flooding. That is funding that they are not getting into their public services. There is a huge problem with the allocation of funding.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I am pleased that the hon. Member, my county colleague, mentioned internal drainage boards. For every pound that King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council in my constituency collects in council tax, 43p now goes to internal drainage board levies, which is completely unsustainable. Does his draft Bill address IDB levies and call for a permanent, full-time solution to the funding issue?
George Freeman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour and good friend. Yes, my Bill absolutely does address that issue; I will take his steer and get to the guts of it. He is absolutely right; IDBs are crucial in our part of the world. When I first looked into this issue, I thought, “How come Norfolk is top of the league table for flooding?” I soon discovered—even more shockingly—that we are not; I think we are county No. 6 or 7 out of 10, which is why many hon. Members from other counties are here.
The problem is fourfold, and there are four provisions in my draft Bill—I am keen to use this debate as an opportunity to polish it. First, we need a much clearer and sharper set of responsibilities. At the top, the Environment Agency obviously has overall responsibility for flooding in the country, but this is a local problem, so we have to properly empower the strategic flood authorities locally and re-empower the IDBs. At the moment, many of them find that in dealing with flooding they come up against all sorts of environmental green tape produced by the very agencies that are there to stop flooding—as though the Environment Agency is more interested in filling our ditches and drains with mud and wild flowers than encouraging them to drain the water. People feel frustrated by well-intended green bureaucracy that is getting in the way of local solutions, so responsibilities should be put back locally.
Secondly, on funding, I strongly believe that we should be top-slicing and ringfencing some of the Environment Agency’s funding and giving it to IDBs and strategic flood authorities. It would be a rounding error for the Environment Agency—
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Order. Could I encourage the hon. Gentleman to come to an end, because it is a very short debate and many Members want to come in?
George Freeman
I am sorry; I thought we had 90.
We have to put funding in the hands of people who have responsibility. Thirdly, I want to create planning liabilities for development companies so that they have a proper incentive—not just a vague instruction—to upgrade the drainage.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Earlier today, I met Thames Water and Sutton and East Surrey Water representatives to discuss that very issue. They all agreed that, as professional consultees, their contributions are not given the same weight as those of statutory consultees. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) has already mentioned this, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that some thought should be given to making them statutory consultees, as a minimum for medium to large developments?
George Freeman
The hon. Lady makes an important point. That is all part of the planning mix and we have to get it right.
My last point is about data. When an area floods, we reach for data and ask, “How bad is it? How much worse is it than it used to be?” It is striking that there is not a properly collected dataset. I have a map with dots for all the flooding in my Norfolk patch, but it does not seem difficult to have a properly collected national flood heat map at the Cabinet Office to see where the flooding is coming. If it is coming much more quickly in Mid Norfolk and, I suspect, in many other areas, the Cabinet Office needs to be aware that that is a growing national critical infrastructure resilience issue.
Locally, we need flood maps to prepare for which places are likely to flood this winter. As the former Minister with responsibility for the Met Office, I know that it has amazing data and can now predict when, for certain areas, when it rains to such an extent over in the west, the surge will hit because of the geomorphology. We can now make predictions with AI and other tools, but they are not being done properly. There is a lot more we could do with data.
Forgive me, Mrs Hobhouse—I thought this was a 90-minute debate. I am conscious of time and how many hon. Members want to get in, so I will close. I look forward to hearing the comments from hon. Members from all parties.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should be bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I wish to call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson at 5.8 pm, so I am imposing an immediate time limit of two and a half minutes.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on securing this important debate. I am very limited by time, but I want to raise the recent flooding at Meadow Mill in my constituency on new year’s day. I thank the firefighters, police officers and council staff for supporting residents. Thankfully, none of the flats in the mill was flooded, but the electricity and water supply were lost. One of the key points that I want to raise in the limited time that I have is that the Environment Agency needs more funding for flood defences in Stockport.
Several residents have contacted me or come to see me. One told me that the repair costs for her car due to the flooding were approximately £320. Another told me that they had to pay more than £1,000 in temporary accommodation costs, which really adds up. The Meadow Mill residents association has been doing a lot of work on those issues, and Martin Doherty MBE has been contacting utility companies to support residents over electricity charges that seem to be inconsistent. Stockport council is Liberal Democrat-run, but I have been working with it and it has been making representations to the Environment Agency and the Government that it needs more funding to support residents.
My final point is on insurance costs. Many residents, whether they are tenants or own their property, face significantly higher insurance costs because of flooding. I think that experience will be replicated across the constituencies of MPs in this Chamber, and something needs to be done about it. The flooding is not caused by the residents, but they are facing much higher costs for insurance and to protect themselves.
I met the Environment Agency recently, and I thank all its staff, but I do not think that it has a plan for increasing flood defences, particularly in Stockport. I urge the Minister, who I know is hard-working and diligent, to make representations on that point.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for securing today’s wide-ranging debate. It is hard not to get stuck on flooding, developer responsibilities and planning, but I will try to focus on just two key points in the short time that I have. My criticisms of the planning system are well recorded in Hansard, as is my support for the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to make water companies statutory consultees, which we need to see happen.
My constituents in Chichester know how fortunate we are to live in such a beautiful part of the UK, but we are seeing sites that have been identified as at risk of flooding still being approved for development if they are classified as strategic development sites in the local plans that were written based on an outdated flood risk methodology. That is deeply concerning for my communities, which are watching fields flood year on year and then seeing houses built on those very fields.
The situation has been worsened by historical planning failures. The previous administration at Chichester district council allowed the local plan to expire, which left developers to ride roughshod over areas such as the Manhood peninsula, a fragile, low-lying coastal region that is increasingly vulnerable to extreme flooding. Climate change is exacerbating the already serious flood and erosion risks on the English coast. In 2018, the Climate Change Committee said:
“the current approach to coastal management in England is unsustainable in the face of climate change.”
The flood risk modelling fails to reflect the lived experience of many of my constituents. The Manhood peninsula has already seen numerous floods since 2012, which have displaced families from their homes and caused widespread fear that does not go away once the water has receded.
I would like to talk briefly about coastal squeeze. Natural England estimates that 58% of the salt marsh habitat in Chichester harbour has been lost since 1946, and that we are losing around three football pitches-worth of salt marsh every year. To address those concerns, I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to make national landscapes, such as the one responsible for Chichester harbour, statutory consultees in the planning process. I hope that Bill Committee members on both sides of the House will support it, because places such as Chichester harbour are crying out for a seat at the table so that they can relay their concerns about the planning process for areas of significant scientific importance.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for securing this important debate. As the Member for Shrewsbury, flooding is always a priority for me, as it is for my residents, businesses and local services, because our historic town is encircled by the beautiful yet powerful River Severn. Some of my residents have been flooded over 20 times since 1998, and our active Shrewsbury Business Flood Action Group is providing valuable support for them. They often struggle to find affordable insurance to cope.
On funding, I thank the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for investing over £16 million this financial year in projects that protect communities such as mine all along the River Severn catchment. As the newly elected chair of the River Severn Partnership, I am delighted to see a suite of demonstrator projects that will develop nature-based solutions upstream for longer-term resilience. DEFRA is demonstrating its understanding and commitment to the scale of this issue and rising to the challenge.
In terms of datasets, which I know the hon. Gentleman is very concerned about, DEFRA already published new online data on the Government website in January that show the updated risk of flood from the combined sources of rivers, seas and surface water. For the first time, surface-water flooding is incorporated into that new national flood risk assessment, and that will help individual residents and businesses to know whether the risk is coming downstream or up through their drain gullies—or sometimes both.
In March, DEFRA then incorporated that dataset to update the flood zone planning maps that are often used by local authority planning officers and developers. We now have accurate risk assessments for all development sites, which I know environmental campaigners are really keen to hear. We finally have a Government who understand that we need to stop building on areas at risk of flooding, and we have delivered the data, the mapping and the intelligence to inform those local decisions and uphold that approach.
Finally, in terms of local agencies and their responsibilities, I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman that I have secured an inquiry through the Environmental Audit Committee to examine flood preparedness and response. It will look particularly at the fragmentation of responsibilities across many agencies, and its impact on budgets and on how we can best co-ordinate. I hope that we can provide some helpful recommendations to the Minister, and perhaps find some efficiencies and ways to work better together towards prevention rather than cure. As with the demonstrator projects along the River Severn, Shrewsbury is once again leading the way.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on securing the debate. As in much of the country, we in North Norfolk have been told by the Government that we need to identify significantly more sites for housing. Let me be absolutely clear: we do need more homes, including homes that local people can actually afford, so that they are not stuck waiting endlessly on housing lists or left in temporary accommodation, but rushing to build homes without proper provision for flood alleviation or sustainable drainage would be a bad idea and incredibly costly. Let us imagine a young couple who, after years of saving and planning, finally moving into their first home, but it floods because corners were cut and developers were not held to account. That is not just a policy failure; it is a failure of basic fairness.
That failure does not just affect new homeowners. If we add more pressure to our creaking infrastructure without investment, we risk backed-up drains and flooding for the people who have lived in those communities for years. The previous Government promised to implement schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which would require developers to include sustainable drainage systems, but they never delivered.
One place that would benefit hugely from such a system is Ludham where, following the Government’s new mandated targets, a development proposal for 12 houses has expanded to 60 houses. That has caused significant concern for locals due to the history of flooding in the area. If it were to go ahead, it could be feasible only with real action on the surface water and drainage issues that the area faces.
Although North Norfolk district council does an excellent job of pushing developers as hard as it can, it needs the Government to provide it with the legislative teeth to achieve more. I hope that the Minister is in conversation with her counterparts at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about how we make sure that there is joined-up thinking about flooding in future planning legislation.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Hawkhurst parish council and Southern Water recently came to see me to complain about a number of developers in my constituency who have mixed surface run-off with foul water, which is illegal. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although we of course need big housing developments, if developers are proven to have illegally mixed surface run-off and foul water when building them, they should have to make good what they did?
Steff Aquarone
Unquestionably, and a slightly more sympathetic approach should be taken to historical instances in which householders’ surface water drains have been connected to foul water systems, which they may not even realise. For developments that have been built since that law, it is absolutely unquestionable that developers should do that.
Finally, we must consider seriously the impact of man-made climate change on flooding. When we place responsibilities on developers, we must make sure that new developments do not deal just with the floods of the past or those of today, but with the worst floods that are yet to come. Henry Cator is chair of the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance, which my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk, mentioned. His voice is given deserved reverence in Norfolk when speaking about these issues, and he has said that climate change will create a new level of extremes that we must be ready for. Simply planning for the current levels will be wasted in years to come.
I look forward to working with hon. Members on both sides of the House on this issue. It needs proper cross-functional work from the Government if we are to ensure that the much-needed homes of tomorrow are built sustainably and that the circumstances of the communities that those houses will serve and join are protected and improved.
Several hon. Members rose—
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Order. I will have to reduce the speaking time to two minutes. I remind hon. Members that if they take interventions, it eats into the time of those who are on the call list.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for his excellent work in securing this debate.
I want to speak about the experience of constituents in my Reading constituency and outline the nature of local flooding, as well as some possible solutions. I endorse the work that the hon. Gentleman is doing to bring local landowners and others together and support the work that the Minister is doing on the matter.
We have two issues, or possibly three, with flooding in our area. The two major rivers, the Thames and the Kennet, have smaller streams and brooks running into them. We also have a problem with surface water flooding; I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), who mentioned that issue.
Residents face the most appalling disruption to their lives when their homes are wrecked and muddy water, often polluted by sewage, gets in. It can take months, or even more than a year, to dry out the home and clean it properly. It is the most awful situation for any family. I have heard stories of water coming in at odd times of day or night, of people being woken in the middle of the night by flood alarms, and of water coming up through the floorboards under Victorian houses, where there is a void. All of this is truly awful.
At a recent public meeting in Southcote, serious concerns were raised about the lack of joined-up communication between major landowners, particularly private landowners in the Kennet Meadows area and the neighbouring Southcote community in Reading. Some owners are not active in clearing ditches and other watercourses or in removing branches that have fallen into the Holy Brook, which is a channel that comes back into the Kennet. It needs much more attention, and I would like to see more joined-up working.
Finally, I thank neighbouring MPs, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey), for their work on the matter.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for securing this important debate.
I wish to speak about the effect on the residents of South West Hertfordshire. In the five and half years I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been distressed by how many residents come to me about this issue. A problem that starts as a trickle very quickly has a massive impact on their life. Flooding now has real, lived effects; it is not just a remote risk. Residents face home damage, traffic disruption, economic loss and, increasingly, mental health impacts.
Rickmansworth lies at the confluence of three rivers: the Colne, the Chess and the Gade. It has a historic canal network, including the Grand Union and Batchworth canals, and surrounding waterways. In recent years, we have increasingly seen the overtopping of canals and a fast-rising water table during heavy rainfall. Problem hotspots include Church Street, the aquadrome and Ebury Road in Rickmansworth. Surface water flooding is worsened by urban development, inadequate historical infrastructure and bad planning. Unfortunately, we do not have an up-to-date local plan, so design guidance is not yet being adhered to by developers, because there is no requirement to do so.
Planning must begin with flood resilience. Bad planning does not just affect us; some of the structures we build today will last for decades, if not hundreds of years. If we get it wrong now, it is very difficult to retrofit and correct with a developer, who typically makes a profit and leaves.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
In places such as Maulden in Mid Bedfordshire, we too often see inappropriate or poorly maintained sustainable drainage, which contributes to worsening flooding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s plans for 1.5 million homes can be considered a success only if they can tackle such problems so that everyone can live in a dry home?
Mr Mohindra
I agree 100%.
I commend my parish councillors, the volunteer flood wardens and the residents of Croxley Green, Rickmansworth and Batchworth who step up during these difficult times. Flooding is now a structural challenge, not an anomaly. We must act now by embedding resilience in planning, forcing developer responsibilities and investing in essential infrastructure.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I have two quick points to make. When I was first elected to Norfolk county council in 2013, social care was about 40% of the total budget. When I left 12 years later, a few months ago, it was more like 60% and was rapidly increasing towards 70%. That means less money for maintenance. The highways maintenance backlog in Norfolk is about £70 million. That is drains, gullies, ditches and dykes. Frankly, far too many flooding incidents are preventable. I strongly urge the Minister, in the great work she is doing, to look for a cross-departmental solution. Local council funding is crucial.
I referred earlier to the operational aspects of internal drainage boards. We must not underestimate the role that IDBs play. They are very cost-efficient, they are incredibly experienced and they know their area. When I visit the IDBs in my patch, and there are dozens of them, I find that the staff have 10, 20 or 30 years’ experience. Their costs are increasing, mainly because of electricity; it is expensive to make the pumps run. More importantly, the pumps are old. Walking into some pumping stations is like walking into a museum: they are 50 years old.
There is a huge risk of failure, at the very time when we need pumps working because of the increase in rainfall and flooding incidents. I strongly urge the Minister to look at capital funding for IDB pumps. It may only be when IDBs are gone that we realise how crucial they are. They exist in a relatively small number of areas, but in those areas they are critical pieces of infrastructure.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I commend the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for his excellent speech. I have several points to make in the short time that I have, so here goes.
I agree with the hon. Member that when people are flooded either by surface or river water, the response is often chaotic. In Gobowen in my constituency, it is not clear who is responsible for closing the road. When vehicles drive through, there is a big bow wave, and the flooding in shops and homes becomes much worse. I fully endorse his point about better co-ordinating the response for people who have been flooded.
Insurance is hard to get. Homes built since 2009 are not covered by Flood Re’s remit. The remit ends in 2030, leaving people stuck in potentially unsaleable and unmortgageable homes. I know that the Minister is looking at Flood Re and its remit, so I would be grateful if she gave us a bit of an update. I should have declared at the start that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities, so I have an interest.
After people have been flooded, it is often hard to get help. The “frequently flooded” criteria do not catch all homes in rural communities, because the density is not there. I know that the Minister is looking at that; I would be grateful for an update.
Farms are hit very badly, and they are storing an enormous amount of water upstream. Will the Minister be working with her colleagues in the Department to consider how the sustainable farming incentive and similar plans might be used to help people to store water upstream and prevent flooding downstream?
Finally, in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Government are not taking the once-in-a-generation opportunity to deal with the increased likelihood of flooding. We have talked about having water companies as statutory consultees in planning; about implementing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 so that SuDS have statutory guidance and are properly maintained; and about ensuring that houses are not being built in inappropriate places. The current guidelines do not achieve those objectives. I hope that the Minister will work with her colleagues to make those requirements statutory.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. In the village of Playhatch, my constituent Suzzanne wakes up most days to flooding on her doorstep. Afraid that her children will touch sewage, she carries them, wearing wellington boots, to the bus stop. The area should not flood, and she was reassured of that point by the previous occupiers of her property. In this case, the cause is not increased rainfall; it is development.
Development is not supposed to put additional burdens on the drainage system, yet all too often the lived experience of residents is different from what is in the plans. Local knowledge is insufficiently valued. When that happens, can we expect anything less from our residents than dogged resistance to new housing?
I welcome new clause 7, which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) has tabled as an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act. It is an important step in requiring flood risk to be taken into account ex ante.
Ex post, my new clause 89 would require developers to assess the real-world impact of development five years after completion. Where a review recommends that action be taken to improve a development’s drainage performance, the developer must implement such recommendations. I urge all hon. Members to review my new clause and sponsor it. It would give residents security over the future of their homes when development is taking place.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and follow all the wonderful speeches in this important debate. I say a massive thank you to the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for securing the debate and for introducing it with great style and knowledge, as always.
I think that my constituency is the wettest represented in this Chamber, certainly in England, although there is possible competition from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns).
Ms Minns
Carlisle floods, as the hon. Member knows all too well, but it is not beyond the wit of responsible developers to build in a way that reduces the trauma of flooding. There is an excellent example in Carlisle, where Story Homes built townhouses with garages underneath that are designed to flood, but in a way that protects the residents. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to do more to encourage developers to be responsible and innovative in their design?
Tim Farron
The hon. Member is 100% correct. It is interesting that some of the older properties in my constituency are the ones that are most resilient. In many cases, they were built hundreds of years ago to resist flooding, or for it not to be the end of the world when it does flood. The design of the new buildings in Carlisle absolutely measures up, and we should do more of that.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I must contest my hon. Friend’s suggestion that he represents the wettest part of the country. Somerset is always at the forefront of flooding. Part of my constituency lies in the levels and moors site of special scientific interest. The area is increasingly threatened by inappropriate planning applications. Locally elected officials are crucial to good decision making for local communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that they play an important role in making sure that the right decisions are made for local communities and our environment?
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that his time is limited?
Tim Farron
I shall take no more interventions. I appear to have opened a very soggy can of worms, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) is absolutely correct.
Looking at the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and at the attitude of this Government and the previous Government towards planning, they seem to be seeking to centralise control of planning at a national level, yet to relax planning rules at a local level to give local planners, local councillors and national parks less power than they currently have. That is very dangerous. In the last Parliament, I served on the Bill Committee considering the very lengthy Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Among the amendments proposed was one that we referred to as the infrastructure-first amendment. It would have given local authorities and national parks the power to say no to developments unless the infrastructure —including drainage, correct sewage provision and sufficient capacity—was there in advance. That power is so important, and it is missing today.
Many hon. Members, on both sides of the Chamber, have talked about the severe housing crisis. Some 7,000 people in my district are on the council house waiting list. We need to build, yet we know that there are a million properties in this country with planning permission, so it is not that the rules are too tough; it is that the developers are not building. We need to make sure that we point the finger of responsibility in the right direction.
New clause 7 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), would bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Shamefully, I must admit that I was the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for environment, food and rural affairs on the Bill that became that Act, 15 flippin’ years ago; I have been our EFRA spokesperson under every leader since Nick Clegg, including under myself, because there were only eight of us and someone had to do it. I remember the Bill very well. What a tragedy, and what an outrage, that schedule 3 to the Act has still not been brought into force, 15 years on. We aim to ensure that it is.
I am mindful of time, but this is a timely debate. Last week, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the deeply concerning issue of flood defence spending. At the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there would be a review after the 2025-26 financial year. We are into that financial year now, so we are getting close. It is deeply troubling. My communities in Cumbria were massively affected by Storm Desmond nearly 10 years ago. The cost of that flooding incident was £500 million.
I am watching the clock, so I will simply say this: cutting flood defence spending and taking shortcuts in development that allow flooding to happen are catastrophic false economies—
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse.I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on securing a really important debate. There is no better champion on this issue in Parliament. He is bringing together many all-party parliamentary groups to specifically tackle and bring to the Minister’s attention the important issue of flooding and is setting up his own flood caucus, not only among parliamentary colleagues, but prominently within the county of Norfolk—which is invaluable. My hon. Friend mentioned the 22 villages that have been flooded in his constituency, and all of us have referenced our own impacted communities, so I know just how important this issue is.
I want to address some of my remarks by echoing some of the concerns that have been raised in this debate, because flooding devastates communities, families and the health and wellbeing of individuals who experience the trauma of flooding. It devastates our farmers and our economy at all levels and it represents a threat to life. What is worse, for some it is not a one-off event but a frequent occurrence. Far too many people are impacted. I am proud to say that the previous Government took robust action on flooding. Since 2010, more than 600,000 properties and 900,000 acres of farmland have been better protected by Government-backed schemes. In 2020, the Government announced a doubling of the flood defences budget, including £100 million for the frequently flooded allowance.
While those statistics represent vital progress, we must recognise, as has been indicated, that there is always much more to do. I will just canter through some of the points that have been made, because it is quite right that when dealing with water and with flooding, a catchment approach is always the focus. That deals with not only our farmers, but with our housing developers and our infrastructure providers. It starts right at the top, upstream, dealing with our moorland restoration projects and ensuring that our farmers have the funding to deal with environmental mitigation. That is why it is deeply frustrating that the Government have stopped sustainable farming incentive applications. While there is an acknowledgment that they have opened it up to an additional 303,000 applications on the back of our calls, it is nevertheless worrying to many of our farming community. That is exacerbated by issues such as the family farm tax, which is creating uncertainty in our agricultural sector.
The role of developers has been mentioned by all in this room and I agree that water companies need to be statutory consultees as part of that process. I also agree that planning considerations such as SuDS ponds and the design of houses—as has been illustrated by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Julie Minns)—need to be taken into account when new developments are built. Financial contributions must be considered too, because far too often flood alleviation schemes are not established at speed to deal with the amount of development that is coming down the line. That impacts not only settlements further downstream, but agricultural businesses. Therefore, when looking at flood alleviation schemes, it is right that those schemes are attractive enough for a landowner to enter into such an arrangement, and therefore the remuneration that is associated with those flood alleviation schemes needs to be properly addressed.
The Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and land managers were also discussed. We very strongly advocate a loosening up of the relationship between the Environment Agency, our IDBs, who do a fantastic job recognised by many in this room, and the land managers—who sometimes just want to get on and clean the ditches, but are unfortunately penalised for doing so at the moment. I am sure the Minister will be aware that the advice from officials in the Environment Agency is “do not dredge” and “do not remove that vegetation from those EA-managed assets”. I would encourage the Minister to push back on that advice and say that dredging is an option further downstream and that removing vegetation from EA assets should be a consideration.
I also address the issue of insurance, because that is vitally important, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). Flood Re is incredibly important if we are able to provide reassurance for those developments that have been built after the kick-in date. We would advocate the Government going stronger and faster with the recommendations that have been made in this debate.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Could I remind the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the Member in charge of the debate to wind up?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate and especially the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for calling the debate and providing an opportunity for us to hear about and discuss how the planning system can best manage and mitigate flood risk. I am delighted to be here, obviously, as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, but I recognise that some of the points made were about amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, so apologies if I cannot speak about amendments under a different brief. I will of course make sure that any points made are heard by the relevant Minister.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for raising the issue of surface water flooding. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about internal drainage boards, and I will address that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) talked about flooding and insurance and made important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) talked about flood action groups, and I want to take a moment to say thank you to all the flood action groups, wardens and volunteers in communities up and down our country for the work that they do. Helpfully, my hon. Friend addressed some of the concerns and questions around maps, so she saved a chunk of my speech, which is great, because I have not got much time to speak on that, although I will talk a little more about maps.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) said, when I arrived, “You will see the same faces as we do in all these debates.” But that is good, because it shows what a tireless champion he is, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), in every flooding debate. It would not be the same without them—that is all I can say—so I thank them very much for coming here and, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, raising their concerns.
I met the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk back in April to discuss his proposals, and it was a really informative and helpful discussion. He raises important topics, which I have taken incredibly seriously and gone away and had a look at, because as he rightly said, climate change is bringing more extreme rainfall and rising sea levels, and it is a priority for this Government to protect communities from the increased risk of flooding.
I am not sure where the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), got the idea that we were cutting funding for flooding. That is not the case. We have invested a record £2.65 billion over two years—2024-25 and 2025-26—for the construction of new flood schemes and the repair and maintenance of existing ones.
Tim Farron
I am asking the question because the Government and Chancellor have said that there is no commitment beyond the end of this financial year. We do not know whether the Government are cutting or increasing spending, and we want to know. Many flood-hit communities are desperate to hear what the Chancellor’s plans are beyond this financial year.
Emma Hardy
Okay, I take the point. We have just invested a record amount over two years; it is the greatest amount that has ever been invested in flood defences. Of course, any future announcements are part of the spending review. The hon. Member has been in this place a very long time and understands that very well, but I hope that he can see that there are deeds, not words, in the fact that we have invested that record amount.
I pay tribute to the flood partnership of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk. I think that is a great example of the vital role that partnerships have in bringing together all parties with an interest in flood resilience. I think it is a really good model for other people to take away.
The comments from Opposition Members about the personal experience of flooding, the impact on mental health and the impact on communities were very well made.
It was good again to hear about natural flood management and some of the work that we are doing to alleviate flooding. That is a positive way of doing it for nature as well as for flood alleviation.
I would like to talk a little bit about planning and flood risk, although I am of course mindful that I am speaking on a slightly different brief from my own. We are committed to building the homes that the country needs, while maintaining the highest levels of flood protection. The national planning policy framework is clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Where development is necessary and where no suitable sites are available in areas with a lower risk of flooding, local planning authorities and developers should ensure that development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant. Development must also be safe for its lifetime—a point made by hon. Members—should not increase flood risk overall and should provide wider sustainability benefits.
The Government, through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, published the revised NPPF in December 2024. That clarified how the sequential test should be applied to development in areas of flood risk and encouraged the use of sustainable drainage systems in new developments. The Government are considering whether further changes are necessary to manage flood risk when we consult on planning reform, including national policy relating to decision making, later this year. I will ensure that all the contributions regarding amendments are heard by Ministers in the relevant Department.
We are strongly committed to requiring standardised SuDS in new developments. These should be designed to cope with changing climatic conditions, as well as delivering wider water infrastructure benefits, reducing run-off, and helping to improve water quality, amenity and biodiversity. It is important to ensure appropriate adoption and maintenance arrangements are in place—that was another point that was raised.
We believe that those outcomes can be achieved through either improving the current planning-led approach using powers now available or commencing schedule 3 to the Water and Flood Management Act 2010. A final decision on the way forward will be made in the coming months. As mentioned, there have been changes to the national planning policy framework to support increasing SuDS. The NPPF now requires all developments to use SuDS where they could have a drainage impact. These systems should be appropriate to the nature and scale of the proposed developments.
I will briefly mention the flood maps. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk and I have discussed some of the mapping, which is called NaFRA2. Hon. Members can put in their postcode, and it will show their flood risk now and up to the mid-century for streets and areas. The information has been collected by the Environment Agency from around the country. It is really impressive. It is the first time that we can see surface water risk; before, flood maps showed only coastal water or river flooding. They are important maps. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury mentioned, they need to be used by developers and local authorities. They are free and available for anybody who wants to see where there is risk and where there are concerns.
Internal drainage board funding is an important issue that was mentioned by a few hon. Members. We recognise the essential work of the IDBs in supporting greater resilience for farmers and rural communities, so I was pleased to announce an additional £16 million boost to the IDB drainage fund in March this year, bringing the total funding that we have announced since being in government to £91 million from the previously allocated £75 million. That was only in March this year, so they have just had that extra £16 million.
That important investment will allow IDBs to modernise and upgrade assets and waterways to ensure they are fit for the future. When I was in opposition I went to see some of the pumping stations myself, so I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) that some of them are in desperate need of upgrading. IDBs can apply for that £91 million to ensure they can get the needed upgrades.
We are working with MHCLG, the IDB sector and local authorities on a new research project. The project is looking to review IDB costs and funding, including, importantly, whether any changes are needed to the IDB funding model. I hear the point that some hon. Members made about how it feels unfair that some communities face increased council tax because of this issue. The review is expected to start this summer, and will last around a year. We will consider the findings carefully.
Through our plan for change, the Government will deliver a decade of national renewal and economic growth. We will maintain the highest levels of flood protection while taking decisive action to fix our broken planning system and deliver 1.5 million homes. I thank everyone for their contributions.
George Freeman
Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse, for guiding us this afternoon. I thank the Minister, the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the—I think—16 colleagues from across the House who have spoken; the rule of 10 normally applies in this place, so there are many others who would have wanted to come. That shows the Minister how much interest there is in this issue.
This is a serious national problem that can only be solved locally, and the local solution is the key. It is getting worse fast. In Norfolk, 1,000 houses have been flooded and 200 have had internal floodwater in the past 18 months. That did not happen five or six years ago. It is getting bad, and it is costing the county and the country a fortune. This quarter—Q1—there was £200 million-worth of approved claims, which is up by £67 million on the previous quarter. This is getting a lot worse very fast.
On behalf of all those people who are very nervous and worried—one constituent was so worried about this that they took their own life—I urge the Minister to be bold and brave. I urge her to strike a blow for local communities and local experts, and give them the power and funding to do what they know how to do best.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered flooding and planning and developer responsibilities.
Treasury
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
As we committed to in our manifesto, the Government will have two robust fiscal rules that will guide the decisions we take. The first is our stability rule: we will pay for all day-to-day spending on public services from receipts. The current budget was last in surplus under the last Labour Government, and this Labour Government will return the public finances to that position.
[Official Report, 28 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 562.]
Written correction submitted by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones):
Darren Jones
As we committed to in our manifesto, the Government will have two robust fiscal rules that will guide the decisions we take. The first is our stability rule: we will pay for all day-to-day spending on public services from receipts. The current budget was last in sustained surplus under the last Labour Government, and this Labour Government will return the public finances to that position.
Groceries Code Adjudicator: Statutory Review
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
As part of the fourth statutory review of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, the Department for Business and Trade will today publish a consultation seeking the views of stakeholders on the performance of the GCA.
The GCA was established by the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013. Its role is to monitor and enforce the groceries supply code of practice, which the UK’s designated large grocery retailers must comply with when dealing with their direct suppliers.
Section 15 of the Act requires the Government to review periodically the performance of the GCA. The first review covered the period from the creation of the GCA in June 2013 to 31 March 2016. The second review covered the period from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2019 and the third statutory review covered the period from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2022.
The statutory review is not a review of the code nor of the remit of the GCA. The code is a competition measure owned by the Competition and Markets Authority as the UK’s independent competition authority.
The fourth review will look back over the period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2025 and seek views and evidence which will allow the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the performance of the GCA against the measures set out in the Act. These measures are explained in the terms of reference.
As part of the consultation, the Government are interested in seeking views on how the GCA is operating following the establishment of the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator and any evidence of unfair contractual practices that may have a negative impact on parts of the supply chain not covered by the code or the fair dealings regulations made under the Agriculture Act 2020.
The Groceries Code Adjudicator Act requires the Government to consult with the following:
the GCA;
the Competition and Markets Authority;
the retailers subject to the code;
one or more persons representing the interests of suppliers;
one or more persons representing the interests of consumers; and
any other appropriate person—the Secretary of State has not identified any specific person or persons here and welcomes contributions from any interested person.
The invitation to submit comments and evidence can be accessed at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/groceries-code-adjudicator-gca-statutory-review-2022-to-2025 and stakeholders have until 5 August 2025 to respond. Following this, the Secretary of State will analyse the responses. A report on the Secretary of State’s findings will then be published and laid before Parliament.
The terms of reference for the GCA review have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS629]
Notification of Contingent Liability
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England decided at its meeting ending on 3 February 2022 to reduce the stocks of UK Government bonds and sterling non-financial investment-grade corporate bonds held in the asset purchase facility by ceasing to reinvest maturing securities. The Bank ceased reinvestment of assets in this portfolio in February 2022 and commenced sales of corporate bonds on 28 September 2022, and sales of gilts acquired for monetary policy purposes on 1 November 2022. The sales of corporate bonds ceased on 6 June 2023, with a small number of outstanding corporate bonds reaching maturity on 5 April 2024. Therefore, the APF is now comprised solely of gilts.
The Chancellor at the time agreed a joint approach with the Governor of the Bank of England in an exchange of letters on 3 February 2022 to reduce the maximum authorised size of the APF for asset purchases every six months, as the size of APF holdings reduces.
Since 12 November 2024, when the maximum authorised size of the APF was last reduced, the total stock of assets held by the APF for monetary policy purposes has fallen further from £654.5 billion to £619.7 billion. In line with the approach agreed with the Governor, the authorised maximum total size of the APF has therefore been reduced to £619.7 billion, comprising entirely of gilts.
The risk control framework previously agreed with the Bank will remain in place, and His Majesty’s Treasury will continue to monitor risks to public funds from the APF through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.
There will continue to be an opportunity for HM Treasury to provide views to the MPC on the design of the schemes within the APF, as they affect the Government’s broader economic objectives and may pose risks to the Exchequer.
The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank, the APF and its directors from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. Provision for any payment due under the liability will continue to be sought through the normal supply procedure.
A full departmental minute has been laid in the House of Commons providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS630]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
High Streets (Built Environment Committee Report)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gascoigne
That this House takes note of the Report from the Built Environment Committee High Streets: Life Beyond Retail? (HL Paper 42).
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure for me, as the new chairman of the Built Environment Committee, to open this debate on the importance of the high street. In doing so, I put on record my own thanks to the then members of the committee—including my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Moylan, who chaired this inquiry. I also thank the team of officials who helped the committee, our witnesses and those who submitted evidence. Thanks must also go to the Government for securing time for this debate.
Emperor Napoleon famously said that we were “a nation of shopkeepers”. By the time he said that, high streets were already well and truly established. Although it was meant as a derogatory slight, it spoke to some truth about our nation at the time and, to some extent, to this day. Over the centuries, high streets have remained a constant, where communities have come together to shop, to socialise and to work. They provide vital economic infrastructure and a space for people to meet and trade, to see and be seen. Yet they have of course evolved over time, reflecting changes in trade, retail, technology and society.
However, in recent years, high streets have faced extraordinary challenges. In 2023 alone, more than 10,000 high street shops closed across the UK. People up and down the country have felt the loss of their local clothes shops, pharmacies, pubs and banks. Although retail will remain a feature of the modern high street, there is now greater demand and, indeed, opportunity for restaurants and leisure activities—as well as for more public services, such as health centres and libraries—in town centres.
What communities want and what can be sustained on the high street is constantly changing, so the committee suggested that a “fixed vision” and a “monolithic approach” to their future should be avoided. Local authorities, communities and businesses need to work together to shape high streets that reflect local conditions and are adaptable and resilient. It is crucial that local businesses are involved and empowered to play a part in the regeneration of a high street, and that residents are involved in the decision-making.
High streets will thrive only if people can get to them easily and safely. Traditional high streets are in competition with the convenience of parking arrangements in out-of-town developments, so access by car and sufficient parking are necessary for commercial sustainability and accessibility, combined with better public transport connectivity, particularly through improved bus networks.
As retail occupancy declines and leaves behind vacant units, cafés and restaurants have taken their place. The committee noted that, due to
“wider economic circumstances, consumer preferences and the rent levels landlords seek to remain financially viable may result in the dominance of certain business types”.
For example, there has been a rise in the number of charity shops, which benefit from substantial business rates relief and often have lower staffing costs, making them better able to afford high street rents. Fast food businesses were also cited as being better able to afford tenancies.
Public authorities are also tentatively moving public-facing services, such as surgeries and libraries, on to high streets. This can both improve access to those civic functions and increase footfall to sustain local businesses. The committee found that, in needing to appeal to all sections of society and ages, people should feel safe through better light, clear sightlines and mixed use of properties; that more green space and an “improved public realm”, while not able to withstand the tide of change, have a role to play; and that there needs to be better access to toilets, especially for older people and those with young children. The committee also noted the importance of recognising and celebrating the local history of an area to encourage pride.
The planning system, taxation and funding can all impact the success or failure of projects to revive local places. The Government’s local growth funding reforms must ensure that high streets are enabled to flourish in the long term, and that those responsible for their future have enough expertise to deliver improvements. The Government should recognise that local authority bidding for central funding has become expensive and wasteful and should consider replacing that approach with a transparent system of funding distribution that commands greater confidence.
There are too many recommendations to mention them all today—many of them seem common sense and, to me at least, easy to implement—but there is one final thing I wish to say. The committee received a response from the Government at the start of the year. While we appreciate their response and stated commitment to high streets, ultimately we felt disappointed that the response did not adequately address all our points. We respectfully urge the Government to look again at our report and do their utmost to enable local authorities and other stakeholders to ensure that the nation’s high streets survive and thrive for the next generation.
As a relatively new chair, as I have said, you inherit the sterling work of others and so you are able to come to past work completely afresh. When I was informed that I would have to lead this debate, I was a little nervous as to what the report said—that I would perhaps have to try valiantly to look for something upbeat and positive to say, hold back my personal views and speak through gritted teeth. But I can say, hand on heart, that I found this report refreshing. It is neither stale nor desperate to cling to some nostalgic world long gone by. It is brutal in its analysis and thorough, but also realistic about the prognosis and how high streets can flourish.
High streets continue to hold a special place in the nation’s hearts and will continue to do so in years to come. Across the country, members of the committee heard about local communities, businesses and authorities working together to respond to societal change and build thriving town centres. With the right support and empowerment, there is no reason why high streets cannot continue to be the centre of communities in future. I personally and sincerely hope that councils, the Government, local businesses and communities genuinely see this as an opportunity not just for debate but for change and local growth. I look forward to listening to all noble Lords’ contributions. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that we have an opportunity to debate last year’s report on the future of high streets from the Built Environment Committee, chaired with such brio by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It was a very interesting and thoughtful process. We have an opportunity today to consider the Government’s largely positive response. I warn the Minister that I will ask him some detailed questions, although I do not necessarily expect a detailed reply. I am sure that officials will be able to write if necessary.
Most importantly, the Government’s response reflects their sense that the state and prospects of the high street reflect the wider state of the economy and the public realm, and therefore play a critical part in driving, as well as reflecting, national and local growth and renewal. They are part of the national mission. That is very reassuring. I was hopeful for a positive response for the reasons that my noble friend—as he is at the moment as the current chair of the committee—mentioned. Our conclusions are so well evidenced and practical, there should be nothing in this report that is in the “too difficult to implement” box.
The report’s title, Life Beyond Retail?, says it all, in contradiction to the mantra that there is no future for the high street because so much has changed and cannot now be restored. That is primarily in retail, but there are other changes as well. In this context, which is heavy with gloom and doom, we insist that there can be a bright future for the high street, which has evolved over thousands of years to meet changing needs and fashions, but it will take leadership, investment, imagination and innovation.
The Committee will hear a lot in my speech about Lewes, where I have lived for donkey’s years, because it is an exemplar of what is happening, both the worst and the best. Our high street has seen so much change, not to say drama, in its history, which dates back to the Anglo-Saxons. We still have shops with medieval foundations; they were trading in textiles when the Norman castle was being built a millennium ago. We have a 14th-century bookshop. Church, state and law are all physical in our high street. Opposite the county court, in all its magisterial splendour, is the hotel where Tom Paine preached revolution and where people continue to do so—it is that sort of town.
In short, the high street was a stage upon which all dramas played out. It was a marketplace for the community for centuries, but also the place where people met to learn, worship, celebrate, be judged or be improved, both young and old. Much of that community spirit has been retained, but we have lost small supermarkets, butchers, ironmongers, bookshops, post offices and banks. They have largely been replaced, as we have heard, by cafés, charity shops, estate agents, computer shops, hairdressers and nail bars. None of that is unique to Lewes, but it exemplifies in different ways what is happening across the country at different speeds. While the report makes clear that there is no single prescription for a monolithic high street, there would never have been and will never be one.
There are universal explanations for the changes we have seen. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, has already touched on retail. My figures show that between March 2020 and March 2022, 9,300 retail units were closed. PwC found that in the first half of 2024 there was a net loss of 2,284. Often, it is the large department stores and chain stores that go first and are most vulnerable. That has been driven by a combination of factors, such as online shopping, which was furiously accelerated by Covid, unaffordable business rates, poor public transport and parking, a run-down and often sordid public realm with few places where people can socialise without paying for it, neglected green spaces, empty churches and a general air of neglect and alienation. It is not a universal condition, but these are universal challenges, and we discuss them all in the report.
This is not a party-political issue. It is a social and economic challenge. The previous Government threw up a host of complex programmes for the medium and short term, which were warmly greeted, but, as the NAO and various reports said, they did not seem to understand what had worked on the high street and the impact of complex funding arrangements. We heard all about that from our witnesses, who said that they have a new funding application to consider every day, and that in the context of a rundown of public capacity.
Our report recognised that the previous Government had made an attempt to plan for the longer term, but in the short term we said that a clear strategy is needed, based on clear leadership, greater local capacity to develop the high street and town centre and ways of involving the community—for example, town centre managers with training and expertise charged with co-ordinating and driving development and more inclusive and engaged partnership for business improvement districts. The report illustrates what we mean by reference to places such as Frome in Somerset. It also needs long-term, sustained investment. The Budget this year confirmed the 75 neighbourhood partnerships and a revised prospectus. Will the Minister say when we can expect the revised prospectus? Why and how will it be different?
We focus on some specific issues, including housing, transport and community engagement. We have had the repurposing of empty department stores or offices for affordable housing under permitted development relaxation, but we have also seen a failure of quality and design and a missed opportunity. We recommended, for example, a review of the use of class E properties. Will this happen? When will we see a review of permitted development rights? We are told that they are in train. What do the Government think they can achieve in terms of good transport and good parking, which they say has a local role? What will be the impact of local government reorganisation on capacity?
One of the core questions is how we support business in the high street. The chain stores are unlikely to come back. The future will lie with those small, necessary, ingenious businesses that we all love and cherish, such as excellent bakers, plant shops or exciting children’s bookshops. These are the reasons people come to the high street. The Government say they will publish their small business strategy. When will it be published? Will it specifically address the issue of the high street? Will the Government maintain the priority given to the town centre-first retail policy within the NPPF? Will they, when they review business rates, have particular regard to the need to consider and simplify the range of business rates relief schemes to support the high street?
We found reasons to be cheerful. We found innovation, leadership and good practice, which can turn terminal decay, if not decline, into a new proposition. The report is full of examples of innovation, such as teenage markets and regeneration through the heritage action zones. Whether it is churches that have lost their congregations or cinemas that have closed, historic buildings are invaluable assets for their social and collective possibility. The ability to buy those to turn them into local markets, child centres, workshops and climate hubs can really engage people in reimagining what the high street could look like.
We were told by young people, businesspeople and local leaders alike to give the community more power to design the future they want. They want to be involved in this new vision for their high street. The Government have said that they intend
“to commence a package of plan-making reforms … to improve the quality of community engagement”.
Where have we got to on that? The Government say they will invest in initiatives to boost town and city centres, including high street accelerators. I do not really know what that means. I would be grateful for a further explanation.
One of the most positive and popular developments is to reimagine the high street as the place where things can get done and not just bought. The opportunities are there to put in place some of those public services which have disappeared from view because they are increasingly online, and the people who lose out are the people who are in greatest need—the poor, the elderly, the young—who want to talk to somebody, who want advice face to face.
For example, my high street now has a brilliant local authority outlet where complicated questions about a new garden waste bin—I will not bore the Committee with the details—can be sorted in five minutes rather than five hours online. The possibilities are endless: housing offices; walk-in surgeries for routine vaccinations and diagnostic tests; toy libraries for young mums with small babies and giant buggies; repair cafés for the things that have to be thrown away because there is nobody to repair them; empty shop windows where the local university can show some of the work it is doing; empty shops that can be converted into pop-up galleries for FE art students to display their work—the ideas are endless and excellent and they are there, in the community, waiting to be put into place with imagination. They are about experience and quality, not retail.
Our report creates an imaginative future for the high street. I really hope that the Government will take it and do something with its recommendations as part of their wider set of policy proposals.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, with her knowledge and expertise. I think she put it in a nutshell when she described a high street where things can get done as opposed to just bought. My thanks go to our new chair, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for so ably introducing this debate, and to our previous chair, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for guiding us through what could have been a very complicated issue and arriving at a pretty succinct report.
We had a lot of discussion about why a high street is important and who should be responsible for its revival. Of course, we found that there is no one blueprint but our report highlights the factors important to success. It is clear from the evidence we received that a proactive local authority is very important, especially in pump-priming, but the role of the wider community after that is critical—businesses big and small and community organisations are all crucial.
We heard from Frome in Somerset. Its town council began that pump-priming process by hiring a town centre manager and engaging with a local entrepreneur. It has a multi-pronged approach to reviving and maintaining the health of its high street, which has been incredibly successful. Especially compelling was its use of markets to increase footfall and provide opportunities for smaller independent retailers, and it recognised the role that culture plays.
Moving from the positive to the negative, I want to highlight the shocking evidence—I was certainly shocked—that we received from the Royal Society for Public Health. It found that one-fifth of the general public do not go out as often as they would like due to their concern about the lack of public toilets. We can guess which fifth that is: the elderly and those with small children, the very groups who may already suffer from isolation and loneliness. They are not going out as often as they would like just for fear of being caught short. For the elderly, this is inevitably an increasing concern and it is a very important concern, too, for parents with children out of nappies but still young. Of course, urinating in public is an offence and one that authorities sometimes have to invoke to deal with public nuisance caused by alcohol consumption followed by wanton urination, but that is a completely different issue. As our report says:
“Public toilets make it possible for everyone to use the local high street with confidence and comfort”.
Local authorities need to be proactive in finding ways to provide such an essential facility. It is one of the most basic health and dignity issues, but there has been a shocking decline in provision of public toilets.
Accessibility was also found to be lacking, by and large. I will not spend a lot of time on transport and car parking, but that was an important issue, as was access for wheelchairs and those using walking frames, for example. I have recently begun to notice how incredibly important this is, since my husband had a stroke. You notice how there are so few dropped pavements, for example, which would make life so much easier.
The timing of the Government’s response was quite difficult because there was an election between publication of our report and the response. Perhaps one of the most disappointing parts of this Government’s response was on parish and town councils. As the local authorities most involved in their community, they are ideally placed to be the most proactive in high street revival, but the Government’s response to our suggestion that they should be able to bid directly for funds was only that they
“will continue to look at”
it. I hope the Minister will be able to say a bit more today and that we will be able to debate this further in the forthcoming devolution Bill.
One of the most compelling sections of our report is that which concerns public service delivery, which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, touched on. We heard that the public are very keen to have NHS services located on or relocated to the high street, not least because the transport links may well be better and because it increases footfall for businesses. We heard evidence from Councillor Vikki Slade, who was the council leader in Poole and is now MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole. She explained how the public services they had introduced to ex-retail space—an NHS out-patient centre, a library and some charity space—had “completely reinvigorated the town”. Of course, the big traditional department stores have closed and the challenge facing many high streets is what to do with that space. We heard from Barnsley, whose local authority had to be pretty dogged, frankly—given its setbacks—to arrive at its Glass Works redevelopment project, which includes open space, an NHS diagnostics centre, a market and much more.
Success stories are out there, from small towns to small cities, but sometimes that has been despite the propensity of central government to change funding models so often. The previous Government had a very time-consuming and wasteful bidding process. One of our main recommendations, in paragraphs 173 and 174, is that there is still a role for an appropriate bidding process, but it must be highly simplified and possibly involve a two-stage system with a simple initial bid that would be developed if successful. The Government acknowledged this in their response and mentioned the reform to the long-term plan for towns. Can the Minister tell us any more about that today?
Another issue we heard a lot about was green space. Our evidence underlined the value of having space in which to socialise and spend time without having to spend money—a point emphasised to us by the young people we engaged with. I thank those involved in the House of Lords engagement programme, who produced some very lively groups of young people. We heard that it is not just about prettifying with hanging baskets; it is about usable space.
There is plenty of evidence, too, about the benefit of green space and nature to mental health and physical well-being. Here, I have to praise Lambeth Council, which, in the 20 years that I have had a flat in the borough, has transformed many of its green spaces, including with things such as outdoor gyms. It is fantastic. This does not seem to be controversial until developers realise that green spaces are a cost to them and local authorities could see them as a cost, as they produce no rates or council tax. There is no national statutory green space standard, but it is reasonable to hope that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill might have a genuine element of seeing green space as critical to good development.
Things to appreciate in the Government’s response include high street rental auctions and community right to buy. The Government correctly said in their response:
“High streets matter … because they reflect the wider state of the economy and the public realm”.
That is very true. Valuing the public realm is, to me, the essence of what we should be looking for and enabling in a high street. The private realm has been good at looking after its own and I hope this report makes a contribution to rebalancing that trend.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, it was a privilege to be a member of the Built Environment Committee under the expert chairmanship of the previous chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Our inquiry on high streets received more than 60 submissions of evidence from many organisations and individuals. I thank our excellent clerk Kate Wallis and her team, our specialist adviser Dr Lucy Montague and our impressive witnesses. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, on his introductory speech for this debate.
I welcome the broadly positive response of the Government to our report. There can be no doubt that high streets have encountered numerous challenges in recent years. There are at least two principal reasons: first, the falling consumer demand for retail shopping and an increase in online shopping; and, secondly, the presence of out-of-town retail parks and shopping centres. In many towns, these have led to shop closures, declining footfall and a general loss of appeal of the high street.
Our committee recognised that local high streets should be at the heart of communities. We set out to elucidate answers to three key questions. What makes a resilient and thriving high street? Who needs to be involved in making it a success? What is the role of government working with local communities in both policy and funding? I will briefly address some aspects relating to these three key questions.
First, what makes a resilient and thriving high street? Our committee found from oral and written evidence that there is no magic formula. Each high street faces different challenges. It was clear that what people want from their high street has constantly evolved and will continue to do so. This means that conforming to a fixed vision should be avoided. There is a need for adaptability and diversity. However, some common themes emerged. Ideally, communities want a mix of retail and services, green spaces and ready accessibility in terms of safe and easy access—the latter meaning good public transport connectivity, nearby parking for car access and careful design of pedestrianisation. Our inquiry emphasised the importance of celebrating the local history and character of a place, conserving and repurposing historic buildings wherever possible. Celebrating the character and heritage of the high street has a highly beneficial effect, encouraging a greater sense of pride in place, and it potentially draws more people in, increasing footfall.
Linked to celebration of local history is the existence of markets. Many markets to this day still operate under historic charters or local laws. We received evidence that around 80% of markets are owned and operated by local authorities. They enhance the vitality of a local high street, increase footfall and can act as catalysts for new businesses. We strongly recommend that local authorities and other market operators should continue to support market traders.
A thriving high street also needs attractive, well-designed and sustainable public space, notably including green areas. We heard about the value of people having space to socialise and spend time—without necessarily spending money—on the high street. Our committee undertook an engagement event with students from Lancaster and Shrewsbury; they told us that they want to see more and safer green spaces, giving them space to hang out and socialise. Ensuring that there are clean and well-maintained places for young people to socialise can contribute to the high street being used by a larger proportion of the community. This, in turn, can improve footfall and hence sustain local businesses and public services.
Secondly, who needs to be involved in making a successful high street? Ideally, landlords, business owners, local community members and local authorities all need to be involved. A sense of community, local pride and belonging—in other words, pride in place—is widely recognised as a vital ingredient for a thriving high street.
A Private Member’s Bill, the High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill, introduced by Jack Brereton in the House of Commons and sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Whitby, in this House, received its Second Reading in this House in May 2024. Unfortunately, the Bill, which had cross-party support, did not progress in time before Parliament was dissolved for the general election in July 2024. It would have required all local authorities in England to designate at least one street, or a network of streets if appropriate, as a high street in their area.
Once in place, improvement plans would need to be reviewed at least once every five years. Consultation would have played a key role in the development of improvement plans. Local authorities would have been required to consult on the designation of high streets, as well as on the plans themselves. Ensuring community buy-in and support for a designated improvement plan for high streets was a particularly welcome feature of that Private Member’s Bill. Will the Minister support this principle and will the Government consider introducing a similar Bill?
Local planning policy is clearly a key determinant in the future of successful and thriving high streets. The previous Government amalgamated a number of use classes within the planning system into a single use class E to increase flexibility in building usage and revitalise city centres. It allows change in use across existing commercial, business and service buildings, without the need for planning permission. For example, a retail shop could be converted into a café, or an office into flats. Our committee noted that the introduction of use class E in the planning system has made high streets more adaptable.
However, too many retail premises converted into flats could have a damaging effect on the success of a thriving high street. If most of the shops were converted into flats, the character and vitality of a high street would change radically. We therefore recommended that the Government should undertake a review of the policy of expansion of permitted development rights to convert use class E properties into homes; there is a need to examine the impact that this is having on high streets relative to the number and quality of new homes delivered.
In response, the Government stated that it was important to achieve a balance—a balance between business owners and landlords adapting buildings and the ability of local authorities to implement improvement strategies for high streets. Consequently, the Government are not currently intending to review the policy regarding use class E properties, but are keeping this position under review. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, referred to this. Can the Minister confirm that this is still the Government’s position? Does he agree that the use class E policy potentially risks damaging the vitality of high streets?
Thirdly and finally, what role should government have in funding high street improvements? Our committee received evidence that there is a wide range of different government programmes providing funding to local authorities for high street regeneration, but the wide range is confusing and lacks policy clarity. Moreover, the bidding system for awarding funding has historically been inefficient and costly for local authorities applying for funding. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, this is time-consuming and a strain on already limited resources for local authorities. Our committee therefore recommended that any future programmes created as part of the local growth funding reforms should have a highly simplified bidding process.
We also recommended that the Government consider implementing a two-stage bidding process, with a simplified, cursory first stage. This would ensure wider participation by local authorities in bidding for funds for much-needed and vital improvements to their high streets. Can the Minister give an assurance that a simplified bidding system will soon be available? This would greatly assist local authorities in the often much-needed regeneration of their high streets.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for securing this debate, for taking over as chair of the Built Environment Committee and for his excellent opening speech. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.
I saw the impact of a can-do council appointing a town centre development officer when I became archdeacon of Stoke some 30 years ago. He would not take no for an answer. When you saw him coming, you got out your tin hat and tried to hide, because he was absolutely determined to develop what became the cultural centre of Hanley. It was an extraordinary transformation. I left some 25 years ago, and I am sure that they need to continue to develop for whatever is required now, but I saw just what the impact of that kind of appointment could be. It was an impressive piece of work.
This report is timely and educational. It is so easy when talking about the decline of the high street to hark back to some golden past, because that is probably what we all remember from years ago. But we must not expect a prosperous high street in 20 years’ time to look the same as it did 20 years ago, and we must not try to revive some version of the high street as we used to know it. The day of the retail-dominated high street, as this report demonstrates, is at least partially over, with reportedly more than 13,000 high street stores having closed in 2024. We need to be creative, innovative and imaginative in our approach to the high streets of the future, as we pivot towards a greater mix of leisure activities, restaurants and public services in our high street offer.
It is not only retail stores that have been closing in vast numbers; we have seen a cutting back of essential services, such as local bank branches and post offices. I recently spoke in a debate on the impact of the closure of high street banking services on SMEs, and the disproportionate impact that this has on the ability to open new businesses in small towns and villages. Can the Minister provide assurances that this is an issue that His Majesty’s Government are seeking to address in the forthcoming small business strategy? I am sure he is aware that some SMEs have been having a particularly difficult time of late, and I know he understands the vital role they have to play in creating strong, vibrant local communities.
I note also that in His Majesty’s Government’s response to the report, they stated that
“a fuller policy response was in development”,
and that they would have more to say on their plans to rejuvenate high streets soon. I hope that this debate can inform and shape that process, as I know there is a great deal of wisdom and expertise here in the Room today.
I will briefly make three points about the challenges of rejuvenating high streets and town centres. First, this is often a crisis that hits rural communities particularly hard, including smaller towns and high streets that may have just a few premises. I made this point in the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on small businesses a few weeks ago, and I believe it is pertinent here too. The Government’s response to the report highlighted how the plan for change will support
“the future success of our high streets … from growing the economy to safer streets”,
as well as by devolving power away from Westminster and back into the hands of local communities through the English devolution White Paper.
However, as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, none of these policy papers or pieces of legislation has come forward with any obvious rural-proofing or evidence that the specific challenges and circumstances facing rural communities have been considered. From the National Planning Policy Framework to concerns raised about the circumstances of devolution, from rural areas subsumed into large unitary authorities to the industrial growth strategy, consideration of the needs of rural communities and businesses is being consistently neglected. This will come at a cost to the Government’s own growth mission.
I have referred in the past to the Pragmatix report commissioned by the Rural Coalition, titled Reigniting Rural Futures. It lays out an economic analysis showing the comparative underperformance of the UK’s rural economy and urban areas, compared with their European counterparts, and that the UK’s rural economy has the potential, with the proper policy framework and investment in place, to contribute a further £19 billion in tax receipts to the Exchequer.
Secondly, I want to comment briefly on the need for us to be imaginative about how we develop town centres. Here I am thinking about something that is close to my own heart: how we can maximise and use our historic buildings—among them, parish churches. Ever since I have been a bishop, I have been on a mission to try to get every one of our parish churches unlocked every day. This is not always easy. In some town centres, it is particularly difficult—you may have groups of young people who are up to mischief—but, generally, we can achieve it. Interestingly enough, Ecclesiastical Insurance, which insures most of our church buildings, prefers open churches in principle because, if a church is locked, it says that there is something valuable to pinch. We need to get people into the buildings; the more they are used, the better.
In the long term, the best solution for all our historic listed buildings is to find good everyday use. There are lots of places where churches have not only managed to open their premises but had a win-win solution, where, perhaps, some sort of glass screen has been put up in a side aisle built on in the Victorian era. I think of, for example, All Saints in Hereford and St Michael’s in Bath, which developed much-needed facilities so that they could have a small café in the back while retaining the church as a place of worship. But to do that, we need a can-do attitude from our conservation officers. Sometimes, we also need helpful pump-priming, because the issues of access and disability are often far more difficult in these ancient buildings. I believe that, if we can only find a way to work together, we can find solutions that will enhance the experience of coming to our high streets.
My third and final point is about betting shops. Some noble Lords will know that I was the person who managed to get this House’s Select Committee on the social and economic costs of gambling, and that I am proud to be a vice-president of Peers for Gambling Reform. Our town centres are full of betting premises. It almost feels as though, every time a post office or WH Smith closes, what pops up is a betting shop; we can debate whether to call them shops as it could be argued that the only product they sell is, of course, debt. Many residents and councils are fed up with them, and the evidence shows that many of these shops are concentrated in our most deprived communities. The honourable Member for Brent East in the other place, Dawn Butler, recently raised the fact that there are more gambling premises in her constituency than there are supermarkets and schools. That is surely an extraordinary state of affairs; I find it hard to believe that such a vast number of gambling premises is in anyone’s vision of an attractive high street.
I remember being interviewed on the radio when there was some threat over the closure of betting shops. I was sitting in a mobile studio outside my house. They were trying to find people; it was in Rochdale, I think. I was surprised that everybody interviewed was against having these betting shops. Afterwards, I said to the editor of the programme, “You’re going to get criticised because you weren’t being unbiased”. He said, “We couldn’t find anybody who wanted to speak for them. We’ve tried. We keep asking people to help us with it”.
The crux of this issue is the aim in the Gambling Act 2005 to permit provision, which places a legal duty on councils to aim to permit gambling. Brent Council, along with 40 other councils, is leading a campaign to reform the 2005 Act so that we can protect our high streets from being swamped by these betting shops. If the Government are serious about devolving power to local government, councils must be empowered to act on this issue.
I would be grateful if the Minister could pass on my comments to his colleagues in the DCMS and the DHSC —arguably, this issue cuts across the MHCLG too. If we are serious about growth and regenerating our high streets, we need to tackle the unprecedented surge in gambling premises, which take money out of those local communities and send it elsewhere. The evidence is that, if you decrease the number of premises, more money will be spent locally. We need to address this issue.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I too served on the committee while this report was being compiled. I also commend our chairman and our secretariat.
The report testifies to the decline of Britain’s high streets. They have been suffering from the current economic troubles of the nation, which tend to be described as a cost of living crisis, but there are other enduring factors that have contributed to their decline. Among the recent difficulties affecting high streets have been the impact of the Covid pandemic and the rising proportion of online shopping. A less immediate problem has been the development of large shopping centres that have attracted customers away from high streets. This phenomenon has been seen in neighbouring countries, such as France, where large so-called hypermarkets have been built in out-of-town locations. It seems that the detriment of such developments has now been recognised in the UK and that measures are being taken to restrain them.
However, there are other pathologies that have had an enduring effect in the UK. Not the least of these is what might be described as the financialisation of the commercial property market. This process accelerated rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s. The result has been that the ownership of commercial properties is now preponderantly in the hands of financial institutions. These include real estate investment trusts, property companies large and small, pension funds, banks, foreign sovereign wealth funds and many other remote owners.
The assets within the commercial property market are conventionally classified as prime assets and subprime assets. The former include large office buildings and department stores and the latter comprise the majority of the buildings to be found on Britain’s high streets. The salient fact is that the majority of the properties in both categories are not owned by their current occupants. They are owned by parties who are remote from the locations in question and have no day-to-day involvement. The structure of ownership affecting large retail chains and department stores has been revealed in recent years by their financial collapse.
A prime example has been the Arcadia empire of Philip Green, which was created by the leveraged acquisitions of numerous businesses. Existing assets served as collateral for borrowings that were used to finance further acquisitions. In the process, Philip Green accumulated a personal wealth almost unprecedented in Britain. The sources of this wealth were the assets of the businesses that he had acquired. Many of these businesses had owned their own premises. They were sold by Green to the institutional investors of the property market. The consequence was that, when major trading losses arose, the property owners were able to call time on his businesses. There were no resources, other than Green’s personal wealth, available to sustain the businesses during the economic downturn. The truth of the matter was revealed when Green was able to sell British Home Stores for £1, without personal loss to himself, until he was constrained to supplement the pension fund.
The other side of the story concerns much smaller high street businesses that have suffered closure. The committee’s report reveals a startling fact about the landlords and property owners in the high street. A survey of 22 British high streets conducted in 2019 found that only 5.3% of retail and leisure units were owned by their current occupiers. As with much larger businesses, the retailers lacked the capital to sustain the temporary losses occasioned by an economic downturn and the businesses were forced to close.
The properties in question are liable to feature as entries on spreadsheets of large institutional investors, which have little incentive and little ability to quickly find occupants to replace those who are departing. Occupants might be found more quickly if property owners were inclined to reduce their rents; doing so would reduce the number or value of their assets and they would prefer to leave their properties empty for longer.
A further detriment arises from the remote ownership of commercial bodies, which affects their upkeep. Neither the owners nor the current occupants have a sufficient incentive to enhance the properties since any investment undertaken by one of the parties will be to the substantial benefit of the other party. The division of responsibilities for the upkeep of properties is typically determined by clauses in the lease, and these vary widely from case to case.
In Britain, there is a small and diminishing residue of municipal ownership within high streets. If a landlord is a local authority and if they have access to funds, then favourable opportunities for enhancement or the regeneration of a property or the wider environment can arise. However, this is an uncommon circumstance. It is notable that the circumstances are very different in neighbouring European countries. In Holland, for example, large proportions of town centre properties are under municipal ownership, and this is outwardly reflected in the superior upkeep of these locations.
A question to be faced is: what can the Government do to alleviate the distress of our high streets? The answer is that very little can be done, unless local authorities, development corporations and other relevant bodies are given the funds to enable them to undertake significant developments of high street environments. The high streets must be made more attractive, and they must cater to developing circumstances. Amenities must be brought to the high streets to replace the retail outlets that are closing. We have heard suggestions that doctors’ surgeries, libraries, restaurants and leisure activities should be attracted to the high streets. If the high streets and adjacent streets have been cleared of motorised traffic, then adequate public transport must be provided and parking facilities in adjacent areas must be established.
However, the question of funding is paramount. The report criticises the chaotic system of special funds that are available to local authorities, which are invited to compete for them. In many cases, it is too time-consuming for a local authority to make a bid when there is little chance of succeeding. Attempts to reform the system are, I hope, under way. The principal source of funds for local authorities is local taxation, which consists of domestic rates and business rates. We are led to understand that, in the future, 70% of a local authority’s income will be raised locally. A large proportion of this income will come from business rates, of which the councils will keep 50%. This will give them, so it has been said, a real incentive to go for growth and encourage enterprise and job creation.
The problem with rates being raised on properties is that they bear only a tenuous relationship to the income of the householder or to the turnover of a business, and they are often subject to angry resentments. However, it must be a priority to reform the system of local taxation and, in the process, to make it more productive of revenue. This will require the replacement of the rates by local income taxes and local turnover taxes.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests in the register. I am president of the Local Government Association, and I have previously been the chair of ukactive.
I welcome this timely and important report. As consumer behaviour continues to shift online, many of our towns are losing their economic vitality and civic identity. I shop online: it is quick and easy, but it is fairly soulless compared with visiting your local high street. As the committee notes, there is no single solution to regenerate our high streets, but we must remain flexible, recognising that no two communities are the same. But if we are really serious about regenerating high streets that are resilient and economically viable, inclusivity must be at the forefront of our efforts.
In 2014, the organisation Disabled Go—now known as AccesAble—audited nearly 30,000 high street shops and restaurants to assess their accessibility. Of the 27,000 retail outlets examined, only 20% were accessible to wheelchair users, largely due to steps and the absence of ramps. Moreover, 91% of the 105 leading high street retailers provided no online information about accessibility at their stores.
The picture is no better in the hospitality sector: around 40% of restaurants had no accessible toilet. I apologise; I am going to overshare. If I go somewhere new, I have to very carefully moderate what I drink, in case there is not an accessible toilet. Nearly half of the restaurant staff questioned said that they had received no disability awareness training.
While an audit on this scale has not been repeated since, the Government’s 2021 UK Disability Survey confirmed that there had been little progress in making our high streets more accessible. The report found that 31% of respondents had trouble accessing public spaces “all the time” or “often”. Of those, a further 78% said that they found it either impossible or very difficult to access shops.
This is not merely a social failure but an economic one. The spending power of disabled people and their households, commonly referred to as the “purple pound”, is estimated at £274 billion—a potential revenue that our high streets are actively losing due to inaccessibility. I recognise what others have said about old shops not necessarily being easy to adapt, but not all access is hard to achieve. It is about being creative, putting a notice outside the shop door or having a buzzer; it is about being open to thinking differently.
A disabled person recently shared an experience with me. He was visiting his local high street and was unable to access a shop due to the steps at the entrance, so his wife had to go inside to ask whether the shop had a ramp. It turns out that it did, but there was no way of knowing this from outside the shop. He told me that, if he had been alone, he would not even have bothered waiting outside or trying to shout through the door; he simply would have moved on. Many shops already have ramps and basic accessibility measures in place, but it is clear that visible communication is missing from our high streets.
I welcome the report’s recommendation to improve transport access to our high streets, but public transport still leaves a lot to be desired. While I greatly support improving bus networks for better connectivity, there is no promise that that will improve the journeys of disabled people.
Just last night, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was informed when she was trying to get on a bus that the law has changed—supposedly—and that wheelchair users no longer have priority on board. The law has not changed, but this is not an infrequent experience for disabled people.
It is essential to the growth of our high streets that any changes to transport access must consider disabled people. Car parking spaces should account for adaptive vehicles and accessible EV charging. There is a woeful lack of EV charging ports available to disabled people across the country. About two years ago, I tried to change my car to an electric car and I found that there were no accessible charging points within at least a 40-mile radius of my house, so I could not switch.
In certain towns, EV charging spaces have been put on top of existing disabled bays. While there is no legal requirement to have a certain number of disabled bays in a car park, it is abhorrent that access for disabled people is continually being taken away. As such, I urge all local authorities to consult disabled people at all stages of regeneration projects. By including disabled people from the outset, local authorities will not risk having to spend more money down the line to make their towns more accessible.
I am also very interested in how we can use high street regeneration projects to drive growth among the UK’s physical activity sector, as previously reported by ukactive. There is a huge opportunity to integrate physical activity and well-being provision within communities by regenerating underutilised properties—shops, restaurants and vacant office spaces—into new, accessible and budget-friendly facilities.
Regeneration projects will benefit greatly from the inclusion of physical activity and sport; by creating healthier, more vibrant communities you are improving social conditions and making happier citizens. However, under current planning laws, it is easier to open a chicken shop than a yoga studio. If the Government are invested in promoting healthier lifestyles and decreasing obesity rates, why do they continue to make it a challenge for those who just want to improve the health and well-being of their communities?
I value my local high street. I love it: I love the eclectic nature of the shops and how people are trying really hard to make it more accessible, but there is still so much work that we have to do to make sure that disabled people have the same ability as non-disabled people to access local high streets.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it was a great privilege to chair the committee during this inquiry and I am grateful for the kind remarks that have been made by noble Lords. The process must have addled my brain to some extent because I had absolutely convinced myself that I had put my name down to speak in this debate, only to realise too late that I had not, so I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution in the gap. I would like to use part of it, of course, to thank the clerks and officer support that we had during the inquiry, in particular our clerk Kate Wallis, our policy analyst Andrea Ninomiya, Sarah Carrington, who organised the committee operations so very well, and Dervish Mertcan, who reached out to our global press audience. I should mention the people we take for granted to some extent: the engagement team and, particularly, the technology team. I have now realised after three years, nearly, of chairing the committee that we take for granted the fact of all these wonderful people organising our room, our technology and everything, and we never thank them, so I would like to do that today. Of course, our external specialist adviser Dr Lucy Montague is an expert on this subject and made a real difference to our deliberations.
This is only a short contribution. The contents of the report and of the Government’s response have been aired thoroughly in the course of the debate, so perhaps I can turn myself briefly to a slightly different topic. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans referred to the degradation of the high street consequent on the presence of so many betting shops. I was watching BBC News only a few weeks ago when it did a report, spread over several bulletins, of even greater degradation on the high streets. This involves the takeover of many of our high streets, not necessarily in pleasant county towns, but in many of our cities, by so-called barber shops, which never have any customers, and mini-markets that never sell anything, or they do because if you want to get some illegal cigarettes, with no tax paid, obviously—that is taken for granted—often imported cigarettes with no recognisable branding, which could contain anything at all, then that is the place to go. You will get them for a couple of pounds a packet, way below the price that you would pay for a legitimate packet of cigarettes. That is their main business —that and money laundering. The fact that they are so inherently profitable on the proceeds of criminal activity means that no legitimate business can compete with them in terms of paying rent.
We see this in the heart of London. You see premises of this character even in Oxford Street, which is meant to be our showcase high street—our showcase retail street—for the nation. The news bulletin on the BBC showed raids being carried out by local trading standards officers, but I think behind them were His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the National Crime Agency to some extent, so the authorities are aware. These are only the surface—the epiphenomena—of a network that brings crime and misery internationally. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to say that the Government are cognisant of what is now a serious threat to many of our high streets and that action will be taken across a broad front, not simply occasionally for the benefit of TV cameras, although I do not mean to deprecate in any sense the effort that was made to bring enforcement on that particular occasion. I hope that this will be carried out on a broad front, because it is a profound threat to our high streets and one that, sadly, the committee did not have an opportunity to explore, so I am glad to mention it now.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest on the register as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Built Environment Committee’s report makes wide-ranging and thoughtful recommendations to the Government on how best to support our high streets. These include improving bus networks and parking, supporting local markets, encouraging greater business involvement in high street management and simplifying business rates. I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for chairing the committee and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for presenting the report today.
Many of the funds and initiatives referenced in the Government’s response, such as the high street rental auction, high street accelerators, the city region sustainable transport settlement and the private parking code, were in fact introduced or legislated for by the previous Government, who had a strong record on supporting high streets. We supported businesses, particularly high street businesses, through the Covid 19 pandemic with a comprehensive £400 billion package. We supported towns through the long-term plan for towns, which the current Government have since withdrawn. That plan committed £1.1 billion to 55 towns across the UK, empowering local communities to develop locally led town plans shaped by community leaders, employers, local authorities and Members of Parliament. We supported high street generation through a suite of wider funds, including the £4.8 billion levelling up fund, the £3.2 billion towns fund, the high street task force and the £150 million community ownership fund.
I turn to the conclusions and the recommendations of the report. These were wide-ranging and covered several key areas relevant to the vitality of the high street. The first recommendation calls for improvements to public transport connectivity, particularly bus networks, and for more efficient and accessible car parking. I note that this was actively pursued by the previous Government, culminating in the launch of the private parking code, which was finalised in May 2024 and came into force in October that year, following significant work with the industry.
The committee also urged continued support for local market traders and recommended that the local authority-operated markets outside London be granted business rates relief. The Government claim that their new approach meets their manifesto commitments, but I must challenge that claim. The manifesto pledged to
“level the playing field between high streets and online giants”,
yet the policy in question levies additional taxes not on online giants alone but also on high street retailers, large department stores, supermarkets, football stadiums and others. These are not online giants. This approach risks further burdening those the Government claim to support. These are the things that keep our high streets thriving and surviving.
I turn to the section of the report concerning local businesses and regeneration. The Government’s first Budget left business confidence at its lowest point in two years. According to the British Chambers of Commerce, only 49% of companies surveyed in the first quarter of 2024 expected an increase in income over the coming year. This should be a concerning indicator. In light of this, the Government must consider how best to support, though not mandate, the development of business improvement districts. BIDs have shown that they can drive local growth and community involvement, but there is a lot of scope to do even more. The Government should explore whether the BID model could be strengthened by expanding participation to include community representatives, ensuring a broader, more inclusive voice in local regeneration.
The next recommendation rightly highlights the importance of public participation, saying that local authorities should ensure that residents are involved in the decision-making. This is essential if regeneration efforts are to reflect the real needs and priorities of local communities. The Conservative Party agrees with the committee’s view that the Government must embed accountability measures into any new regeneration programme. I therefore ask the Minister to set out how the department intends to build on this principle. Specifically, how will local voices be ensured a place at the table in the design and delivery of future regeneration schemes?
We recognise the value of the Government’s funding simplification doctrine. This principle should be expanded to apply to all local authorities receiving multiple funding streams aimed at high street regeneration.
The committee rightly supports the continuation of the long-term plan for towns, particularly as it includes vital resource funding, not just capital. Any future programmes must adopt a highly simplified bidding process, enabling local authorities to focus on delivery rather than navigating bureaucracy. Will the Minister commit to simplifying the funding landscape and providing much-needed clarity on the future of regeneration programmes? Additionally, will he introduce a significantly simplified bidding process for any future high street or town regeneration funding? This would help ensure that local authorities can focus more on the delivery and less on the administrative burden, as I said.
I turn briefly to the commentary from third parties on the committee’s report. In August 2024, the Federation of Small Businesses published its report, The Future of the High Street, calling for greater support and innovative thinking to improve conditions for small firms operating on UK high streets. Notably, the FSB found that good transport links are essential, with almost 43% of small businesses stating this as a key factor for their success. In the light of this, what plans do the Government have to ensure that transport links in our towns are available, frequent and reliable?
The FSB also reported that around 49% of high street small businesses believe that parking facilities are poorly managed in their area. Will the Minister commit to a review of parking provision, particularly in poorly performing areas, so that we can improve accessibility for those travelling to the high street by car?
Finally, I leave the Minister with two further questions that speak to some of the most pressing concerns raised by the committee. First, how do the Government intend to improve the return on investment for high street and town centre projects that are currently underperforming? Secondly, how will the department support local authorities in unlocking the latent resource, expertise and community passion that remain under- utilised in so many of our communities?
I again thank the committee for its diligent and thoughtful report and acknowledge the valuable contributions of all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate or on that committee. I hope that we can continue to draw on the considerable expertise of this House to ensure that we do all we can to both support and revitalise our high streets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to stand before the Committee today to address the important topic of high streets and the findings of the Built Environment Committee. I thank the committee for raising this debate and for its insightful report. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for his opening remarks, and congratulate him on his appointment, replacing the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and filling what I see as big shoes. I thank the noble Lord for the work that he did in his role as chair.
This Government are committed to rejuvenating our high streets. We recognise the shifting tides of online and out-of-town retail, as well as the decline of local government funding by the previous Government, which have left our town centres depleted. However, like the committee’s report, the Government do not support a narrative of unmitigated decline, which serves only to sap confidence further. Instead, we should see the opportunities to reimagine high streets and to empower local places to deliver the right plan for their area. We must also recognise that high streets are symptomatic of wider issues in the economy and in society. To boost our town centres, we must address these root causes by investing in a stronger economy and in safer streets, as well as by empowering local leaders and communities to help town centres adapt to a world no longer dominated by physical retail.
That is why this Government are committed to transferring power out of Westminster and into local communities. The English devolution Bill will give local leaders the tools to kick-start their economies, as well as empowering communities to transform their neighbourhoods and high streets. We are expanding and deepening the powers available to mayors and strategic authorities. This includes integrated funding settlements for mayors who have a strong track record of delivery, as well as new powers over strategic planning to give all strategic authorities autonomy to plan for housing growth. Densified housing in our towns can address the need for homes, build new communities and support high street footfall.
We are also providing powers to help local leaders and communities take action to regenerate their area. One in seven high street premises currently stands vacant, yet our communities remain unable to retain vital assets. Community assets such as shops, pubs and community spaces have a significant role to play in developing social networks, encouraging community and promoting civic pride. Our “community right to buy” will empower local people to bring pubs and other important spaces back into the hands of the community, tackling the deep feeling of powerlessness felt by many in our society who care profoundly about preserving communities.
In addition, we are taking action against the familiar sight of shop fronts being boarded up and left empty for too long with high street rental auctions. The powers enable local authorities to tackle decline by bringing vacant units back into use, auctioning a lease to interested bidders and helping to make the high street more accessible and affordable for tenants, including small and medium enterprises, local businesses and community groups.
We recognise that businesses are vital to high street success. It is key that we create an environment in which they can flourish. To that end, we are making progress on reforming business rates. Parliament has now approved an Act enabling permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from next April. This permanent tax cut will ensure that these properties benefit from much-needed certainty and support. We have also established a licensing policy task force to make recommendations to reform the licensing framework in order to foster a vibrant hospitality and night-time economy.
We will also take action to address the rise of anti-social behaviour, which can be so damaging to businesses and off-putting to residents. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee and the creation of new offences in our Crime and Policing Bill, we will restore order in our town centres and empower the police to act against unacceptable behaviour. We will also provide more than £7 million in funding over the next three years to support the police in tackling retail crime.
I turn to the points made by noble Lords in the debate. I start with the points made by my noble friend Lady Andrews in relation to the plan for neighbourhoods. The Government recently announced the plan for neighbourhoods programme as a successor to the long-term plan for towns, which noble Lords referenced. The prospectus was published in March 2025; I commend it to noble Lords.
We are putting power into the hands of local people with our plan for neighbourhoods; the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, touched on this. This will address deprivation, regenerate local areas and unleash the full potential of places that have been overlooked for far too long. Neighbourhood boards are bringing together residents, businesses and grass-roots campaigners to draw up and implement plans for how they will spend up to £20 million of funding; this could be on repairing pavements in high streets, setting up community grocers that provide low-cost alternatives when shopping for essentials or establishing neighbourhood watches to keep people safe. We want to empower boards to tackle the root causes of disengagement and division, to bring people together so that they can feel proud of their area and safe in their neighbourhood, to restore a collective sense of belonging in their community.
My noble friend Lady Andrews asked me about the high street accelerators programme. This will now end in June 2025, at which point the Government will carry out a review of the programme to help inform future interventions on the high street. We hope that the current partnerships will evolve into sustainable teams that are embedded in the local area and continue to work on projects that help high streets to thrive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, talked about high street rental auctions. We are proud to roll out this fantastic new tool to enable councils to reduce vacancy rates and the visual blight of empty shops. These powers are available to all councils to use right now, and we encourage them to do so.
To help with the initial implementation of the high street rental auctions, we have set aside a new burdens payment to cover costs, such as those borne through the notice and auction processes. Over £1 million of funding has been made available to support delivery for all local authorities in England to create high street vacancy registers and to support the cost of refurbishing vacant premises.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, talked about accessibility and physical well-being. Accessibility is an important issue. I fully agree with the need for inclusive design embedding physical well-being into high streets. The plan for neighbourhoods offers communities the option to invest in measures to improve access and physical health.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Scott, talked about transport accessibility. Effective transport is key to regeneration and plays an essential role in driving footfall to our towns and high streets. We have provided long-term funding to improve the transport network in local areas to transform and unlock regeneration opportunities. Local leaders will be empowered to choose the bus operating model that works for their area through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which was introduced on 17 December 2024. This includes several options to improve bus services, such as franchising and establishing new local authority-owned bus companies.
On the point about funding support for local services, local government is vital for the delivery of the Government’s missions and it delivers more than 800 services to local people every day. This is the front line of public services; it deserves a government working alongside it, as equal partners in power.
Taken together, the additional funding announced by the Chancellor at the Autumn Budget and through the 2025-26 local government finance settlement will provide over £5 billion of new funding for local services, beyond local council tax. This includes an additional £2 billion in grants through the settlement, a guarantee that local authorities in England will receive at least £1.1 billion in 2025-26 from the new extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme and a further £233 million for homelessness services. We are delivering a settlement that aims to strengthen the foundations of local government by providing significant investment and redirecting funds to the services and places that need it most.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mair, about funding, we will set a refreshed approach to local growth funding at the spending review in the spring. This will include more integrated settlements over the longer term, with less central direction and more local choice. This is a point that the noble Baroness asked me about.
On public services and amenities, when it comes to new government services, we already consider broader benefits where appropriate and will keep further options for provision under review. Departmental spending proposals must follow the principles outlined in the Green Book, which is the government guidance on appraisal.
I move on to another point raised in my noble friend Lady Andrews’ comprehensive contribution, and by other noble Lords, about a small business strategy. This year, the Government will bring forward a small business strategy that will set out our plan to support SMEs, including consideration of how best to support our high streets to make sure that they are providing vibrant places for our communities and fertile environments for our businesses. The small business strategy will also boost scale-ups in growing the co-operative economy, making it easier to access finance, opening up overseas and domestic markets, building business capabilities and providing a strong business environment.
We also have a programme called Experience on Main Street, which promotes UK creative businesses that specialise in placemaking to decision-makers responsible for high street regeneration projects; these include retailers, local and regional government, real estate owners and urban planners. This is all to encourage the reimagination and revival of high street spaces by using creative services and products.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, made some very interesting comments about markets. I agree that markets are an institutional part of the high street and provide local areas with a valuable community space. The Government recognise the role that markets play in providing access to good-quality, healthy and affordable food and in providing local people with opportunities for social engagement and inclusion. They can also help to build the local economy by boosting footfall and providing opportunities for entrepreneurs and start-up businesses to test new and innovative products. It is for local authorities and other market operatives to decide how best to operate and manage their markets. We encourage local authorities and market operators to continue to support market traders as they consider the best path forward to help markets thrive.
My noble friend Lady Andrews asked about business rates. The Government are looking at business rates reform in the round. We have already legislated to reduce tax rates on the high street, and the Chancellor will announce further plans for this in the autumn.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Lord, Lord Mair, discussed the use classes for planning. The commercial, business and service use class—known as use class E —groups together various uses, such as shops, gyms, restaurants, offices, and medical or health facilities, which means that planning permission is no longer required to switch between those uses. This change enables premises to respond quickly to how communities want to use their high streets, giving business owners and landlords the freedom to adapt swiftly to changing consumer demand. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Mair, and my noble friend Lady Andrews, we will continue to keep planning use classes under review, to ensure that they meet the needs of our communities and businesses.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked for more clarification about parking. We know that the practices and behaviours of parking operators need to change. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 places a duty on the Government to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the operation and management of private parking facilities. This Government are determined to drive up standards in the private parking sector and will announce their plan for the new code in due course. Parking is the responsibility of local authorities, and this Government are keen to empower them to make decisions about their local areas, since they are best placed to consider how local needs can be effectively met through their local transport plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, talked about arts and culture and about adding colour to our town centres and high streets, which shape and reflect society and are enjoyed by people in every part of our country. We announced over £270 million of investment for our arts venues, museums, libraries, and heritage sector. We also recently announced an £85 million creative foundations fund to help arts and cultural organisations, with varying scales of need, to resolve urgent issues with their infrastructure.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, discussed parish councils. We absolutely recognise that town and parish councils have an important role in improving the quality of life and well-being of their communities, and in creating places where people are proud to live. They are close to the communities they serve, know their communities’ needs and can champion the priorities of local people and design the right services that work for their places. The Government are committed to building stronger communities where people feel proud of their neighbourhoods and actively contribute to their development.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised money laundering. To be profoundly clear, I assure him that we take this very seriously. That is why we are building up local enforcement capacity and smashing the gangs. We will continue to look at what more we can do in this area.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. High streets arouse strong emotions. This Government recognise the challenges that high streets face and welcome the spotlight shone by this report. With the right actions and the right leadership, we can make a different future for our town centres—a future that is more sustainable, more resilient, more connected and more aligned to the way we live our lives today. How will we achieve that? I have outlined some of our policies, but let me summarise them.
From Burnley to Pendle, our town centres need a purpose and a vision, linked to jobs and amenities and tied into a wider local growth plan. This Government are making this possible by pushing powers and funding out of Westminster, delivering the devolution that is required to transform the prospects of our towns. Alongside this, we are fixing the fundamentals: boosting local government funding; giving a permanent business rates cut to retail, hospitality and leisure; deregulating our cumbersome licensing laws; and investing in skills, jobs and infrastructure up and down the country.
We are also wasting no time in showing people real, visible improvements now. That is why we are putting 13,000 neighbourhood officers on the streets, making new laws to tackle anti-social behaviour, giving councils new powers to force open vacant shops and giving communities a right to buy valued assets such as the local pub. Through the plan for neighbourhoods, we are giving the most deprived places funding to clean up their high street or give it a makeover.
In summary, we are committed to fixing the foundations of the economy on which our towns depend, while giving local people the tools to revitalise their communities now. This is an exciting agenda which the Government are so proud to be delivering. My noble friend Lady Andrews referred to “imagination, leadership and innovation”, and that is exactly what the Government are providing.
I thank the Built Environment Committee again for an excellent report, and all noble Lords for their wise contributions to this important debate. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who I know will do a brilliant job because he is from a smashing part of the country—Lancashire; he is my neighbour, in Pendle. It is great to be responding to him, as he is chair of the committee.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I thank the Minister for his warm words; he is clearly a long-lost cousin or brother from another mother. I thank those on the two Front Benches—the Minister and my former boss, when we were last in Government—for answering the debate from the Dispatch Box. I also thank the former committee members. It is slightly unnerving having my predecessor lingering at the back, but I thank them both for speaking.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who, as ever, was both powerful and striking in the points that she made. I will also say something briefly about the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans: today is not his valedictory speech, but it will be one of his last commitments in this House. I thank him for his service and his time on many debates—this one in particular—and I genuinely wish him well.
It has been a first-rate debate on the back of what I believe to be a first-rate report. There have been some really good points raised, many of which were in the report but are not exclusive to it: the importance of high streets; the complexity of funding; changing high streets over time; rural communities; the use of class E; rates and revenue; and, crucially, the opportunities. My final point is where we ended on the first one, and I am pleased to hear what the Minister said.
I understand that the Minister is very close to Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, and on the back of this debate, I implore him to take it back and tell her it was not just another report, it is actually an opportunity that people in this Chamber and beyond care about. Many people have spoken to us about it. There are some really good ideas, and I think there is a huge opportunity here for the Government to inspire and empower, but also to change and put high streets back into the centre of people’s lives once again. With that, I thank noble Lords very much.
Methane (Environment and Climate Change Committee Report)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
That this House takes note of the Report from the Environment and Climate Change Committee Methane: keep up the momentum (HL Paper 45).
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, it is indeed a pleasure, as chair, to debate the findings of the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s report, Methane: Keep Up the Momentum, about a devastating greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide and one that is responsible for about 30% of global warming to date. Yet the evidence we gathered shows that the story is one that offers hope because methane, although very powerful in its warming impact, is short-lived and, therefore, if we can reduce emissions, we can substantially slow down global warming within decades, and with greater ambition we could start to cool the planet. Professor Piers Forster, interim chair of the Government’s advisory body, the Climate Change Committee, stressed that rapidly reducing methane emissions alongside addressing carbon dioxide could reduce the current trajectory of global warming from 0.25 degrees Celsius per decade to 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade, and that is a goal worth achieving.
The good news is that we already know how to capture, bottle and sell the emissions from two of the highest emitting sectors globally: oil and gas, and waste management. Emissions from agriculture are more challenging to capture, but there is light on the horizon to reduce them, as highlighted in the report. The key thing about methane, otherwise known as natural gas, is that it has value. We use it to heat our homes, cook our food and produce electricity. It is the transition fuel that will bridge our move to renewable energy, so why vent and flare it when we could harness and use it? This is what makes this report so important and one that the Government must not leave to gather dust, which is the fate of so many excellent Select Committee reports, but instead to use it to lend momentum to the already excellent, but currently stalled, record of reducing methane emissions in the UK and, importantly—and this is the crux of the report—to use our know-how, experience and ambition to leverage action internationally, as we have undertaken to do in the Global Methane Pledge.
We heard evidence that there is potential to scale up cutting-edge products of UK companies as they deploy innovative tools to measure, monitor and verify emissions. In short, with the right policy and regulatory framework we can support growth in our economy and generate jobs, while reducing methane emissions and keeping warming within the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet me so that I can introduce him to one such company in the space sector, where huge strides are being made to measure the intensity of methane emissions and locate them with pinpoint accuracy. This will be a game-changer.
The purpose of the report was to evaluate progress made on the domestic side to tackle the sources of anthropogenic methane emissions that are within the scope of the Global Methane Pledge and to get to grips with the potential for the UK to do more both at home and internationally where there is so much low-hanging fruit. Will the Minister state whether he has fully bought into the commitment of the Government led by Boris Johnson, when, at the COP 26 summit in Glasgow, they wholeheartedly supported the launch of the Global Methane Pledge to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030 from a 2020 baseline? If the Minister is fully signed up to support the Global Methane Pledge, on what basis can he justify the Government’s refusal to publish their own methane action plan to provide clarity on priority actions for each sector? I hope he will not point to an as yet non-existent carbon budget delivery plan because that will not suffice. We ask for a clear, stand-alone document to encourage other countries to produce the same. Such an important intervention to combat the climate emergency cannot be buried in a wide-ranging document such as the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, where one has to dig hard to discern the Government’s intent. The Minister may also point to these country’s co-chairship with Brazil of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, the UN-affiliated organisation that provides a secretariat for the Global Methane Pledge. I am truly delighted that Minister Kerry McCarthy has taken up this role discarded by the US in January.
As my committee’s methane report makes clear, domestically we have made good progress in reducing methane emissions from the waste management and oil and gas sectors, but less so in agriculture. Residual emissions may be more stubborn and therefore more costly. However, it is the Government’s role to balance the cost of action with the cost of inaction over the long term. That point is made throughout the report.
I turn to the waste sector. The UK’s success in reducing methane from the waste sector was driven in large part by the landfill tax. Together with incentives from the renewables obligation scheme, which improved landfill gas capture, the UK saw a 76% decrease in emissions between 1990 and 2022. Colleagues speaking after me may wish to say more on the important issues of waste crime, the renewable obligation scheme, anaerobic digesters and other matters. I hope the Minister, however, will take this opportunity to reiterate his Government’s determination to bear down on upstream measures such as reducing food and packaging waste, given the greater stress that this Government are placing on moving faster towards a more circular economy. Our technical ability to tackle emissions from landfill sites is world-beating. There is much that we can share internationally. Later this year, COP 30 is taking place in Brazil, where there is opportunity to leverage our knowledge and expertise to work with Latin American countries as they consider their policy options for landfill gas capture. I hope we will lean into this with gusto and lend our expertise.
Moving to agriculture, almost half the UK’s methane emissions can be attributed to agriculture, all of it from livestock. The 15% reduction in emissions since 1990 can be attributed largely to reduced consumption of red meat. However, the committee heard that there are other viable methods for further meaningful cuts in emissions, such as improved animal welfare, selective breeding, methane-suppressing feed additives and better slurry management. Can the Minister assure me that Defra takes the issue of methane emissions seriously? Defra is not the responsible government department for greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, methane reduction just does not seem to be high on its list of priorities. In their response to recommendation 10—that low-cost, long-term solutions must be prioritised, with supermarkets playing their part in reducing emissions from the food sector—the Government said:
“Alongside the upcoming food strategy and farming roadmap we will deliver a credible plan to decarbonise food and farming”.
Will the Minister say when can we expect to see the food strategy and farming road map?
Similarly, the Government are reviewing the regulatory framework that they inherited—thank goodness, because our report highlighted grave shortcomings in the existing framework. For example, I hope that the review will address the fact that there is no regulatory oversight of agricultural methane, apart from in some aspects of agricultural waste.
I move on to energy. In my view, one of the most important recommendations in the report is to,
“demand greater transparency and accountability of industry commitments to end the routine venting and flaring of methane”
by
“a publicly accessible roadmap and transparent data”.
This is something that the industry has committed to do, as was restated by the NSTA when it gave evidence to the committee. However, the Government’s response did not address the points about transparent data or a road map for the industry; perhaps the Minister could take this opportunity to do so now.
I say this because international emissions from the oil and gas sector continue to grow, yet the gas that is routinely vented and flared could be captured and sold. Professor Steven Hamburg of Environmental Defense Fund told the committee that oil and gas have “enormous potential” for methane reduction globally. He also said:
“That is not low-hanging fruit; that is fruit lying on the ground”.
Can the Minister provide an update on progress in how methane from the upstream oil and gas sector could be included in the ETS scheme? I hope that progress is being made on that.
In concluding, I stress that the report would have been challenging to get over the line in the best of circumstances. However, during it, we lost our policy analyst, Flo Bullough, midway; we then lost our clerk, Emily Bailey Page, towards the end of the report’s finalisation. Such talented people will always be in demand. I would like to put on the record my gratitude to them for their sterling input. I must thank wholeheartedly all those who stepped into the breach, including Tom Wilson, the principal clerk of Select Committees, the incoming clerk, Andrea Ninomiya, and our policy analyst, Lily Paulson. They were magnificent in picking up the baton and ushering the report over the finish line, and I thank them all once again.
This report holds the dubious record of being the longest-debated report to be produced by any House of Lords committee, which will give your Lordships a flavour of the divergent views of the committee. I wholeheartedly commend my colleagues on the committee for the unfailing courtesy with which all discussions were undertaken. There is real value in bringing together the threads of different viewpoints in a report that all members felt able to sign up to and one of which I, for one, am very proud. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I open my remarks today by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for the excellent way in which she chaired the committee throughout a rather tricky period over the election and change of Government last summer. The committee also changed its policy adviser and support clerks during this inquiry, yet its coherency hung together with its themes and approach. I thank Flo Bullough, who set off with the committee as its policy analyst, and Lily Paulson, who saw us to a safe conclusion. I also thank the clerks to our committee, Emily Bailey Page and Andrea Ninomiya. I declare my interests as recorded on the register, notably activities on a dairy farm, with agriculture featuring prominently and extensively in the report.
The committee benefited from a very divergent membership—not only in being cross-party, of course, but from hearing a wide range of experiences and opinions regarding climate change and the role of the Government in mitigating methane emissions. I am told that the number of meetings needed to resolve drafting issues set a new record high and certainly prolonged publication, yet I am pleased that the committee was able to agree unanimously to a final wording, despite many reinterpretations. This was in no small measure due to careful handling by our excellent chair.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, has given an excellent account of the committee’s findings and recommendations. We received many detailed scientific papers and had many interesting witnesses give evidence. I draw attention to the important contribution given by Professor Myles Allen from the University of Oxford on understanding the different nature of methane as a greenhouse gas, the importance of how it differs in its effects from carbon and, therefore, the importance of various methods of measuring and reporting on it between GWP100—that is, global warming potential 100—as against GWP* and GWP20.
Understanding this, I found it disappointing that the Government chose to reject our important recommendation 2, to publish a methane action plan in support of other government plans and strategies, stating that this was covered already in the existing five-year carbon budgets. The proposed updated plans for the latest carbon budget, with the 2030 NDC—nationally determined contribution—contributing to the Global Methane Pledge, will certainly be meaningful. However, it would also have been worth while to outline in a comprehensive individual action plan vital steps that could be interpreted as methane actions.
Part of this focus that such an action plan could embrace would be the improvement in monitoring and verification, both nationally and internationally. The Government’s action here is welcomed, in their response to the committee’s recommendation 3 on the establishment of an international body to assess and report the methane action plans of the pledge’s participants. Nationally, a more concerted structure proposal for sector monitoring is beginning to take shape, especially in the agricultural sector. That agriculture is beginning to look exposed, as the sector finds it most difficult to make meaningful reductions and progress, became a large part of the committee’s investigations for solutions.
While the committee examined other sectors in the report, I will concentrate my remarks on the agricultural sector. The Minister will be aware of the important work being done by his department on emissions measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification improvements. Within agriculture, the levy-funded pilot project to showcase the importance of an on-farm environmental baseline is being undertaken by AHDB—the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. The aim is to create a nationwide standardised dataset across the various sectors within agriculture to enable more accurate reporting of emissions from the bottom up—that is, at farm level—in the environmental impact of agriculture. This is important to reveal the true net carbon position on the balance of emissions and carbon removals through farm coppices, woodlands and other features, which would also include carbon sequestration potential.
The outcome could be instructive as a dataset to show the range and variety of results from individual farms to allow the industry to move away from relying on national and international averages. Does the Minister agree that, in targeting agriculture as being most in need of methane reductions, providing a more accurate reflection of its position and progress towards net zero is an important part of his department’s greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and verification programme? Can he confirm that agriculture’s progress is part of the GEMMA—Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measurement and Modelling Advancement—programme?
Farming’s impact on the environment is amplified by the lack of accurate farm-level data. The evidence to the committee from Professor Dave Frame, professor of physics at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, that all farmers should “know their numbers”—namely, have data on their farm’s impact—was very revealing. Here, I draw attention to the go-to guide produced by the Innovation for Agriculture on behalf of WWF and Tesco. Valuable information could be provided through farmer data collected as part of the NFU’s Red Tractor assurance scheme. I request that the Minister feeds this to his Defra colleagues in their review of the sustainable farming incentive, which is relevant to our recommendation 15. For example, Tesco was also involved in the research of the feed additive, Bovaer, and runs important carbon footprint monitoring of farms.
ForFarmers also undertook research on Lintec made from a Pacific variety of linseed to enhance bovine health, fertility and sustainability. Costs are prohibitive for livestock producers at the moment. Can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on the dairy demonstrator project, which is in our recommendation 12? I am also aware of the UK Dairy Carbon Network project, which is also funded by Defra and being undertaken by AHDB and AgriSearch. How do these complement each other?
I am grateful for the evidence about the selective breeding improvement programmes provided by Drew Sloan of Semex. Costs and risks are already being shared appropriately across government and industry. It is now imperative that the Government look to improve communication, through the proposed land use framework, to integrate the rural dimension with wider challenges on the demands for infrastructure, housing and growth. The report also embraces methane in its wider applications, with waste management and emissions extending into the offshore oil and gas industries. It underlines the importance of not only reducing emissions but capturing them for beneficial use.
This is a very important report to which the Grand Committee will need to return as progress continues towards 2030 and beyond.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be a member of this Select Committee and to speak here today. I thank our chair and our excellent staff who support our committee; they really have been outstanding. I have no major interests to declare except that I am a veterinarian and a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. I have no financial interests of relevance.
I will concentrate on the contribution of UK agriculture, and specifically ruminants, to methane emissions, because they are such a significant part of our total anthropogenic methane emissions. We have already heard that methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, but it is short lived: it remains in the atmosphere for about 12 years, compared with CO2, which remains for hundreds if not thousands of years. This is critically important: constant emissions of CO2 accumulate and increase global warming, whereas constant emissions of methane stabilise at equilibrium after a few years and warming stabilises. Crucially, reducing methane emissions results in cooling, so major global reductions in methane emissions provide a unique opportunity to slow the pace of global warming in the short term, while CO2 reduction and removal technologies can be further developed.
Globally, methane emissions are rising, which is very disturbing. However, I am pleased to say that in the UK our methane emissions are not rising; in fact, there has been a significant reduction of over 60% since 1990. However, reduction within agriculture has been relatively small. Agriculture is now responsible for approximately 50% of the UK’s anthropogenic methane emissions, virtually all of which is from ruminants, particularly cattle.
Different metrics are significant in understanding the impact of methane and formulating policy. Internationally, the metric GWP100 is used to quantify the global warming potential of different greenhouse gases over 100 years within different sectors. However, it can misrepresent methane’s warming impact by not considering its short-lived nature in the atmosphere. In a nutshell, GWP100 overestimates the impact of constant methane emissions by threefold to fourfold, underestimates the impact of newly emitted methane by fourfold to fivefold and fails to account for the cooling effects when methane emissions reduce.
To address these limitations, scientists, in particular at the University of Oxford, have developed GWP*, which better accounts for the short-lived nature of methane in the atmosphere. Experts differ on the pros and cons of GWP100 and GWP*, but comparisons emphasise how significantly the way in which data are analysed and presented can influence policy and priorities. For example, the emissions warming potential of a unit of beef estimated using GWP100 is three and a half times greater than when utilising GWP*. For this reason, our report recommends that
“the Government should … consider how additional metrics can be robustly employed at the sectoral and the business level to improve understanding of the UK’s emissions”
and
“move towards unilaterally implementing an auxiliary metric to better reflect the warming impact of methane”.
However, in their response to our report, the Government remained unconvinced on fully supporting the use of GWP* to assess agricultural emissions, which I regret; I think that it has a role to play in understanding the problem we have.
A second metric of importance is methane intensity—that is, the amount of methane or its CO2 equivalent per unit of productivity. Data based on FAO figures show that, for example, a kilogram of protein can be produced from cattle in the UK at a quarter of the CO2 equivalent emissions of the global average. In general, although our beef and dairy industries are significant emitters of methane, they are lesser emitters compared with other countries from which we may import beef and dairy products. The issue of importation is particularly relevant in relation to the recent US-UK trade agreement, for example, and other agreements to be negotiated; our Select Committee report makes these important points very clearly.
I turn to mitigation, where there is good news. There is a lot more that we can do in the UK to further reduce methane emissions from our ruminants. We have some of the world’s best experts in methane monitoring and abatement, as we have heard, and we have highly innovative and progressive farmers. However, as our report highlights, the Government have a role in setting this as a priority for agricultural support. It is regrettable that the sustainable farming incentive has been paused, especially since the Agriculture Act 2020 explicitly provided that, in the transition from the CAP, the Secretary of State could support climate change mitigation measures.
This is not just about finance, although that is important. Much could be achieved by the Government setting clearer goals, providing consistent advice and technical support, and encouraging peer-to-peer knowledge transfer to address methane emissions and to ensure that all of our farmers are adequately equipped with both knowledge and a desire to something about it. In their response, the Government acknowledged that there may be benefits to a targeted approach for agriculture to better incentivise methane reductions; we look forward to seeing evidence for this. Most measures to increase productivity will reduce emissions per unit of production. Improved health and disease control, smarter management such as reducing calving intervals, nutritional measures and breeding for reduced methane emissions—methane output is a heritable trait—are all achievable means that increase profitability and productivity, as well as reducing methane emissions per unit of production.
With reference to breeding, new genetic technologies, as provided for in the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, could rapidly advance progress. As was referred to earlier, feed additives such as Bovaer show promise. This product has recently been approved for use in the UK by the Food Standards Agency, and I note that some governments in Europe already subsidise farmer application of this product.
The Dairy Demonstrator project—now branded as the UK Dairy Carbon Network and launched in February by the current Government—will include support for participating farms to investigate and trial various emission mitigation methods. It is to be welcomed; I congratulate the Government on that.
Substantial improvements in endemic disease control —for example, better application of current vaccines—are technically possible now that we have the necessary products to improve emission intensity. The introduction by the previous Government of the animal health and welfare pathway is to be welcomed; it can make a positive difference.
Impacts on slurry and manure cannot be ignored as they are responsible for about 7% of the total anthropogenic methane emissions and affect all livestock species. A number of abatement technologies are applicable, including covering slurry tanks and anaerobic digestion of the waste. Given that farms are often small or medium enterprises, major capital improvements require co-operation among farmers—and, probably, some financial support—but those investments could yield significant benefits in reducing methane release.
In conclusion, in the UK, ruminants fed mainly on grass in one form or another produce healthy and nutritious food but also about half of all of the UK’s anthropogenic methane emissions. However, the estimate of the warming potential of these emissions varies by more than threefold depending on which metric is used. Moreover, current data show that greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production for both beef and dairy are substantially lower in the UK than most other countries. However, there is much that we could and should still do to reduce our methane emission intensity. In many cases, the technology exists but there needs to be consideration of cost-benefit ratios to achieve full implementation.
The bottom line is that we must guard against destroying our own livestock industry, which is relatively environmentally efficient, and the inevitable consequence: importing more meat and dairy produced with poorer environmental efficiency and greater emissions elsewhere.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I had the honour of joining the Environment and Climate Change Committee just as it embarked upon this inquiry into CH4, which, as we heard from many of our American witnesses, is something called methane.
Let me share a useful analogy with noble Lords. In January 2020, I attended the Oxford Real Farming Conference, where one of the seminars discussed methane emissions and cattle. Methane was like the school bully who, on your first day at school, punches you in the face: Christ, it hurts, but you soon get over it. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, was more like a malevolent teacher who takes an instant dislike to you on day one and plagues the rest of your educational career throughout your time at school.
We should be proud that our country has led the world on methane reduction; indeed, between 1990 and 2020, we reduced our methane emissions by 62%. Currently, the UK is responsible for just 1% of global emissions—and falling, albeit slowly. That is about 1.5 megatonnes of methane. China is responsible for nearly 70 megatonnes, and rising fast.
Before I go any further, I should pay tribute to our wonderful clerks, who, as our chair elaborated, had to change. They were always professional, hard-working, diplomatic and ready to listen to committee members’ suggestions as to who might be invited to give evidence as expert witnesses. This is an important factor because, too often, it is tempting for clerks to invite those who make the most noise: lobbyists and activists; or, perhaps, their own kith and kin, in the shape of civil servants in government departments whose work is centred around the inquiry’s subject matter. Of course, for obvious reasons, it is essential to invite academics who study the said subject.
Make no mistake, I am very happy to listen to all of the above; indeed, their evidence was essential. However, sadly—for it is often they who can provide the solutions—all too often it is the people who do not get invited who are those folk at the sharp end: the practitioners. They are the people who actually undertake the work, and whose experience of what works and what does not is the most valuable.
I was very grateful to the clerks and the chair, who supported my suggested witnesses, often from the private sector, agriculture and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, particularly Professor John Gilliland, who is an innovative farmer in Northern Ireland. I state my interests, as set out in the register, as a regenerative farmer and landowner in north Norfolk, with a large herd of suckler beef cattle and the ownership and management of the largest, and arguably most important, national nature reserve in the country, Holkham NNR. I shall return to that at the end.
As agriculture is the largest source of domestic methane emissions in the UK, at 49%—and is the sector I understand most—I shall limit my comments to this area. Some 85% of these emissions come from the enteric fermentation process within a cow’s stomach. For the sake of clarity, the vast majority of methane is emitted from the front, not the back, end of a cow, and then a further 15% is emitted from slurry manure. As our chair has mentioned, it is also important to note that we are harnessing methane very successfully in agriculture through the increasing number of anaerobic digesters in the UK, which mimic a cow’s stomach on a much larger scale, capturing the methane and pumping it into the national grid. Crucially, given what happened in Spain recently, this provides a baseload form of energy supply.
It is important to note that globally between 1990 and 2020 it is believed that agricultural methane emissions increased by approximately 12%. Most of this came from less developed countries where populations have increased rapidly and where a gradually improving economic situation has increased the demand for meat in people’s diet. The inquiry looked at various solutions for reducing emissions. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned diet, feed additives, such as Bovaer, and cattle health, which are very important. Two weeks ago, on a field trip to the Netherlands for our nitrogen inquiry, we saw some really good manure and slurry management which reduces methane emissions.
I have difficulty with the recommendation to reduce the number of large ruminants—by that, obviously, I mean cows. It is true that in the West and the emerging East we all eat too much meat, but we get into very dangerous territory when we start telling people how much meat they can eat. We should, of course, try to educate people on these matters. We must also question the figures emanating from the UN on the standard UN cow used in all methane calculations. A feedlot Hereford bullock eating a diet of maize is very different from an extensively grazed Galloway heifer eating grass all its life, which itself is very different from a Brahman cow in India. There are huge differences in diet, size, length of life and doubtless many other factors. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, made very important points regarding the differences between GWP100 and GWP*.
It is also true that Henry Dimbleby, in his national food strategy, showed that the total biomass of farmed animals has increased by a huge factor since 10,000 BC, when only 2.5 million humans were a tiny proportion of the total biomass of wild animals. That was at the start of the Holocene epoch, when global temperatures entered an unprecedented period of stability and agriculture became possible. Today, the combined weight of all livestock bred for human consumption dwarfs that of the combined weight of all wild mammals and birds, and even adding the combined weight of the now 7.8 billion human population and our domesticated animals, such as pets and horses, it is still much smaller than that of the livestock that we are producing for human consumption.
We clearly have a number of problems: a burgeoning population, leading to a problem of how to feed the world, which we are pretty good at—although we are doing it in perhaps too intensive a way that is not helping biodiversity, et cetera; some of the food is grown in the wrong place; and we have plenty of inequality. Some 50% of the world’s habitable land is put down to agriculture, but of that, 77% is down to either livestock or, pertinently, the production of crops to feed said livestock. In the UK, that figure rises to an astonishing 85%, according to Dimbleby’s food strategy report, although that is partly down to our hilly topography, high rainfall in the west and our temperate climate, which promotes exceptional grass growth. Let us not forget that well-managed, diverse grasslands are very effective carbon sinks, pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and sequestering free nitrogen in the ground. Grassland is an important tool in the fight against climate change, and we should be careful when we recommend excessive tree-planting schemes— I apologise for the slight diversion.
With regard to methane emissions from cattle, we heard from some eminent academics who favoured beef cattle reared in huge feedlots in the USA and Australia, suggesting that because they were being reared on protein-rich diets and thereby putting weight on quicker, and thence being taken to slaughter quicker, over their shortened lifespan they emitted less methane. That is true, but only in isolation. Where did all that food come from? I have just mentioned the percentages of land use—vast acres growing cereals and maize in the USA, and vast quantities of soya being imported from South America. All those feedstuffs are grown with huge tonnages of nitrogen artificially produced using the Haber-Bosch process, which is heavy on energy consumption, with resultant carbon dioxide emissions leading to excess nitrogen pollution, the subject of our current inquiry. Some 50% of nitrogen applied to fields is lost through leaching into watercourses and into the atmosphere. Further, all are cultivated with large machinery emitting another pollutant, nitrous oxide.
In Britain, where we rear beef cattle for human consumption, the vast majority of animals are extensively reared outdoors for six to eight months when the grass is growing, which is all they eat during that time. Hardier breeds such as Belted Galloway, Blue Grey and Highland cattle spend all year outside. They are an essential component in the carbon cycle and the facilitation of healthy biodiversity.
I return to the nature reserve and the cattle. At home, we have to manage the NNR within strict parameters given to us by Natural England. Yes, the cattle are emitting methane while they chew the cud, but they are also chomping the grass to the correct sward lengths—through careful management as to how long they stay on a particular freshwater marsh, how much grass they eat and how low they eat it to—by which these differing heights and conditions of grassland allow a rich assemblage of differing visiting breeding birds, such as waders, waterfowl and raptors, including marsh harriers, to breed. Of course, their muck returns natural nitrogen to the ground, among other organic matter, and provides essential habitat for dung beetles and all manner of insects at the bottom of the food chain to breed, thereby starting the whole cycle over again and supporting all life.
As we are learning in our current inquiry into nitrogen, reducing emissions is a complicated job. If one concentrates too hard on one reduction, then the law of unintended consequences often leads to an increase in another area.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to be a member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee under the excellent and expert chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. I joined the committee just as the report was being finalised, so I regard myself as a methane learner rather than as a serious contributor to this excellent report. However, I was struck by two things. The first, as some others have mentioned, was the sheer potency of methane, which is 80 times more potent than CO2 but with a much shorter lifespan, remaining in the atmosphere for around 12 years compared to CO2 remaining for up to 2,000 years. This means that curbing methane production is a highly effective way of reducing global emissions overall, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has eloquently said.
The second striking point was how much methane emissions had already been reduced in this country and how much harder it will be to reduce emissions in future—hence the report’s title, Methane: Keep Up the Momentum.
As for our recommendations, I want to focus on only two things. First, I really do think that it would help if the Government were to publish a methane action plan in order to show clearly, both here in Britain and to others, our determination to take the necessary action. It disappointing that the Government have rejected that recommendation. Can the Minister confirm that the updated plan for carbon budgets will set out in detail key methane policies for the period up to 2030?
Secondly, we must do all we can to encourage other countries to reduce methane emissions. In particular, it is disappointing that, since the 2021 Global Methane Pledge was launched under the UK’s COP presidency, global methane emissions have continued to rise; and that the 2021 methane pledge looks increasingly unrealisable. Reversing this trend will be all the harder now that the Americans have left the field; indeed, at times, they seem to be tearing up the pitch. The Minister will, I hope, confirm that the UK will reinforce its efforts to persuade others to honour their objectives, working with like-minded nations and groupings—including the EU and New Zealand—in particular at COP 30.
I shall now focus on a slightly broader point. The overall context for countering climate change has become quite a bit bleaker since we wrote our report. Wars proliferate. The United States has, as I said, left the field. But the challenges are as difficult and important as ever. The Climate Change Committee’s recent assessment that the UK’s preparations for climate change are inadequate gives us all at least pause for thought. I hope that the Minister will give us his views on that assessment as he winds up. In a democracy, it is never easy to take tough decisions now to benefit future generations, but that is the responsible thing to do. Future generations will not look kindly on us if we fail. Can the Minister confirm that the Government remain utterly committed to reaching net zero by 2050 and to meeting the new target in this year’s nationally determined contribution?
I have one final point to make. This morning, a friend asked me what I was going to do today. I said that I would be speaking in a debate here in the House of Lords on methane. “Oh God, how boring”, she said. I disabused her, of course, but she hit on a rather crucial point. There is a huge gap between the readily understandable goal—cooling the planet over the next 50 years or so, saving millions of lives—and what are for many people the numbingly boring details needed to achieve that goal, including aerobic digesters and changes in cattle feed, important though they are. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will do all they can to close that gap and, in their communications, to link the measures with the goal?
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. I thank the committee’s chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for all her work in steering the committee through this inquiry and for her excellent introduction to the debate. I also thank the committee and its staff, who worked really hard to produce an important report that sheds light on an important and often underappreciated facet of climate policy.
Methane is actually a really interesting technical problem due to its impact across many sectors and one that the UK has had considerable success in tackling, as other noble Lords have said. Given the comprehensive remarks from other noble Lords, I will focus on only a few areas.
To begin with, it is worth restating some of what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said about metrics and measurements: they are central to the consideration of methane because of its nature as a flow gas rather than a stock gas. If a constant amount of methane is being emitted into the atmosphere, the warming impact will be a one-off hit. To a first approximation, the methane breaks down in the atmosphere as quickly as it is being replaced over the medium term. This is different from the nature of CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for centuries, and therefore warming will increase over time for a constant source of emissions.
This leads us to problems with trying to apply a global warming potential to methane as a comparison to CO2 by using a single metric, which has been the approach undertaken so far. Currently, the UK uses Global Warming Potential 100—GWP100—which is a comparison over a 100-year horizon. Analysing methane using this metric leads to a GWP of 28 for methane; in other words, it has 28 times the warming impact of CO2. However, this figure misses the complexities in methane being a flow gas rather than a stock gas. It is worth restating what Professor Myles Allen said during our inquiry, that
“expressing methane emissions as a carbon dioxide equivalent using GWP100 overstates the warming impact of a constant source of methane by a factor of three to four and understates the impact of any new methane source by a factor of four to five”.
That illustrates that having a more nuanced view of the impact of methane emissions than GWP100 is critical for policy-making. Factors of three to five are not small discrepancies.
How the UK responds to climate change depends on a balanced assessment across emissions sources, so having a true understanding of the actual warming impact of emissions is vital. It is for that reason that the Select Committee recommended, in its recommendation 7, that the UK should unilaterally implement an auxiliary metric to better reflect the warming impact of methane and help shape effective policy in the UK. In my view, this is the key recommendation of the report, on how we view that data and how we look at those metrics. I hope that the Minister and his team can look again at the recommendation for an auxiliary metric, which would help us respond to the challenges around methane and other gases by ensuring that they are balanced effectively.
My second point is about regulation. We heard witnesses describe the complex picture around methane regulation, with overlaps between four separate regulators—the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, the North Sea Transition Authority and the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning—which cover agriculture, waste management and oil and gas. That is a complex regulatory picture, and in our questioning of the regulators we uncovered overlap and areas that are falling in the gaps between the regulators.
A good example of that is the Environment Agency. Witnesses from the EA stated:
“To be absolutely clear, we have no statutory duty around methane”.
It was clear from their evidence that this is a significant gap and affects how the sector is regulated. Looking more widely, this also chimes with the excellent Corry review recently commissioned by the Defra Secretary of State, which recommended that the statutory duties, principles and codes of Defra regulators should be consolidated to a core set, reflecting the Government’s priorities. If the EA and other regulators had a clear net-zero duty, this would provide important clarity and close gaps in the regulation of methane. It would also have wider benefits across the sector; for example, by streamlining the build-out of clean energy infrastructure. Can the Minister say what consideration the Government are giving to the important area of consolidating the regulators’ duties? This builds on the work that was done on Ofgem under the previous Government and through the Energy Act 2023.
The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, talked about complexity. My final point is about the importance of bringing in a systems approach to net zero to ensure that all departments and regulators are fully joined up in pursuit of this goal. Some important steps forward have been taken in this area, particularly in energy, but a 2020 report by the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, Achieving Net Zero Carbon Emissions Through a Whole Systems Approach, remains as relevant as ever. As well as recommendations on duties for regulators, as I have touched on, it includes proposals for an operational group to drive delivery across government and departments and, on the data side, for the establishment of an analytical hub. The methane issue, touching as it does many sectors and areas of the economy, is an excellent illustration of why a systems approach is required. I urge the Government to return to some of the points in the 2020 report to ensure joined-up delivery in this space and to build on the great progress being made.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in the gap. I congratulate the committee on its report and the chair on her opening speech and on securing the debate.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Jay, I am a methane learner. I remember first discovering its importance in the late 1980s, when I talked to Sir Jack Lewis, who had been appointed by Mrs Thatcher as chair of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and who later became a Member of this House. It struck me at the time that this concentration—80 times, as has been mentioned several times—was very powerful stuff. I think it is a 45% reduction that would help meet our Paris climate change target of 2030.
On the other hand, I am encouraged by some recent research. Last year, I came across something by Professor Vincent Gauci of the University of Birmingham. Apparently, microbes in tree bark in the world’s forests absorb much more methane than previously thought. Tree bark has previously been overlooked for its climate contribution. Apparently, if all the tree bark in the world was laid flat, it would cover the surface of the earth, so it represents a vast area for gas exchange between bark and atmosphere.
Scientific research these days is often about vast quantities of data generated in a wide variety of areas, of which climate change is one. Last Friday, I happened to visit the Harwell Space Cluster. Believe me, the sheer amount of data it deals with from earth observation satellites is phenomenal, as I am sure the Committee will appreciate. I make the point to my noble friend the Minister and others that it is vital to continue to collect this data. I will direct my remarks towards chapter 3 of the committee’s report, recommendation 7 and the Government’s response to it.
Ordinarily, to say something like “collect the data” would be neither unusual nor particularly interesting. However, we live in a time when things are changing. On 16 April, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced a whole list of datasets regarding ocean monitoring that will be removed by the middle of this month. On 23 April, the BBC reported:
“Swathes of scientific data deletions are sweeping across US government websites—with decades of health, climate change and extreme weather research at risk. Now, scientists are racing to save their work before it’s lost”.
This is a tremendously important point. I can give the Committee further examples. Apparently, somebody researching the history of the Greenland ice sheet is afraid that all the data related to it will be deleted by the American authorities one way or another. It may be that the data shows a different pattern of Greenland’s ice sheets in the past that would affect our calculation of the future.
My time is almost up, so my plea to my noble friend the Minister is that, when he takes part in discussions with other countries on behalf of the British Government—I believe there is a UNFCCC conference in June 2027 on the horizon—he will do everything he can to ensure that we continue to collect the data without which debates like this are not possible and without which we cannot measure and make the progress we need to make on climate change.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, before I start my speech, I will reflect the comments that we have just heard. I did not manage to get into the noble Viscount’s Oral Question today, but I am deeply concerned about what the Americans are doing to the fundamental scientific basis for our understanding of climate, so I echo those comments.
As a member of this Select Committee, I speak in support of the report, and I thank our excellent clerks and researchers and everyone who made it possible, including our witnesses and our chair. If the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is a climate methane learner, at times I felt like a methane mediator. This was a difficult report to get over the line, but I am very pleased that we managed to do so. I also thank the Government and the Minister for their response. I note that we have a shared ambition in this area, if somewhat different approaches.
I will speak on the need for urgency in the global fight against climate change and on the need to buy time in our fight for survival, which can be brought about only by cutting our methane emissions now. I want to see the Government become the global champion that the pledge deserves. The UK has a real opportunity, having joined Brazil in co-chairing the Climate and Clean Air Coalition. The one thing that we do not have is time. As Bill McKibben has said:
“If we don’t win very quickly on climate change, then we will never win … It’s what makes it different from every other problem our political systems have faced”.
As we have heard, methane is the second-most significant greenhouse gas. While it has a short lifespan— I like the analogy between the bully and the teacher—compared to carbon dioxide, its potency as a heat-trapping gas is far greater: it is some 80 times more powerful than CO2 over 20 years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said, in that way, it is a devastating gas. Methane emissions contribute to one-third of global warming. Tackling methane is rightly recognised as one of the fastest and most cost-effective ways to limit the near-term global temperature rises.
Professor Forster, in his evidence to the committee, said that such actions
“could lower the trajectory of global warming from 0.25 degrees celsius per decade to 0.1 degrees celsius”.
Cutting methane emissions rapidly does not just limit future warming; it slows rates of warming over the coming decades to buy time to implement the deeper and far more complex decarbonisation actions that we must take. Methane cuts are essential in reducing the immediate, devastating and costly real-world impacts of extreme weather and crop loss that we face now and will experience much more going into the 2040s. We have no other policy options to buy time—this is the only one.
The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, said that we should rightly be proud of what the UK has achieved to date. We achieved a 62% drop between 1990 and 2020, a larger percentage than any other OECD country. The UK rightly played a pivotal role in the Global Methane Pledge at COP 26, where 150 countries signed up to reduce their methane emissions by 30% by 2030.
I welcome the Government’s engagement with our recommendations—that is beneficial. The Government point to the existing delivery plan for carbon budgets and the framework for tackling methane. They highlight ongoing work across sectors and are leveraging the UK’s expertise internationally. However, our report argues that the Government must go further if the UK is truly to solidify its role as a global leader and champion the methane reductions required. The Select Committee recommends publishing a dedicated UK methane action plan providing clarity and focus for all sectors, including sector-specific targets and plans. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, it is disappointing that the Government have disagreed with this recommendation, saying instead that they are covered in existing budgets. While methane is indeed part of the broader net-zero strategy, the unique nature of methane and the opportunities it presents warrant a specific, transparent and dedicated plan outlining priority actions, costs and benefits.
I will just say a quick word specifically about the sector. Farming is now the key sector: it is the largest UK source, contributing half of all our methane, 85% of which comes from cattle. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, farming is perhaps more exposed than any other sector in the UK. Indeed, as we move forward, we have very difficult choices ahead. It is important that we have a balance in these things, but there are certain quick wins that we can do. We need slurry management, selective breeding and the farming and food road map. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, farmers have the knowledge but need the power to do something about this.
In our energy sector, we are wasting enough energy from venting and flaring to power 700,000 homes. Venting and flaring need to end. I point out the recommendation for urgent transparency and accountability in these sectors.
Turning to waste, we need to do more and make sure that we have food collection across the country and enough anaerobic digesters to make that target a reality. We need to do more on landfill and about the fact that waste crime is out of control in this country, with 18% of our waste ending up in the hands of criminals.
The Government mention the UK Emissions Trading Scheme Authority and are considering including methane emissions from the upstream oil and gas sector. This is welcome, but it is not the commitment needed to align with our international partners, who are developing robust standards, including for imports. Robust MMRV is critical for both domestic progress and international accountability. I hope that we will see a UK-EU ETS alignment soon and that the UK will meet EU standards in this area.
The report called for the UK to use its expertise to encourage the establishment of an international body to verify the methane pledge participants’ action plans. The Government’s response points to the Climate and Clean Air Coalition as being a well-placed body. We recognise that it is valuable, but we call specifically for a body focused on verification to ensure accountability and the transparency of data. Data from the UN’s alert system, highlighted at COP 29, showed a stark gap: more than 1,200 alerts about large oil and gas plumes were issued, but only 1% of those resulted in mitigation steps. Data is helpful but if nothing is done with it, it is no better than having no data at all.
The UK, having co-launched this, has a real opportunity. We should go beyond domestic action and do more in the international sphere. We should not be content with just keeping our work at home. We now have 25 satellites orbiting the world; super emitters have nowhere to hide. Abating leaks needs to be done on an international scale. As somebody in the UN said:
“It’s plumbing. It’s not rocket science”.
Abandoned fossil fuel infrastructure now emits more methane than Iran and is fourth-largest global source. The International Energy Agency’s Global Methane Tracker 2025 report, just issued, shows that global methane emissions are stubbornly high. There were nearly 120 million tonnes of methane emissions in 2023, and the global energy sector may have emissions that are 70% higher than officially reported.
I call on the Government to do more with our international oil and gas expertise, particularly in leak detection and repair, and to do more to help countries that are struggling to repair their leaks. This is one way in which the UK Government could demonstrate their leadership in this area and provide a very useful source of help to the globe.
To conclude, a dedicated methane action plan is necessary for clarity and focus, particularly for harder to abate areas. I call on the UK to go further and really be the true champion this treaty requires. Deploying our technical expertise to help identify and fix large leaks internationally is a powerful example of how we can drive action, slow the immediate pace of global warming and keep up the vital momentum on this crucial climate issue.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, on securing this debate, and all members of the Environment and Climate Change Committee on their excellent report Methane: Keep up the Momentum. In particular, we on these Benches appreciate the detailed and pragmatic approach and the opportunity to learn so much about methane emissions and management.
I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to my register of interests, in particular as an extensive grazing-based dairy and stock farmer and an investor in Agricarbon, Circular Algorithmic and Data Systems, Cecil Earth, Valaris and Noble Corporation.
The issues of methane emissions and their continued rise have been ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lord, Lord Jay. I fully associate myself with those remarks but do not intend to repeat them.
We on these Benches understand that environmental responsibility means striking a balance between affordability and necessity. For Governments and individuals to have a realistic probability of success in preventing greenhouse gases causing disastrous climate change outcomes, we must forget pursuing fantasies of the perfect with high-cost, headline-grabbing technologies and instead make pragmatic, and affordable choices every day using cost-effective solutions and innovations.
This is why we welcome the committee’s emphasis on such practical strategies to reduce methane. We also welcome the opportunity to reflect on how we as a country can go further by building on past achievements, supporting innovation and placing trust in our industries, farmers and communities.
The UK has made remarkable progress. Since 1990, we have reduced our methane emissions by more than 60%. This is more than almost any other major economy. That achievement should be a source of national pride. In fact, as president of COP 26 , the UK played a central role in launching the global methane pledge, an international effort to reduce global anthropogenic methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030.
Domestically, we have led by example in key areas. In energy, we have seen methane leaks from oil and gas production reduced significantly through strong collaboration between government and industry and through smart, proportionate regulation. In agriculture, we have introduced initiatives such as the slurry infrastructure grant, helping farmers reduce emissions while continuing to feed the nation and remain globally competitive. In waste, we have seen dramatic reductions in landfill methane emissions, largely thanks to better waste processing, energy recovery and recycling infrastructure. We must sustain this momentum, and there are several areas where action is clearly required.
The agriculture sector is now the UK’s largest source of methane emissions after the reductions achieved in other sectors, primarily from livestock and manure. The committee rightly highlights the potential of innovation; feed additives, selective breeding—accelerated by precision breeding as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, highlighted—and improved animal health all offer effective ways to reduce emissions without cutting production, but we must be clear: our farmers are not the problem. They are stewards of our land, providers of our food and vital players in restoring nature and reducing net greenhouse gas emissions. We must not burden them with unrealistic or punitive targets. Instead, we must provide them with the tools, certainty and support they need to innovate and invest.
Farming is a business, and like any business, it must remain viable if it is to be sustainable. We must be careful not to place the blame on farming for global warming, when farmers are simply responding to economic pressures from their customers for wholesome, affordable food. Any measures that we require farmers to take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to higher food prices and these have to be affordable for hard working families. We must also be careful not to place our farmers at a competitive disadvantage to overseas farmers, as this will simply lead to a greater reliance on higher emissions, lower cost imported food and undermined viability for our farmers, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, warned.
The NFU has outlined the importance of promoting sustainable practices, and many farmers are ahead of the curve, but they need clarity. They need policy frameworks that empower rather than restrict and financial incentives that are practical and accessible. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and his comments about assessing the holistic farm picture, including carbon sequestration when calculating the net farm greenhouse gas emissions footprint. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, highlighted with the bark example, this is still likely to be inaccurate as science is still developing.
On the oil and gas sector, we on these Benches believe in an affordable energy transition, incorporating continued development of our own gas resources in order to make energy bills affordable for consumers, restore our industry’s competitiveness and reduce our dependence on imported energy. We must ensure that any such development is done with best practice around management of methane emissions, including restricting flaring and venting. Our North Sea energy sector has led the world in technology adoption. For example, our offshore wells have been hydraulically fractured or fracked since 1980, and we can do so again in methane management.
Our energy sector has already reduced methane emissions by 70% since 2002, including a 48% reduction in flaring since 2018—remarkable achievements. Given how clean our North Sea fossil fuel sector has become, I ask the Minister whether it is better to continue to develop our oil and gas resources, rather than import dirtier products from overseas. I also heartily endorse comments from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, in his call for more digestate gas entering our gas network.
We need better data and more accurate emissions accounting. It is clear from the comments of Professor Hamburg that we in this country have world-leading expertise in monitoring and evaluating emissions, putting us in a strong position to drive international understanding. This means embracing a dual approach that many Lords have mentioned, including both GWP100 and also GWP*, which better reflects the warming profile of short-lived gases such as methane. It also means recognising the nutritional value of food and the central importance of cheap energy to our economy, alongside their carbon footprints. We must not fall into the trap of measuring environmental impact in a vacuum, neglecting wider considerations like food and energy security, affordability and trade competitiveness.
We must avoid adopting ideological arguments and look to pragmatic, evidence-led decision-making. The reduction in methane emissions should be achieved not through arbitrary targets but through investment, innovation and science-based policy. On reading the report and listening to noble Lords in this debate, I was particularly struck by the opportunity that we have to share best practice and technology that we have learned and developed since 1990 with other countries. The Green Alliance highlighted the opportunity in Latin America to help shape its policy on landfill gas capture. I ask the Minister what this Government are doing to promote the export of our expertise to these other countries.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the emissions trading scheme. I should strike a note of caution in the desire to include methane within the ETS, as its shorter duration is unlikely to fit comfortably with the persistence of carbon itself. In a way, we are talking about two different things and it becomes a confusing picture if we put methane into the carbon trading system. I am most interested in the Minister’s view on this matter.
In conclusion, the committee’s report is not just a reminder of what we must do but a testament to what we have already achieved and a call to build upon that success. Methane mitigation is not a fringe issue; it is central to achieving our climate goals. It is an opportunity to protect our environment and support our economy. I commend the committee for its work and urge the Government to act with clarity domestically and with energy internationally.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. Like members of the Grand Committee, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for initiating the debate and her chairmanship of the Environment and Climate Change Committee. The committee’s report on methane emissions has shed light on one of the most pressing challenges we face in the pathway to net zero. I thank all noble Lords who took part in the production of the report, as well as those who participated in this well thought-out and thorough debate.
I go back to the beginning, the noble Baroness’s speech, when she referred to the outcome of the Select Committee report as being a message of hope. I agree. I should also go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and other noble Lords pointed out about the reduction in methane emissions, which must be counted. While there can never be complacency in this area, this has to be counted as a significant achievement by this country.
I also accept the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, that we need to keep up the momentum. As noble Lords have said, the science on this is unequivocal: methane is responsible for almost one-third of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. However, as the noble Baroness explained, it remains in the atmosphere for only a fraction of time—approximately 12 years. Therefore, reducing those emissions is one of the fastest ways that we can avert one of our most acute climate change risks and keep the Paris Agreement in reach, which is a fundamental global challenge that we face.
The independent advice from the Climate Change Committee ahead of our next carbon budget sets a cross-economy pathway to reduce emissions, including measures that contribute to the reduction of methane emissions. We are considering the recently received Climate Change Committee’s report and we are bound to respond by summer 2026.
Let me make this clear. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked whether we are absolutely committed to net zero. The answer is yes; we have to be: the science about the impact of climate change is so convincing. We have to stay determined. One of the tragedies of current political discourse is that there have been so many attacks on net zero. The ludicrous idea that the measures being taken on net zero have led to damage to our economy is so nonsensical, because the one thing on which I am clear is that the big issue on energy prices has nothing to do with the policies that have been taken on net zero but everything to do with our vulnerability to the international fossil fuel market.
In February, the CBI produced a report on what I think was described as the green economy. A 10% increase in the green economy in 2023 compares to a very modest increase generally, and nearly 1 million people are employed in the green sector overall. One can make a very convincing argument that investing in net zero, which we have to do, is actually a way to kick-start growth in the economy. We have this mission statement and I have taken part in a number of cross-government discussions over the last few weeks: the Government are absolutely committed. I take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, that we need a practical approach to making progress, but there cannot be a let-up in the drive to net zero.
This is the context in which we need to consider the recommendation of the committee to which noble Lords have referred and the question of an action plan. It is obvious that the response given in our written report is disappointing, and I am sorry that I am not in a position to overturn that in the light of your Lordships’ contributions. However, we basically believe that this is covered in our existing delivery plan for carbon budgets. The point I make is that carbon budgets are the very engine room of our pathway to net zero. We are absolutely committed to including key methane policies in the carbon budgets plan, covering the period up to 2030, which will contribute to the Global Methane Pledge.
Under the Climate Change Act, legally binding carbon budget targets require domestic reductions across all greenhouse gases, including methane, to keep us on track to meet net zero. As I have said, we are committed to a progress report in relation to the fourth, fifth and sixth carbon budgets, and we have just received the advice from the Climate Change Committee in relation to the seventh carbon budget.
On the EU and UK trading emissions system, at this stage all I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that we understand the importance of what he is saying. We are in discussions at the moment, but I am afraid that I cannot go any further at this point.
We had very interesting insights into agriculture. It is the largest source of UK methane emissions, and we were treated to expert interventions from my noble friend Lord Grantchester, the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, who all made important points. I very much take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the impact of measures on food prices. This is clearly a tension that Governments have been facing for many years, which also relates to the issue of welfare standards, as well as comparisons between this country and others, and it feeds into discussions on trade. It is a very difficult and challenging issue.
It is right to place on record my gratitude to the National Farmers’ Union for its valuable contribution to the Select Committee. I certainly appreciate the efforts of farmers in this area and find no attraction whatever in a punitive approach. When I was a Minister in Defra—I had a joint ministerial job across Defra and DECC, as it was called in 2008—I took part in discussions with the NFU on reducing emissions in the agricultural sector. I think it is right to say that it gladly took part in those discussions, and that co-operation has continued.
We are committed to introducing a land use framework, which will make environmental land management schemes work for farmers. Defra is also looking at a number of other measures to reduce emissions from livestock, alongside the upcoming food strategy and farming road map. I am afraid that I cannot give a definite date to the noble Baroness, but we think that this will be a credible plan to reduce food and farming emissions by working closely with stakeholders.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, made a number of comments about accurate reporting, and other noble Lords added to those discussions. There was reference to recommendation 7, in which the Select Committee asked the Government to move unilaterally to an auxiliary metric. It also asks us to play an active role in international discussions as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change considers the need to review those common metrics by no later than 2028.
There are two points to be made here. It is clearly important that we have international reporting and that there is consistency in that. I take the point that some noble Lords here are critical about some of the standards of that reporting. However, I say to noble Lords—including my noble friend Lord Stansgate—that we will take an active role in UNFCCC discussions on common metrics. The agenda item will be continued in June 2027, and we will continue to be led by the best available science and international consensus. I have taken note of a number of comments made today by noble Lords.
On my noble friend Lord Grantchester’s comments on the dairy demonstrator project, I cannot go further than our response to recommendation 12. However, that project has now commenced, following the signing of the contract, and we will obviously watch its progress with a great deal of interest.
On the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, I take his point about the important role that anaerobic digestion has to play in meeting net-zero goals. We think that, with the right standards of controls in place, it presents opportunities for improved nutrition management, nutrient management and a nutrient circular economy. There are, as he knows, challenges in relation to the risk of improper management, which can lead to issues with environmental risk. However, we certainly think that it has a role to play, and I will take note of the noble Earl’s comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, made a number of interesting comments too. I was especially interested in the points he made about regulators. Clearly, in a field where a number of regulators come into play, the key is to make sure that they work together and that there is no overlap or duplicated approaches. We have announced plans to conduct an internal review of regulations and regulators at Defra, which should help the noble Lord in that area.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, on fossil fuels and the role of the North Sea, that clearly this has been a crucially important sector of our economy for many years. We still have many highly skilled people working there, but we lost 70,000 people in the last 10 years under the previous Government. It is called a super-mature basin, and it is declining. Oil and gas have a role to play in the future, but we are right to go for a balance between different technologies. The emphasis we are making on nuclear as a baseload and putting huge effort into renewables, while having gas as a strategic reserve, is the right way to go forward.
On venting and flaring, which noble Lords have raised before both in the Chamber and here, my understanding is that the regulator is already taking action to increase transparency and accountability. In March 2024, the North Sea Transition Authority published its emissions reduction plan, requiring industry to reduce flaring and venting.
I am not sure for how long I am allowed to speak here, but I will just turn to international leadership. Noble Lords have said that the UK is in a great position to exercise international leadership, and I agree with that prospect. It is on a par with the country being the first major colony to establish a net-zero target in law, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady May, for her leadership, which her party unfortunately seems to have forgotten in its fast retreat from net zero. I regret that, because the loss of consensus is a serious matter for the country and the future. We saw that at the local elections recently, during which net zero was attacked by some political parties.
It is important that we maintain our leadership. During the COP 26 presidency, as the noble Baroness said, we were one of the first countries to join the Global Methane Pledge. We are stepping up our efforts to deliver on the pledge through funding to support developing countries. We were one of the 30 signatories to the Declaration on Reducing Methane from Organic Waste at COP 29. Now, of course, we are thinking about COP 30 in Brazil, which is only a few months away, and we are working very hard with the COP 30 presidency, as noble Lords have suggested.
From the Government’s point of view, this is a very interesting report. I know that noble Lords are disappointed with one or two of our responses, but the overall response accepts that this is a thoroughly prepared and researched report. As the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, said, the witnesses came from a wide variety of backgrounds. It is clear that the committee had to give a great deal of thought to the recommendations; we should acknowledge that. We accept the core thrust of the report. Although I have disappointed noble Lords again tonight in relation to the action plan, there will be no lack of action by the Government in responding and in making sure that we make progress on methane reductions, but we think that the carbon budget process is the right way to go forward.
In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for what has been a really fascinating and helpful discussion; I can assure noble Lords that it will inform policy development in future.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I thank all contributors for their valuable and well-thought-out responses to this report; they are very much appreciated. I expected no less from my esteemed colleagues on the committee because their participation in the discussions, as well as the engaged way in which their contributions were made during our deliberations, left me in no doubt that we would have a very good debate today.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for his contribution in the gap. His point—and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jay—about the disturbing international scenario in which we now find ourselves will prove a challenge in terms of tackling not just methane emissions but carbon dioxide emissions. I was a bit heartened by China’s recent announcement that it will not ease up on its efforts to tackle climate change. Indeed, at a UN summit as a precursor to the COP 30 meeting, it announced that its NDC, which will be due some time before COP 30, will encompass sector-wide emissions across the economy; that was heartening to hear. Not only will they cover the whole economy: they will cover all greenhouse gases, including methane. We will wait with interest to see the detail.
I will not detain noble Lords too long—I am sure that we all need to move on—but I stress the need for better communication to farmers, which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned. There was consensus on this from the NFU, the Nature Friendly Farming Network, and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. Without farmers on board, we will not get to grips with methane either at home or abroad.
I am not going to go into detail on the other contributions, save to say that I was heartened by what I heard. Let me just leave noble Lords with the thought that carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere. The Mauna Loa Observatory—I hope that NOAA does not get to erase all this data—has been monitoring carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. It has not been monitoring it for the past 800,000 years, but we have data from ice cores in Antarctica that shows that from a steady baseline of 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide before the Industrial Revolution, we have seen, in terms of ecological time, a straight-line increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide to today’s average of 426 parts per million.
We are in uncharted territory, so tackling the short-term but powerful greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are our route to avoiding some of the disastrous tipping points that we are otherwise hurtling towards. We have an opportunity to buy time, and we should take it. I beg to move.
Police, Prison and Probation Officers
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woodley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the morale, recruitment and retention of police, prison and probation officers.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
I know that noble Lords will join me in paying tribute to the amazing work of police, prison and probation officers, and to the importance of our recognised trade unions in representing them. The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, which placed a huge burden on our staff. I am committed to making HMPPS a world-class organisation, and I know my Home Office colleagues are working hard to give police officers the support they need to tackle crime and keep the public safe.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response. In a civilised society, our police, prisons and probation services must never be run on the cheap. Crumbling prisons and shortages of prison and probation staff are endemic. Therefore, does the Minister agree that it was a terrible mistake by the last Government not to protect these vital public services, which are so important to protecting the public, when they unleashed their short-sighted and counterproductive austerity agenda?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
It is clear that we inherited a mess from the previous Government, with a prison system on the verge of collapse and decimated neighbourhood policing numbers. This Government took decisive action to alleviate the immediate capacity pressures and are committed to making sure that this situation never happens again. That is why we published the first annual statement on prison capacity and a 10-year prison capacity strategy, and commissioned the Independent Sentencing Review. This Government are also taking steps to rebuild neighbourhood policing, which is why we have made £200 million available in 2025-26 to support the first steps of delivering 13,000 more neighbourhood policing personnel.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, last week the Minister promised a “seismic shift” to improve professional standards across the Prison and Probation Service. He described reports of bullying, discrimination and harassment as
“a wake-up call and an opportunity to change”,
and we agree. Retention rates are very bad: 10.4% of probation officers are leaving annually. For Probation Service officers, who include assistants and trainees, it is over 12%. They have too much to do, often with little experience; 7.8% of prison officers leave every year. Low morale is a major contributor but so are pay and conditions, given the challenges they face. What extra resources will the Government put into recruitment and retention in those services?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Last year we recruited 1,000 extra probation officers, and this year we are recruiting 1,300. It is clear that it is not just about recruiting staff and training them; it is about embracing technology to help them do their jobs better. Last week we announced that we would agree to all 12 recommendations of the Rademaker review, and we are very grateful to one of HMPPS’s non-execs, Jennifer Rademaker, for all the work she did on it. It is totally unacceptable that our staff have to work in conditions where they are bullied, belittled and sexually harassed, and as Minister I am determined to stamp it out. Retention rates are not where I would like them to be. I am working very hard to make sure that HMPPS is a world-class organisation. That means high rates of training, high rates of morale and high rates of success.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, the Ministry of Justice reported a 12.5% leaving rate among band 3 to 5 prison officers for the year ending December 2024. Considering that the number of new recruits decreased by 35.4% during the same period, will the Minister explain what practical steps the Government are taking to improve both recruitment and retention among prison officers?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The latest figures are that we have 97% of the number of staff we need in our prisons, but clearly we still have a bit to go. Also, a number of those staff are yet to be fully trained and in the right place. Before I was asked to come and do this role, I did a full review into the training of prison officers. I am fortunate that it is more likely to happen now I am in this role, because training is a big part of the reason why some of our staff leave too early. We want to make sure that people build their whole careers in the Prison Service, because the skills they learn—those soft skills about how they speak to prisoners and offenders—really make the difference in helping turn someone’s life around.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, the Police Service of Northern Ireland currently has an all-time low of 6,300 officers. The chief constable is seeking approximately £200 million additional funding to increase the headcount to 7,000 in 2028. While I acknowledge that responsibility for funding the PSNI is devolved, national security is clearly the responsibility of His Majesty’s Government. Given the specific threat from republican terrorists to police and prison officers in Northern Ireland, does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on UK Ministers to step forward to bridge this funding gap to help keep these brave men and women safe?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am pleased to say that we as a Government are putting an extra £1 billion into policing, which will go a long way to addressing the neighbourhood policing issues that we have discussed.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, last week I observed the intensive supervision court in Birmingham, where women serving community orders for low-level offences are closely monitored by judges. Probation staff play a pivotal role. It is clear that the work is high and intense. What steps are the Government taking to urgently ensure that problem-solving courts have the best chance of succeeding—and, indeed, other creative community proposals that we hope will come out of the Independent Sentencing Review?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I hope we will not have to wait too long for the Independent Sentencing Review; I may need to ask some noble and learned Lords about what the exact dates are. The best day I have had in this job—and I have had lots of really good days—was going to the intensive supervision court in Birmingham. It was incredibly uplifting seeing female offenders coming up from the cells in the morning looking very ill and then seeing how the lives of those who have been engaging with the intensive supervision court for six months have changed. But they knew that they had to engage with probation, housing and often drug and addiction work—and, if they did not, they went to prison.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Government and congratulate them on the re-establishment and re-emphasis of neighbourhood policing. The running down of neighbourhood policing was a terrible mistake by the last Government. Will my noble friend the Minister accept that neighbourhood policing is not just an essential element of effective policing but crucial to the confidence that the public have in the police service, because they can see police on the beat and in their own neighbourhood?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Neighbourhood policing is the bedrock of British policing, and it is the right model for us. We lost 20,000 police officers under the last Government, but we expect up to an initial 3,000 neighbourhood officers in neighbourhood policing roles by the end of next year. Every community deserves visible, proactive and accessible neighbourhood policing, with officers tackling issues that matter to people.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, as I am sure the Minister will know, police services countrywide struggle to recruit members from the black and ethnic-minority communities, and that is mainly because of the very low level of morale among black serving officers. What work is the Minister specifically doing to support the morale of those police officers?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am pleased to know that we have a race action plan that we are working with police constables; it is really important that we recruit fantastic people and make sure that we represent the communities we serve.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, the Minister said that there was an extra £1 billion coming into policing this year. However, not one penny of that £1 billion will go to Northern Ireland because policing is a devolved matter. Given that the Northern Ireland policing budget is significantly eroded by paying out for dealing with legacy in Northern Ireland, when will the Government create ring-fenced funding to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland, which will then allow Northern Ireland’s police to serve the community in the way in which they wish—properly staffed and properly resourced?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I will pass that question on to the Northern Ireland Secretary responsible for legacy issues and write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are clearly taking all the issues across the criminal justice system very seriously, but does my noble friend agree that there is a slight risk that not everything will be dealt with entirely coherently? Does he agree with the many voices in this Chamber and beyond that what is really needed is a royal commission on the whole criminal justice system, as promised by the last Government but not delivered?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
We are a Government of action and I am a Minister of action, and I am already getting going. For me, it is really important that we have had the Independent Sentencing Review, which I hope we will be talking about shortly, and the Leveson review is ongoing. Those are significant reviews, and we will implement those reforms quickly.
Uncollected Financial Penalties
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to deal with uncollected financial penalties such as fines, costs and confiscation orders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, it is essential that financial penalties are collected and enforced. His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service uses robust methods to do so, including taking money from an offender’s benefits or salary and seizing and selling goods. Offenders can be sent to prison for non-payment to the court. In 2023-24, HMCTS collected over £671 million in financial penalties. The Government are investing in the replacement of outdated IT systems and are also planning legislative changes which will reform the confiscation order regime.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer, but in March 2024 there were £4.4 billion-worth of unpaid criminal court fines, compensation orders, victim surcharges, et cetera. Does the Minister agree that steps should be taken urgently to deal with this unacceptable situation, which is grossly unfair on those who pay up and feeds scepticism in the judiciary and society at large about the effectiveness of non-custodial sentences?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that supplementary question. Of the £4.4 billion that she referred to, £2.7 billion is from confiscation orders. Of the £2.7 billion, £1.2 billion is purely interest—interest is paid at 8% on the confiscation order amount. There are legislative changes in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently in the other place, but I think it is worth pointing out to my noble friend that, in existing legislation, there are only very limited circumstances where a Crown Court can judicially cancel an order, and it contains no powers to administratively cancel a confiscation order. That means that the confiscation order amount accrues over the years, including the interest. With respect to financial penalties, by which I mean fines, the picture is very different. Over a five-year period, 80% of all fines are collected, and that figure has remained flat over the last few years. While I accept that the overall number is increasing, that gives an unfair picture of the current situation, and the Government are addressing the reasons why that is an unfair reflection of the position.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, it has always been a challenge to collect fines, because they are often imposed on people who cannot pay them. One of the areas in which progress can be made is criminal assets. This is usually around organised crime, which is motivated by profit. What I think the enforcement agencies have not invested in—and I invite the Minister to inquire—is having forensic accountants, who are people who can trace assets in often complex financial arrangements. At one stage, the NCA had one, as did Police Scotland. Can the Minister find out, or tell us, how many forensic accountants there are? People may not know, but the police can keep half of the cash they seize and 15% of other assets that are confiscated—not for themselves—
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
This is not for themselves but for the purpose for which they were formed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is worth saying that, if somebody fails to pay a fine and they are imprisoned for that failure to pay, then the fine is written off. However, if somebody fails to pay a confiscation order and they are sent to prison, the compensation order amount is not written off. They are different. The other point worth making goes to the point that he made about the work of forensic accountants. A lot of the assets which confiscation orders are applied to are hidden assets, so there is an estimate—an informed guess, if I can put it like that—of the amount when making that confiscation order. Nevertheless, I take the point that he makes in his question. If I can add anything on the number of forensic accountants available to give advice to the court, I will write to him.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that embassies across London owe a total of nearly £150 million in unpaid fines and charges? Obviously, under the Vienna convention, embassies are exempt from taxes but not from these fines and charges. What will the Government do about it?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
What the Government will do is write to the noble Lord. After much time in this House, I know that this issue comes up very regularly. If there was a simple answer to that question, I am sure it would have been found. Nevertheless, it is a real issue. It undermines confidence in the parking fines system, and it undermines confidence within the wider community if certain groups are not paying their fines. It is a serious issue, and I understand that. If there is more I can say, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, many financial penalties go uncollected. Does the noble Lord agree that we are, in respect of such offenders, imposing far too many financial penalties? Should we not be making more use of community service and the probation services in those cases where there is no hope of collecting payment?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
It is an interesting question—one which I used to grapple with regularly when I sat as a magistrate in Westminster. The noble Lord is asking that the sentencer increase the sentence from a fine to a community order, increasing the sentence for certain people who are unable to pay their fines. It may be that this is taken into account when sentencers make that judgement, but it is an inflationary—if I could use that word—solution to a problem. Nevertheless, of course, when sentencers impose fines, they have to take into account the means of those whom they sentence.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, there is £5 billion-worth of bitcoin cryptocurrency in government accounts seized from organised crime relating to Jian Wen. Please allow me to repeat that: £5 billion that is in the Government's bank account. I ask a similar question to the one that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, posed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer four months ago: what are the Government’s plans for this windfall?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I do not know the answer to that question. If the £5 billion is in the Government’s accounts, I do not know how free they are to use that money. If there is anything more I can add to that answer, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, when my noble friend writes to the noble Lord opposite about unpaid parking fines by embassies in London, would he also write to me and include in my letter the details of unpaid congestion charges by embassies in London? That is an amount that has escalated almost out of sight. As the noble Lord opposite has said, this is not a tax; it is a payment for services provided in London.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Yes, if I am able to find those figures, I will indeed write to my noble friend.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, since 2018 only seven unexplained wealth orders were issued, and not a single penny of wealth has been recovered since 2019. This seems to undermine the Government’s offensive against unexplained wealth’s illicit financial flows. Can the Minister explain whether anything has changed since the Criminal Finances Act was introduced in 2017?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. The figures he quoted reflect how difficult it is to track down the money when criminals are hiding it. It takes hugely intensive work, and it is something I have personally received presentations on. The issue is one of resourcing to a certain extent, but there is no lack of will to pursue criminals who have unexplained wealth. They need to be tracked down and charged as appropriate.
Scientists: Working in the United Kingdom
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to encourage scientists from around the world to do their research and associated work in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
The UK has a world-leading science base, supported by some of the top universities and research institutions, and offers prestigious fellowships and professorships through UKRI and the national learned academies. As the immigration White Paper sets out, we will now go further in ensuring that the very highly skilled, including top scientists and researchers, have opportunities to come to the UK and access our targeted routes for the brightest and best global talent. We will set out more details in due course.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I like to think that my noble friend the Minister’s Answer does not go quite as far as he personally would want it to. In America, the Trump Administration are mounting an attack on universities and scientific research. That is a matter for them, but for us it offers an unparalleled opportunity, and we must grasp it. Can the Government not develop proposals that would attract, encourage and facilitate not only talented individuals but whole research groups, who could come to do their work in universities around the UK? Does my noble friend not agree that this would offer the prospect of a brain gain of immeasurable potential for our future growth?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. We have always been the beneficiaries of brain gain; we have been attractive to top-class overseas researchers for many years. Indeed, about one-third of our Nobel prize winners are first or second-generation immigrants. For 2025-26, UKRI has roughly £770 million for talent funding, of which £170 million is for future leader fellowships. There is an opportunity, as there always is, to attract people from overseas to the UK, both individuals and groups; indeed, there are mechanisms in place to do so. I am looking very carefully at what further mechanisms can be put in place to make sure we remain a country that attracts the very brightest and best.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s immigration White Paper, as the Minister said, expresses the ambition to attract top global talent, including scientists. However, measures such as the increased skills charge, alongside high UK visa costs and the challenging context of flat cash real-terms cuts in core research funding, create barriers to recruitment. The Government seem not to be very clear whether they want to attract international scientists or not. Do we not need a proper long-term plan with increasing investment to maintain the UK’s research leadership and attract talent?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The current SR period has £20.4 billion for R&D, which is the highest amount there has been. Of course, a proportion of that is about talent attraction. The talent attraction announced in the White Paper was geared towards the global talent visa—the level of highly skilled people who can bring great value added to this country. The desire is to increase the threshold for the skilled worker visa to aim for more qualified, more talented people. On the high-talent end of the system, there are clear measures in the immigration White Paper to try to get those systems to work better and faster. The cost of visas and the health surcharge is now met on UKRI grants and on Horizon Europe grants.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
The Minister will have sensed the widespread support for the Government’s plan to launch an initiative in this field. Can we have a date on which this is going to be published, and clarity on whether it will target American academics, who have become very unsettled by the assault on academic freedom in the United States? Can he also tell us whether the Prime Minister’s recent announcement on immigration will have any adverse consequences for what was originally planned?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As I said in answer to an earlier question, I am keen to make sure we have a robust system to attract the best talent from all over the world—this is not targeted at any particular place—and I will make announcements about that very shortly. In the immigration White Paper, the routes for a global talent visa are specifically pulled out as ones that will become easier. They will be facilitated to make this happen, as will those in other highly skilled areas. There are measures in the White Paper that make that easier for the highly skilled individuals we need both for the research sector and, indeed, the tech sector and companies.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend is aware of the large number of charities that support research that brings overseas senior academics to the UK. I mention the Royal Society Wolfson Fellowships; Weizmann UK, which brings scientists from the Weizmann in Israel to the UK; and a large number of others. They contribute enormously to our science space.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. He is quite right; there are a number of schemes from charities and, indeed, as I have said, from the academies. Over £200 million of funding goes to the national academies to support their core activities. The vast majority of that is spent on research and talent schemes. Some £400 million was given to the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering as an endowment for their specific fellowship schemes—the Faraday Discovery Fellowships, and, for engineers, the Green Future Fellowships. There are many charities that also contribute, and we are fortunate in this country to have charities, including the Wellcome Trust, that provide substantial funding for fellowship schemes.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, other countries have been quick to act decisively in the light of the Trump Administration’s severe cuts to US science budgets. Is there not a real danger of the UK falling behind? Should this not be addressed very urgently?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I reiterate the point I made: it is very important that we make schemes available to people from all over the world; it is not about targeting a specific country. We will do so, and we are working on schemes to make attractive offers both to individuals and to groups. This is an important area. There have already been many approaches to universities for people who want to base themselves here, and it is important that we have a system that is sustainable and effective, making sure that researchers can work in what is a world-class system in the UK.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, whether they are homegrown or imported, it is clear we are increasingly going to need more researchers in this country. Equally increasingly, we are competing internationally for research talent. What, therefore, is the Government’s assessment of our overall net attractiveness to researchers right now? How do the Government propose to monitor this going forward and adapt as needed?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
An estimated 17% of R&D workers in the UK in 2023 were non-UK. In that year, 7% were EU nationals and 10% were non-EU. In the university sector, about 37% at the top research and teaching universities are non-UK nationals. About 25% of the life sciences workforce was born outside the UK. The noble Viscount is quite right that there are many people we need here. We have always needed them, we will need them, and we are monitoring very carefully how these numbers are evolving.
As part of the immigration White Paper, the labour market evidence group is being set up—comprised of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, the Department for Work and Pensions, Skills England and the Migration Advisory Committee—to make sure that we have a clear view of future needs.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that the graduate route, which was established some years ago and provides universities in the UK with academic talent and scientists from other countries—I think particularly of Queen’s University Belfast, which is assisted by students and scientists from south-east Asia—is not minimised or undermined in any way?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. In answer to the first part, I can confirm that the Minister sitting next to me heard that, so the Home Office will be aware. The graduate visa system is an important system. The changes in the immigration White Paper effectively reduce from 24 months to 18 months the amount of time a graduate has after finishing their course to get a job. The reason for that is clear: to try to make sure these people get jobs that are highly skilled and that they can continue in, rather than jobs that are not highly skilled.
This is an important route. It is worth noting that in 2023-24, the number of graduate visas increased by 49%. This has been a rapidly growing area. It is important that we make sure we get this right and that these people enter high-skilled jobs.
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the proposal by the government of the United States for a Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as an independent means to provide humanitarian aid in Gaza.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interests as shown in the register.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, it is clear that there is a desperate urgency to get humanitarian aid into Gaza. As the UN has said, it is hard to see how the proposal to distribute aid through private companies would meet the scale of the need, protect civilians, protect aid workers and be consistent with humanitarian principles. The UN and humanitarian NGOs have worked with courage and determination to deliver aid into Gaza since the conflict began. These organisations uphold humanitarian principles and can deliver assistance across Gaza to those who need it most.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. It is a little disappointing to hear that she does not join me in welcoming this proposal, which should help at least 1.2 million people initially, and then up to 2 million later, to receive humanitarian aid under an independent mechanism. Does she agree that bypassing Hamas to prevent it hijacking the aid is important, especially in the light of UNRWA’s failure to do so and reports such as that from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which shows that exploiting hijacked aid has generated at least £500 billion for Hamas’s terrorist operations?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the blocking of aid into Gaza by Israel has caused enormous suffering. We are aware of the allegations she refers to that Hamas uses humanitarian aid for its own gain, and we have encouraged Israel to share the evidence with the UN and with NGOs. We have not seen any evidence that there is systematic diversion to Hamas and, given the ongoing hostilities, we are unable to verify allegations through direct monitoring. We ensure that all mechanisms are in place for UK-provided aid. The situation is dire; one in five people faces starvation. Aid is available to get into Gaza now if we can unblock those routes. The surest way through is to have a ceasefire, release the hostages and get aid in now. That is essential if we are to protect and save lives.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, is my noble friend the Leader of the House in a position to remove the veil from the recently formed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation? It is less than two and a half months since this company was put together. Can she tell us which private contractors are being set up to take the place of the United Nations and its partners? Are they capable of providing not just the scale but the diversity of aid that the UN and its partners would be able to provide to the Gazans if the Israelis lifted their blockade?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not able to satisfy my noble friend on those points; I do not have that information. We have urged the Israeli Government to share that information, because it would be very difficult to make an assessment. We stand ready to work alongside Israel, the UN and our partners to ensure that aid is delivered, but we have to ensure both that they have the expertise to get the aid in and the safety of the aid workers. Over 400 aid workers have died providing humanitarian aid. It is the most dangerous part of the world to supply aid to and in which to be a humanitarian worker. We should express our gratitude and the debt we all owe to those who put their lives at risk to help others.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, is it not plumbing the depths of immorality for the women and girls of Gaza, who have had such brutality inflicted on them, now to submit to the indignity of having to queue up to profiteering mercenaries hired by a shadowy organisation established in Switzerland, which will operate under no humanitarian standards or international mandate and with no accountability mechanisms whatever, to receive sanitation, food, water and medicine? What are the Government doing to stop this terrible idea?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
At the moment, it is an idea. We have seen no evidence that it will go forward. However, the noble Lord is right that humanitarian principles of delivering aid must be consistent across every area in which that aid is being delivered. Today, we are convening the UN Security Council in New York—it is probably meeting now—to look at what can be done to deal with the appalling humanitarian situation in Gaza.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the simple, straightforward solution is for the hostages to be released. We can see with our own eyes that the hostages are among the least well-fed people in Gaza. Why are the Government always so quick to believe Hamas and United Nations organisations? Why do they not share the widespread scepticism about Hamas, which is stockpiling the aid and preventing lorries going in? Why do they not note how UNRWA has been infiltrated by Hamas?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I hope that the noble Baroness heard one of my first comments, which was about the priority of getting the hostages out and released. Recently, Eli Sharabi was released; he was a shadow of his former self. There is a lot of suffering—by the hostages who have been kidnapped, the families of those who were killed on 7 October and the people of Gaza. The crucial thing is to get the aid in and the hostages out. Only if there is a ceasefire can we then talk about the future and see what else can be done for a long-standing peace.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Last week, the Palestinian Authority declared a famine in Gaza. It was caused not by a flood, by a drought or by any natural causes; it is entirely manmade. I welcome what the Lord Privy Seal said about the conference being held next week. Can the UK Government ensure that we point out that aid workers are already on the ground in Gaza who have been working for years, ceaselessly, to help the Palestinians, and that they should very much be part of the solution?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Delivering aid and humanitarian aid is not something that you can do on a whim. These people are experienced, have knowledge and expertise and know the areas on the ground. I was not referring to the June conference but the one taking place today in New York, but the noble Baroness is right: there is aid there now. There is aid at the borders that could be delivered. One in five of the population now faces starvation. It is critical to get that aid in as soon and as quickly as possible. The quickest way to do so would be to stop blocking the aid so that it can be delivered to those who are in desperate, dire need of it.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, will the Leader of the House accept that the sidelining of trusted aid agencies and the militarisation of aid under this scheme will lead to large parts of Gaza, where the most vulnerable and least mobile people live, being without supplies?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend says that there is another scheme in place; I am not sure that there is. There are discussions about it, but I have seen no details. There cannot be any aid mechanism that does not have delivering humanitarian aid as its sole priority. It cannot deliver political or military objectives; it is there to help vulnerable civilians. That will be the priority. If there is not action almost immediately, more people will die. Women and children in Gaza face loss of life now. The figure that one in five people in Gaza faces starvation is horrendous. Yes, the hostages must be released, we must get aid into Gaza and that ceasefire must take place. Only then can we look at a longer timespan for peace in the region.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, one of the first things this Government did on coming into office was resume funding for UNRWA, which was suspended by the previous Government. This followed proven allegations that UNRWA employees were members of Hamas and participated in the 7 October massacre. Nobody disagrees with the idea that aid should get through to those who need it, but there are also proven allegations that Hamas has been stealing, diverting and hijacking that aid. Can the Minister assure the House that no British taxpayer’s aid has been diverted to Hamas?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, yes, we resumed funding to UNRWA for the very purpose of having people with knowledge and expertise on the ground to get aid in as quickly as possible to save lives. I said at the very beginning that, for all UK-funded aid, we look at every possible mechanism to ensure that it gets to where it is needed, which is to the most vulnerable. We will always do that, and we will do everything we can to ensure that.
Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the draft Order laid before the House on 10 March be approved.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 May.
Protection of Prison Staff
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, on 3 April, the Times reported that Islamist gangs had created gross dysfunction in HMP Frankland, in which a large number of convicted terrorists are held. Just nine days later, on 12 April, Abedi, the Manchester bomber, detained in the same Frankland prison, threw hot oil over a prison officer. Then, on 8 May, Rudakubana, the Southport killer, detained in HMP Belmarsh, threw boiling water over an officer there. Both those terrible attacks were by radical Islamists, in category A prisons. What steps will be taken to isolate such prisoners from access to such dangerous substances? Will tasers be issued in category A prisons, and when will stab vests be provided?
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, with a prison population at 98.9% of capacity last month, a 19% increase in the number of assaults on prison officers in the last year and a shortage of prison officers, that is a bagful of problems for the Minister. Does he have an emergency plan for these problems, and what will he do to ensure that our prison officers are safe and that there is a sufficient number of them?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
Like all noble Lords, I was shocked to hear about the serious assaults against prison officers at HMP Belmarsh and HMP Frankland. It is a sorry state of affairs. We will not tolerate any violence against prison officers. Prisoners who are violent towards of staff will face the full consequences of their actions. The incident at HMP Belmarsh is subject to a police investigation; as such, we are unable to comment further at any level of detail at this stage. However, in the past few weeks, since the recent serious attack at Frankland, we have announced a number of steps to improve prison officer safety, including trialling tasers, suspending the use of self-cook areas for certain prisoners and reviewing whether protective body armour should be made available to front-line staff.
We also have a zero-tolerance approach towards extremist gang activity in prisons. Staff clamp down swiftly on any threatening behaviour. Our staff turn up to work to help people turn their lives around, not to get assaulted.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
Prison staff work with a wide range of prisoners, from those who are the most violent to the many who are in prison for repeated low-level offending—many of whom have mental health issues and drug addictions—yet the training for prison staff is woefully short: a matter of weeks. I think that people would be shocked to hear how short that is. What is being done to expand that training and development so that staff not only feel valued but are equipped to deal with such a wide range of situations?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I share the right reverend Prelate’s interest in prison officer training. When I did my review into their training, it was clear that the period in which they have to learn the detailed and complex skills to do the job is too short. I have launched a trial in London called the Enable programme, where we are giving far more time to training. I believe that we should have a 12-month training programme rather than one of a matter of weeks. We should also give officers the time to learn the more subtle skills of being an officer. It is clear to me that one of the best ways to tackle the problems in our prisons and Probation Service is to ask the people who do the job.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, given that we all agree in this House that attacks on officers are reprehensible and cannot in any way be accepted, would it not be a regressive step to mass-provide further protective and defensive equipment for officers across the board other than the category A estate? As the Minister knows well, good relationships between prisoners and officers will not be enhanced if it is likely that defensive equipment will be used in situations where it is plainly unnecessary, and conversation can de-escalate tension?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend is right that the best way to de-escalate a problem in a prison is by jail craft—understanding the complexities and knowing your prisoners. If we look at the tools available to prison officers, we see that the best one is their mouth, but we also need to look at what we can do to protect our staff, because they need protecting in some of our establishments where they are dealing with complex and dangerous prisoners.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, one of the main causes of violence in prisons is the ready availability of illegal drugs. The Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State, stated the other day that it was her intention to try to rid our prisons of drugs by the end of this Parliament. Is that a realistic pledge?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that drugs are a massive problem in our prisons. Some 49% of people arriving in prison tell us they are addicted to drugs, and then we put them in a prison with serious organised criminals who make a lot of money out of selling drugs to them, so clearly we have a problem. However, I am interested not just in tackling drugs getting into prisons—how we tackle drones and illegal contraband coming in—but in how people can leave prison not addicted, so that when they leave prison they do not go back.
Lord Walney (CB)
These attacks were made by dangerous individuals who had been imprisoned because of their violent radicalism, but there remains the problem of radicalisation within prisons once prisoners arrive on the estate. What assessment has the Minister made in his early months of the scale of this within the prison system and the current level of resilience in what the state and prison officers can do to protect prisoners from it?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Any gang member is a problem in our prisons. We need to make sure that we identify where they are and do all that we can to limit their activities. We know that the best way of dealing with these complex people is by trusting the staff and their expertise at dealing with them, and we need to we give them every tool at their disposal to make sure that these people are not dangerous to themselves, to other prisoners and, most importantly, to staff.
Employment Rights Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(1) Statutory sick pay is payable by an employer to an employee—(a) at a rate of 60% of the employee’s normal weekly earnings for the first three qualifying days of any period of incapacity for work,(b) at a rate of 80% of the employee’s normal weekly earnings for subsequent qualifying days,subject to a maximum of £116.75 per week.(2) Subsection (1) applies regardless of whether the employee earns above or below any lower earnings limits that were previously set.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the rates of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP), providing 60% of normal weekly earnings for the first three qualifying days and 80% for subsequent qualifying days.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 71B and 75 standing in my name.
According to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics this morning, the number of payrolled employees fell by 33,000 in April, or 106,000 on the year, and the number of job vacancies also fell. Wage growth has slowed. This evidence suggests that the OBR was right and the provisions in the Bill are already creating a net negative impact. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s latest survey was widely cited at the weekend. It confirms that employers’ confidence is at the lowest level since the pandemic and that a quarter of employers are planning to make redundancies in the next quarter. The CIPD’s economist, Mr James Cockett, was quoted as saying:
“The Employment Rights Bill is landing in a fundamentally different landscape to the one expected when it formed part of the Labour manifesto in summer of last year”.
This picture was confirmed in KPMG’s and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation’s reports. Recruitment activity across the UK continued to weaken at the start of the second quarter. The chief executive of the REC, Neil Carberry, has said that
“it is time for real changes to address employers’ fears and boost hiring. A sensible timetable and practical changes that reduce the red tape for firms in complying with the Bill will go a long way to calming nerves about taking a chance on someone”.
Last week the noble Lord, Lord Fox, called for the Bill to go on vacation because we need to get it right. This raft of new statistics proves his prescience, and perhaps the vacation ought to be permanent. Instead, we are now being asked to consider further obligations on employers through changes to statutory sick pay. A number of businesses across sectors have made it very clear that, while they support the principle of statutory sick pay, they are concerned about the rate and structure being proposed. Many have called for the rate of statutory sick pay to be set at 60% rather than 80%, as a more sustainable and proportional figure. The Government claim to have consulted widely with businesses, trade unions and various stakeholder groups to try to strike a fair balance, but, based on the data and the concerns raised, we believe that the right answer, particularly for the initial days of absence, is 60%.
Let us look at some of the other evidence. In the British Chambers of Commerce 2024 workforce survey, a full 50% of respondents stated that they would be negatively impacted by the proposal for statutory sick pay entitlement from day one. That is a clear warning sign that the proposed structure may have unintended consequences. Further, in a survey by the London Chamber of Commerce, 38% of firms predicted that they would need to freeze hiring as a direct result of the statutory sick pay changes; 30% expected a reduction in profits; and 33% anticipated lower wage increases for their existing staff.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady O’Grady and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for their support for Amendment 72, and to the Safe Sick Pay campaign and the Health Foundation for their help. The amendment is a probing one, aimed at facilitating a debate about the future of statutory sick pay—from a rather different perspective than that of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom—to which the Bill makes very welcome improvements.
Nevertheless, the scheme will still fail to provide adequate protection in sickness, especially for workers on lower incomes and who belong to marginalised groups. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the rate of SSP prior to this year’s Budget and to ensure that no one is worse off as a result of the otherwise positive changes made in the Bill.
Starting with the latter, I very much appreciate the time that my noble friend the Minister gave me and my noble friend Lady O’Grady to discuss the unintended consequences of the Bill’s welcome removal of the lower earnings limit and its replacement by the rule that employees will receive 80% of their average weekly earnings or the flat rate SSP, whichever is lower. The problem is that this new rule means that a small number of low-paid employees will be worse off than now.
Because of the also welcome removal of the waiting period, the loss will be limited to those who have been off work sick for more than three weeks. According to the DWP, we are talking about 13% of all sickness absences. I accept that this is a small proportion, but, by definition, we are talking about people with more serious illnesses. In its fact sheet, the DWP itself gives the example of a cleaner, working 11 hours across 5 days at the national living wage, who takes three months off for cancer treatment and who would lose £65 in total in SSP. The DWP assumes that the cleaner could potentially make up some of that in universal credit, but what if the cleaner were married to someone whose wages are not low enough to qualify for UC? She will lose some of her independent income. While £65 may not sound like that much to those on decent incomes, it could make a real difference to someone on a low income, particularly where a worker’s earnings are not shared fairly within the family. It is women in particular who are likely to lose out as a result of this unintended consequence.
I understand why the Government have rejected the alternative that has been put forward hitherto, but I would ask them to look again at the proposal made by a number of trade unions and charities that the formula use a 95 % rather than 80% replacement rate, which seems to be the most straightforward way of dealing with this. I believe that it is incumbent on the Government to come up with a solution to ensure that no one is made worse off due to the unintended consequence of the otherwise positive change made by the Bill. After all, Labour’s plan to make work pay promised that:
“We will ensure the new system provides fair earnings replacement for people earning below the current rate of statutory sick pay”.
On the rate of SSP, the final report of the Health Foundation’s Commission for Healthier Lives noted that the expansion of SSP under the Bill
“does not address a fundamental issue: statutory sick pay remains too low to provide meaningful financial security during illness”.
Last year, the Work and Pensions Committee similarly concluded that SSP
“does not currently provide adequate protection for those who most need protecting from financial hardship during periods of sickness absence. It consequently fails to perform its primary function of providing a basic level of income protection”.
At £118.75, it represents an earnings replacement rate of only 19% for an employee on average earnings, or 28% for an employee on a full-time minimum wage salary, one of the lowest rates in the OECD. The interim report of the Mayfield Keep Britain Working Review pointed out that our European counterparts typically pay around 70% to 80% of an employee’s wage when they are sick. The low rate of SSP in the UK all too often spells real hardship and financial insecurity, especially for lower-paid workers, including women, disabled workers and members of racially minoritised communities.
Analysis by Citizens Advice shows that four out of five households in the bottom three deciles would not be able to afford essentials such as bills and food after four weeks on SSP. The Work and Pensions Committee noted that there was
“almost complete agreement among witnesses that it was too low and not enough to live on”.
This included 90% of members surveyed by the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals.
Cancer charities have pointed to how far cancer patients fall below the minimum standard needed to live a dignified life at a socially acceptable standard as measured by my colleagues at Loughborough University. In a briefing, the charities quote a patient with leukaemia who says:
“What people don’t realise is that your costs also go up when you get cancer”.
Going on to SSP meant a “ huge drop” in his income that he was not able to replace with benefits. The result was, he wrote:
“I was an emotional wreck and it was a very, very bad time”.
Mind found that two in three people with a mental health problem surveyed who received SSP faced financial difficulties and that over one-quarter specifically mentioned that relying on SSP had affected their ability to pay bills and buy food, which hardly helps their recovery. Indeed, three-fifths of respondents believed that the reduction in their income as a result of receipt of SSP had had a negative impact on their mental health. This is illustrated by a research respondent quoted by the Health Foundation:
“If sick pay had been enough, I think I would’ve been able to return to work, but instead my condition worsened drastically ... and I ended up in the worst state, mental health-wise, that I have ever been in, forcing me to claim PIP … and be unemployed for the past year and a half”.
The hardship associated with receipt of SSP, particularly for those on lower incomes, can result in presenteeism—people coming into work when sick and, where it is contagious, potentially spreading sickness. This is bad for them, bad for their fellow workers and bad for employers. According to government analysis, presenteeism costs businesses 44 days of lost productivity per year. Poor sick pay undermines the Government’s overriding objective of economic growth. Analysis by WPI Economics suggests that improved SSP could boost the economy by over £4 billion a year and would reduce the pressure on the NHS.
The Health Foundation warns that inadequate SSP can create an incentive for some workers to move quickly into the social security system without a clear route back into work, the very opposite of what government policies are trying to achieve. It points out:
“When workers are financially supported during sickness absence, they are more able to recover, take part in rehabilitation and return to work safely and sustainably”.
The implications of presenteeism became horribly visible during the pandemic, which, as my noble friend the Minister told the Committee only last week,
“exposed just how precarious work and life are for those on low incomes, with many forced to choose between their health and financial hardship”.—[Official Report, 8/5/25; col. 1789.]
Far too many people felt that they simply could not afford to stay at home when they were infectious. Countries with more generous sick pay saw higher isolation compliance and better health outcomes. We are told by the experts that it is only a matter of time until the next pandemic. One way we can prepare is by ensuring that SSP is adequate now.
This amendment merely asks the Government to look again at how to ensure that no one loses out as a result of the Bill’s welcome improvements to SSP, and to undertake a quick review of its level. I am sure this would be welcomed by a wide range of charities, the TUC and major trade unions, as well as the more than 185 parliamentarians who support the Safe Sick Pay campaign.
A New Deal for Working People stated unequivocally:
“Labour will raise Statutory Sick Pay”.
The amendment builds on the much weaker assurance in the Commons from the Minister for Social Security and Disability that the Government would monitor how effectively the Bill’s SSP reforms will support employees. We do not need monitoring to tell us that SSP is simply too low, especially in view of the recent Work and Pensions Committee inquiry. The Commission for Healthier Working Lives calls for a review that will result in an increase in SSP
“to a fairer level while giving businesses the time and support they need to adapt”.
I hope my noble friend the Minister will at least be able to provide some assurances on both issues.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 73 in my name regarding SMEs and an SSP rebate scheme. I have made a drafting error by calling it four days when it should have been three days, in compliance with the law today.
Occupational health is a key factor in both helping people to stay in work, to try to prevent some of the illnesses, and to get back into work quickly, and for some time it has been a key part of the strategy of a successful business to do that. But I am also very conscious that SMEs in particular are not always well displaced currently to access, which is why expanding that capability has been a key part of DWP’s more recent strategies, which the present Administration have continued.
Sickness rates are significantly lower in the private sector than in the public sector, but what is common to both is that there is an increasing prevalence of the primary reason for sickness pay: people being off sick due to mental well-being. I am conscious that this is often not an easy situation to challenge or interact with if you do not have the experience to do so, and that is why increasing occupational health is needed.
Why is occupational health so relevant to this? It used to be the case that with statutory sick pay you could reclaim from the Government the amount of money that you had paid out. You might have paid out a lot more—100% of earnings or similar—but all businesses used to be able to get a rebate for the statutory sick pay element. I know that because I used to fill out the claims myself when I was working in industry. Over time that was whittled down, and it was finally abolished in 2014. Instead, the Government at the time created the Health and Work Service, which was designed to be referred to by SMEs for people who have been ill for a few weeks—again, almost as a provision facilitated by government.
One of the challenges is that this is continuing to be part of an issue. Many businesses, particularly small businesses—certainly in submissions made to me—are particularly worried about this starting from day one of people being unwell. As a consequence, it is important that we should investigate the opportunity to get a rebate scheme for SMEs to try to keep the status quo as it is today.
It is in the interests of government to support SMEs. As we have already heard, the statistics show that, unfortunately, payroll employment is falling. When in office I was very pleased that we saw it increasing. Indeed, I am certain, in wanting the Government to succeed in their ambition to get to 80% employment rate, that they need SMEs to be taking on people to work. As I have explained, I do not think the Bill will help with that, but one modest way to go towards alleviating some of the issues would be to introduce a straightforward rebate scheme for SMEs.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I speak in support of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, and in support of more being done on statutory sick pay. I welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthen statutory sick pay by removing the lower earnings limit and the waiting period, but they must go further to ensure that people with mental health problems have a secure safety net when they need time off work, and a pathway back into work when they recover.
The UK has one of the least generous sick pay schemes in the OECD in terms of rates and length. It forces people to remain in work while they are unwell, which risks them becoming more unwell and eventually falling out of work. Because statutory sick pay is inadequate, people who rely on it often carry on going into work when they are unwell. This can risk them becoming more unwell, to the point where they fall out of employment altogether. We need a sick pay system that provides real security, is more compassionate, gives people the time they need to get better and supports them to return to work when they are ready.
Reforming statutory sick pay is beneficial to the economy, to businesses and to people with mental health problems. As my noble friend has emphasised, presenteeism—going to work when unwell—is costing UK employers £24 billion a year, according to figures produced by Deloitte. It reduces productivity and business competitiveness, as well as aggravating a person’s illness. Introducing a flexible statutory sick pay model that allows for partial payments alongside wages would help people to gradually return to work after a period of sickness, or allow them to reduce their hours when needed without being signed off completely. Not only is this beneficial for the employer, as employees are able to return to work sooner part-time, but it keeps the employee connected to their workplace and reduces the likelihood that they will fall out of employment altogether.
Extending the length of statutory sick pay being paid from 28 weeks to 52 weeks will enable more people to stay in employment, reduce rehiring costs for businesses and prevent people falling out of employment and needing support from the benefits system. Ultimately, we need to see a higher level of statutory sick pay, and I see no reason why, when you are sick, you should get any less than the national minimum wage.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my main concern with the changes to statutory sick pay in this Bill is the impact on smaller businesses, which is why I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which provide for rebates for SMEs. Of the two amendments, I prefer that of my noble friend Lady Coffey because it clearly undoes the harms that Clause 10 will cause.
I could not find much data on how much businesses actually pay in statutory sick pay, but I suspect that, unless an employer is unlucky enough to get an employee who has long-duration sickness, most will be paying relatively little at present, because absences are mainly for less than four days. What the data does show is that most sickness absences are for minor illnesses, which are unlikely to exceed three days. The average days lost per worker per year in 2023, which is the most recent data I could find, is just short of eight days. Among smaller and micro-businesses, that falls to around five days.
Extending the days for which payment is made is likely to increase the number of days lost to sickness, as the current incentive to work if the illness is mild will simply disappear. The Government say they have no idea what the behavioural impact of the changes will be—whether positive or negative—but I am prepared to bet that there will be far more short-duration absences, which will qualify for statutory sick pay, than there were before.
If I am right that most SMEs do not currently pay much in the way of statutory sick pay, the changes in the Bill will straightforwardly increase their costs. An average small business of between 10 and 49 employees has about 20 employees, which means that the average for a small business will be to pay for at least 100 days of sickness that they do not currently have, which would amount to around £2,000 in additional costs each year, even if no additional sick days were taken, which I doubt. That is not a huge amount per business, but it adds up to many billions of pounds across the whole economy. It also, of course, comes on top of the jobs tax and the very significant increases in the national minimum wage, which leads me to the likely real consequences of this change on top of the others. Put simply, SMEs will not hire workers unless they absolutely have to. We can already see evidence of that from the surveys of smaller businesses and in the weakening labour market—my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom gave us an up-to-date view on that. It is only going to get worse.
Furthermore, all those groups that we as a nation want to get back into work, in particular those who are long-term sick, will simply not be attractive to employers. Any hint of an illness record in a job applicant’s background will count against them, because no employer would want to take on the additional costs that would automatically come with that employee.
I am sure that I do not need to remind the Committee that SMEs employ nearly half the private sector work- force. A reluctance to hire among SMEs will kill growth and opportunities for many of the groups that we need to be employed in this country. There is a simple way to solve this problem, set out in Amendments 73 and 74. The Government would be wise to go down that route.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 71A and 71B in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Amendment 73 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, and Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for a rebate scheme.
Amendments 71A and 71B propose a sensible modification to Clause 11 and strike a more affordable approach for a business paying the employee for time not worked, as well as for the compliance and record-keeping involved. I say “more affordable” rather than “fair” because many businesses—particularly small and micro-businesses, as we continue to hear in Committee —will struggle to stay afloat and in business, given the juggernaut of additional costs, burdens and increased obligations imposed by this Bill. That includes those in this clause and those in previous clauses that we have discussed.
In Clause 11, such costs are to be imposed for those below the lower earnings limit, as we have heard, which will add to the extra costs paid by employers. They will potentially open further problems raised in the impact assessment, the modelling for which suggests a rosier picture for business than the available evidence warrants but also raises questions of behavioural response. Indeed, that consideration was a fundamental principle addressed in the welfare state proposals by Sir William Beveridge in his blueprint Social Insurance and Allied Services in 1942. The original National Insurance Act was framed as a contributory scheme with strict conditions on benefit to avoid creating perverse incentives.
The impact assessment for this measure—which models outcomes on the basis of a variety of factors, including some unproven assumptions—contends that there is evidence suggesting that overall sickness absence may be reduced but, on the basis of evidence considered from other countries, says that it is
“possible that regulation changes induce a behavioural response”
and that
“studies from other countries have found that the incidences of sickness absences are higher when sick pay is more generous. There could be an increased number of sickness absence days taken due to improved financial protection”.
We can read that in whatever way we like, and we have heard different interpretations of more generous statutory sick pay, but it is incumbent on the Government to return to some of the original principles in the national insurance system in this country and to think further about not creating perverse incentives. There will now be days for which the employer will pay for which there is absolutely no productivity gain.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendment 72, and I add my thanks to the Safe Sick Pay campaign, the Health Foundation and other organisations. I heartily welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to strengthening SSP by removing the lower earnings limit and the waiting period.
A nationally representative survey conducted for the TUC found that around half of employees get their full pay as usual when sick, but that around 28% were forced to rely on SSP alone. It also found a clear class divide when it comes to who gets what: eight in 10 of higher earners—over 50 grand a year—got full pay when off ill, compared with only one-third of lower earners.
The Covid pandemic exposed just how precarious life is for those in insecure, low-paid work, and we do not know how many preventable illnesses were caused by people struggling into work and spreading the virus because they could not afford to stay home. But we do know, as we have heard, that forcing people back to work when they are ill is bad for workers and bad for business, puts pressure on the NHS and is costly for the economy.
I am very grateful to the Minister for taking time to meet me and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to discuss our concern that the formula adopted by the Government could leave low-paid workers who earn just above the lower earnings limit worse off. The DWP’s answer has been that abolition of the waiting days before a worker receives SSP ensures that, for the first three weeks, those losses will be offset. But, surely, the policy intention of the Government’s commitment to abolish the waiting days is not to make up for losses caused by its own formula. The policy intention should be to ensure that every worker who relies on SSP is, in fact, better off, and we need to protect those on longer- term sickness who are, for example, receiving cancer treatment.
I note the Government’s concern that the formula must be designed in a way that avoids workers getting more in sick pay than they would in wages, and avoids a cliff edge. I remain unconvinced, however, that it is beyond the wit of the DWP to come up with an approach that protects that position without penalising a group of low-paid workers.
Secondly, as we have heard, this amendment seeks a review of the rate of statutory sick pay. As the Resolution Foundation has pointed out, unlike many other European countries, the rate is not linked to earnings. Currently at £118.75, SSP equates to 27% of the national minimum wage. In 1999, SSP was equivalent to 43% of the national minimum wage. That is a big drop. For a decade and more, SSP has failed to keep up with the cost of living or increases in the living wage.
The Work and Pensions Select Committee has confirmed that the SSP rate is not enough to live on. At the Covid public inquiry hearing in December 2023, Matt Hancock was quizzed by Sam Jacobs, who is counsel for the TUC. The former Health Secretary agreed that the rate of SSP should be higher. How could he argue otherwise, when the UK languished at the bottom of the OECD league for statutory sick pay under the previous Government and when we know that such a low rate of SSP is a danger to public health?
I understand that perfection must not be the enemy of the good, but an SSP rate that works out at around £3 per hour is some way short of either perfection or good. This amendment implicitly recognises that this woeful legacy of neglect in tackling it will not be remedied overnight. It would, however, be welcome if the Minister could reassure us today that both the formula and the rate of statutory sick pay will be reviewed before the Autumn Budget, and rightly so.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring interests. I am an employer, the founder of a listed business, MindGym, which is a behavioural science business, and an expert in corporate training to improve employee well-being and productivity. I am also a commissioner at the EHRC.
I support the Opposition’s amendments in this group: Amendments 71A, 71B, 73, 74A, 74B, and 74C. At the outset, I would like to note for the record that everyone here is driven by compassion for those who need protection. I pay tribute to the speeches by noble Lords from the Benches opposite, but I am very concerned about these proposals by the Government.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, for drawing our attention to the Resolution Foundation report, which has identified some of the points that support the amendments from this side of the Committee. I will return to those.
The Government have said on record that they want growth. We support that goal. They want businesses to succeed. We support that goal. They have also said on the record that they want to reduce the number of people who are out of the workforce on long-term sickness—currently running at 2.8 million. We support that goal. What we do not understand is how on earth the Government believe that this legislation and these proposals are going to achieve any of that. They are based in compassion, I have no doubt, but the Government are pursuing a culture of incapacity and dependency that will impede the stated aims.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I support Amendment 72 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which I and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, have signed. This amendment would require a review of the rate of statutory sick pay ahead of His Majesty’s Government’s 2025 Autumn Budget. It requires the Secretary of State to determine, following that review, whether the rate should be changed and to publish a Written Statement setting out the reasons for that determination.
It is important to remind ourselves what this amendment entails. As noble Lords are aware, statutory sick pay is a government scheme requiring employers to provide most employees in the UK who are absent from work due to sickness with a minimum level of pay during that period of absence. Statutory sick pay —SSP—is £118.75 per week, following an increase last month, which an eligible employee can receive for the days that they are ill and not working, except for the first three days of that sick leave. To be eligible, one must be classed as an employee and have done some work for the employer, earn at least an average of £125—previously £123—per week, and have been ill for more than three days in a row. It is only on that fourth day that they receive SSP.
The scheme as it stands is ineffective and causes hardship. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, according to the TUC, 28% of employees receive only basic SSP when ill, meaning that they are reliant on this very small weekly amount during that period of illness. The TUC adds that
“there are 1.1 million workers earning below £123 per week who are not eligible for SSP”,
with most of those workers being women.
Considering also the penalty of a three-day delay until an eligible employee can claim SSP, it is clear that reforming SSP is both necessary and overdue. I therefore welcome the provisions under the Employment Rights Bill that will see SSP payable from the first day of incapacity to work by way of Clauses 10 and 12, and the removal of the lower earnings limit—that is, the requirement to earn at least £125 per week—through Clauses 11 and 13. However, Clauses 11 and 13 also set in legislation that the rate of SSP will be set at the lower of £118.75 or 80% of the employee’s normal weekly earnings. That payment is extremely low by international standards, as we have heard from many noble Lords. It is one of the lowest rates in the OECD.
If you were to divide this amount by a typical 40 hours worked by full-time employees in a week, this would provide under £3 per hour to employees who are ill. Of course, many workers work more than 40 hours per week, decreasing this hourly amount even further. But in the context of rising housing costs, food prices, energy bills and household bills, such a small payment is inadequate to meet basic living standards. I ask your Lordships: do we believe that those people can survive on £3 an hour? That is an important question that we must consider when we look at this amendment.
In fact, in the context of universal credit, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that to afford the basic household essentials, a single adult requires at least £120 a week and a couple £205 a week. It is clear that a review of the adequacy of the SSP rate is crucial to ensure people are not plunged into poverty just for becoming ill, which is something that happens to all of us. Proposed new subsection (7), in Amendment 72, makes provision for the Secretary of State to ensure that no employee receives less statutory sick pay than they would have received before the Bill’s enactment, as a result of changes under Clause 11. This is important because according to the TUC, an 80% replacement rate as under the Bill will see 300,000 workers entitled to a lower rate of SSP than currently. Many of these individuals work for multiple employers, work part-time and receive low wages. According to the Safe Sick Pay campaign, three-quarters of those impacted will be women. Disabled people will be disproportionately affected, almost half of whom are aged between 20 and 54.
Using the SSP amounts in place before April, the Safe Sick Pay campaign outlined the example of an employee who will now lose out. That employee, working for multiple employers, earning £123 a week, would have received £116.75 a week of statutory sick pay because they earned above the lower earnings limit. Following the Bill as it stands, that same employee will see a 16% reduction in their entitlement and receive only £98 a week, as this would represent 80% of their earnings. Many workers, particularly those in low-pay positions, already struggle to afford the shortfall caused by SSP when ill. Increasing that shortfall will make it more unlikely that workers will have adequate savings to mitigate the loss of income. Proposed new subsection (7), in Amendment 72, provides a way for the Secretary of State to rectify this situation and ensure that no one is worse off as a result of SSP changes made by the Bill. It is vital that His Majesty’s Government do not intentionally or unintentionally cut sick pay for hundreds of thousands of workers.
I will now briefly turn to some of the other amendments and the debate on this group so far. Amendment 73 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, call for the establishment of a scheme for reimbursement of statutory sick pay costs incurred by companies with fewer than 250 employees. This is an interesting proposal, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, although we have yet to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the practicalities of such a proposal.
I feel very strongly that mental health is health, and that this is not just to do with those facing mental health conditions; it goes wider than that. It is important to note that this is about all workers who have been signed off from work; there are lots of different reasons why they might be ill, including those relating to mental health.
The aims of these amendments differ from those of Amendment 72, which seeks to address gaps in the Bill concerning adequate sick pay for workers—gaps that cause some concern, especially the consequential effects on low-paid workers. I hope that, in responding, the Minister addresses my concerns: the adequacy of the SSP rate as set out in the Bill; the effect on low-income workers, without relying on the welfare system to offset that effect; and whether His Majesty’s Government will commit to a review of SSP rates, so that workers are not punished by measures in a Bill which is expected to strengthen their workplace rights.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there have been some excellent debates in this group. I ask for some clarification, particularly from the Government, on something I am confused about. I am sympathetic to Amendment 74A. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, made a very useful and insightful contribution that brought another layer to the discussion. There is a danger of us talking about these things technically, yet in a rather old-fashioned way, when there is a lot more evidence and new phenomena to consider.
Amendment 74A looks at the impact on—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but we are not debating Amendment 74A. It is grouped elsewhere.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I have the right group; I have just said the wrong thing.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been a very interesting debate. I will try to reflect on what I have heard as I speak; that will make my job quite difficult and probably make my speech completely incoherent, but I will do my best.
We closed last week with a couple of de-grouped Conservative amendments. I promised to reserve what I would say on statutory sick pay for this group, which means that I am unlikely to speak on the next group. Last week the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, spoke firmly against the Government’s proposed changes. I have seen evidence of businesses arguing strongly either for the status quo or for a two-day threshold.
I am not a behavioural scientist, but I can read a room politically. The party that is sitting on a huge majority in the Commons has made it very clear where it stands on this issue, and that has been reasserted by some of the even stronger comments we have heard from the Benches opposite. Businesses have drawn the same conclusion. Many of those I talk to are seeking ways to ameliorate this, rather than eliminate it, which is probably unlikely.
I was interested to hear the noble Lords from the Conservative Front Bench speak to Amendments 71A and 71B. Their version of amelioration appears to be to reduce the amount of SSP, or at least severely limit it. We heard a different story from the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady O’Grady, who set out why SSP is important and why the rate is meaningful. To contextualise poverty, we are talking about the poorest people who are working people but still extremely poor. It is difficult to overestimate the generosity of this scheme, but that is what I have heard from several on the Conservative Benches. This is a very modest offer. With her statistics, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, set it out very clearly, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
Before I talk to my own Amendment 74 and Amendment 73, I will deal with the others. In Amendment 75, the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, call for a reviewer to report within two years. I mentioned there is a subsequent group which also has impact assessment amendments in it. I am not really sure why we are debating them separately. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I am going to mention 74A to 74C, which have been shunted into a separate group. Taken together, there is a slightly curious mismatch of timings: Amendment 75 is after two years, 74B and 74C after six months and 75A after a year. I agree that there do need to be impact assessments following whatever your Lordships decide, perhaps on a more systematic calendar than the ones suggested.
I am interested in the pre-emptive impact assessment. For the benefit of your Lordships’ Committee, it would be good to hear the Minister spell out the detail of the impact assessment of business on the current proposed measures. If, as the Minister says, the costs will be relatively modest, the costs of Amendment 73 or 74 would also be relatively modest, which takes me to the point in question.
As we have heard very eloquently from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, she and I have come up with very similar suggestions in terms of amelioration, which is what I was talking about earlier. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I slightly prefer the version from noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, but that is not the point—this is not a competition. We would like to sit down with the Government and thrash through a way whereby a rebate scheme can be reintroduced. This seems to be the sensible approach. We care deeply about SMEs—they drive a huge part of our economy. This is a way of making sure that they do not get disadvantaged as employees get what they deserve as SSP. That is what I am asking for from these Benches. Very sensibly, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Noakes, and others supported it. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a positive noise about that and we can sit down and have that conversation.
Today, we have heard that SSP is absolutely vital for a section of society who are already massively disadvantaged. We should not be drawing lines and pushing them further down. We should be finding ways of making sure that they are not disadvantaged even more and, at the same, we should find ways of making sure that our SME sector is not also disadvantaged.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a really good debate on these issues, and I hope that I can do justice to all the questions and points that have been raised.
I begin with Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, on independent reviews into the effects of SSP reforms on small and medium enterprises. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have already undertaken a regulatory impact assessment, which was published on 21 November 2024 and can be found on GOV.UK. This considered the likely direct business impact of the SSP changes, including on small and medium enterprises. In the regulatory impact assessment, the Government estimated that delivering these measures will cost businesses a modest £15 extra per employee. I assure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to monitoring the impact of these SSP measures. We intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill within five years of implementation. Additionally, the Department for Work and Pensions conducts regular employer and employee surveys and will continue to do so, providing further monitoring of the impact of the SSP changes on a range of employers and employees.
I draw attention to the Keep Britain Working review. We asked Sir Charlie Mayfield to lead this independent review, which will consider recommendations to support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces, support more people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence and retain more disabled people and people with health conditions.
While I am speaking about the variety of illnesses that people on sick leave incur, let me address the issue of mental health absences, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Cash and Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and my noble friend Lord Davies. Our proposals have to be seen in the wider context of the Bill. The Bill is intended to improve the experience of employees at work, so measures such as flexible working, guaranteed hours and protection from harassment could—we believe will—reduce stress at work, potentially leading to fewer incidents of burn-out and better employee mental health, and therefore fewer related absences. For us, that is an important challenge that we intend to monitor.
Amendment 73, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would introduce a rebate scheme to reimburse SMEs for the cost of SSP for the first four days, although I think she clarified that she meant three. I thank her for her interest in SSP, and of course I appreciate her extensive knowledge and experience in this area, as a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As previously mentioned, regarding waiting days, the changes we are making to SSP will cost businesses around an additional £15 per employee, a relatively modest amount in comparison with the benefits of reduced presenteeism and the positive impact that this will have on our lowest paid members of society. As the noble Baroness may recall, we previously delivered SSP rebate schemes such as the percentage threshold scheme. This was abolished due to SMEs underusing it, and feedback that the administrative burden was complex and time consuming. So I suggest that a rebate scheme that covered only the first three days of sickness and absence would also be quite administratively burdensome, both for businesses to claim and for the Government to process.
Previous SSP rebate schemes also did not encourage employers to support their employees. We know that employers having responsibility for paying sick leave helps maintain a strong link between the workplace and the employee, with employers encouraged to support employees to return to work when they are able.
Sticking with the theme of rebate schemes, Amendment 74, from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would introduce an SME rebate scheme for the whole duration of sickness absence. I reiterate the points I made earlier about the limited cost to business as a result of SSP changes and the experience of previous rebate schemes. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that we have moved a long way from the Beveridge system of social insurance. The costs and the mechanisms are very different now.
A rebate for the full cost of SSP could cost the Government up to £900 million a year. I do not believe that a rebate scheme is the best way to support our SMEs at this time. We will be considering the findings of the aforementioned Keep Britain Working review, which is expected to produce a final report with recommendations in the autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, challenged me to keep talking about this, and of course I am very happy to do so.
Amendments 71A and 71B were tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. As they may be aware, the Government consulted on what the rate of SSP should be for those who currently earn below the lower earnings limit. There was no clear consensus from stakeholders on the percentage. The Government believe that the 80% rate strikes the right balance between providing financial security to the lowest paid employees when they need to take time off work to recover from illness and limiting the cost to business. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, if we are not careful, we will be penalising the very poorest in our society.
Crucially, the total amount saved by business, if the rate were set at 60% compared to 80%, would be around £10 million to £30 million per year. That is about a £1 difference per employee per year, or less than 0.01% of total spending on wages annually by businesses. On the noble Lord’s Amendment 71A, which would set the rate at 60% for the first three days of a period of incapacity for work, the amounts potentially saved by business become even smaller, with the difference in cost being a matter of pennies. Given the minimal savings for businesses, the complexity for employers in administrating different rates is difficult to justify.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much indeed for her response, and, indeed, all noble Lords for their contributions to what has been a thoughtful and valuable debate. My particular thanks go to my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lady Coffey and Lady Lawlor, as well as to my noble friend Lady Cash, for bringing to the debate her unique expertise in the area of behavioural science.
It is it is crucial that the Government fully recognise that many provisions in this Bill are interlinked, as we have heard from all sides of the Committee. Changes in one area can have unintended ripple effects in others. As I have said, we support statutory sick pay, but we must also acknowledge that these proposed changes will result in higher costs for employers. My amendments were an attempt—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fox—to ameliorate some of those costs and find some sensible compromises. I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to reject them. Without clarity, businesses cannot plan, cannot invest and cannot hire with confidence. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the facts are plain: jobs are being lost now.
Regarding an SME rebate scheme—as highlighted by my noble friend Lady Coffey in her Amendment 73 and spoken to by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Lawlor, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in his Amendment 74—the Government have stated that final decisions will follow consultation with business through secondary legislation. The impact assessment notes plans for “extensive engagement” with small and medium-sized businesses to
“test where mitigations can be made”.
However, SMEs have spoken: they have asked for a rebate scheme as used during the pandemic. It is therefore disappointing the Government have not accepted the amendments to provide that support.
I would suggest that the Minister takes up the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to talk more on this subject —a conversation that we would like to be party to. I am pretty sure that we will be returning to it on Report. If I may paraphrase the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, it should not be beyond the wit of man to design a simple scheme that works. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Impact assessment: Statutory Sick Pay provision on absenteeismWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the provisions in this Act relating to Statutory Sick Pay on levels of absenteeism.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of how the Statutory Sick Pay provisions in the Act impact absenteeism, within 12 months of the Act being passed.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, after what has been a fascinating, wide-ranging and important debate on statutory sick pay, I would like to focus on the impact that these changes are going to have in particular on absenteeism, on short-notice shifts and on enhanced sick pay schemes. So I shall speak to Amendments 74A, 74B and 74C. We will continue to make the point that this Bill brings with it a raft of unintended consequences.
The importance of Amendment 74A cannot be overstated. Absenteeism is a critical issue for many businesses, especially those in hospitality, retail and other service-based industries, where staff shortages can lead to disruption, cancellations and even closures. With the removal of waiting days for SSP and the expansion of eligibility, it is essential that all of us should understand fully how these changes will affect absenteeism patterns across various sectors.
One of the sectors most concerned with the potential rise in absenteeism that these changes will cause is, of course, hospitality. Many businesses in this sector rely on part-time, hourly or zero-hour contracts, often employing younger workers, students or those with fewer financial responsibilities.
As we know, a significant portion of the workforce in hospitality earns below the lower earnings threshold for statutory sick pay, and may be employed for only limited hours. These workers are typically less dependent on their income, often still living at home or with fewer financial obligations. This brings us to a major concern. If these workers know that they will still receive statutory sick pay regardless of their financial needs, there may be little incentive for them to attend work when they feel under the weather, or even when they would simply prefer a day off. The concern is that the reforms could result in workers taking sick leave when it may not be strictly necessary, as the financial implications of their doing so would be mitigated by the statutory sick pay payment.
For example, if a student worker or part-time employee knows that they will still receive statutory sick pay, even if they do not meet the earnings threshold, they may not feel the same level of obligation to attend work. This is particularly true in a sector such as hospitality, where work provides either temporary or supplementary income. As such, the absence of financial pressure could lead to increased absenteeism in the short term, which could, in turn, lead to operational challenges for hospitality businesses, especially those that already operate with small teams, a high turnover of staff, or both.
As I mentioned, we believe it is essential that the Government thoroughly evaluate how these statutory sick pay provisions would affect absenteeism, particularly in sectors such as hospitality, where the risks of absenteeism are most pronounced. The impact assessment called for in Amendment 74A would enable us better to understand the extent to which these reforms would result in higher absenteeism rates and whether there are any other unintended and undesirable consequences, such as workforce disengagement, or a lack of motivation to work, in sectors where employees may not be so financially reliant on their income.
It is vital to understand, first, how absenteeism levels might change, especially in sectors with a younger, less financially reliant workforce; secondly, the operational challenges businesses would face due to potential increases in absenteeism; and, thirdly, the wider economic effects of these changes, including potential impacts on service quality, customer satisfaction and employee morale.
I turn to Amendment 74B. The proposal to remove the waiting period for statutory sick pay and the lower earnings limit represents a substantial shift in how sick pay obligations are structured. It carries serious financial implications, particularly for low-margin sectors, such as retail and hospitality, and for small and medium-sized enterprises more broadly. This amendment seeks a modest but necessary safeguard. It asks the Government to publish, within six months, a report on the impact of these statutory sick pay reforms on employers’ ability to offer enhanced sick pay and occupational health and well-being services.
As of 2024, 28% of UK employers offer occupational health services, while 27% provide sick pay that goes beyond statutory minimums. While we certainly want to see those numbers improve, we must surely understand why provision remains relatively low. A survey conducted last year found that 43% of business leaders cite financial constraints as the primary barrier to offering enhanced sick pay. Another 31% highlighted legal complexity; 28% cited administrative burden; and 31% cited staffing challenges as further obstacles. Rather than addressing those challenges, surely the Government have to recognise that the Bill threatens to amplify them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I should have spoken in the other debate—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
But I will carry on. I also want to refer to the issue of absenteeism, but I feel as though I have wandered into the skivers debate, and I do not necessarily want to be involved in that.
I am not worried that sick pay will create a nation of skivers or everybody phoning up and saying, “I am off sick”. But I am confused—maybe the Minister can help me here—about what seems to be a conflict in government priorities concerning our attitude to work and, in a way, our attitude to sickness. There seems to be some tension between the discussion around reforming the welfare system and PIPs, for example, and the concerns raised in that debate about ever greater numbers claiming disability benefits, especially for mental illness. I thought that the questions asked by Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary—quoting experts and evidence on the problem of overdiagnosis and of encouraging a culture in working-age adults, especially young people, of feeling incapacitated and dependent on the state in a demoralising way, such that they are written off—are in fact a very mature way of looking at that discussion that we should consider.
We also have to acknowledge a phenomenon that we discussed quite a lot during the passage of the Mental Health Bill. Being unwell, particularly mentally unwell, has now become integral to many people’s identities. The figures given in the earlier debate—when I meant to speak, and when the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and others made the point about huge numbers of people now being off work as a result of disability due to mental ill-health—indicate that there is an increase not in mental ill-health but in a new cultural phenomenon of people feeling unable to cope in some capacity.
I raise this issue in relation to the Bill because, although the Government are having a mature and interesting discussion on welfare in the other place, I cannot see that it does not conflict with the statutory sick pay provisions and debate we have had on this Bill. On Amendment 74A, which calls for an impact assessment regarding absenteeism, I am concerned in a different way about absenteeism. If Liz Kendall and Wes Streeting are incentivising or encouraging people who have been on long-term sick leave to return to the workforce—maybe to all those care home jobs that have just been created—will they willingly do that, or will they take advantage of this new flexible sick pay from day one? Is that likely to happen? I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made this point. In what way would they be encouraged to employ somebody who has been on long-term sick leave if they must say, “Come and work for me—by the way, you can have sick pay from day one”, when they have taken all that time trying to persuade them to get back into work? At the very least, it becomes a bigger risk for the employer to take on such people: the very people the Government want to get back into work and who, for their own sake, should be in work, because the alternative is not doing them any good.
We need to be honest in this discussion. Sick pay was hard-fought for for all those years, but we live in a different time, when sickness is viewed differently. It is almost like a badge of honour in some instances, but it has also become a way of coping. To give your Lordships an example, when I was a further education teacher, some 25 years ago, it was the first time I had come across people taking time off for stress-related sickness. It was often when there had been a political dispute or some big row at work, or a disciplinary action had been taken. Instead of it being dealt with politically, people went on stress-related sick leave. Fair enough—that was fine when it was one or two people. But at one point, a third of the staff in a further education department of humanities were off on stress-related sick pay. As you can imagine, it was a dysfunctional department.
So I agree with the Minister when she said earlier that we are hoping that a happier workplace is going to have less stress. I get that point, but I genuinely think that something else is going on. That form of sickness has become a means for people to express their problems in a range of ways, and they lose the habit of work. My concern is that the Bill, particularly in respect of some of the less flexible ways this issue is being dealt with—in this instance, sick pay—will incentivise those regressive ways in which people are retreating from the workplace.
There is a report out today that says that Gen Zers, or whatever the term is, believe that the workplace itself makes them ill and that workaphobia has to be taken into account. I know that these concepts seem a bit flaky, but it is an academic study, so I am citing it. It says that what needs to be considered is that is why young people should be treated with leniency about not going into the workplace, because they find going into the workplace and interacting far too stressful. It is that kind of nonsense, to be frank, that I hope that we will not encourage inadvertently by this Bill.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am a little puzzled by the groupings between this and the previous amendments. I have gone the opposite route and decided to speak to this group rather than the last one, but everything that I say in this group applies equally to Amendment 75, which would have created a review of the impact of the changes on small and medium-sized businesses. This group would require impact assessments to carried out for the various other effects that the Bill would have—so really it is the same subject.
Frankly, a lot of this would not be necessary if the Bill had been properly thought through from the beginning, if there was not so much detail to be filled in later by regulation and, in particular, if a proper impact assessment had been carried out on the various changes proposed. The Bill will, by the Government’s own admission, impose costs on business, disproportionately on smaller businesses, of around £5 billion, and will, again by the Government’s own admission, have potentially negative impacts on employment opportunities for those with poorer employment records. It is deeply unsatisfactory that it should not have been properly impact-assessed.
The Regulatory Policy Committee rated the impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”. It is worth reminding noble Lords what it said:
“Given the number and reach of the measures, it would be proportionate to undertake labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis, to understand the overall impact on employment, wages and output, and particularly, the pass-through of employer costs to employees. The eight individual IAs and the summary IA need to provide further analysis and evidence in relation to the rationale for intervention, identification of options (including impacts on small and microbusinesses) and/or justification for the preferred way forward”.
It is damning that that was not done before the Bill was presented to us.
Now, before the Minister points this out, I concede that the statutory sick pay individual impact assessment is the only one of 23 that is rated as good—in itself a pretty damning statistic. However, the impact assessment for the monitoring and evaluation plan for the statutory sick pay part is rated as weak. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already referred to the potential behavioural aspects that arise, which are not in any way covered in the impact assessment. In fact, there is a complete cop-out; it says, “We can’t do this because of the behavioural impacts”.
Sadly, these proposed amendments and Amendment 75 in the previous group are clearly necessary, as are the others that we will debate later today and throughout the Committee process. The five-year review that the Minister referred to earlier frankly does not cut it, given the significance of the measures in this Bill and how quickly how they will have impact. Five years is way too long to wait to understand whether it is damaging.
I do not wish to test noble Lords’ patience by repeating this speech multiple times during the process of the Committee, so I ask the Minister to take as read my support for proper and timely reviews and assessments of the impacts of this Bill as we go forward.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords have identified, we are now continuing the important debate on statutory sick pay and specifically to address the impact of these measures on businesses.
It is important to highlight that the statutory sick pay system, and the changes that we have brought about as part of this Bill, is designed to balance providing support for the individual with minimising the costs to the employer. This group of amendments, Amendments 74A, 74B and 74C, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would require impact assessments on absenteeism, enhanced sick pay schemes, occupational health, and short-notice shift working.
As I mentioned earlier, and as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already identified, the Government have already undertaken a regulatory impact assessment which considered the likely direct business impact of SSP changes. This included considering the impact on small and medium enterprises and sectoral impacts.
Overall, in the regulatory impact assessment, the Government estimated that the cost of delivering these measures would be approximately £15 extra per employee, a relatively modest amount when compared to the positive impacts that these changes will have for employees and overall productivity. I thank the noble Lord for the three amendments tabled in this group, all of which would require impact assessments. I look forward to debating those with the other 23 or so requests for impact assessments that the Opposition have already tabled. We have a plethora of requests for impact assessments. I reassure the noble Lord that we are at the same time updating our regulatory impact assessment and operating a post-implementation review of the measures—so the Opposition’s requests are probably not necessary.
On the noble Lord’s Amendment 74A, requiring an assessment of the impact of the changes to SSP in the Bill on absenteeism, we acknowledge that overall sickness absence may increase as a result of this Bill. This is not a loophole, nor are the Government not considering businesses; rather, it is the very objective of these changes to enable the lowest-paid employees to take time off when they are sick. Under the new system, employees will be able to take the time that they need to recover from short-term illness without struggling through work and often risking the spread of infectious diseases such as influenza. Similarly, employees with long-term or fluctuating conditions should feel able to take a day of sickness absence to manage their condition to prevent it worsening. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that employees might be encouraged to misuse the system. However, if employers have the right policies and practices in place, the risk of inappropriate absenteeism can and should be mitigated.
Additionally, the noble Lord’s amendment would be quite difficult to deliver in practice. There is not a standard measure of absenteeism versus legitimate sickness absence, and in many instances, it would depend on whether you asked the employer or the employee. The Government intend to build on the regulatory impact assessment and, as I have said, we intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill.
I turn to Amendment 74B, to assess the impact of the reforms in the Bill on employers’ ability to continue offering enhanced sick pay and occupational health services, particularly in low-margin sectors such as retail. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern about the potential impact on this matter, and the Government certainly agree that it would not be in anyone’s interest for there to be a rollback of occupational sick pay or occupational health provision. However, the Government’s view is that these changes will serve only to strengthen the link between the workplace and the employee. I question why any business would want to use these changes as a reason to reduce the support that they provide their employees to help them stay in, and return to, work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked about the Government’s policy on getting people back to work, and she was right to raise the issue. We are talking about a balance here; when people are sick, they should have the right to be off sick. I also accept the point that she made that being at work can in itself be a healing experience, and we should not lose sight of that—that there can be a positive health impact from being at work.
I once again draw noble Lords’ attention to the Keep Britain Working review. As I set out earlier in the debate, Sir Charlie Mayfield will consider recommendations on how the Government can support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces and support more people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence. That review is expected to produce a final report in autumn this year. I believe that much of what the Keep Britain Working review is doing will address the noble Lords’ concerns, and I hope this reassures them that the Government are taking this matter seriously. We look forward to the results of the review.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 74C, which seeks to review the effects of the SSP changes on shift management and short-notice scheduling in the workplace. As discussed in relation to Amendment 74A, the number of sickness absences may go up as a result of these changes. This is because it would enable employees to take time off when they are sick.
I again reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to understand the impact of these changes on businesses. We intend to conduct a post-implementation review of these measures in the Employment Rights Bill within five years of implementation. Additionally, as I set out in the earlier debate, the Department for Work and Pensions conducts regular employer and employee surveys and will continue to do so, providing further monitoring of the impact of SSP changes on a range of employers and employees.
However, this amendment would require the Government to collect a significant amount of data from businesses on what noble Lords will understand is quite a wide range of issues. We believe that this would be administratively challenging for them to provide, particularly in less than six months. This is the very thing that the noble Lord is seeking to avoid—the extra bureaucracy that he has talked about. For example, asking employers, including SMEs, to accurately record and report to government the frequency of shift cancellations and redeployments because of sickness absence is not practical or reasonable.
We have had a worthwhile, short debate on these issues, but I hope I have persuaded noble Lords that we are on the case and therefore that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said during her remarks that there would be a cost per employee of £15; I think she said that in the earlier group as well. Can she provide any more information on this? It seems counterintuitive. If the average number of sick days per employee is around eight, which is what the most recent survey data showed, that implies that employers are already bearing the cost of something like seven and a half days and are going to pay only for an extra half day. That does not seem to be consistent with the evidence of the nature of absences that also exist, which implies that most are at the shorter end and probably are going to be below the level at which they are currently being reimbursed by statutory sick pay.
It has been troubling me for some time, but I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some further information. I do not expect it from the Dispatch Box, although I would be delighted if it were to come from the Dispatch Box right now, but if she could write to me, I would be most grateful.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I suppose the simple answer to that is that it is in the regulatory impact assessment, which the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, acknowledged was one of the things that we got a fair rating for. I refer the noble Baroness to that, which I think will give more details.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I have read it. There is no more detail in that impact assessment on the £15. That is why I am asking whether the Minister can provide further detail on how that £15 was arrived at.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am happy to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Fox (LD)
It would be very useful if she could share it with the other Front Benches as well.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister. We have had a very important debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, because we have not really spent enough time worrying about the people who are just unable to cope. Working conditions have changed so much. Stress-related sick leave is a huge issue, as is what the noble Baroness referred to as “losing the habit of work”. These are issues that we have to think about very carefully.
There is an important and complex issue of so-called presenteeism, which deserves greater attention in our discussions about workplace health and productivity. I came across some research—perhaps the noble Baroness had this in mind—carried out by Robertson Cooper: its 2023 data, drawn from over 3,000 UK respondents, revealed that almost two-thirds, 60%, of employees reported working while they were unwell, so-called presenteeism, in the last three months. That is an important issue, which has to be taken into account in any impact assessment.
The distinction is essential because not all forms of working while unwell are inherently harmful. Some, such as pragmatic or therapeutic presence, can be beneficial for both the employer and the employee. The challenge lies in identifying when presenteeism becomes detrimental and ensuring that workplace policy, including statutory sick pay reform, supports businesses in managing that balance effectively.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for reminding us of the finding of the Regulatory Policy Committee. We just need to be aware of the severe criticism that was meted out about a Bill that is making such profound changes while in the gloom of uncertainty, because no one can be actually sure what effect these changes are going to have.
“Review of parental leave(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, commence a review of paid parental leave.(2) The review under subsection (1) must explore—(a) the introduction of a statutory period of reserved, non-transferable paid parental leave for—(i) fathers;(ii) mothers’ partners;(iii) “second parent” adopters.(b) the level of statutory pay available to the parents listed in paragraph (a), through paternity leave, other reserved leave for fathers considered by the review or shared parental leave, and whether it is sufficient to encourage high take-up;(c) options for making paid leave available to self-employed fathers, and others ineligible for statutory support because they are not in regular employment, for example through a paternity allowance similar to the maternity allowance, currently available for mothers;(d) the extension of full employment rights, including redundancy protections, to fathers who take paternity leave and any other reserved leave considered by the review;(e) international examples of best practice in parental leave policy design.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment specifies a number of issues that the proposed review of parental leave should consider, in particular a reserved, non-transferable period for fathers paid at a rate sufficient to encourage high take up. It also requires such a review to take place.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to those colleagues who have added their names to Amendment 76 and to the Fatherhood Institute for its help.
I welcome the Bill’s improvements to paternity and parental leave, but they only scratch the surface of a policy that is letting fathers down badly. Moreover, it is disappointing to discover that paternity pay will not be a day one right—an issue addressed by Amendment 139 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which I support. Could my noble friend the Minister explain in her summing up why it will not be?
The amendment calls for a review of parental leave, which was required for drafting purposes, although I know that, in the Commons, the Minister reaffirmed an earlier welcome commitment to a review. The purpose now is to ensure that the review covers a number of key issues relating to fathers’ entitlement to paid leave in their baby’s first year, namely measures designed to improve fathers’ take-up of parental leave, including a “use it or lose it” period and adequate payment, taking account of international examples of best practice; the inclusion of self-employed fathers, who are currently excluded, and others currently ineligible for statutory support; the protection through full employment rights of fathers who take the leave; and the commitment to publish adequate take-up data in future years.
The aim is a simple one, on which I hope we will all agree: to strengthen the rights of fathers/“second parents” to be active parents, which, as I will argue, would thereby also strengthen mothers and prospective mothers’ labour market position. In doing so, it would further the Government’s own aspiration to achieve greater gender equality.
The current situation is pretty woeful as far as fathers are concerned. This has practical and cultural, symbolic effects: it is, in effect, saying that fatherhood is of lesser importance to family life and that, in so far as the labour market accommodates responsibilities for childcare, it need do so only for mothers. If we want to surround boys with positive symbolic messages about masculinity, what better place to start than to give their fathers the time they need to build strong relationships in infancy that last a lifetime, thereby showing that fatherhood is valued?
I do not have the time to give details of what fathers are entitled to compared with mothers, but suffice it to quote the Fatherhood Institute’s evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee’s current inquiry into the issue:
“As well as offering one of the least generous statutory paternity offers in the OECD … the UK is an outlier, especially among higher income countries, in the huge gap (50 weeks) between mothers’ and fathers’ entitlements to leave in the baby’s first year. By 2022 most countries in western Europe had a gap of 12 weeks or less”.
The partial extension of day-one rights does not touch the sides when it comes to the current shoddy treatment of fathers, which has resulted in low paternal take-up of paternity and shared parental leave. Paternity leave is dealt with by the other amendments in this group, so I will focus just on shared parental leave.
Take-up among fathers of the shared parental leave scheme, introduced 10 years ago, is a pitiful 5% of eligible fathers, according to a 2023 government report. The scheme is also skewed against lower-income families, with just 5% of the tiny population of SPL users coming from the bottom 50% of earners. Shared parental leave does not constitute an independent right for fathers: it depends on an entitled mother transferring part of her leave. The Government were warned at the time that this was going to fail in the aim of encouraging fathers to take the leave, and it did. This is in part because of the way the scheme is constructed, in part because the low rate of payment means that many fathers cannot afford to take it, and in part because some, such as self-employed fathers, are excluded altogether.
This matters for fathers, mothers, children and family life, as well as for the Government’s number one priority of economic growth. It matters for fathers because it makes it very difficult for them to play an equal, hands-on role in the upbringing of their infant children, which, increasingly, fathers wish to do. It matters for mothers because, to quote the Women’s Budget Group, of which I am a member:
“Unpaid care is the root cause of women’s economic inequality”.
So long as women carry so much of the responsibility for childcare in the private sphere, they enter the public sphere of the labour market with one hand tied behind their back. Too many women’s careers fall off a cliff when they become mothers. As the Women and Equalities Committee’s call for evidence states:
“Unequal division of childcaring responsibilities is a key driver of … gender inequality and the gender pay gap”.
It matters for children in two-parent families, not just for their relationship with their fathers but also, the evidence suggests, for their educational and cognitive development and overall family relationships. Research indicates that paternal engagement during the first year can foster ongoing engagement until a child is aged at least 11 and that this positive effect builds over time. It matters for families, as it can affect family well-being and stability.
It matters, too, for economic growth. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Centre for Progressive Policy calculate that more generous provision for fathers, earmarked for six weeks, could deliver nearly £2.7 billion net to the wider economy as a result of strengthening mothers’ labour market position.
The amendment requires a review to take account of international examples of best practice, because we have so much to learn from the many countries that are way ahead of us on this issue. In particular, the experience of the Nordic countries and some others, which have for some years included a reserved period of parental leave for fathers on a use-it-or-lose-it basis in their schemes, suggests that this model, together with adequate payment—I emphasise that—is the best way of ensuring fathers take up the leave, leading to a more equitable division of childcare responsibility between parents and enabling mothers to participate in the labour market on more equal terms.
Most see this as a better and more effective model than extending paternity leave, because it separates out the caregiving function of parental leave from the health and safety function of maternity/paternity leave and, after the first two weeks, it signals clearly that the father can take it at a later date, ideally on his own, helping more mothers resume their employment earlier. As the Fatherhood Institute notes:
“Reserved parental leave for fathers is seen as key to reducing both the gender wage gap and the gendered gap in men’s and women’s participation in paid employment – both of which act as an impediment to economic growth”.
In a book I wrote many years ago on feminist approaches to citizenship, I identified such schemes as a key social policy lever for promoting greater gender equality and recognising the importance of care to men as well as women and to wider society.
Much as I would like to see this as one result of the review, I should stress that the amendment in no way ties the Government’s hands as to this or any other outcome, apart from the provision of adequate take-up data. It could be seen as the soft-cop amendment to the hard-cop amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which would require action now—I do have some sympathy for those, but we are where we are. That said, if the review fails adequately to consider the issues that Amendment 76 raises, then I fear it will be met with widespread derision.
I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will feel able to accept the amendment, in this or some other form, as a signal of intent. If not, at the very least, I would ask her to make clear on the record the Government’s acceptance that the current situation disadvantages farmers unfairly and that it must be a clear and explicit aim of the review to create a system that properly supports fathers and other second parents to play a full role in their children’s lives.
At Second Reading, my noble friend she expressed respect for the points that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, made about parental leave and the desire to go further. However, she said that
“we must strike the right balance, while continuing to ensure that this remains a pro-worker, pro-business Bill”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; cols. 1925-26.]
But the current situation is totally unbalanced as between the rights of fathers and mothers. Moreover, workers are gendered beings, and thorough reform of parental leave is in no way anti-business. Indeed, it would help ensure business can benefit fully from the contribution of female as well as male workers and would, as I have said, thereby contribute to economic growth.
Thus, on gender justice and pragmatic economic grounds, I hope the Government will accept the amendment and send a strong symbolic message to male workers that their role as fathers is fully recognised and valued. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 80 and 136 in my name. These purely clarify an entitlement to paternity leave and really follow on from the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on Amendment 76. Amendment 80 would extend statutory paternity leave to six weeks and allow new fathers to take this leave at any point within the first year after their child’s birth, rather than being restricted to the current 56-day window. At present, eligible fathers are entitled to just two weeks of leave, paid at a rate of less than half of full-time earnings at minimum wage. Take-up remains low and affordability is a major factor; 62% of fathers say they would take more leave if statutory paternity pay was higher.
Greater equality in parenting is essential to achieving greater equality in the workplace. At present, the unequal distribution of caring responsibilities is a major driver of the gender pay gap. On average, a woman’s earnings fall by approximately 40% following the birth of her first child and often do not recover. By contrast, men’s earnings remain largely unaffected.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 127, 128 and 139 in my name. Before doing so, I would like to add my support to all the amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 76 of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have also added my name.
As we have heard already, our current system of parental leave is in desperate need of reform. For some of that reform, I accept a review is necessary. How can we improve shared parental leave? This is something that I was proud to have worked on during the coalition Government, but I and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, have to accept that this has not delivered the change we want to see. Also, how do we extend parental leave to self-employed people—mums, dads and adoptive parents—at a proper rate of pay?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, knows, I believe she is being too generous to the Government with her timelines. When this Government first took office, the Employment Rights Minister, Justin Madders, committed to the review of parental leave being completed within their first year; now, it is meant to be launched within their first year. On Report in the Commons, the Minister committed only to a launch ahead of Royal Assent of this Bill, which even on the most optimistic timetable will be after 4 July.
As well as giving important clarity to the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has made—calling for the review to cover key issues, including measures designed to improve fathers’ take-up of parental leave, such as a dedicated period of leave, adequate payment and the inclusion of self-employed fathers—could the Minister give us some reassurance on timelines? Will the review be launched within Labour’s first year in office? How long will the review take? To me, six months seems a reasonable period of time to report back on its outcomes, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government’s plan is.
While reviews are perhaps necessary in some areas, it is important not to confuse a review with action. The Minister kindly met with me last week to discuss my amendments, and it was clear at that meeting that the review would not be a consultation on specific proposals; those would have to come later. Added to any timelines for action would be a consultation on the outcomes of the review, and then, subject to its findings, further legislation. In reality, we are talking about a timeline extending over several years.
I am afraid that is not good enough on an area where there is clear evidence to support action now, and that is on improving paternity leave. It has been said that we are an outlier on how bad our paternity leave is in the UK and how unequal provision is between mums and dads or second parents. And yet, if you increased paternity leave to six weeks’ pay at 90% of salary, capped at average earnings, as my Amendment 127 does, the evidence for the benefits is overwhelming.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, it would improve things for dads. This week is Mental Health Awareness Week. According to research by the Dad Shift and Movember, nearly half of new dads report experiencing multiple symptoms of depression in the first year after their baby is born; 82% of them agree that better paternity leave is the number one thing that the Government could do to protect new dads’ mental health. We have heard how it will support new mums and kids too. And it will support economic growth—and that is meant to be this Government’s number one priority.
This last point is really important. In our discussions on this Bill, I am acutely aware about the concerns employers have expressed about many aspects of the Government’s plans, but, in the context of our earlier debate on statutory sick pay, it is important to remember that statutory paternity pay is reimbursed for businesses at a rate of 92% for larger businesses and 108.5% for those which qualify for small business relief. Of course, it is not only the pay that affects business but also the prospect of more administration and disruption, which can be a concern. This is why for smaller businesses the government compensation rate is at over 100%.
As we are so far behind many other countries when it comes to paternity leave, we can look at whether those concerns have been borne out in practice when leave is more generous. The short answer is that they have not. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research in the US on Danish parental leave showed no reduction in firms’ output or decline in the wellbeing of other employees at the firm when parents took time off at the birth of their child.
One of the reasons that better paternity leave has the potential to bring such significant economic gains is that, although you lose the dad's economic output for the time he is off, the loss is limited to that period only, whereas for mothers you see an increase in labour market participation and hours worked on a sustained basis, increasing the level of economic activity overall. Reimbursing paternity pay would come at a cost to the Government, but again increased economic activity as a result of the policy would offset four-fifths of that.
It might also be argued that it is not a priority for employers or employees when there are so many other issues that need our attention. However, only 18% of the public think that two weeks is enough paternity leave and 81% agree with the statement that “I believe that giving fathers a decent amount of paid paternity leave so they can be a bigger part of their children’s lives is good for families and good for the country too”. That includes a majority of support from voters from all political parties across the spectrum, including Reform.
As I mentioned, many employers already offer enhanced pay and leave, because they see the benefits for their employees but also, as companies, for recruitment and retention of staff. According to CIPD data from 2024, around 30% of organisations enhance paternity leave beyond the statutory two-week minimum, and around 37% enhance paternity pay beyond the statutory provision.
If this is the case, why is government action needed? For two reasons, I think. First, we are talking about a culture shift. Our system of paternity leave does not reflect many people’s attitudes and plans for starting a family in today’s society. None the less, moving away from the current system is a big shift for our society, and it is one that will not happen on its own. At the moment, the statutory system tells employers that two weeks is enough, and it tells employees that that is all they can expect.
The second reason, as I have said, is that the Government reimburse employers for the statutory system. If a firm wants to go further than the statutory entitlements, they bear the burden of all the costs. That is particularly difficult for smaller businesses. While there are long-term benefits for employers, we also get benefits as a society for supporting people to start and grow their families, and we should recognise that. The CIPD asked employers about their views on paternity leave in 2022 and 2024, and almost half supported extending the statutory paternity leave and pay system, with only 24% opposing it.
Finally, I turn briefly to my other amendments in this group, which would make smaller, but none the less important, improvements to our system of paternity leave. Amendment 139 takes the new day one right to paternity leave included in this Bill and makes it paid. I have to confess that, from everything the Government had said, I thought it would be paid, as they always talk about extending the right to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave. Well, parental leave is always unpaid, so specifying it for one but not the other feels a little misleading.
It also makes no policy sense. We know the biggest barrier to take up of paternity leave is financial. The current statutory rate may be low, but it is far better than nothing at all, particularly at such a point of financial stress in families’ lives. It makes no sense to me that Ministers and the Government acknowledge that paternity leave should be a day one right but are introducing it in a way that makes it hard, if not impossible, for those who most need it to actually take it up. On the subject of costs to businesses, this would be minimal. As I have said, they are reimbursed for this cost.
Amendment 128 would require businesses with 250 or more employees to publish their leave policies on their websites. That would help people thinking about a job move to have transparency on what their entitlements are, and it would help create a race to the top, where companies would need to keep pace with their competitors to attract the best talent.
Unlike almost every other measure in the Bill, this policy has actually been consulted on. It showed that 98% of respondents supported the proposal, including 96% of businesses and business representative organisations. One of the consultees could be considered to be Sir Keir Starmer. He was asked about this policy by Mumsnet in 2020 and said:
“I completely support this. In fact I’m really surprised it hasn’t already happened … I will wholeheartedly support this”.
Perhaps, in responding to this debate, the Minister can explain to the Prime Minister why this has not happened already and why his Government do not want to take the opportunity of this Bill to correct it.
Baroness Morrissey (Con)
My Lords, I am also pleased to support Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and add my voice to others in the Chamber asking the Government to review paid parental leave in this country. I confirm, as someone who is involved with a number of multinational businesses, that Britain certainly has fallen behind the modern practices of other countries.
I appreciate that, as my noble friend Lady Penn has already said, some Members of this Committee might consider this to be a matter best left to businesses rather than government policy or law. Unfortunately, in my experience, many British employers—not the ones cited by my noble friend Lady Penn, but the others—take a rather old-fashioned view of paternity leave, leaving the UK at risk of continuing with this unusually gendered approach to parenting and childcare, which is ultimately detrimental to society, to women, to men and to the economy.
As set out in my registered interests, I chair the Diversity Project, which seeks to future-proof the investment industry’s ability to attract and develop the very best talent. We have been working with almost 120 member firms on enhanced paternity leave and pay. There are a number of early adopters, including Aviva, Mercer, Janus Henderson and Julius Baer, which have all reported positive impacts on culture, retention and staff morale. In a “Dragons’ Den”-style competition —I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, in the Chamber—at our International Women’s Day event earlier this year, somewhat ironically, enhanced paternity leave was voted overwhelmingly by the audience as the single biggest game changer for women’s progress. I endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others that this would help drive gender equality.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 127, 128 and 139, which I have signed, but all the amendments in this group have real value.
In my relatively long life, in which I have argued endlessly for human rights, I think there can be only one or two times when I have stood up and argued for men’s rights, because I feel they have plenty of them and they do their own arguing. But, of course, this is a human rights issue. It is not just men’s rights; it is women’s rights as well, because the mothers will benefit if the fathers have parental leave.
Statutory paternity leave does not support families only in their first weeks; it helps rebalance society by moving away from a statutory parental leave system, which sends a strong message that parenting is a woman’s job and that men should keep working and stay out of the home. That idea is not just present in the legislation; it is embedded and deeply rooted in many people’s prejudices. Maternity leave is already a very hard-fought and essential right, but the imbalance between maternity and paternity leave is structurally embedding gender differences that do not benefit society.
This legislation can set young families up for a stronger start by ensuring that new fathers have plenty of paid time off work in those early weeks and months that are so crucial to a child’s development. I hope the Prime Minister was listening to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and that he will perhaps urge this House to adopt at least some of these amendments.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendments 127 and 128 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I rise as one of, I think, only two fathers in this debate so far and, as it happens, a recent grandfather. I thought it would be helpful to have a little bit of balance in a discussion on a group of amendments which is about what appears to be an imbalance in the respective roles of fathers and mothers.
It seems to me that there are three key reasons to act, rather than to think and debate and dance on the head of an ever-smaller pin. The first is the early years argument. I, together with other noble Lords and noble Baronesses, will be arguing the case for early years being included and very deeply thought about in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Education yesterday said that early years was her number one priority. It is inarguable that changing our approach to paternity pay and giving fathers the opportunity to have a much greater presence in the lives of their children in the early years—and also, very importantly, in support of their partner or spouse, particularly if she is working or is attempting to work—is frankly a no-brainer. In that context, that is a very good first reason.
The second reason is that the economic arguments for this are also very strong. The report by the Joseph Roundtree Foundation, which came out only three weeks ago, and which was mentioned by, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is fairly convincing. It says:
“Building on the evidence from other countries on the impact of paternity leave, the”
Centre for Progressive Policy—one would imagine that His Majesty’s Government would be in favour of an institute with a name like that—
“has modelled the economic costs and benefits of more generous paternity leave options. This novel model was built to help policy-makers understand the labour market effects – and associated economic and tax costs – of varying paternity leave terms in the UK”.
Its conclusions were very simple:
“The modelling shows a positive economy-wide effect of £2.68 billion, driven by the gains achieved when more women move into work and work more hours”.
The second bullet point is particularly apposite to the Government’s aims and what they are trying to achieve with the Bill:
“The modelling also shows that the increase in labour market outputs for this policy option is mainly driven by those at the bottom and middle of the labour market”.
That is a policy outcome you would think was very close to the Government’s heart.
Turning to the third and final reason, for 31 years I was a professional headhunter and, as a headhunter, you become relatively expert in what I might call the psychology of attraction and repulsion—what attracts people to particular types of employment or employer, and what detracts from that degree of attraction. There is increasing evidence to show that companies that are thoughtful, progressive and transparent about the offering they are making to both fathers and mothers stand a much better chance in this labour market of attracting people of real talent who have many choices they could follow up on. Also, relating back to comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in a previous group, an important issue is that many individuals have a degree of trepidation about working for potential employers because they are uncertain of the working environment and how it might impact on their ability to play a full part in family life.
For those three key reasons, I support not only having a long hard look at paternity leave—as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said, frankly, we have been looking at it for longer than is either necessary or good for us—but, for the good of families and children, just getting on with it.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I add my support to this group, in particular to Amendment 76 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister. I commend her illuminating and penetrating introduction. Indeed, all the speeches that we have heard set out a very strong case.
When I worked in an organisation, I had women colleagues whose partners could not afford to take even the leave they were entitled to, thus further burdening the tired mother and losing those irreplaceable bonding first days, to the detriment of both child and father, as many noble Lords have said. That bonding and support for the mother is just as important for adoptive fathers and stepfathers. Why should self-employed fathers be unequally treated? They are just as much fathers. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will carry out the review as set out in this amendment.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 127, 128 and 139 from my noble friend Lady Penn. I too am a father, so I have an interest in that regard. These amendments will be very useful to the poorest families in the country because currently, only the very well paid get access to serious paternal leave.
As someone who comes from a community that has suffered horribly from the absence of fathers, I know that an early intervention that ties a father emotionally, financially and in any other way to that family unit is very important. The impact it has on educational outcomes and the finances of the family into the future are hugely important. My community is more than three times more likely to be impacted by poverty and all the downsides that poverty inflicts because of that lack of an initial paternal connection to the family.
This country is also facing a very low birth rate. Many young men in this country will tell you that they cannot afford to have children. Paternity leave will be a big part of addressing that. So, supporting our birth rate in this country—addressing that demographic time bomb—is very important.
The mental health of men in this country has been poor for a very long time. Part of turning that around is improving how fatherhood is perceived, so that young men in particular lean into that role and take pride in being a father. That also has a strong knock-on effect for the women involved: they receive support in the home, and it helps them return to their own careers, as we have heard from so many Members of your Lordships’ House. In the poorest communities in this country, many of the real breadwinners in the household are the women. If they can be supported back to work, that will have a profound impact on the mental well-being of the entire family.
I have been on a personal journey to make this a day one right. Because of the profound effect that the lack of a father in the household has on many aspects of society, this should be a day one right. Basically, some things are just worth paying for, and if this has a cost to the Government, so be it, because the upsides, socially and financially, are massive and beyond measurement.
Lastly, as is well documented and as many noble Lords have already said, the benefits to companies are profound. The challenge will be the smaller companies, where one or two people form a significant proportion of the workforce. That is where this conversation has to be sold, where the rhetoric is important, because if smaller companies adopt this approach, I believe it will happen. Larger companies already know the benefits this has for their workforce.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, it has been agreed by the usual channels that we break at a time convenient for the Minister to make a Statement, thus allowing her to continue her other business outside the House.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, if I felt we were able to finish the group in the next five minutes, that would be fine. We have had a good debate, but this is an important topic, and it is important that the Committee is able to finish the group by hearing from any other Back-Benchers who might wish to contribute, as well as from the Front-Benchers and the Minister. All of the Committee might not be aware of it, but we have agreed through the usual channels that we will have the dinner break early to accommodate the repeat of the Statement. We are ultimately in the whole Committee’s hands. That is why we are breaking now. I know it is not usual to break midway through a group, but, as I say, it has been agreed through the usual channels that a dinner break at 6.30 pm would take priority. Perhaps we can resolve this.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have had confirmation from my side that the usual channels have agreed.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his explanation.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Stop groaning.
Normally, if today’s list says, “at a convenient time”, that means at the end of a group surely.
Lord Katz (Lab)
As I said, I understand that this is unusual, but it is in no way unprecedented. We have broken in the middle of a group before. It is not ideal, but we are where we are. I think it is in the best interests of the Committee, especially as it has been agreed through the usual channels, to hear from both Front Benches and any other Back-Benchers on this group in good time, and to hear, in the meantime, a repeat of the Statement from the Minister, so that everybody gets the best of all worlds. I know this is not usual practice, and we will endeavour not to do it on future Committee days.
Trade Negotiations
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome free trade. It is a cornerstone of a prosperous and competitive economy. It benefits everyone, from workers to businesses and from consumers to industry sectors. Trade allows us to access a broader market, to promote innovation and to create jobs. When done right, it provides opportunities for the UK to grow and to succeed on the global stage. This deal is a reminder of one of the key benefits of Brexit. No longer bound by the limitations of collective EU decision-making, we now have the freedom to forge our own trade agreements, tailored to the strengths of our economy and aligned with our national interest. That sovereignty over trade policy is a fundamental asset and one that, used wisely, can bring real and lasting prosperity. I confess that I am at a loss to understand why the Government have repeatedly said that this is a matter of opinion and not fact.
However, while we acknowledge the importance of trade agreements and the positive elements of this UK-US deal, we must approach it with a critical eye and an understanding of the broader context. Trade deals are not simply about negotiating numbers or quotas; they must also be about fairness, sustainability and long-term growth. In this case, I am concerned that the deal, while a step in the right direction, does not go far enough in delivering the kind of comprehensive, ambitious agreement we need.
The agreement announced with the United States contains some very welcome steps—for example, tariff reductions on cars, access for UK beef producers, and the removal of punitive levies on British steel and aluminium, to name but a few. The Government are right to highlight the thousands of jobs that will benefit from these provisions. However, take, for example, the automotive sector: there are more questions that need answers. Reducing tariffs from 27.5% to 10% is undoubtedly welcome, but this deal covers only a relatively small quota of 100,000 cars, a figure that represents just a fraction of total UK car exports. What happens when that quota is reached? Are we going to see tariffs increase again? Where are the long-term assurances for our manufacturers and workers? A more strategic and forward-thinking approach is needed.
This cannot be the end of the road. If we are to make the most of our new trading freedoms, we must push for a comprehensive free trade agreement, one that goes beyond quotas and partial tariff relief and that delivers true long-term certainty for British businesses, across every sector. The 10% reciprocal tariff on a range of UK exports remains in place, affecting sectors that are critical to our industrial base and our export strength. The Government must be clear. When will negotiations begin to eliminate these tariffs, or have they already started? We urge Ministers to move beyond vague commitments that work will continue and to set out a clear timetable and a strategy for achieving a more ambitious deal.
There is particular disappointment in the pharmaceutical sector, for example, where the UK has not yet secured a carve-out from remaining tariffs. This is an industry where Britain leads the world. We are talking about jobs, innovation and the secure delivery of life-saving medicines. We must see more urgency from the Government on this front. What of the creative industries, specifically film and television? The failure to secure any protection for this sector is alarming. The threat of 100% levies on UK-made films exported to the US remains a serious concern. This is a world-leading industry with the potential to deliver billions to our economy and to showcase British culture on the global stage. It deserves far greater attention from the Government.
We on these Benches are not here to oppose free trade; we champion it. However, we want to see trade deals that are ambitious, balanced and comprehensive, and that reflect the best of Britain and support all our key sectors, from farmers to filmmakers and from scientists to steelworkers.
The Minister was somewhat vague in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, yesterday on parliamentary scrutiny of the deal. In an effort to save her from writing many letters, perhaps she can update us on this now.
This deal is a good start, and that deserves to be recognised, but the Government must now finish the job. We call for greater transparency, clear timelines and firm commitments to extend this agreement into a full and fair free trade deal that truly reflects the potential of post-Brexit Britain.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I look forward to the Minister answering my question from yesterday, as referenced by the noble Lord.
I wish to refer exclusively to the India agreement. We have debated in this House on a number of occasions UK-India trade, and on those occasions I have rehearsed the long-standing position on these Benches that free trade is part of our party’s DNA as a political movement. We believe fundamentally that free trade benefits consumers and businesses alike, and, combined with the means by which it is fair trade and inclusive, that it can be beneficial for wider policy ambitions on climate, sustainability, social justice and the reduction of poverty. These are the parameters by which we will judge any agreement that this Government sign with other Governments, as they were for the previous Administration, and specifically on the agreement with India.
We start from the position that we wish this agreement and the Government well in ensuring that it is the basis upon which India trade can develop. This is a complex time in international trade, as it is buffeted by policies and chaotic uncertainty from the United States. The fact that India has now signed an agreement with the UK, and that on Monday the second round of negotiations on an FTA between India and the European Union began, shows those of us who believe in widening free trade around the world that we need to redouble our efforts to reinforce the global trading environment and the rules upon which it is based.
The India agreement has been launched with a high degree of boosterism, last seen under the Boris Johnson Administration, and of course we would be a world leader in trade if press release assertion was a commodity. The Government say that we have a series of anticipated benefits as a result of this agreement. No doubt the Minister will rehearse some of those in her reply. However, looking carefully at the Government’s technical papers and not the press release, we can see that the cash figures of potential GDP growth, which she may quote in a moment, are purely a mathematical extrapolation of potential global trade in 2040, which the Government have then converted into pounds sterling, taking a starting point of 2023. This does not take into account the Trump Administration’s disruption of global trade. Therefore, all the cash figures that are presented are purely illustrative.
The technical papers also helpfully suggest that the Government made a policy decision to round up to 0.1% for the growth figures. Rounding up to 0.1% highlights that there will probably be modest results. Furthermore, very deep in the Government’s papers is that, to get their very ambitious figures on UK trade growth, the Government have taken the starting point as the baseline of 2019, which does not take into consideration the pandemic, the Ukraine war and the Trump supply chain issues. So they start at a high point in order to get higher. We do not necessarily oppose the agreement in principle, but we look at it from perhaps a more realistic and sober perspective. The issue then becomes how we will support our businesses to take advantage of the new market access arrangements.
According to the United Nations data figures, India has seen its exports rise over the last 10 years by 13.2%. This is an export market which the UK consumer wishes to benefit from. UK exports over the same time have expanded by only 5.1%. This is marginal growth over a decade, so it is right that we want to be part of a growing market. However, the European Union export growth has expanded by over 9.5% over the same period, nearly double the UK rate. We now have barriers erected, additional costs and more bureaucracy with the European Union, and we are trying to reduce them for India. So the fundamental issue is not that we have a tariff agreement but how British businesses will see the Indian market as barrier-free, open and accessible across all states, and reliable under the rule of law, with less corruption, more transparency—so that we trade more—and businesses supported more to access the market, which this agreement theoretically facilitates. What are the practical steps of actively supporting businesses that will take advantage of this agreement?
Because there is little reference so far in what the Government have said, can the Minister confirm that the agreement will include a human rights chapter, with clearly articulated mechanisms to address human rights supply chain concerns that have been raised in this House on a number of occasions, including by myself—for example, on broadcasting and civil liberties. If there is to be market access on digital, media and broadcasting, are we ensuring that it is reciprocated and that the restrictions that have been put in place for media have been lifted? Can the Minister confirm that there will be a climate chapter in the agreement that demonstrates that this agreement reduces emissions rather than contributes? On Monday, India and the EU announced their intent for an agreement by the end of the fourth quarter this year. Whether this happens is out of the Government’s hands—I completely understand that—but any comparative advantage that we are likely to have as a result of this agreement is likely to be impacted if there is an agreement between India and the European Union. On rules of origin and other areas of standards, how will we triangulate between India and EU trade?
Finally, I will ask the Minister about potential trade diversion and preference erosion as a result of this agreement. The House is well aware that I look for all the juicy details of these agreements in annexes, and typically on every page after page 200. In the previous Government’s scoping document, annex 9 of the technical paper showed that, with all the likely potential trade benefits for the UK of over £5 billion, which is very similar to this Government’s estimate, it is likely that there will be trade preference and trade erosion of over £3.25 billion.
What does that mean? It means that we must discount all of the benefits from the India agreement with the diversion of trade and the preference erosion from other countries—primarily Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kenya, Senegal, Ghana, Indonesia, the Philippines and Jamaica. For Bangladesh alone, the previous Government estimated that the trade erosion would be £1.5 billion less trade with the UK. So I hope the Government will have an impact assessment clearly articulating the likely trade erosion and trade preference. Will there be primary legislation as a result of this, what will be the extent of it and when are we likely to see it?
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their questions and responses to the Minister of Trade’s policy Statement. It is lovely to see the full support for trade that we all share. I am happy to answer the questions, but, before I do, I will take a step back and quickly consider the agreement that we are due to discuss in context.
Fundamentally, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, the UK is a trading nation. The reality is deeply rooted in our DNA and that remains true to this day. Stronger trade ties with our partners around the world and championing free, fair and open trade delivers back here at home, generating growth, boosting wages and supporting jobs in every corner of the UK. It is this attitude and openness to trade that has helped cement the UK’s global reputation as being open for business and a home to iconic brands that are sought after all over the world. That is why we have always been clear-eyed in pursuing a deal with India, one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Despite the strong ties connecting our two nations, not least through our people-to-people connections, there has always been room to strengthen our economic connections.
The deal we have does just that. This is a modern and comprehensive agreement that will increase UK GDP by £4.8 billion in the long run. Our bilateral trade, which is already £43 billion, will increase by £25.5 billion, £15.7 billion of which is expected to be UK exports. India has agreed that, from the first day this deal enters into force, it will cut tariffs worth £400 million on UK goods, a number that will jump to £900 million after 10 years. We have unlocked unprecedented access to India’s procurement market, giving UK companies access to 40,000 tenders worth £38 billion. New commitments of customs and digital trade will make it quicker, cheaper and easier to trade with India than ever before.
I hear the challenge about how those spreadsheets work and the models that sit behind them, and whether we are being optimistic. These are very realistic and measured, but ultimately an approximation of the benefit that this opportunity will bring us. It is also not a limit. We do still have the opportunity to benefit above and beyond the numbers that we have stated. I assure your Lordships that this is based on the modelling of worldwide standards but, at the signing of that trade deal, a full impact assessment will also be published to give noble Lords a little bit more small print to crawl through as well, which I know they will enjoy.
We have locked in access for our service companies, promoted stronger ties in a variety of areas—from innovation to gender to anti-corruption—and, most crucially, we have provided businesses with a certainty in a time when it is dearly lacking. I welcome the support that this deal has already had from across the House and from those who have recognised this for what it is, a landmark agreement with one of the most exciting and dynamic economies in the world.
I have also been warmed by the support from the businesses that will be using this deal, including the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry, the Scotch Whisky Association, the National Farmers’ Union, the Food & Drink Federation, techUK, Small Business Britain, the Premier League, Standard Chartered, Smith & Nephew, Coltraco and more.
I want to address the double contributions convention, which we have agreed to negotiate and implement in parallel with this free trade agreement. There has been much speculation, and indeed misinformation, regarding this element of the agreement. To set the record straight, this is a reciprocal agreement which is designed to prevent the double payment of social security contributions for a specific group of workers known as “detached workers”, who are sent by their employers on a temporary basis and whose long-term jobs are based in their original country. These agreements are for the benefit of both countries. The UK has agreed numerous DCCs over recent years, including with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein in 2023, Switzerland in 2021, the EU in 2020 and Chile in 2012.
There has been speculation this will make it cheaper for UK employers to hire temporary Indian workers than it is to hire British workers. This is not true. This applies only to Indian workers who are sent by their employers based in India to work temporarily in the UK for up to three years. There have also been claims that this agreement undercuts UK workers. In fact, the double contributions convention supports UK workers, particularly those in our world-class service sector. As a whole, this agreement will boost wages in the UK by £2.2 billion, putting money into the pockets of working people right across the country.
I am well aware that many in this House will rightly be keen to understand the intricacies of this agreement and have a keen eye for detail. We have already published the summary document, which includes a brief overview of every chapter within the agreement. My officials are working at pace to prepare the legal treaty, which will be available once the agreement is ready to be signed. As with any free trade agreement, parliamentarians will have ample opportunity to scrutinise the deal, which is subject to the usual ratification procedures under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The double contributions convention will also be scrutinised by Parliament via the standard processes outlined in the CRaG Act. Any legislative changes required will be scrutinised and passed by Parliament in the usual ways before ratification.
I hear the challenge about the human rights record. The UK is a leading advocate for human rights around the world, and we remain committed to the promotion of universal human rights. Where we have concerns, they are raised directly with the Government of India, including at ministerial level. This has been undertaken separately to these trade negotiations, although they are part of building open and trusting relationships with important partners. The avenue to communal trade supports our ability to influence in these matters far more greatly.
There was also a question about whether we are eroding trade and how that will be received. We set out further information on the trade diversion impacts of this agreement in our impact assessment. This free trade agreement will include India’s first ever trade and development chapter in an FTA. Both the UK and India will monitor the effects of the agreement on developing countries. To facilitate effective dialogue in this space, we will aim to share our research and understanding, and this will in turn help inform future development programmes and policies.
To conclude, as my colleague the Trade Minister rightfully outlined in the other place, this deal affords UK businesses certainty and stability during a time of global uncertainty and instability. It is a deal that will give British businesses access to one of our biggest markets abroad while raising wages and driving growth here at home.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that account of the agreement with India and the deal with the United States. She said what the processes will be for the India deal with respect to this House—that the CRAG arrangements will be triggered—but she has not said anything about the deal with the United States. First, could she possibly reply to the question: what parliamentary scrutiny process will be applied to the deal with the United States? Secondly, could she say whether the United States deal is consistent with the UK’s MFN—most favoured nation—treatment under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and also whether the US agreement will fulfil the provisions of Article XXIV(6) of the GATT to give a waiver to any discrimination?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think he knows that yesterday I commented that I would follow up in writing with the specifics on that, and I will endeavour also to include the noble Lord in that response. As I commented yesterday, my parliamentary knowledge is thin but building, but it is not yet at Article XXIV of the GATT.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I say to my noble friend the Minister that I warmly welcome this Statement, most particularly its emphasis on the negotiations with India in respect of the Scottish whisky industry and the benefits it will bring for that industry but also, more broadly, for the Scottish economy. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that these negotiations will reduce tariffs on Scotch whisky from 150% to 75% at entry, moving to 40% after 10 years? Given that Labour’s team has succeeded in these negotiations where the previous Tory Government patently failed, does the Minister think it appropriate that the team should perhaps celebrate with a wee dram? If she needs any advice on what Scottish whiskies she could partake in, I am more than happy to provide that introduction.
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
That is wonderful to hear—a worthy celebration indeed. Of course, I am delighted that, as a result of this deal, Scotland will benefit from significant tariff liberalisation for a whole variety of its exports, which includes whisky, for which the current 150% tariff will reduce to 75% from day one of the deal, reaching just 40% after 10 years. The Scotch Whisky Association described the deal as
“a once in a generation deal and a landmark moment”
which is “transformational” for Scotch whisky exports.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I know many of us who were on the International Agreements Committee at an earlier stage, when we were looking at the difficulties of negotiating a deal with India, realise that it is a significant achievement and very welcome. It is not, however, as comprehensive as we had hoped it might be. Positively, I am very glad to see the procurement opportunities that it offers. In that regard, access to procurement in India is very large scale, but we need something which is digitally available, a bit like our own Tenders Electronic Daily. Is there an expectation that small businesses will have access to those procurement opportunities through that kind of mechanism? Secondly, we had hoped, at one time, that we might—and it would be very significant—have an investor-state dispute settlement provision in the deal. I do not understand that there is such a thing, but are there any side letters about giving assurance to UK investors in India for the future? Regarding parliamentary scrutiny, the CRaG provisions will apply, but would the Minister reiterate what we call the “Grimstone rule”—that is, if our International Agreements Committee was to recommend that the deal should be debated by this House, that such a debate would take place before the Government proceeded to ratification?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
On the investor treaty and how we are making sure that we get investor protections for people looking to invest across borders, the bilateral investment treaty is not included as part of this free trade agreement. That is the next stage in these agreements, and that will be followed up afterwards. It is not part of the free trade agreement, but those negotiations are still ongoing and will be part of future conversations. Forgive me: the noble Lord asked a second question; would he mind just repeating it?
Lord Lansley (Con)
The Grimstone rule is essentially that the Government commit that, if our International Agreements Committee said that the treaty should be debated by this House, that debate should take place before the Government proceed to ratification.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister will know that not all these trade deals apply to Northern Ireland. Yesterday in the other place, the Secretary of State for Business said basically that that was because of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the Windsor Framework and we had to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Could the Minister give me exact detail of where it says in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that businesses in Northern Ireland should be treated differently and that we should be left under the European Union’s court and rules? Would the Minister perhaps accept that we are getting a little bit tired of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement being used in so many different ways?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I hear the noble Baroness’s frustration. We want businesses in Northern Ireland to be able to benefit from this to the fullest extent that they can, and that is absolutely what we expect here. Businesses in Northern Ireland, exporting their goods and services will benefit from this free trade agreement, just as businesses elsewhere within the United Kingdom will. Businesses exporting from Northern Ireland will therefore benefit from the free trade agreement with India, so this should be a good news story. When we think about businesses importing into Northern Ireland from India—India-originating goods entering Northern Ireland—they will do so under the terms of this free trade agreement provided that those goods are not at risk of entering the EU. This is where the Windsor Framework kicks in, making sure that, under the usual process of the Windsor Framework, that is protected. Businesses operating within Northern Ireland will benefit from the terms of the free trade agreement.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I too welcome both trade agreements in recent weeks and congratulate His Majesty’s Government on achieving them. I know that in my diocese in Manchester, the large Indian diaspora community will be working hard to help British exports where they have improved opportunities.
I am not sure that the Minister quite answered the question from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, with references to human rights and climate change. I want to widen that slightly with regard to the upcoming trade strategy that the Statement referred to and ask whether there is any ethical component to it? Will moral considerations play any part in negotiating the trade agreements, or is trade, in effect, an ethics-free zone?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
On the environmental aspect, this is India’s first ever chapter on the environment within a free trade agreement and it goes further into this area than it has ever gone before. The agreement requires India to promote high and continually improving levels of environmental protection, reaffirms our joint commitment to the Paris agreement and strengthens environmental standards through non-derogation commitments. It is a big first step, but a free trade agreement cannot fix all environmental issues. Those are most effectively tackled when we work directly and closely with our partners through this international approach. Having a deal like this solidifies our relationship and provides much broader access and opportunity to exert that influence.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. I welcome this trade deal, and I, for one, welcome the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the Windsor framework. I believe that we should avail ourselves of every opportunity to access trade opportunities wherever they may arise, whether in India, the EU or North America, notwithstanding certain, shall we say, threats that may be made. In light of a previous question, what discussions will be held with the Northern Ireland Executive about potential opportunities for trade between Northern Ireland and India to avail of every opportunity and our ability to access the UK internal market and the EU in terms of goods?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. This free trade agreement presents a selection of opportunities for trade between India and Northern Ireland, but it is not the only one. We will be working closely with the devolved Governments to think about those opportunities and build on them collaboratively. In my particular area, investment, we are working closely with those Governments to understand what those trade and investment opportunities are and how we, as that central Government, amplify some of them. When I travel the world, I talk to investors and share opportunities not just within a mile’s radius of where we stand today but across the UK, so that benefit can be felt throughout.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Tory Benches.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
The Minister mentioned that Indian firms could send their employees to work here. Do the Government have any idea of the numbers involved? Will they put a cap on those numbers, bearing in mind the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday and that of the Home Secretary? What mechanisms will be in place to ensure that when the three years are over, those employees will return? The Minister mentioned that there was a worry, which she answered, that they would undercut British workers. What steps will be taken so that UK workers—local workers—can avail themselves of the opportunities of this deal by seeking employment with Indian firms?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
To provide some reassurance, there is no change in the visa process. The points-based immigration system is not affected, so there is no change in the various routes for visa applications as a consequence of this deal. In those limited instances where detached workers are employed by an Indian company on a short-term contract within the UK, they will not be paying social security contributions in both situations. This will not in any way change the immigration policy around visa applications; that will be consistent with the current processes to ensure that any visas granted are applied and people are understood to be in the country legally. Where they are not, the procedures will be as normal.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but I am speaking in a personal capacity today. I have not heard the Minister explain whether, in following the usual processes, the Government will publish a human rights assessment and the other impact assessments mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, in advance of the debate in this House. On a slightly different point, in the projections and the wonderful figures that her modelling paints for a future some decades out, have the Government taken into account the long-term impact of geostrategic instability in south Asia, which we are witnessing as we speak?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
In terms of the process and the timing of the impact statement, negotiations have concluded so we are in the final stages to get the treaty signed; it will happen as quickly as possible— I hope in the coming months. There will be a process for CRaG, and it will be discussed at parliamentary level. A full impact statement will be released, as well as the full trade agreement, on signature, so that should be available shortly. The human rights aspect is subject to an ongoing conversation and will be dealt with separately.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I strongly support the free trade elements in this deal, and not just because it is a Brexit benefit, which I am sure the Minister welcomes. Given that the Indians strongly wanted to link immigration to this free trade deal, can she give us an assurance regarding the strange loophole in the intercompany transfer arrangements? Although not incentivised by the tax issues to which she referred, has there been a guarantee that it will continue? Has there been any change in the situation since the last published figures, which showed that two-thirds of all the inter- company transfers coming into the country came from the contractor route? That means that people are migrants, employed by a contractor and then supplied to British firms, and 97% of those come from India. The loophole seems to be geared to the needs of the Indian desire to export some of their people. Can the Minister confirm that no assurance has been given that this loophole will not be closed? The last available figures show 26,000 people coming from India in a single year.
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I shall repeat some of the statements that I made earlier. We are not giving away more visas or creating new routes as part of the deal. Existing mobility routes have been expanded to cover additional sectors, so a broader number of sectors will now be considered for that mobility visa, but that does not necessarily change the quota. It is the same number of people accessing those facilities. The facilities have not changed; it is just that we will consider a broader range of sectors when considering those visa applications. To qualify for the routes, professionals must demonstrate that they meet strict criteria for professional experience and qualifications, consistent with the current process.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I know the Minister is honest and straightforward, as, of course, all noble Lords are, but would she like to state what it seems no other Government Minister wishes to state: that we would not be having this discussion or these deals if we had not left the European Union?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I try to be as honest and straightforward as I possibly can. I refer to the numbers that we talked about when we talked about modelling the numbers. There are a lot of what ifs and hows, but the reality is that we have to deal with the state of the world as it is today. That presents threats in some corners but opportunities in others. What was in front of us was the opportunity to build and expand our relationship with India in a way that supports both our nations, and that is an opportunity that we grabbed with both hands and made the most of.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am grateful for the frank and open reply that the Minister gave to my question, which I actually found rather worrying. I had not realised that there were existing restrictions on the intracompany transfer route to particular sectors, and that that was going to be liberalised and widened to additional sectors. Could she possibly write to me, and put a copy of the letter in the Library, about what the extent was before, how wide it will be in future and some estimate of the extra migration into this country that is going to come? Was any account taken of that in the Statement on migration from the Home Secretary the other day?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I assure the noble Lord that that worry is unfounded and that the numbers will not change. I am happy to write to him to follow up on the sectors that will now be included.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Could the Minister write to me and let me know what numbers are involved in company transfers to this country as matters stand? Do we have any idea of the numbers that companies will want permission to send here?
Employment Rights Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 127, 128 and 139 in the name of my noble friend Lady Penn. In so doing, I declare my interests as an employer and as the father of a four month-old son.
The amendments in this group seek to deliver a fairer, more modern and more economically rational approach to paternity leave in this country. They are modest in scope but transformative in impact. They are not about political ideology; they are about justice, equality, family well-being and economic prudence.
The case for action is overwhelming. Today in the United Kingdom we grant mothers 52 weeks of maternity leave. Fathers receive just two weeks and are paid a mere £187.18 per week for it, which is less than half the national living wage. That is not support, it is a symbolic gesture, and one that fails our families, our economy and our vision for a truly modern and inclusive society. As we have heard, the UK has the least generous paternity leave system in Europe and we rank 40th out of 43 OECD nations. While 22 OECD countries offer six weeks or more of well-paid reserved paternity leave, the UK offers just 0.4 weeks of full-time equivalent paid leave. Is that the legacy that we wish to defend?
The amendments seek to correct that imbalance. They would do three vital things: make statutory paternity pay a day-one right, just like paternity leave will be under the Bill; increase paternity leave from two weeks to six and raise the rate of pay to 90% of the father’s salary, capped at median earnings; and require transparency from large employers by mandating the publication of their parental leave policies. Each of those proposed reforms is supported by robust evidence, each is economically justified and, perhaps most importantly, each is backed by overwhelming public support.
The Government rightly propose to make paternity leave a day-one right, yet they do not extend that logic to pay. What message does that send—that a father may take time off but must go without income to do so? Incidentally, it is worth noting that that is currently the arrangement in your Lordships’ House. Perhaps if the Government are about fairness and workers’ rights, as they purport to be, that may be something that they wish to take up with the commission.
Research shows that the biggest barrier to fathers taking paternity leave is affordability. Nearly three-quarters of those who cut their leave short did so because they could not afford to stay off work any longer. What use is leave if it is unpaid?
Why six weeks, and why 90% pay? It is because we know, from the experience of countries such as Sweden, Germany, Spain and beyond, that reserved well-paid leave for fathers leads to profound benefits for families, for women’s equality, for children and for national prosperity. OECD data shows that, in countries offering fathers six weeks or more of well-paid leave, the gender wage gap is 4% smaller and women’s labour force participation is 3.7% higher. Why? It is because shared caregiving allows mothers to return to work sooner and on fairer terms.
However, this is not just a women’s issue; it is a fairness issue for all parents, and smart economic policy. The economic argument is striking. Closing the gender pay gap could boost UK economic output by £23 billion, while increasing paternity leave to six weeks at 90% pay could generate an immediate economic benefit of £2.6 billion. That is based on sound modelling endorsed by reputable analysts, including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Moreover, 90% of businesses surveyed by the CBI say that inclusive workplace practices help them to attract and retain talent. Nearly three-quarters of employers that offer enhanced paternity leave report higher productivity—we were discussing productivity rates in this country in earlier groups; this is a solution to help that—and employee engagement. So let us discard the myth that this would be a bureaucratic cost; in truth, it would be a smart investment for business.
Let us also remember the human case. Better paternity leave benefits children. As my noble friend Lord Bailey said earlier, children with engaged fathers show higher academic achievement, greater resilience and stronger social skills. It benefits mothers: when care is shared, women can more easily return to the workplace and pursue their careers. It benefits fathers: longer paternity leave leads to better mental health—something that we also heard about earlier—stronger father-child bonds and more engaged parenting throughout childhood. If we want to build a society where men are not just allowed but expected and supported to care for their children, then this is the place to start.
The public are with us on this point. Some 81% agree that more generous paternity leave is good for families and for the country. Support crosses party lines: Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and Reform all back this measure. This is not a fringe issue; it a mainstream demand and a moral necessity.
We have what is perhaps a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape the way this country supports fathers, mothers and children in their earliest days together. The proposed amendments are reasonable, grounded in evidence and long overdue. I urge the Government to accept them.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, who made a compelling case for these amendments. I rise to speak in strong support of Amendments 139 and 76, tabled respectively by the noble Baronesses, Lady Penn and Lady Lister.
The UK’s statutory paternity leave—just two weeks, paid at £187.18 per week—is the most limited in Europe. In many OECD countries, six weeks’ leave at the equivalent of full pay is standard. By comparison, our offer is inadequate and outdated.
Eligibility for paternity leave is also restricted. It requires continuous employment with the same employer for 26 weeks before the 15th week prior to the due date. That excludes many fathers, especially those in insecure work, the self-employed, or those working in gig economy roles. Many are forced to take unpaid leave or use holiday just to be present at the start of their child’s life.
The impact is significant. The TUC reports that over half of families struggle financially when a parent takes paternity leave, and one in five do not take the leave they are entitled to, mostly for financial reasons. Research from Pregnant Then Screwed found that 70% of fathers who did not take their full leave had to cut it short due to cost.
This is not just about finances; it affects bonding with the child and support for the mother or birthing partner, and it reinforces gender inequality in unpaid care. The lack of accessible leave for fathers limits shared parenting and is a contributor to the gender pay gap and future pension pot inequality.
The Employment Rights Bill includes provisions to address some of these issues. Clauses 15 and 16 remove the qualifying periods for unpaid parental and paternity leave. Clause 17 removes the requirement to take paternity or adoption leave before parental leave, allowing paternity and adoption leave to be taken following shared parental leave. However, these clauses fail to tackle the low level of statutory paternity pay, or to extend fathers’ and second parents’ leave entitlement past two weeks.
While the Labour Party committed in its manifesto to review the parental leave system more broadly, the Employment Rights Bill provides an opportunity in the here and now to implement changes that would make a real difference to families and people considering having children. The noble Lord, Lord Bailey, mentioned the lower birth rate—an important context that we must take into account in considering in these amendments.
Amendment 139 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, offers a practical and immediate step forward. It would require statutory paternity pay to be a day one right, removing unnecessary barriers for thousands of working parents.
Amendment 76 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, would mandate a comprehensive review of paid parental leave within six months of the Bill becoming law. Importantly, it sets the terms of that review: to consider a statutory, non-transferable period of paid leave for second parents, to raise pay levels, and to include the self-employed.
This is not merely a social issue; it is an economic one. Many noble Lords have mentioned the modelling by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Centre for Progressive Policy, which suggests that increasing paternity leave to six weeks at 90% of earnings could contribute £2.68 billion to the UK economy by supporting more mothers to return to work and encouraging shared care from the outset.
Countries with more than six weeks’ paid paternity leave have significantly smaller gender pay and participation gaps, as we heard in the international examples shared by a number of noble Lords during this debate. The benefits are clear, and the public support reform—only 18% believe the current two-week offer is sufficient.
Other amendments in this group have been powerfully spoken to, such as Amendment 80 from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and Amendment 127 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which both propose extended leave and fairer pay.
The case for reform has been compellingly made in this group. The Employment Rights Bill offers a real opportunity to modernise paternity leave, benefiting families, the economy and gender equality at work. I urge the Minister to consider the strength of the arguments presented today and to respond with the action that it deserves.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 127, 128 and 139 in the name in my noble friend Lady Penn.
I would like to think that the birth of any child is an important day in the eyes of the father as well as the mother; yet, when it comes to the parental leave granted by companies, they are treated very differently: up to 52 weeks for the mother and two weeks for the father. On this basis, as we have heard, the United Kingdom compares very unfavourably with other European nations. In addition, 22 OECD nations offer more than six weeks, paid at the equivalent of 100% of salary.
The Government’s weekly rate of statutory pay, for the two weeks that it is paid to fathers in this country, is currently the lesser of £187.18 or 90% of average weekly earnings. This is a modest amount by any measure, given that the average full-time working man is paid just under £700 per week.
We have heard from other noble Lords of the benefits to fathers themselves, as well as mothers and children, when fathers are permitted to spend longer with the family in the early period of a child’s life.
I wish to draw on my personal experience. As I have said before, the company that I work for—Marsh, a very large insurance broker—now has a mature policy on paternity leave. Fathers are allowed to take up to 16 weeks’ leave, and the company ensures that they continue to be paid the equivalent of 100% of their salary during their time away from the workplace. Importantly, their job remains open for this period to facilitate their return. This benefit was not available to me when my sons were born in the 1990s—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I have not yet reached grandfatherhood.
The time allowed must be taken within 52 weeks of the birth of the child, or children in the event of a multiple birth. I am sure that our competitors offer something similar, as competition for staff is an ongoing issue, and benefits count enormously in any discussion should a member of staff wish to change employer. Such a policy helps to define the culture of a company that cares not only for itself but also for the lives of its colleagues.
I do not believe that Amendment 128, which asks for parental leave policies to be published by large companies, is making an onerous request; indeed, publishing them would enable meaningful comparisons, inform jobseekers and encourage best practice across industry. I support it.
As I mentioned in an earlier group, happy staff tend to do good work. This is certainly a stressful time in any family’s life, and the mental health of staff is important, as we have heard today from my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington and others. It is one thing for a large company with the ability to cover a colleague’s workload to offer such a period of paternity leave, but this is obviously more challenging for smaller companies.
I am not suggesting for one moment that all companies should offer such generous periods of paternity leave as my own, much as I would have enjoyed it in my time. The birth of any child is, I hope, an exciting experience. It is also, in my experience, a somewhat nerve-wracking one, which can be ameliorated by parents being able to spend more time together during this period.
Two weeks of paternity leave is simply not enough. I encourage the Government to extend the statutory period for paternity leave to six weeks, as suggested in Amendment 127, and to provide a more generous level of salary. I hope that this will encourage fathers to take off this period, which, as I have demonstrated, is exceeded in some workplaces.
Finally, I will look briefly at Amendment 139, again in the name of my noble friend Lady Penn, on which I have changed my opinion during this debate. I believe that companies of all sizes feel that day one paternity leave is a step too far when the new employee has not even walked through the door. However, if the Government insist on this, it seems only right that fathers should receive statutory pay as a minimum. Companies obviously still have the opportunity to decide whether to go further, as would be the case for employees who have been part of the workforce for a certain period of time.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 127 from my noble friend Lady Penn. I declare an interest—which I am increasingly discovering to be a growing financial interest—in the form of my two daughters, who are the most precious things to me.
I confess that I am glad that it is my noble friend Lady Penn who is leading the charge on this amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, leading the group. I rise with some trepidation. I am not alone in being conscious that, in speaking to this amendment, as a man I am putting myself slightly in the firing line by somehow implying that a man should have exactly the same as the woman who has just carried and given birth to the child. As has been said, this is not about more rights for the man. It is more than that. It is about ensuring a dad can be at home to play their part for the child and, crucially, be there for the mum.
I am lucky and immensely grateful that, on both occasions when my wife gave birth to our children, I had two supportive bosses, one of whom I am delighted to say is still my boss, in the form of the Opposition Chief Whip. When the time came, my noble friend worked to give me the support and time I wanted to be with my family. When I was in the Government Whips’ Office, I worked with colleagues—two of whom I am pleased to see here, in the form of the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Harlech—to ensure that we all got the time at home that we wanted, especially me. This is not unique, but I was lucky: lucky that it was offered, lucky that it was an open dialogue, lucky that I could ask for what I would like without recourse and was completely understood, and lucky that the support extended beyond the time I was at home. I was also lucky that my child was healthy and lucky that I had my in-laws around to help out.
Like so many in the country, I wanted to be at home to help, but also to share those early moments—the precious moments in a young child’s life that were mentioned earlier. I was there to help, tidy, ferry, feed, give cover and support my wife, who was recovering after surgery. To explain my personal circumstances, both of my children’s births were not simple. The first required emergency surgery, and then a return to hospital for another stay a week after coming home. Our second child’s birth was also complicated. Despite being a planned caesarean, the surgery did not go well and it required weeks of hospital visits. There is no way at all that my wife, on her return, could have looked after a newborn child, never mind our eldest or, indeed, herself.
I say this not for sympathy, or to suggest that I am special or unique, or deserve better support than others. General statistics show that, on average, a labour can last up to 18 hours. While around 46% of women who give birth in England spend one day in postnatal care, around 40% of women spend two days or more. Caesareans have increased over the last decade, amounting to over 40% of births. It is worth reflecting that the advice on caesareans is that for weeks the mother should not lift anything heavier than her own baby.
Not everyone is able to have a wider family network to rally in support. While I was lucky that I had support at work, some are not so lucky. They do not have a choice and have to return to work sooner than they would like to, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said. Indeed, I read online that one dad was back at work 24 hours after their child was born.
I am a realist and I know that money does not grow on trees, and many businesses are already providing longer and better parental leave. Some may say that they have concerns about the impact on business and the economy, and I will not comment on the Bill as a whole, but it is obviously right that each and every day we should be supporting and helping businesses to grow—they pay the taxes and employ people.
Research shows that three-quarters of employers who offer extended leave see an increase in productivity and engagement, and almost 100% of fathers said flexibility is a deal breaker when looking for employment. As my noble friend Lady Penn said earlier, extended leave is good for parents, so that they can help and support one another; it is good for the child, to ensure that support is there for them, and to build bonds as part of a new unit; and it is good for forming another special bond, the one between employer and employee. I hope that all noble Lords, especially in my own party, recognise the merits of this amendment as something that is good for both business and families.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very, very briefly. It is heartening to hear support for the amendments in this group right across the House. I will speak in particular to those from the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Penn. I have already shared with the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, that, when I was at the TUC, I very, very vividly remember having conversations with young men who were working as riders and delivery drivers, and they really, really wanted to be good dads. They had young babies and children, and what was most important to them—and I hope others will reflect this in paying attention to how we make working families’ lives better—was predictability of shifts and guaranteed hours, so they would know how much money they could earn, but they also wanted paid paternity leave.
To keep this really, really brief, I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister before she responds. First, can we accept that the starting point for a review would be to recognise that, compared with other countries, the UK is so ungenerous in its paid paternity leave? We do not need a huge review to know that; it is our starting point. If we are to move into the 21st century, we also need to recognise that new dads from all sorts of backgrounds want time to bond with their babies and be involved more equally in their care. Secondly, will this review focus specifically on paid paternity leave, working from the simple premise that, unless it is paid, there are whole swathes of new dads who simply cannot afford to take it?
I have been encouraged by the discussion around the House. I think there is a cross-party consensus that we all want to see new dads having that opportunity. We all know it will bring benefits for women—including closing the gender pay gap—and opportunities for children to have a better life, too.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Penn for her very thoughtful amendments in this group. I acknowledge the valuable contributions from all noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for introducing her amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for introducing his amendments and, perhaps more importantly, reminding the House of the Conservative-led coalition Government’s work in this area—although I note that he did not heap praise on the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith.
We fully recognise and support the intention behind these proposals, which is to strengthen support for families and in particular to enhance the role of paternity leave in allowing fathers to spend essential early time with their children. This is a laudable aim that clearly finds broad sympathy across the House.
However, while the objective is clear and commendable, we must also consider the practical implications of how such policies are implemented, particularly in relation to the impact on businesses. Many employers, large and small, continue to face significant challenges in the current economic climate, as we have discussed at length this evening. The introduction of new requirements, even when limited to large employers, must be approached with caution and care, and I acknowledge that my noble friend Lady Penn addressed many of those concerns directly in her speech.
As for the reporting obligations set out in Amendment 128, tabled by my noble friend, these would apply to businesses with 250 employees or more. While this threshold helps to focus the requirement on larger organisations, we should still be mindful of the potential administrative and financial burdens such reporting could entail. Even within that category, resources vary significantly, and not all may be equally equipped to take on new reporting functions—a point that was addressed by my noble friends Lord Bailey and Lord Ashcombe. That said, transparency and data collection can play a valuable role in shaping effective policy. If it can be clearly demonstrated that these measures would bring mutual benefits, improving employee well-being and retention, for example, without imposing disproportionate costs or complexity on employers, it is certainly something that we should be prepared to consider further.
Ultimately, we have to strike the right balance, ensuring meaningful support for families while safeguarding the viability and flexibility of the businesses that employ them. That is the lens through which we should view not just this amendment but the broader provisions of the Bill.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging, informative and very exciting debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on his four month-old son. I begin by recognising the key role that parental leave plays in supporting families—I wish it had been available when I became a father, at a much older age, some 18 years ago. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for sharing his story about the difficult time he had during the birth of his children.
This Government understand that the arrival of a child, whether through birth or adoption, is the most transformative time in a family’s life. We understand that the current parental leave system needs changing so that it better supports working families. We have committed to do this and we are taking action in a number of different ways. Through this Bill, the Government are making paternity leave and parental leave day-one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of the intent to take leave from the first day of employment. I hope that many noble Lords will welcome this position. This brings such leave in line with maternity and adoption leave, so simplifying the system.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Minister said that this brings paternity leave in line with maternity leave, but for maternity leave, the right to pay is also a day-one right. Does he acknowledge that the Bill does not create alignment between maternity and paternity?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I just said that the leave is the same as maternity leave, not the pay. This brings paternity leave in line with maternity leave and adoption leave, thereby simplifying the system. We are removing the restriction preventing paternity leave and pay being taken after shared parental leave and pay, to further support working parents in assessing the entitlements available to them. Separate from the Bill, planning work is under way for the parental leave review, which will explore how well the current system supports working families and what improvements could be made.
Amendments 127, 80, 138 and 139 seek to make changes to paternity leave and pay. Amendments 127 and 139 are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. Amendment 127 seeks to extend statutory paternity leave and pay from two weeks to six weeks and to increase the rate of pay to the lower of 90% or national median pay—although the drafting relates specifically to pay. Amendment 139 seeks to make statutory paternity pay a day-one right for all employees by removing the current continuity of working requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has laid two similar amendments, Amendments 80 and 138. Amendment 80 would increase the minimum length of paternity leave from two to six weeks and require regulations to introduce the ability to take paternity leave at any time in at least the first year following birth or adoption. Amendment 138 calls for the existing flat rate of statutory parental payments to be increased, by doubling the rate from £184.03 to £368.06.
I hope to reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, in part by highlighting several reforms to paternity leave and pay which took effect in April last year. These changes now allow eligible parents to take their leave and pay in two non-consecutive weeks; to take their leave and pay at any point in the first year after the birth or adoption of their child, rather than only within the first eight weeks, as was previously the case; and to give shorter notice for each period of leave. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will therefore agree that, while well-intentioned, Amendment 80 is not necessary in relation to when paternity leave is taken, for the reasons I have just explained.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Will the noble Lord clarify whether he just said that there are no day-one rights to parental pay, including for maternity?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I will read it again. Amendment 139 would make statutory paternity pay a day-one right. Currently, no parental pay entitlements are available from day one, including maternity pay.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Does the noble Lord acknowledge that maternity allowance is available from day one, at the same rate of pay as statutory paternity pay?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: maternity allowances are available from day one.
Parental pay entitlements require employees to meet an average earnings test. Calculating whether newly employed parents have met this threshold would present a significant challenge to their new employers who administer parental payments.
Amendments 127, 138 and 139 would introduce a cost burden to the Exchequer at a time when public finances are under pressure. When considering calls to increase the level of parental pay generally, any changes will need to take account of the economic situation, the financial impact on employers and the needs of parents, and be made in consultation with businesses and stakeholders. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is required by law to undertake an annual review of benefits and state pensions, including statutory payments. This is based on a review of trends in prices and earnings growth in the preceding year. Generally, as with other benefits, parental payments are increased in line with CPI. For example, statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay will all increase by 1.7% in April 2025, in line with the September 2024 CPI figure.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Does the noble Lord acknowledge that, in linking the payments to CPI, what is actually happening is that we are seeing a bigger gap between statutory payments and people’s salaries, as the national minimum wage is increasing by a greater degree? The process that the noble Lord has laid out is increasing the problem that we have of payments not coming anywhere close to replacing wages.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. That is the situation as it is now. Until and unless things change, that is what is happening.
Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support will be available to parents. For example, universal credit, child benefit and the Sure Start maternity grant may be available alongside statutory parental pay.
I turn to the issue of shared parental leave. Where fathers and partners want a longer period of leave and pay, shared parental leave and pay is already available. Shared parental leave and pay offers up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay, which can be created for parents to share from maternity entitlements that the mother does not intend to use. Parents can use the scheme to take leave together for nearly six months, or intersperse periods of leave with periods of work.
I turn to Amendment 136, again laid by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, which calls for individuals who are self-employed or contractors to have access to statutory adoption pay within six months of the passage of the Bill. It would also require the terms “self-employed” and “contractors” to be defined in regulations, to set out a clear description of who would qualify for statutory adoption pay under this extended eligibility.
I want to reiterate my appreciation and gratitude towards all adoptive parents, who provide loving and stable homes to children who are unable to live with their birth parents. Currently, parental leave and pay entitlements are generally not available to the self-employed. This focus on providing parental leave and pay to employees is rooted in the understanding that employees often have less flexibility and control over their working conditions than those who are self-employed. There is of course the exception of maternity allowance, which is available to self-employed mothers as an important health and safety provision. It makes sure that mothers can take time away from having to work to recover from childbirth, bond with the child and establish breastfeeding if they wish to do so. For parents who do not qualify for adoption pay—for example, those who are self-employed or contractors—statutory adoption guidance advises local authorities to consider making a payment similar to maternity allowance.
In November 2024, the Government published Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, in which we allocated £49 million to the adoption and special guardianship support fund for this financial year. This will enable local authorities and regional adoption agencies to offer a wide range of tailored support, including psychotherapy, family therapy and creative therapies, to adoptive families. These services are available following a locally conducted assessment of the adoptive family’s needs.
Amendment 128, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, would commit the Government to introducing regulations requiring organisations which employ more than 250 people to publish information about their parental leave and pay policies. It is true that parental leave and pay policies are not extras. They are essential policies that allow people to manage their professional and personal responsibilities and play a huge role in addressing wider social and economic issues.
The Bill contains a number of measures which will improve the support working families receive, most notably by: putting in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who come back to work for a six-month period after they return—except in specific circumstances; making flexible working the default, except where not reasonably feasible; and the requirement that large employers produce equality action plans. We feel that we are already striking the right balance between doing more to help working families and ensuring that these changes are manageable for employers to respond and adapt to. Therefore, we do not believe this is the right time to legislate to require publication of parental policies.
Amendment 76, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister, would make it a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to begin a review of paid parental leave within six months of Royal Assent and to lay the review before Parliament within 18 months. I share the desire of all the noble Lords and Baronesses who have tabled these amendments today: I too want to see change made to the parental leave system to better support families, and I thank them for their clear dedication to improving the lives of parents and children. I recognise their concerns that the current system reinforces outdated gender roles. The responsibility for childcare remains, for many families, with the mother. For many, this will be through choice, but it is also reflective of a system that grants fathers and partners a short period of time off to be with their partner and child during this first year of life. Shared parental leave is available to qualifying fathers and partners who wish to take a longer period, but take-up remains low.
Family life has changed radically since the 1970s, when the then Labour Government passed the Employment Protection Act, which established the right to maternity leave for working mothers. We all agree that improvement needs to be made, and this Government have already begun that work by making paternity leave and parental leave day-one rights through this Bill. This removes a layer of complexity and makes the system more accessible. More needs to be done, and I recognise the fair point raised by my noble friend Lady Lister in Amendment 76 that a review needs to address the disparities in the current system.
The plan to make work pay—a manifesto commitment —committed to a review of the parental leave system within the first year of a Labour Government to ensure that it best supports working families. Planning is under way, and we hope to provide further detail soon.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the Government will meet that manifesto commitment to start the review within the first year, and can he give a timescale not just for when the review will start but for when it will be completed?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I can give the commitment that we will do this within the first year of the Labour Government.
Lord Leong (Lab)
We are planning and conducting the review within the first year of the Labour Government.
It would be premature to make further legislation in this space before the parental leave review has taken place. We will, however, take my noble friend’s ideas and concerns into consideration, and I look forward to updating your Lordships’ House on the review.
Before I conclude, we understand the concerns raised by—
Lord Fox (LD)
Before the Minister exits the review, it clearly reflects on a number of the issues in the Bill. It would make an awful lot of sense, if the Government are going to do this within the first year—which, by the way, is not very much longer—to be able to present us with the findings of that review so that we can reflect them in what we bring back on Report.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, and I will speak to my officials and write to all noble Lords accordingly regarding the review.
We understand the concerns raised by micro and small businesses around proposed day-one rights to paternity leave. Those employers often work with very lean teams and tight margins, so any perceived increase in entitlement can raise questions about costs and continuity. Introducing day-one rights is about fairness and consistency. It ensures that all fathers, regardless of tenure, have the opportunity to support their families at a critical time.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. He has just talked about the importance of a day-one right to paternity leave, giving fathers the ability to take that leave, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, unless it is paid, swathes of dads will not be able to afford to take it. If the Government recognise the importance of this, why will they not make it paid?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. As I said in my previous paragraph, we are making day-one rights such as this and consulting, and the review will look at all the issues that the noble Baroness has brought forward. Until we get the review done, I really cannot commit to anything at this stage.
For businesses, this kind of support fosters loyalty and improved retention in a competitive hiring environment. Demonstrating a commitment to family-friendly practices helps attract and keep skilled employees. We also encourage proactive workforce planning. Cross-training and flexible staffing arrangements can mitigate disruption during short absences. Many small employers already manage similar situations around holiday leave or illness, so this policy is not about adding burden but about building a workplace culture where staff feel valued from the very start. We are committed to working with small businesses to ensure that the transition is smooth, supported and sustainable.
I hope I have reassured all noble Lords of the Government’s commitment to parental leave and respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can I, first, just make an observation? Having listened to him reading from his brief, I wondered how many members of the team who prepared the brief have themselves ever been able to take paternity leave, because it certainly did not sound like they had. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said in her intervention, she was very happy with the support from across the House for paternity leave being changed, and quickly. Those of us in the House who are in front of and to the side of the Minister were able to witness the body language of his Back-Benchers. Having seen that, I will say only that I suggest that going and sitting down with them as a group between now and Report might be helpful.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that, and I will probably take up his idea.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everybody who contributed to this debate. I particularly thank all the fathers who contributed; they made it very much an issue for fathers and brought their personal experience to it. That was very important, and I value it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, pushed and pushed on the question of the timeline. As far as I understand it, it is starting to happen and will start within the first year of a Labour Government, but there remains a question about when it will finish. Perhaps the Minister can take away that question and see whether he could bring back in a letter before Report a clearer idea of what the timeline will be and exactly what it will look like. I must say that, if the scenario that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, laid out is how it is going to be, I would find that disappointing. It would be very disappointing for many people in this Committee who have supported the raft of amendments so powerfully.
I ask that a copy of this debate is given to the Minister responsible for this review. I think it would help that Minister, whoever it is, to see just how strong the feeling is, across this Committee, that this needs looked at—in particular, from the perspective of fathers and the raw deal that they get.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, this is a human rights issue. I am more used to talking about women’s rights than men’s rights, but I hear that this is one of those issues where the two come together and the one supports the other. It is so good to see this acknowledged across the Committee in that way.
My noble friend the Minister said he hoped that we had been reassured, but I have to admit that I was not—I am sorry. There was a lot of talk about better support for working families. What I did not hear—I will read Hansard—is a clear acknowledgement that this is about a better deal for fathers, and that from that then flows a better deal for mothers, children, families and the economy. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked a bit about the costs, but this could be good for the economy and for business, and I think that perhaps that needs to be recognised more.
I will not say any more now. I ask that my suggestion that this debate be brought to the attention of the Minister responsible for the review is taken seriously—there is nodding from the Front Bench in front of me.
I cannot speak for the body language of all my colleagues here on the Back Benches, but I think it has been a very good debate and worth having. We need to think about what we want to do on Report, and I am sure this will come back in some form then. I ask that officials give more thought to what was really motivating this debate in what is presented back to us on Report, because I am not sure that they really got it—and this is too important for it not to be got. I will leave it at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I look forward to continuing the conversation across the House.
“Foster carer’s leave(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.(2) In the title of Part 8B, for “CARER’S LEAVE” substitute “CARER’S LEAVE AND FOSTER CARER’S LEAVE”. (3) After section 80J (Carer’s leave) insert—“80JA Foster carer’s leave(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations entitling an employee to be absent from work on leave under this section in order to undertake activities as a result of being a local authority foster parent.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “local authority foster parent” is defined in accordance with section 105 of The Children’s Act 1989.(3) The regulations must include provision for determining—(a) the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section;(b) when leave under this section may be taken.(4) Provision under subsection (3)(a) must secure that where an employee is entitled to leave under this section the employee is entitled to at least a week’s leave during any period of 12 months.(5) The regulations may make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken (including by providing for it to be taken non-continuously).(6) The regulations may provide that particular activities are, or are not, to be treated as providing or arranging care for the purposes of this Part.”(4) In section 80K—(a) in subsection (1), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”,(b) in subsection (2), after “80J” in both places it occurs insert “and 80JA”,(c) in subsection (4), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”, and(d) in subsection (5), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”.(5) In subsection (1) of section 80L, after “80J” insert “and 80JA”.(6) In section 80M—(a) In subsection (1)—(i) in the opening words, after “80J” insert “80JA”,(ii) in paragraph (e), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”,(iii) in paragraph (f), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”,(iv) in paragraph (g), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”,(v) in paragraph (h), after “80J” insert “and 80JA,(b) In subsection (2), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”, and(c) In subsection (3), after “80J(4)” insert “and 80JA(4)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause ensures local authority foster parents are entitled to at least one extra week’s leave every 12 months.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
In moving my Amendment 77, I shall speak to Amendments 78, 79, 135 and 144 in my name. Amendment 77 seeks to extend to foster carers the leave given to carers, and I hope that noble Lords will see this as a necessary clarification, which is all that it is. Amendments 78 and 79 focus specifically on kinship carers and would require larger employers—those with over 250 staff—to review the support they offer to unpaid carers. Amendments 78 and 79 seek to address a significant gap in employment rights for kinship carers by introducing a new entitlement to kinship care leave. Amendment 78 proposes a provision to establish this right, while Amendment 79 links the proposed entitlement to the broader provisions of the Bill.
These amendments respond to a pressing social need. Over 130,000 children across the UK are currently being raised in kinship care arrangements—more than three times the number in foster care. Despite the critical role that kinship carers play, often stepping in during times of crisis to prevent children entering the care system, they receive far less support, including in the workplace. Introducing a specific entitlement to kinship care leave would provide families with much-needed time and space to adjust, to make the necessary arrangements and to ensure the child’s well-being during what is often a traumatic transition. Not only would this improve outcomes for children and families but it would help relieve pressure on the formal care system, where costs are often excessive and the emotional toll on children is, I am sure, significant. In enabling kinship carers to remain in employment while fulfilling their caregiving responsibilities, these amendments recognise the long-term social value of keeping children within loving, familiar, family environments.
Amendments 78 and 79 would introduce a right to kinship care leave and link it to broader employment provisions. As I say, 130,000 children in the UK are in kinship care, which is more than three times the number in foster care. Kinship carers often step in during family crises, preventing children entering state care, yet they lack formal workplace protections. These amendments would provide time for families to adjust and to support a child’s transition—especially vital in sudden or emergency situations. I maintain that supporting kinship care is cost-effective and reduces reliance on costly private care providers that profit from family meltdown. This is about reshaping workplace culture to reflect the reality of modern families and ensure that children can remain in loving, stable homes. These proposals align with broader efforts to reform the care system and should be viewed as part of a compassionate, pragmatic approach to child welfare.
Amendment 135 would make carer’s leave a paid entitlement. I do not really need to add more than that.
Amendment 144 would require employers with more than 250 employees to consider what support they offer to unpaid carers within their workforce when publishing their gender equality action plans. This is a modest but important step towards recognising the hidden pressures faced by most employees, most often women, who juggle paid work with unpaid caring responsibilities.
Unpaid carers are the backbone of our social care system—where would we be without them? Yet their contribution is routinely overlooked in workplace policies and gender pay gap reporting. By including consideration of unpaid carers in gender equality action plans, we would acknowledge the real-life factors that contribute to disparities in career progression, earnings and job security. Employers cannot meaningfully address gender equality without recognising the care burden that disproportionately falls on women. This amendment is a practical and proportionate way in which to ensure that unpaid carers are no longer invisible in workplace policies.
When drafting my words for today, I did not realise how important kinship care was. One talks about the mothers and fathers, but very often it is the aunts, uncles, grandmothers and grandpas—other people who are kin to the child—who are not recognised in our system as producing the support that our system requires. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment in my name, which I beg to move.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 81, standing in my name in this group, if that is in order at this stage. It is a privilege to speak to this amendment. Although it stands in my name, I am just a vessel in this case; the credit for getting the amendment to this stage and in this shape should go to the members of the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee, but particularly to the wonderful chair of that committee, my good friend Sarah Owen MP. Her tireless and passionate advocacy in raising the issue of the need for bereavement leave following pregnancy loss has successfully persuaded the Government that action is necessary on this particular matter. Therefore, I hope that, when my noble friend the Minister replies at the end of the debate on this group of amendments, he will be able to indicate support for Amendment 81 or at the very least confirm that the Government will bring forward an equivalent amendment on Report.
Listening to and reading the stories of women and their partners affected by pregnancy loss is a very moving and powerful experience. However, unlike other parts of the pregnancy journey, such as IVF, there is often a cloud of secrecy around miscarriage, leading sometimes to a feeling that many women have that it is somehow their fault when pregnancy loss occurs. Sarah herself has spoken publicly with great courage, emotion and eloquence about her own experiences of pregnancy loss, and she has referred to that feeling, which is compounded by the fact that, having miscarried and experienced the related physical and emotional trauma, a woman is expected to apply for sick leave to deal with the bereavement of pregnancy loss.
Miscarriage is not a sickness; it is not a disease, and it is not the equivalent of having a heavy cold or any other infectious condition. Having to take sick leave to deal with the heartbreak of miscarriage trauma reinforces the idea that there is something wrong with the woman. That is the evidence that Sarah Owen’s committee received when it undertook its inquiry into this matter. It is also the case that taking sick leave will often trigger an HR process from an employer, which can enhance a feeling of insecurity of employment at a time of great vulnerability for the woman concerned.
Pregnancy loss bereavement should be treated in the same way as any other kind of bereavement suffered by workers, and it should therefore be a right in law, enacted through this Bill. In addition, this measure would help to lift that veil of secrecy and guilt around miscarriage and build more compassionate and human workplace environments. Sarah Owen herself has spoken movingly about this when describing and discussing her own experience of miscarriage. She said in the Commons:
“I experienced pregnancy loss while I was an MP, and the kindness of colleagues in this place got me though, but at no point did any of them wrap their arms around me and say, ‘Get well soon’; they all said, ‘I’m sorry for your loss.’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/25; col. 927.]
I believe that this amendment can help to drain that well of loneliness that can be felt when pregnancy loss is left unacknowledged in employment law and in the workplace, particularly as it is such a common occurrence.
Of course, partners need to be involved too. The committee heard compelling testimony from women who had experienced miscarriage that partners needed time to grieve their loss, as well as to accompany their partners to doctors’ appointments and so on. They heard from a witness who nearly bled to death on the way to hospital because her husband was not given time off work.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 134, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
The aim of this amendment is simple but vital. It seeks to provide day one financial support for parents of children diagnosed with a serious or life-limiting illness. It would create a new statutory right for parents to take a period of paid leave from employment to care for their seriously ill child. This right would apply to parents of children aged between 29 days and 16 years old who are receiving or have received specified types of medical or palliative care. The duration of this leave, including rate of pay, would need to be set out in regulation.
This amendment is tabled in honour of a young boy named Hugh, who sadly lost his battle to rhabdomyosarcoma, a rare form of cancer, at just six years old. His parents, Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis founded the charity It’s Never You to help support the parents of children who have been diagnosed with serious illnesses. They have been campaigning for three years to change the law and are here in the Gallery tonight to listen to this debate.
Throughout Hugh’s treatment, Ceri and Frances saw first hand the immense challenges faced by parents—not just the emotional and physical strain of caring for a seriously ill child but the severe financial pressures that come with it. Each year, around 4,000 families in the UK spend two months or more in hospital with their child, who is undergoing treatment for a life-threatening illness. These parents are being forced to make the impossible choice of earning a living or being by their child’s bedside. The current system is leaving these families unsupported at the most vulnerable moment in their lives. Many are selling their homes, their clothes and turning to crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe just to cover basic living costs, which can go against them in any application for universal credit.
At present, no parent is entitled to any financial support in the first 90 days of their child’s illness. After 90 days, they can apply for disability living allowance, which would help with the costs of caring for their sick child. But even then, successful DLA applications can take up to 20 weeks to be approved.
Of the families surveyed by It’s Never You, 90% believed that immediate financial support would have made a critical difference to the hardships they faced following their child’s diagnosis and treatment. This amendment seeks to build on important progress made through the 2023 Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act. Under this Act, parents of babies admitted to neonatal care within the first 28 days of life and who require a hospital stay of seven continuous days or more, are now entitled to up to 12 weeks of statutory leave with pay for those eligible. This leave is also in addition to existing maternity or paternity entitlements.
Regarding these recent legislative changes, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, remarked:
“No parent should have to choose between being with their vulnerable newborn or returning to work … We are giving parents peace of mind so they can focus on their family.”
Considering this statement, I would like to ask the Minister just one question. The Government clearly recognise that no parent should be forced to have to make such choices between their child’s health and employment. So why are they so reluctant to provide essential financial support to those vulnerable parents who are in equally devastating situations?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 77 on foster carers’ leave, and Amendments 78 and 79 on kinship carers’ leave. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on bringing them forward.
Both types of carers, as the noble Lord said in tabling his amendments, provide a huge service by allowing children to remain in loving family settings, and both types will be the subject of wider consideration in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. But today there is a need to ensure that the essential caring role they provide is acknowledged by making provision for them to have a right to leave, as do employees.
Foster carers at least receive fees and allowances, although a survey by The Fostering Network last year found that 32% of local authorities pay less than the national minimum allowance to their foster carers, and even those rates are out of date and fail to meet the costs of caring for a child. It is also essential that recognition be given to foster carers’ right to leave from work to enable them to respond to situations in the same way as birth parents are able to do.
There are over 150,000 children in kinship care in England, and yet there is a lack of understanding among the general public as to just what kinship care is and what it involves. It is any situation in which a child has been raised in the care of a friend or family member who is not their parent. The arrangement may be temporary, or it may be long term. Kinship carers need employment leave because they step up in times of crisis to provide love and care to children who may otherwise be sent to the care system—a situation that has often come about because of tragedy and/or trauma.
The period when the child moves in with a family can be difficult. They are likely to need a lot of support. Often, the carer has not planned to take on parenting responsibilities for one or more children, so they may have to spend time attending meetings with children’s services, being involved in court proceedings, finding a nursery or making arrangements with the child’s school and GP. Sometimes, children’s services place an expectation on kinship carers that they at least temporarily stop working, if they think it necessary to meet the needs of the child.
Whether the carer receives any local authority support, in a financial sense, in this situation is dependent on where the carer lives, the type of arrangement and whether the child is or was previously in the care system. More often than not, kinship carers become dependent on social security, which is simply not right or fair. Surveys by Family Rights Group have found that a third of working-age kinship carers are not in paid employment due to their caring responsibilities, and six in 10 kinship carers have to give up work or reduce their hours when the child comes to live with them.
The contrast between adoptive parents and foster carers is stark. Adopters are entitled to 52 weeks of leave and 39 weeks of pay to enable them to settle a child into their home. This is paid at 90% of average weekly earnings for the first six weeks, followed by a payment which currently stands at £184 a week for the next 33 weeks, and employers can usually reclaim almost all those costs. There is no equivalent employment leave entitlement or payment for kinship carers, but there should be. Amendment 78 would introduce significant steps towards that, because providing kinship carers with paid leave would provide families with financial security and lead to direct savings for the Treasury from kinship carers remaining in employment, reduced universal credit claims and greater tax revenues, not to mention wider social benefits from gains in children’s well-being and in GDP.
Foster carers and kinship carers do not simply provide a service to the children they look after: they provide a service to the Government by lessening the demands on children’s services and saving public expenditure. I very much hope that my noble friend will recognise this and give an assurance that she will bring forward a government amendment to right these very obvious wrongs around leave for foster carers and kinship carers, and recognise the vital service that they provide.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for tabling Amendments 78 and 79, to which I have added my name in support. My comments will be brief. I add my voice to those of other noble Lords in the Chamber in appreciation of the debates that we have heard today on the detail of the Bill, which in many ways indicate the interrelatedness of the issues before us, and about what it is to live well together to enable the flourishing of every person throughout their whole lives.
I am very grateful to the Minister for her engagement with me over several months on the matter of kinship care, and I acknowledge the Government’s evolving view on how best to ensure consistent and sustainable support for kinship carers. I appreciate that the Minister is open to further conversations, and I look forward to them.
Part of the challenge is providing a clear, agreed and workable definition of kinship care, and there is more work to be done on this, recognising that Amendment 79 sets out in some way to go about this task. It is about finding the right balance to achieve what is needed in supporting kinship carers and is not so open as to be unworkable in law and unrealistic in affordability. That, to me, is a challenge—it is around the parameters of what kinship care is—but I do not think that it is unresolvable.
However, the longer we take to get to this point, the more lives are being impacted. Kinship carers are overrepresented in the health, education and social care sectors, so the withdrawal from this labour market has an obvious impact on wider society. The north-east region, which I serve, has the highest rates of children in kinship care. The impact of this in real terms, given multiple and systemic factors of inequality, is immense.
Amendment 78 would grant kinship carers the right to take statutory paid leave, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, akin to the entitlements of adoptive parents. It would allow them to spend a period of protected time with the children entering their care as they settle into their new arrangements. Further, it would enable caregivers to remain in employment while they adjust to their new responsibilities and continue contributing to the economic growth that this Government strive for.
I again thank the Minister for her willingness to meet me and engage with these amendments. I urge her to carefully consider the difference these amendments would make to the lives of kinship carers, to those growing up in their loving care and to wider society.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, who makes a strong case for more support for kinship carers. I added my name to Amendments 135 and 144 to demonstrate cross-party support for a squarer deal for carers.
Before I add a brief word to what has already been said about carers, I add a quick word about Amendment 77, on foster care. A long time ago, my wife and I were registered foster parents in the London Borough of Lambeth. We did short-term fostering, typically when a mother went into hospital to have a child and somebody needed to look after her existing child or children. It is not quite clear from the wording of Amendment 77 how short-term foster parents might qualify if the amendment became law.
If the definition in Amendment 78 was used—namely, that the fostering of a child had to last a year—then short-term foster parents would not qualify, even though they might have been providing short-term fostering for up to a year with a series of different children. Short-term fostering can last from two days to two years. On the other hand, should a two-day short-term fostering spell qualify for leave on its own? Probably not—so, we need a bit of clarity on entitlement if this is to go further.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 135 and 144, which relate to unpaid carers. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who is always so sound on carers’ issues. I declare an interest as vice-president of Carers UK.
Amendments 135 and 144 would provide employees with a statutory right to paid carer’s leave and require employers with over 250 employees to consider what support unpaid carers are given within their workforce when publishing action plans on gender equality. Both seem to be entirely sensible, and I am pleased they have received cross-party support. As noble Lords will know, I have long campaigned for greater employment rights for those juggling paid work with their unpaid caring responsibilities. This Bill is very welcome and includes many provisions which have a positive impact on working carers.
Millions of people are now doing this juggling act of paid work with their unpaid caring responsibilities, but this juggling act is very difficult to maintain. Despite pockets of good practice, a lack of support and understanding from many employers—and too few rights in the workplace—too often leaves carers with no choice but to give up work or turn to part time or insecure work. It is estimated that 600 people per day quit work to provide unpaid care, with real and lasting consequences for them and their families. That is not only bad for them but bad for their employers and the economy. As recently as March, the Government provided a new estimate of the cost to the economy of carers being unable to work, which the noble Lord, Lord Young, quoted. It was a staggering £37 billion a year—a huge figure.
We have made good progress in recent years. Indeed, the entitlement to a week of unpaid carer’s leave was secured, as we have heard, through the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, and it was a positive step in the right direction. However, it was always intended to be just that—we said this endlessly during the passage of that Act, as some noble Lords will remember—as it was a first step to be built on. I welcome that the Government have committed to review the implementation of the current right to unpaid carer’s leave under the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and to consider whether there is a need for paid carer’s leave. However, I urge the Government to go further and faster to seize the opportunity in front of them. It is clear to me that we should be doing everything we can to ensure that all carers who are able and wish to work are able to do so. Surely this is part of what the Government are trying to do in other areas—encourage people back into the workforce.
Carers UK’s evidence shows that 80% of carers say that additional paid carer’s leave of between five and 10 days would better help them to juggle work and unpaid care, and 50% of carers would find it easier to return to work after a period of absence if they had access to paid carer’s leave. Almost half of those who have given up work or retired early—many people take early retirement specifically to take up caring responsibilities—said that paid carer’s leave would have helped them to stay in employment for longer had it been available at the time.
The modelling that Carers UK has undertaken based on existing employer practice estimates it would cost the Government between £5.5 million and £32 million annually to introduce paid carer’s leave, depending on the rate of compensation employees receive. I know that is a large figure, but it is in fact a small price to pay compared with the huge contribution made to our economy by carers.
Amendment 144, relating to equality action plans, is necessary due to the gendered nature of caring. At the heavy end of caring, women are still much more involved than men, and this impacts specifically on women’s employment. I understand and welcome that Ministers have been engaging with organisations such as Carers UK, as well as carer-friendly employers, over the last year. I am sure they will have heard much about the positive impacts that organisations such as TSB, Centrica and Phoenix Group can have on their employees by promoting best practice. However, that support should not be the preserve of employees who just happen to work for enlightened employers.
I agree with the Government that this Bill is pro-business and pro-worker. These amendments are too, and that is why I hope they will be supported by the Government.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 134 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. She has highlighted that there is a glaring gap in our welfare system. It fails to provide adequate, immediate support for parents whose children fall seriously ill. Although the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act rightly recognised the need for non-means tested leave and pay when a child is critically ill at or shortly after birth, that protection vanishes as the child grows older. Parents whose children fall seriously ill beyond the neonatal period are left navigating benefits that are not suited to the immediate support they require.
Currently, there are only three options available for parents seeking that financial support. The first is universal credit, which is means tested and not easily accessible. The second, disability living allowance, was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It can only be applied for three months after a diagnosis and then takes an additional 20 weeks—approaching half a year altogether—to process. DLA is also a requirement for claiming a blue badge—just to give an example of how long this process takes. The third option is 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave taken in four-week blocks within a calendar year.
So, there is a gap from day one to day 90 before a parent can apply for financial help. In these cases, it appears families face an impossible choice—financial insecurity or being at their child’s side during the most traumatic moment of their young lives. This amendment addresses that gap, providing a grant to the parents of a chronically sick child from day one. The grant will be limited to the first one to three months, and approved quickly by the consultant, with a renewal every month.
According to data from the Treasury, there are approximately 4,000 children each year who could be expected to have a hospital stay of two months or more. The cost of caring for a chronically ill child is estimated to be around £750 per month. According to estimates by the charity It’s Never You, if the Government were to provide two months of support during this gap period, it would cost around £6 million—a significant amount, but at the lower end of national spending in revenue terms compared with many of the options talked about today.
This amendment seeks to extend the principles of the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act to children up to the age of 16 in cases of serious illness. It builds on a clear precedent and introduces a compassionate, practical solution—non-means tested support—at that moment of crisis.
The impact on employers will be minimal, affecting, as I have stated, only a few thousand families a year. But the benefit to those families would be profound. This is precisely the kind of change where legislation can make a life-changing difference at very little cost. I urge the Government to consider this amendment, which is in keeping with the spirit of this legislation.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, before I deliver my remarks in relation to the amendments that I have signed, I will add my support to the amendment on miscarriage leave from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton. My Plaid Cymru colleagues in the other place also supported that amendment, so I am glad to see that it has made its way to this House, too.
Amendment 135, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would establish carer’s leave as a paid entitlement. I will keep my remarks brief, but I speak from lived experience. I became an unpaid carer at the age of 12. I know what it means to juggle education, work and caring responsibilities while having to repeat my story to NHS staff, college tutors, employers and the DWP. The obstacles I faced are not unique. I know that a number of carers who I spoke to in the past, and continue to do so, continue to face these obstacles. Those experiences led me to campaign on those issues, and I am proud to have influenced positive policy changes in Wales that make life a little easier for young carers trying to stay in education.
Amendment 135 would help build a safety net for the millions of people with unpaid caring responsibilities —people like I once was. The Government have made it clear that getting people back into work is a priority, and they also recognise that unpaid carers’ inability to work costs the economy £37 billion a year. Supporting carers to enter and stay in employment must therefore be seen not only as a social priority but an economic one. Introducing paid carer’s leave is not an expensive proposal. Modelling by Carers UK suggests it would cost between £5.5 million and £32 million per year, depending on the rate of compensation. Set against the cost of lost productivity, high turnover and pressure on health and social care systems, this is a modest and worthwhile investment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 135, to which I have added my name. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, especially given that she spoke from lived experience, which I think is really important.
I recently attended a policy breakfast about support for working carers, sponsored by the Centre for Care, Sheffield University. The unanimous view was that the leave has to be paid to make a real difference, and that is the message received from carers themselves, gathered by Carers UK. Many, especially those on low income, many of whom as we have heard are women, simply cannot afford to take unpaid leave. In the words of the Centre for Care:
“A statutory right to unpaid carer’s leave in the context of a gender-segregated labour market with a substantial gender pay gap is likely to substantially exacerbate inequality”.
The evidence it has collected shows that we compare badly to many other countries where paid carer’s leave is now taken for granted.
As I said on Second Reading, the argument rests not simply on the social and moral case—the huge difference it would make to the lives, health and well-being of carers—but on the strong economic case. It would increase the likelihood of carers entering or remaining in the labour force, thereby supporting the Government’s aim of increasing employment and promoting economic growth. As a Government-supported task and finish group noted, supporting carers to remain in paid work represents an economic opportunity. TSB, which provides its own carer’s support scheme, is clear about the value it provides for it as an employer, and therefore is one of many organisations calling for the Bill to include provision for paid carer’s leave. It is not just big employers that are supportive: a CIPD consultation with its members found that support among SMEs was not much lower than among large employers.
The original new deal for working people promised paid carers leave. I have a different quote from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. At the Commons Third Reading of the Private Member’s Bill which introduced unpaid leave just a couple of years ago, the Front-Bench spokesperson said that
“the next Labour Government will be committed to building on this legislation and introducing a right to paid carer’s leave in our new deal for working people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/23; col. 580.]
However, although he responded sympathetically on the issue on Report for this Bill in the Commons, the Minister could only say that, because the right to unpaid leave was enacted recently, the Government were
“reviewing this measure and considering whether further support is required”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/25; col. 952.]
I echo the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about whether my noble friend the Minister could explain this shift in attitude. I completely understand that the Government need to consider how paid leave should be designed, not least because we need to learn from other countries. Yet what is there to consider with regard to the need for further support, given the body of evidence which overwhelmingly demonstrates the case for it? Surely, we can show our commitment to unpaid carers by writing into the Bill an in-principle provision to cover the introduction of paid leave once a review of the details is completed. This would be wholly in line with the spirit of the Bill and consistent with the Government’s missions—not least their overriding pursuit of economic growth—while demonstrating support for a group at considerable risk of poverty.
The Government have demonstrated their commitment to carers, with action already taken on carer’s allowance, although its loss for thousands of carers as a result of the planned PIP cuts points in the opposite direction. Therefore, it is all the more important to use this Bill to demonstrate our commitment to carers who are desperately trying to juggle their responsibilities in the labour market and to their loved ones and our recognition of the importance of care to our society.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I commend the speeches that have been made, particularly on kinship care, but recognise the challenges that carers face. I am sure that the debate on remuneration for carer’s leave will continue. I am contributing on this group because of Amendment 81, from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton. I would say that it is quite odd for this to have been grouped alongside the other issues, recognising the very serious situation of pregnancy loss. Before the noble Lord spoke, I was not aware that this was relating to an inquiry at the other end. I have only just started reading aspects of that report, so I am not as fully informed as he was in presenting this. However, there are some issues here that I am concerned about.
Thinking through this, only three other countries in the world include parts of pregnancy loss in terms of being formally considered for bereavement leave. That is not a reason not to do it, but it is important to recognise that we would still be quite a considerable outlier. It needs careful consideration. I am not dismissing it in any way, but I am conscious that the Government responded on 25 March and I am slightly disappointed that we have not yet seen an amendment tabled. I appreciate that some of these things take a bit of time, but I had hoped that in Committee we would be able to consider what the Government were going to table in this regard.
As the Government have set out in their response to the committee and as is set out in ACAS guidance, a number of these issues are already covered in terms of pregnancy or maternity-related illness. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said about this becoming a potential HR issue. It is discriminatory for any such illness in any way, including miscarriage, and molar pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy would be covered very straightforwardly by that.
I have a particular concern about proposed subsection (2B)(a)(iv) in his Amendment 81, which widely casts the net of any medical abortion. It is already recognised that any abortion after 24 weeks is automatically covered in bereavement leave. The same is true of stillbirth, which, in the UK, is considered to be the loss of a pregnancy at 24 weeks and above. The two are not causal or directly related—obviously, there is a correlation in the timing. It just so happens that we have our current abortion limits, with certain exceptions, up to 24 weeks. So I am concerned that, in effect, proactive abortions taken up to 24 weeks would be covered in this amendment. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Government in their response, because, as I have said to the House already, I have not yet had the chance to read the entire report from the Women and Equalities Committee.
On proposed subsection (2B)(b), I say that I have had many friends who have, not always successfully, had children through IVF. Thankfully, many people do, but they recognise when they enter into it some of the challenges they definitely will face in trying to have a child by IVF. As it stands, on average, the success rate for a woman below 38 is about 35% for any particular embryo-transfer loss. Once a woman starts to go over the age of 40, that falls—it has gone up from 2012 from an 8% to a 10% success rate in 2022. That careful consideration needs to be thought about by the Government and your Lordships in this House when we decide to extend certain entitlements, while recognising the heartbreak that can happen at certain moments in people’s lives in these particularly sensitive moments. I am conscious that this is a sensitive issue to bring up at this point in the Bill.
I do believe that I would like to understand this in more detail. I will take the time to do some more research myself, but I am very keen to hear from the Government quite where this is stretching. I appreciate they have given a certain kind of wording to the House of Commons Select Committee on this point, but the provision of further details to the Committee here would be very welcome.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank all speakers from your Lordships’ House for what has been an excellent debate. It is a genuine pleasure for me to participate, hopefully quite briefly.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, gave a moving speech, which was made more moving by the knowledge that Sarah Owen is at the Bar today, and I thank both of them for their contributions, but especially Sarah.
Amendment 81 has our support, not least as a catalyst to try to have the sort of debate we need and the careful consideration that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, also alluded to. I hope it can start to move things forward.
We also support Amendment 134, which was so ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. This again is an important issue that we want to have more conversations about following this debate.
My noble friend Lord Palmer gave a very spirited and strong advocacy for kinship care, and that was supported across the House—here is another area where there is an absolutely clear and present need for carers to be officially brought into the carers’ community.
The point on fostering was also well made by my noble friend, as was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about short-term fostering as something we should seek to bring into that. All these amendments are, in a sense, broadening the scope of carers and where we should be considering. For all of them, I hope the Minister will be able to stand up and say “Let’s have a debate following this particular group. Let’s talk with interested parties to see how some or all of this could start to be moved forward”.
I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I focus on paid carer’s leave. I had the great honour of piloting Wendy Chamberlain’s Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House with, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, the strong support of the Conservative Government. During that time, I had a chance to meet a lot of carers and a lot of employers of carers—big companies such as Centrica, which the noble Lord mentioned, and much smaller companies. They all set out the advantages of having a proper, strong relationship with their carers and the starting point, which we established through that Private Member’s Bill, of unpaid carer’s leave.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, whose fox has not been shot.
This has been such an interesting, important, fascinating and deeply moving debate. We owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for very positively introducing the fact that unpaid carers are the backbone of the care system, and for bringing us up to date with the reality of modern families. I think the Committee has spoken with one voice as we await the reply from the Government Front Bench. Have we not united in saying what we want the Government to do? It will be very interesting to hear the response. I hope they will use every moment between now and Report to be more specific about how they wish to respond to the issues that have been thrown up in this debate.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I acknowledge the importance of kinship carers—the grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings and other close family members who step forward when children need a stable and loving environment. These individuals often take on significant responsibilities with little preparation or support, and they always do so with compassion and commitment. The contribution of kinship carers cannot be overstated. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle reminded us, they help prevent children entering the care system. They keep families together, and often do so at great personal and financial cost.
I have to acknowledge the contribution of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who had some wonderful specific quotes to share with the Committee. There is an important strategic alliance here, particularly with the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Lister of Burtersett, and it will be important to respond positively to the points that they have made.
I believe there is a genuine case for us to explore how we might better support those who take on these caring responsibilities in such difficult circumstances. While I appreciate that statutory leave may not be straightforward to implement, especially in the current economic climate, there is room, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, suggested, for a wider conversation about what more might be done. There should therefore be further consultation on this matter—with kinship carers themselves, with businesses and with the wider public—to understand the practicalities and to gather the necessary evidence. If we can find a solution that is proportionate, workable and rooted in the realities faced by both carers and employers then that will deserve our serious consideration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, has said, there is room here for a modest move forward that would make a significant contribution.
We have to acknowledge the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton, about bereavement leave. He spoke movingly of his Commons colleague Sarah Owen, MP for Luton North, who has blazed a trail of understanding in some areas that previously have not been properly understood, and we need to respond positively to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, talked about serious childhood illness, pay and leave, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. That that is another area where we need to explore how we can better tackle these challenges. In all these areas, I am confident that, through continued dialogue, we can work towards a sustainable strategy.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been another wide-ranging debate and I am grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, my opposite number, just said, it has been a moving and profound debate that has demonstrated the complexities of the issues in front of us. There is unanimity across the Committee, I am sure, that we should do as much as we can to support carers. We have to ask ourselves how best we do that. We have picked up the baton from the last Government, who passed the Carer’s Leave Act, and we must move forward on that—but I am getting ahead of myself.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for putting the issue of kinship care in front of us, tabling Amendments 77, 78, 79, 134, 135 and 144. I also thank my noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton for tabling Amendment 81. I will do my best to get through these amendments at a decent pace.
I will begin with kinship care, speaking to Amendments 78 and 79, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I join others in emphasising how greatly I and the Government appreciate kinship carers, who generously step into the breach and offer loving homes for children who cannot live with their parents. I am sure that the whole House shares these sentiments.
I reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that all employed parents and carers receive the support they need to manage both their work and their family lives. As we have heard, Amendment 78 aims to establish a new “kinship care leave” entitlement for employed kinship carers. Amendment 79 then seeks to creates a legal definition of “kinship care” to be used to establish eligibility for kinship care leave.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, himself, rightly talked about the amazing work done by kinship carers across the country, supporting children in times of greatest stress and need, in their own households, and in so doing relieving local authorities and the wider care system.
The Government recognise that the current support for working families needs improvement. We have already begun work to improve the system for kinship carers. We are defining kinship care through other legislation that is currently before this House, and later this year we will begin trialling a kinship allowance in several local authorities.
We are pleased to say that, for the first time, through the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we will create a legal definition of kinship care for the purposes of specific duties within that Bill: the requirement to provide information about services to kinship families, and the duty to promote the educational achievement of children in kinship care. This will help to ensure that all local authorities interpret and apply the definition uniformly in relation to the new duty to publish information required, reducing ambiguity and potential disparities in information provided about support by different local authorities. This will, we hope, make life much easier at the sharp end of providing kinship care. It is a vital part of our commitment to keeping families together and supporting children to achieve and thrive.
I am also very pleased to say that the Government have recently announced a £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance. This is the single biggest investment made by any Government in kinship care to date; indeed, it is the first of its kind. This financial commitment could transform the lives of vulnerable children who can no longer live at home. It would enable children to be raised within their extended families and communities. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and others, it would minimise disruption to their formative years, allowing them to focus on schooling and building friendships—in short, having a normal life, as we want for all our children.
In addition, qualifying employed kinship carers may already benefit from various workplace rights aimed at supporting employees in managing work alongside caring responsibilities. These include a day one right to time off for dependants, which grants a reasonable amount of unpaid leave to deal with unexpected emergencies involving a child or dependant; the right to request flexible working; and unpaid parental leave, which, through this Bill, we are making a day one right.
Employees may not automatically have parental responsibility as a result of being a kinship carer, but they can acquire parental responsibility through different legal methods such as a special guardianship order. The Government have also committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families. This review will be conducted separately from the Employment Rights Bill, and work is already under way on planning for its delivery.
Amendment 77 would provide foster carers with one week of leave every 12 months. As we have heard, foster carers play a life-changing role in the lives of children who need a safe and supportive environment. At times when young people are facing significant challenges, foster parents offer not only care and security but emotional support and consistency. I pay tribute to all those who step forward to provide the essential service of foster-caring—not least, as we have heard, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who has now changed his place but is very much with us in the Chair.
It is important to highlight that a range of workplace rights already exists to help employees who take on the responsibilities of fostering. From their first day on the job, employees have the legal right to take unpaid time off in emergency situations involving their dependents. This enables them to respond swiftly to sudden issues, such as arranging care for a foster child. If a foster carer is looking after a child with a long-term illness or disability, they are entitled to carer’s leave. This provides them with up to a week of unpaid leave in a 12-month period, to manage healthcare needs or attend appointments. Those fostering with the intention of adopting may be eligible for paid adoption leave, provided they meet the necessary criteria. In addition, all employees are entitled to submit a request for flexible working arrangements from day one of their employment. Given that these existing provisions go a long way to help foster carers to balance work and their foster care responsibilities, it does not seem right to add a new entitlement without a proper assessment of the need for it and the impact it might have.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I appreciate what the Minister has said. If I heard him correctly, he said it would not be appropriate to introduce this leave without undertaking an assessment of how it would be applied. Will such an assessment be undertaken? I think it is important.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am very happy to write to my noble friend with more details. We will cover some of the issues on carer’s leave in the round later in my speech, but I thank him for his intervention.
Lord Fox (LD)
With all due respect, this Bill is full of situations in which the consultation for its implementation is yet to be completed. Having adopted a principle in primary legislation, one more consultation would hardly stain the integrity of this Bill. If the Government wanted to, they could very well take on kinship care and fill in the details later—that is what they are doing with the rest of the Bill.
Lord Katz (Lab)
We may be talking at cross purposes. I am very happy to write with more details of the way that we plan to take foster care forward.
On paid carer’s leave, Amendment 135 would introduce a statutory entitlement for unpaid carers to receive their usual wage while taking carer’s leave. As drafted, the responsibility for covering these costs would lie with the employer. At Second Reading, and this evening, the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Young of Cookham, spoke powerfully on the vital role played by unpaid carers. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley for all the work she has done on fighting for carers, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for speaking about her direct experience of caring. As my noble friend Lady Lister remarked, it is this sort of lived experience that brings so much to our House’s considerations of these matters.
I emphasise that the Government are committed to supporting those who combine work with care. However, there are not insignificant concerns with the amendment, which has not been changed since it was first brought forward in the other place. It does not give due consideration to the potentially significant costs it may place on businesses—particularly small businesses. It would create a situation of differential treatment between those taking leave to care for a family member or loved one under the Carer’s Leave Act and those taking other forms of leave, such as maternity and paternity leave. Those taking carer’s leave would be paid their normal wage, while other forms of leave are paid at a statutory rate, meaning that unpaid carers would be treated more favourably.
Although the Government do not support this amendment for these reasons, I assure noble Lords that His Majesty’s Government is fully committed to ensuring that unpaid carers can combine work with their caring responsibilities. We are reviewing the Carer’s Leave Act, which was introduced in April 2024 and gave employed carers a new right to time off work. We have heard tonight, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, expressed, the depths of feeling and concern that this is done properly. We have had the baton of the Carer’s Leave Act passed over; we want to make sure that we get this right, hence the review that we are undertaking.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I quite take my noble friend’s point, but we were not saying how it should be paid; we were asking for an acknowledgement of the principle that it should be paid and leaving it up to the Government to then review the details of how it should be paid. It would be good to have at least an acknowledgement that that is where the Government are heading.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I fear I may disappoint my noble friend slightly, but it is important that, if we are going to review these things, we review them in the round, and that I do not pre-empt that review at the Dispatch Box tonight. We are considering whether further support is needed, including potential options for paid leave, while being mindful of potential impacts on businesses.
It would be worth spending a little more time discussing the review, as several noble Lords have now asked about it. The review is under way and officials in the Department for Business and Trade have already spoken to over 70 employers, third sector organisations and charities, such as Carers UK, in the course of undertaking the report. We have held events across the UK, in Wales, England and Scotland, and this engagement will continue as the review progresses, alongside both qualitative and quantitative research.
I will answer a couple of direct questions on the review. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we will be considering international examples. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, we will be taking into account the immigration White Paper, which he so keenly observed has just been published. The review will assess the impact of unpaid carer’s leave, introduced last year, while considering whether further support is needed, including potential options for paid leave, while being mindful of any potential impacts on businesses.
To respond again to my noble friend Lady Lister, we do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the review. We must allow it to run its course, to ensure that we make a considered, evidence-based decision about what further support would most benefit unpaid carers.
As time is running on, I will speak to Amendment 134. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing attention to this issue. I pay particular tribute to the work done by the charity It’s Never You, which worked with the noble Baroness on this amendment. I join her in paying tribute to Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, who have so bravely and tirelessly campaigned in memory of their son, Hugh. I am so pleased that they could join us in the Committee to understand how seriously the whole House takes the issue they have raised—it gives us the opportunity to thank them again for their hard work on the issue.
This amendment would extend provisions on neonatal care leave and pay to the parents of all children up to the age of 16 who are seriously ill for an extended period of time, entitling parents to paid time off work at the rate of statutory neonatal care pay. As I have said, this is a very important issue, and I wholly acknowledge how incredibly difficult childhood illness can be for parents. Equally, I recognise the vital role played by parents and other family members who provide care in such circumstances. The importance of being able to spend time by the bedside of a loved one who is unwell cannot be overstated.
To respond directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the Government are reviewing the existing entitlement to carer’s leave, as I have already mentioned, and considering whether further changes may be helpful in supporting those who provide care to loved ones alongside work. For instance, employers are able to offer enhanced parental leave beyond the four-week limit in a year, and we encourage employers to consider doing this in unusual circumstances, such as a child becoming seriously ill. It is important that parents of disabled children are supported to return to or remain in work, if this is what they choose to do. Parents of disabled or seriously ill children may be protected from employment discrimination, by association with a disabled person, under the Equality Act 2010. These may well be more appropriate avenues through which to consider the issue.
While I am afraid that the Government cannot support the amendment at the present time, I understand that officials in the Department for Business and Trade have extended an invitation to the It’s Never You campaign to further discuss its proposals as part of the ongoing review of carer’s leave. I hope that noble Lords take that as a promissory note of how seriously we take the issue. I certainly hope that the Menai-Davises will be able to contribute their valuable perspective on this ongoing piece of work.
Amendment 144, on carers and equality action plans, would require employers to consider caring as a matter related to gender equality within any equality action plans, with reference to Clause 31 of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for drawing attention to the disproportionate impact that is felt by women when it comes to providing unpaid care, and particularly women in the workplace. This is undoubtedly a very important issue.
The provision in the Bill is designed to emphasise gender equality issues, but this amendment risks inadvertently strengthening existing assumptions about who provides care within our homes, families and society. The clause as it stands can already accommodate consideration of the needs of carers. We want to ensure that a variety of actions can be taken to support employees in a range of circumstances, so we fully expect action plans to consider those with caring responsibilities. Action plans are a vital step in supporting employers to make progress on closing the gender pay gap. Acknowledging the needs of those who provide unpaid care will no doubt play an important role in this, given that it is a significant contributing factor to the gap.
Finally, I will speak to Amendment 81, tabled by my noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton. I think the whole House was moved by his words on the issue. He calls himself a vessel, but he was certainly no empty vessel—if he will excuse my rather poor pun for this time of night. The amendment would extend the scope of bereavement leave to include pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. It would apply to those who experience miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, a molar pregnancy, a medical termination or an unsuccessful attempt at IVF due to embryo-transfer loss.
The loss of a baby at any stage is incredibly sad and difficult. As my noble friend Lord Brennan said, it is not a disease or an illness. The Government acknowledge that there is a clear gap in support for those who suffer a pregnancy loss before 24 weeks and that there is a need for time to grieve and recover, which, as many noble Lords from around the Committee recognised, was so helpfully highlighted by the work of the Women and Equalities Committee. It would be most remiss of me now not to join my noble friend Lord Brennan and indeed other noble Lords in paying tribute to the work of the committee, and in particular of my friend and comrade Sarah Owen, who has so movingly told of her own experience and has thought about the wider piece around this important and sensitive issue. We appreciate the way in which the committee has brought this issue forward.
We fully accept the principle of bereavement leave for pregnancy loss, as raised in the amendment, and we look forward to further discussions with my noble friend and other noble Lords as the Bill continues in this House. As my noble friend Lord Brennan said, this can help bring a more compassionate and humane face to the workplace as people deal with events that, frankly, at this current point in time, carry far too much stigma, secrecy and basic misconception of the facts.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the meaning of his words is that it is the intention of the Government to bring forward amendments that he is about to get to on Report in this regard?
Lord Katz (Lab)
It will not come as a surprise to my noble friend that we cannot accept the amendment in front of us today. However, I am very happy to work with him to ensure that your Lordships’ House can consider this most important issue again on Report. So I respectfully ask him not to move this amendment and ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I feel humbled by this debate. It started off for me with the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and the right reverend Prelate and it went on in the same vein, right across the House: the feeling that there was this Bill, the Employment Rights Bill, and that we recognise that within employment rights there are carers who have been ignored and need to be paid for what they are doing, for people and for the system that they underwrite.
The Government have not really replied in positive enough terms on this, but we will come back to this on Report with specific amendments. By that time, I hope that Government Ministers will go back to their colleagues in the other place and say that across the House, from all parts of this House, there was a feeling that unpaid carers need to be recognised in the Employment Rights Bill, and that kinship carers, who have not been recognised before, need to be recognised. We hope the Government have heard this and we look forward to a positive response by Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hogan-Howe
“Special constables: right to time off for public duties(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended is follows. (2) In section 50 (Right to time off for public duties), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) An employer shall permit an employee who is a special constable, appointed in accordance with section 27 of the Police Act 1996, section 9 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 or section 25 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, to take time off during the employee’s working hours for the purpose of performing their duties.(1B) In section (1A), “duties” means any activity under the direction of a chief officer of police.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause gives employees who are special constables the right to time off to carry out their police duties.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, my amendment is supported by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Evans, for which I am grateful. The amendment seeks to add special constables to the group of people in the criminal justice system who have the right to time off to fulfil their duties.
In 2018, Section 50 of the Employment Act was amended to include lay observers in prisons and members of immigration visiting committees for immigration centres and short-term holding facilities among those, such as magistrates and JPs, who have the right to take time off from their employment. Of course, each of those groups of volunteers is essential to the effective functioning of the criminal justice system, and so are special constables, who have existed since being created by the Special Constables Act 1831, although today’s version was really created by the Police Act 1964.
Special constables are special by name and special by nature, in my view. They are unpaid volunteers who have all the powers of a regular constable and take all the risks that their colleagues take, too, of being stabbed, assaulted and people abusing or spitting at them. They are paid expenses, but of course this covers only their outgoings and they make no profit. They deal with issues such as suicides, terrible road traffic collisions and many other things that regular officers have to deal with, but these are volunteers. After being trained, they are usually expected to be on duty for at least four hours a month. Most do very much more than that; some work every weekend. During breaks in employment, they often work almost full-time hours. Some work at this for over 20 years.
Special constables were designed to be a contingency for war, backfilling the police officers who would be expected to join the Armed Forces. Given many of the uncertainties in the world at the moment, it is not unrealistic to expect that we may call on them in the foreseeable future.
Special constables are a visible representation of community policing, giving of themselves without payment to stop crime and keep order. For me, they have always been a way to have the community in the police station, holding their regular colleagues to account and not captured by the prevalent police culture of the time—almost a pre-body-worn video system before that was even thought about. Some 25% of them go on to become regular officers, so it is not a bad recruiting route and not a bad way for them to test whether they would like to be a police officer or whether police officers think that they are going to be suitable full-time colleagues in future.
At present, the numbers of special constables are dropping quite dramatically. In September 2023, there were 6,330 in England and Wales, but by September the following year there were only 5,818. That is just one-third of the figure it was 10 years ago.
In this context, on the grounds of equity with other volunteers in the criminal justice system, surely we need to enhance the volunteer offer to encourage recruitment, retention and diversity. The Government have said that they want strategically to boost neighbourhood policing, with around 13,000 more officers and PCSOs in the coming years. Surely that priority alone demands that special constables—the most visible of community-based policing—have a priority in recruitment. This amendment would assist in that process.
No doubt the Government may say that this should not be approached in a piecemeal way and that they will make announcements when they say more about neighbourhood policing. Many of those announcements have been made, and this opportunity has been missed, I would say.
Some may say that this is a burden on small businesses, but I do not accept that. The Section 50 right for volunteers has a reasonableness clause in it, so a business of three people may struggle to give any time off, whereas a business employing 10,000 people may have far more flexibility. For example, it is not reasonable for an employee to consistently take time off when the business is particularly busy and needs them.
To be fair, those people come back to work better trained, confident and rounded individuals. As I said earlier, they have had a few new experiences of life—some good and some not so good. The Government may say that, if we do that for this group of volunteers, we may have to do it for others, and we may need to consider that as a whole. I do not accept that either; this reform is long overdue and is supported by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the specials’ own representative body, the Association of Special Constabulary Officers.
There is a huge gap in recruitment and retention, and that problem is now and the time to deal with it is now. This is a great opportunity to assist what is a special group of people whom we probably have all taken for granted for too long. The Government have an opportunity in this Bill to do something to help, and which will cost nothing.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 82 in the name of my friend and former colleague, the noble Lord Hogan-Howe, which I have signed. I declare an interest as a paid non-executive adviser to the Metropolitan Police Service. I apologise that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I intend to focus in a disciplined way on the amendment, unlike some colleagues.
In London, the Metropolitan Police, the UK’s largest police force, has, in recent years, been unable to recruit police officers to the level it has been funded for, and is now unable to recruit full-time regular police officers because of budget constraints. The Labour Government’s community policing guarantee, to recruit 13,000 more neighbourhood police and Police Community Support Officers, appears to be challenging, given that the Metropolitan Police accounts for about 19% of all UK police officers and about 25% of the UK police budget.
One low-cost way to recruit more community police officers is to take a no-cost-to-the-taxpayer measure to encourage members of the public to become special constables, such as that proposed in the noble Lord’s amendment. As of March 2023, the contribution of special constables was saving an estimated £85 million to £90 million a year in policing delivery, according to government statistics.
The Minister may well say, as Ministers are prone to do—for example, on the issue of humanist weddings—that while they agree in principle with the amendment it needs to be part of a holistic approach to volunteering generally; that the Government will consider this and bring forward such legislation in due course, if necessary; but that they do not want to create an uneven playing field. However, if they intend to meet the 13,000 uplift in community police officers, they need to create an uneven playing field, providing more of an incentive for the public to volunteer to be special constables than to be any other sort of volunteer.
In any event, the playing field is already uneven, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has just said, in that in 2018 the Government—albeit a different Government—amended Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to include four groups of volunteers in another part of the criminal justice system, such as independent prison monitors. The reason was to attract applicants in full-time employment, who tend to be younger, and thereby improve the diversity of these volunteers, who tended to be skewed in favour of older age groups.
Not only do the police need fit, younger people to volunteer to be special constables but, particularly in London, they need local volunteers who know and reflect the diversity of the communities in which they will serve. The proportion of special constables from minority backgrounds currently serving is higher than it is among regular full-time police officers, and with the added incentive that this amendment would provide, we have the prospect of recruiting more ideal volunteers, who know and reflect their local communities, as special constables.
Were these not good enough reasons to support this amendment, given the current issues around police culture—highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, in her report on the cultural issues facing the Metropolitan Police—recruiting more officers from minority backgrounds, working part-time and hence less influenced by existing negative aspects of police culture, would assist in changing those undesirable aspects of police culture and increase public trust and confidence. Not only would the public see more police officers who look like them; they may recognise them as members of their local community.
The special constabulary has also proved to be a fertile recruiting ground for the full-time regular force, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has just said, providing an opportunity for those from minority backgrounds in particular to try out policing before making a full-time commitment to it. Recruiting more volunteer special constables could also lead to improving the diversity and local representation among the full-time regular police force.
As with the changes made in 2018 to the 1996 Act, there are compelling reasons to extend Section 50 of the current Employment Rights Act to special constables, and I enthusiastically support this amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we could hardly have expected two more expert speakers to propose this amendment. This is another case where society is getting something on the cheap and, even though it is a different argument from the one about unpaid carers, it is another way where, in fact, we are not recognising the value that society is getting from these people who work as special police officers.
I really want to hear what the Government say on this and I hope it is not the sort of answer that my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggested it might be but is something rather more constructive that can come forward the next time this Bill comes up.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I would very much like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his important amendment in this group and for the valuable context he gave in his opening remarks, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for speaking so eloquently to it as well.
They are both right. Special constables play a vital role in our communities and, as they pointed out, they serve alongside other police officers, offering their time and their skills to protect the public and contribute to the safety and well-being of society at large. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just pointed out, society benefits from their work.
It is often overlooked, though. For many, being a special constable is something they do alongside other regular employment. These individuals are already balancing their professional lives with the demands of policing and, as has been pointed out, that can be both challenging and rewarding.
I could bore on for hours about how valuable special constables were when I was policing in Hong Kong—but I will not. I welcome this amendment and believe it represents a small but significant way to better support those who give their time to serve our communities by ensuring that special constables can fulfil their duties without facing conflicts with their employment obligations. We would be sending a strong message of support for public service generally, as well, of course, as for special constables. So we are very minded to support this amendment.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate—some might say “esoteric”, but not me— and indeed, thankfully, a slightly shorter one. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for tabling Amendment 82, co-signed by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Evans of Rainow. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Paddick, for meeting me, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, earlier today to discuss this amendment. It was really helpful to have the opportunity to, as we heard from both noble Lords this evening, hear the background context to the work of special constables, how they are regarded within the force and how they are integrated within the forces in which they serve.
Amendment 82 would give employees who are special constables a statutory right to time off from work to carry out their voluntary police duties. This Government recognise, as I think we all do across the House, and really value the important role that special constables play in our communities, and we are committed to ensuring that they are supported to navigate those responsibilities that they carry out as special constables alongside their working life.
Special constables, along with the full range of police volunteers, bring valuable and diverse skills, which complement the roles that full-time officers and staff play in delivering the best possible service to the public in protecting our streets and making sure that our communities are safe.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and his colleagues for providing the meeting earlier for me and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and for the time they took, on a long Bill with many amendments, to spend some time with us. We both appreciated it.
The Minister just said—he realised that I possibly might not agree—that it was invidious to draw distinctions between volunteers, but that is what happened with the employment Act in 2018, which distinguished between prison visitors and immigration. I see no reason why it cannot happen again, in principle. It does not seem to be a real problem.
The Minister said that it is hard to establish how many people might use this right. However, we know that it is no more than about 5,000 people—there are so few of them—in a workforce of about 26 million, so it is not going to cause a massive disruption to employers and employees.
On the voluntary arrangement with the NPCC whereby employers voluntarily give time off, the Minister will know that a survey established that about two-thirds of those who tried to use that scheme were unable to access it because their employers denied them that opportunity. That probably means that this right is particularly needed at the moment.
Finally, although I was not aware of the Hong Kong example—which I guess has a little of the British tradition—there are not many, if any, places in the world where a police officer can be a volunteer and take all the risks and have all the powers. It is a unique thing in the UK. If you talk to officers from Australia or America, they say, “Let’s get this right: they pay them nothing and they take people on and try to arrest them?” They cannot believe it. It is a rare thing we have, and it would be a shame to lose it, but we are in the process of losing it. All that said, of course I am prepared, at this stage, to withdraw my amendment.