Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
The Prime Minister’s plan for change sets out our ambitious but achievable target for clean power by 2030. We have already announced £300 million for offshore wind supply chains, in addition to the significant uplift for the clean industry bonus scheme. These measures support clean energy and growth in the UK’s industrial heartlands, and further details will be set out at the spending review.
Pippa Heylings
Successive Governments have failed to deliver a fair energy transition for workers and communities. We have seen the devastating closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery, and now we are seeing uncertainty around the gas storage facility off the east coast. Just seven out of 87 offshore oil and gas companies are planning to invest anything in renewable energy by 2030, so the Government must be the ones in the driving seat to ensure that our North sea oil and gas workers do not meet the same fate. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on new financial support to create recruitment and retention pathways for workers moving into the clean energy pathway?
Darren Jones
Our skilled workforce in the oil and gas industry will be important for the continued role of oil and gas in the energy mix, but also for the transition to renewable and net zero energy, as the hon. Lady has pointed out. That is why we have invested significant sums of money in carbon capture and storage, working with exactly those companies, and we will set out details of further support for the industry at the spending review in the coming months.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I welcome the £200 million commitment to Grangemouth and clean energy through the national wealth fund, and I also welcome the Department’s confirmation to me recently that that money will not be fettered exclusively to the Project Willow proposals. The need for investment is urgent, with jobs lost and the broader economic impacts impending. We need to move further and faster, so what conversations are Treasury Ministers having with their Cabinet colleagues to encourage them to act on the Project Willow policy recommendations and deliver investment in Grangemouth?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a champion for his constituency and for industry. As he has alluded to, the Government have already made hundreds of millions of pounds available through the national wealth fund for the company in question. We are working to ensure a just transition, harbouring the skills of people in Scotland and across the country. We are now in active discussions as the spending review comes to an end, and we will be able to present more detail to the House on 11 June.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Climate Change Committee says that we will need oil and gas until at least 2050, but rather than maximise North sea production, the Government are taxing it out of existence. Harbour Energy has just announced hundreds of job losses as a result of the Chancellor’s 78% windfall tax. Instead of costly transition imports, will Ministers use the spending review to think again and focus on an energy policy that will deliver cheaper and cleaner energy that is affordable for consumers and businesses?
Darren Jones
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement. That is why we are investing in home-grown secure energy, including renewables, nuclear and other forms of energy. In yesterday’s UK-EU trade deal—which I am sure the shadow Minister would like to welcome—we have enhanced our arrangements with the European Union on electricity trading, enabling us to export energy we produce in the UK to the European Union and vice versa. That will ensure energy security, as well as good jobs and good businesses in the energy sector, for decades to come.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
Lifetime mortgages have been regulated by the FCA since 2004. Those rules provide robust consumer protections, including requiring lenders to engage and provide tailored support to all their customers.
Harpreet Uppal
One of my constituents, a 96-year-old man, took out in 1990 what he thought was a £15,000 loan, but what was actually an interest roll-up lifetime mortgage. Despite paying £40,000 over the years, he now owes over £52,000 due to compound interest. He has been denied redress by the financial ombudsman due to time limits, and my team has also contacted the FCA and the lender without success. My constituent is now left to deal with the consequences. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this case, and how we can better support other people who have been mis-sold those products?
Emma Reynolds
I am really sorry to hear about the circumstances that my hon. Friend’s constituent is facing, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss the issue further. Lifetime mortgages are complex financial products, and I suggest that anyone considering equity release seeks independent financial advice to help ensure those products are suitable for their needs.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
An increasing number of pensioners are reaching the end of their mortgages with outstanding borrowing and finding themselves unable to meet later-life lending criteria, and this is likely to become even more prevalent in years to come as house price rises continue to outstrip earnings. What discussions is the Minister having with lenders and the mortgage industry about expanding those criteria and giving hard-working pensioners who might otherwise be forced to seek council support the opportunity to remain in their own homes?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. I discuss mortgages with lenders and, indeed, with the Financial Conduct Authority on a weekly basis, and I will ensure that I pass on his comments.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The Government considered all the policies in the autumn Budget carefully, in the context of the difficult fiscal inheritance that we had received from the Conservative party. The decisions to increase employers’ national insurance contributions and reduce the secondary threshold were taken to stabilise the public finances and ensure that money was available for our crucial public services, especially the national health service.
Graham Stuart
Johnson’s of Hedon, a DIY store, has traded successfully for 56 years, but its owner Mike Brooke, who has run it throughout that time, says that the national insurance hike introduced by the Chancellor has finally made the business unviable. Was the cruel destruction of Johnson’s of Hedon, and the jobs that it provides, deliberate or an accident?
Rachel Reeves
The money from national insurance—which, of course, only came in last month—is being used to fund investment in the national health service. Since the general election we have delivered 3 million additional NHS appointments, which benefits constituents in East Yorkshire and throughout the country. As for supporting business, the trade deal that we secured with the European Union was welcomed yesterday by the Confederation of British Industry, the Food & Drink Federation, the Institute of Directors and others, because it will add about £9 billion to the size of the UK economy.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Only last week the right hon. Lady was trumpeting that the economy had turned a corner, but, as she has just said, it is barely a month since her disastrous jobs tax started to bite. May I ask her precisely which business confidence survey—just one—she can point to which supports her assertion that everything is coming up roses?
Rachel Reeves
According to PwC’s global CEO survey—that is just one of the surveys—Britain is the second-best place in the world in which to invest, and that is what this Government are doing. The shadow Chancellor simply is not serious, and his party is becoming completely irrelevant. He talks about jobs; 200,000 jobs have been created since the general election. He talks about economic growth; the UK is now the fastest-growing economy in the G7. He talks about business; we have secured three trade agreements which are backed by British businesses and British trade unions, and the Conservative party opposes every single one of them. No wonder even George Osborne has said that the shadow Chancellor has “no credible economic plan”. While the Conservative party plummets into irrelevance, this Labour Government will deliver in the national interest.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
In the Budget the Government reduced business rates relief, which is hitting small businesses hard. Under current plans, in the next financial year small independent businesses could see their rates go up by 80% and chains could see theirs go down by 40%. I have shared that analysis with Ministers; will the Chancellor please promise that she will look at it personally to ensure that this—I think—unintended consequence does not come to pass and independent businesses do not close, leaving even more of our high streets looking the same?
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Lady will know that in the Budget, at a cost of about £1.5 billion, we were able to extend business rates relief, which was due to end entirely under the plans we had inherited from the Conservative party. As she will also know, we are reforming the way in which business rates work so that there are permanently lower rates for hospitality and retail sectors, particularly on our high streets.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
In January, I announced a review of the Green Book to ensure that it is supporting fair, objective and transparent advice on public investment across the country, and I am working closely with our mayors, particularly Steve Rotheram, who has championed this issue. Since January, the Treasury has been in conversation with over 70 different organisations and individuals regionally and nationally to identify areas where we can make changes to the Green Book and champion investment in the north of England.
Lisa Smart
Bear with me on this, Mr Speaker. The previous Conservative Government did not get absolutely everything wrong. They rightly identified that Treasury spending was a powerful tool to rebalance our economy in favour of areas like ours in the north of England. They then failed to deliver, and voters delivered their verdict at the ballot box. This Government have the opportunity to use this powerful tool and ensure that regional disparities are not further entrenched when they look at the Green Book. What reassurance can the Chancellor give my constituents that projects such as repairing Stepping Hill hospital, or bringing the tram-train to Marple, will get a fair crack of the Treasury spending whip?
Rachel Reeves
I totally agree with the hon. Lady. The plans that we inherited from the Conservative party saw capital spending decline as a share of GDP, which is totally the wrong decision if we want to grow the economy and improve prospects in towns and cities across the north of England. Over the course of this Parliament, we are putting £113 billion more into capital spending so that we can build the road and rail infrastructure, the energy infrastructure, the digital infrastructure and the housing that our country desperately needs. Under our reforms to the Green Book, we will make sure that we get more investment to the places that need it, including towns and cities in the north of England.
Markus Campbell-Savours
I am grateful to have secured Thursday’s Adjournment debate on the A66 road improvement project—a key transport link between Cumbria, the north-east and North Yorkshire. Cumbria is a long way from Westminster, and many of us fear that the economic case for major projects is stacked in favour of the economically active south-east. Can the Chancellor reassure me that Cumbria will not be disadvantaged when key public spending decisions are taken?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is a staunch defender of his constituency and region. We will make decisions at the spending review, which we will publish on 11 June, but as a proud northern MP, I am absolutely determined that the north gets its fair share of investment.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
The night-time economy, and the hospitality sector more widely, is the beating heart of our cultural life, bringing to life the places we all call home. That is why this Government have cut draught duty and introduced a fairer, permanent business rates system. We all want our pubs, clubs and restaurants to thrive.
Jessica Toale
Last month, I met representatives of Bournemouth town centre’s night-time economy at one of the newest additions to our high street, Barbara’s Bier Haus. The sector is incredibly resilient but is grappling with a number of challenges, such as changing consumer behaviour and rising costs. One issue that is common across our hospitality and retail sectors is prohibitively high business rates. Can the Minister update us on the progress that we are making towards business rates reform, and tell us how this will give the night-time economy the security it needs to be prosperous?
Torsten Bell
I completely recognise my hon. Friend’s point. Last autumn, alongside announcing immediate support for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, the Government published a discussion paper setting out our priorities for wider reform, and I know the Exchequer Secretary has met a wide range of businesses on this subject. We are delivering permanently lower business rates for these sectors, and we will announce further policy details at the Budget in the autumn.
Mr Alaba
The Kursaal in Southend—the site of the first theme park in Europe—and the Freight House in Rochford were once iconic venues in my community and central to the night-time economy. Over the last 14 years, venues have been forced to close and heritage buildings have been left empty. What steps are the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues taking to protect the iconic heritage and cultural venues that are the backbone of our evening and local economies?
Torsten Bell
I have missed out on the particular historical gems that my hon. Friend mentions, but my daughter is a big fan of Southend so obviously I agree with him wholeheartedly. And the Government agree with my hon. Friend, which is why last December we announced the largest round of the community ownership fund, awarding £36 million to 85 projects across the UK. In fact, I agree with my hon. Friend so much that my own office is in the rejuvenated Albert Hall in Swansea, which has had previous incarnations as a cinema, a bingo venue and a music venue—but behaviour in that building is much better these days.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Just a few weeks ago, I held a roundtable in my constituency with UKHospitality and hospitality businesses, such as hotels, night-time economy businesses and pubs. It was just after the first national insurance rise payment, which means that those businesses are devastated and are having fewer jobs, fewer apprentices and less investment. What they are worried about, as they look to the future, is whether the Chancellor will be raising taxes again in the coming months. Can the Minister assure my businesses that the Chancellor will not be coming back for more?
Torsten Bell
What the sector is doing is welcoming the trade deals done by the Government yesterday. What it is worried about is a Conservative party that cannot bring itself to welcome a single trade deal with any country around the world. The party of Robert Peel has turned its back on the entire world.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Hop Tub in Hurstpierpoint, the Hop Sun in Haywards Heath and the Brickworks in Burgess Hill are three fantastic microbreweries serving the constituents of Mid Sussex. Given the pressures of national insurance and the challenges of business rates, what is the Treasury doing to support these innovative businesses?
Torsten Bell
I think everybody in this House enjoys the proliferation of microbreweries around the country, which is why the Government are supporting draught beer and cider by knocking 1p off the price of a pint at the Budget last year. It is important not only that we support our pubs, but the brewers who produce the content that is sold in them.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
Sacha Lord, Labour’s former night-time economy adviser, says that it is tougher for the hospitality industry today than it was even during the pandemic, but the Chancellor is ignoring his advice and pushing ahead with a cocktail of costs that the Night Time Industries Association has called a death sentence for our pubs, bars and clubs. Can the Minister and the Chancellor not see that the future of the industry is fatally undermined by their anti-growth taxation?
Torsten Bell
What is anti-growth is the Conservative party, which sat over 15 long years of decline and completely unprecedented economic stagnation. Our job is to support the hospitality and leisure sector more generally. That is why we are reducing red tape through the cross-Government licensing taskforce; why we are permanently cutting business rates, moving away from the year-by-year chaotic system put in place by the Conservative party; and why we are engaging all the time with the Hospitality Sector Council.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The trade deal that we have secured with India adds around £5 billion to the UK economy. On social security contributions, if somebody who works for an Indian business is posted to the UK, or someone from a UK business is posted to India, they will not pay two lots of contributions: if you are paying into the Indian provident fund in India, you will not be paying national insurance contributions here; and if you are paying national insurance contributions here, you will not be paying into the Indian provident fund. On top of that, to come to the UK to work from India you will need to pay just over £3,000 for the NHS surcharge to be able to access those services and £769 in visa fees, contributing to the UK Exchequer.
Nick Timothy
I note that the Chancellor did not actually address the point of the cost to the Exchequer of the double contributions convention, which the Government has agreed with India. Indian workers sent here by their employers on intra-company transfers cost more in taxes than British workers, but that flips under this deal: Indian workers will be taxed less and cost less to employ than British rivals for doing the same jobs. That will not only cost the Treasury lost revenue, which the Chancellor did not admit, but displace British workers, suppress wages and increase immigration. Will the Chancellor commit now to monitoring the effects of the agreement and, if the data shows any of that happening, promise to scrap this charter for immigration with India?
Rachel Reeves
This deal is worth £5 billion to the UK economy, and it also benefits British workers being posted by their company to work in India. The Conservatives are now in the absurd situation of opposing the US deal, the India deal and the deal with the EU. They are simply not serious. The India deal reduces tariffs on Scotch whisky by more than half and brings into the UK more good jobs paying decent wages—the Conservatives seem to be against that.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Special steels business Paralloy in Billingham, in my constituency, has told me that uncertainty on international trade has recently left its customers running for the hills. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that now we have trade deals coming along like buses—with India, the US and the EU—we can offer reliability and confidence to important local businesses such as Paralloy that want to export to the world?
Rachel Reeves
Steel is one of the sectors that will benefit particularly from the trade deals this Government have secured, freeing ourselves of tariffs on steel going into the US. Indeed, the deal we secured with the EU yesterday means that we avoid tariffs on steel being sold into European markets, as well as now being exempt from the European carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is good for steel and good for jobs right across Britain.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
The Treasury has reformed the spending review process to ensure that it facilitates genuine collaboration across Departments. As part of this spending review, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I have met Secretaries of State multilaterally in mission clusters, which have brought together Departments to agree cross-departmental priorities, increase transparency, reduce duplication and align spending with mission delivery across Whitehall, while learning every possible lesson from the failure of the Conservatives to ensure that it is never repeated ever again.
Peter Prinsley
Some 9,000 UK medical graduates compete with 15,000 overseas graduates for postgraduate training, meaning that many of our own graduates simply cannot progress into higher professional training, and either go abroad themselves or leave medicine. Does the Minister agree that the Treasury has a crucial role to co-ordinate spending on medical university education by the Department for Education and on postgraduate training by the Department of Health and Social Care, so as to ensure that public money spent on medical student education is not wasted?
Darren Jones
The Government are committed to training the staff the NHS needs as part of our 10-year plan. International staff clearly play an important role in the mix of staff that we have, but we also want to create opportunities for people across the country to work in our national health service. That is why, thanks to changes this Government have made, we have already been able to recruit more than 1,500 additional GPs since October who would otherwise not have been able to seek that type of employment.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
While discussing the spending review, will the Treasury get the Agriculture Secretary and the Energy Secretary together in the same room, and make sure that agriculture receives the funding it needs and that energy is not allowed to charge agriculture, effectively, for its loss of income? In other words, will the Chancellor ensure we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Darren Jones
A meeting of that nature has already taken place as part of our mission-led approach to Government. We continue to engage with the Departments for Energy Security and Net Zero and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on these issues, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests—it is exactly what we mean when we talk about cross-departmental collaboration. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, further details will be set out in the spending review in due course.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
I was pleased to go with my hon. Friend to Darwen to visit the 100th banking hub, which was rolled out just a few months ago. We also visited the thriving Darwen market in one of his local towns. We will set out at the spending review how we will spend the £113 billion extra that we are putting in to capital spending, compared with the plans we inherited from the Conservatives. Of course, we will ensure that towns and cities, including across the north of England, benefit from that investment.
Andy MacNae
I thank the Chancellor for that answer—the Government’s commitment to the north is absolutely clear. We very much enjoyed our visit to Darwen market. At the same time, however, history tells us that small towns, like those that make up Rossendale and Darwen, can far too easily get left behind and not feel the benefits of major infrastructure investment, despite being the very communities that need to see and feel change the most. Does the Chancellor agree that as we implement our investment and growth strategy, and deliver the review of the Green Book, we must put our left-behind communities first? As part of every major investment decision, we should ask the question: what does this do for our most deprived and left-behind neighbourhoods? It is only by targeting investment where it is needed most that we can ensure that every community feels the benefit of the growth that this Government will bring.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is a proud champion of the towns and villages of Rossendale and Darwen. We will make sure that we use our Green Book review to properly assess the benefit of all this Government’s investments. On top of that capital investment, the people of Rossendale and Darwen are benefiting from the 3 million additional appointments that we have delivered, which have led to reductions in NHS waiting lists, and also the increase in the national living wage, which will make working people in his constituency and across the country better off.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The towns and villages of the lakes and the dales in Cumbria are proud to host 20 million visitors every single year—we are the UK’s biggest visitor destination outside of London—yet we get almost no support whatsoever for the costs incurred by those visitors on our highways and other infrastructure, health services and police. Will the Chancellor look at funding allocations to make sure that those services that support the residents and the visitors are properly funded?
Rachel Reeves
The Green Book reforms will ensure that we properly assess the benefits of investments in different parts of the UK, but the people of Cumbria and the lakes will benefit from the record investment in the NHS, the roll-out of nurseries and free breakfast clubs at primary schools, as well as the increase in the national living wage, from which many workers in sectors such as hospitality and retail in the hon. Member’s constituency will directly benefit.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
One way to get Treasury officials to start focusing more on northern towns would be to move the Treasury up north. After experiencing our rail networks and our infrastructure, they may very quickly invest more money in the area. Are there any plans to move any Treasury offices to the north?
Rachel Reeves
This Government have committed to increasing the proportion of civil servants who work in the north of England. But we already have a hub that we are expanding in Darlington, where eight Departments work, including officials from the Treasury. The Treasury is very mindful of the importance of investing right across the north of England—in Darlington, Leeds, Cumbria, Rossendale and Darwen and many other constituencies beside.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The prosperity of northern towns is very much dependent on good transport connections. Will the Chancellor ensure that National Highways is adequately funded, so that it can improve access to the port and town of Immingham through improvements to the A180, and also that the Department for Transport has adequate funds to meet the modest amount that is needed to fund an extension of the King’s Cross to Lincoln train service through to Grimsby and Cleethorpes?
Rachel Reeves
I shall make sure that the Transport Secretary hears those requests, but the hon. Gentleman knows that our investment in British Steel, which will save that company, is set to increase the number of jobs there. That will make a massive difference to his constituents, as will the investment in renewable energy in the North sea, particularly around Immingham, creating good jobs and paying decent wages in his constituency and in many others, too.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
I know that my hon. Friend is working closely with the local Labour council in Southport to regenerate the local town centre, and we will make sure that this Government back him every step of the way.
Patrick Hurley
Whether it is the Marine Lake Events Centre, the Enterprise Arcade or the new Market Quarter in my Southport constituency, my town has benefited from state-led investment in neighbourhoods and the public realm. Does the Chancellor agree that investment policies of this sort are essential to driving economic growth in our regions and nations and will help us to finally turn the page on the failed austerity policies of the Conservative party?
Rachel Reeves
I absolutely agree, and that is why we have reversed the Conservatives’ decisions to cut capital spending. Instead, we are preserving that capital investment, which means spending £113 billion more on road, rail, energy, homes and digital infrastructure than would have been spent in the plans we inherited. We are also spending on day-to-day things, such as making sure that we have police on our streets, and working with our mayors, including Mayor Steve Rotheram, to ensure we get investment into the places that most need it.
Jas Athwal
Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. In Ilford South we have many small businesses, ranging from restaurants like Delhi O Delhi, Mr Bunns Bakery, tea shops like Mi Chaii to local shops like the Chopra convenience stores. They make Ilford an amazing place to eat, shop and do business. Will the Chancellor join me in commending the local businesses that make the high street the beating heart of Ilford South, and will she lay out what steps she is taking to support these entrepreneurs?
Rachel Reeves
At the Budget, we more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 to take many small businesses out of paying national insurance altogether. On corporation tax, we have maintained the small profits rate to help smaller businesses, and to help entrepreneurs raise finance and grow, the Government have extended the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme. I very much add my words of support to businesses across Ilford, and I commend the work my hon. Friend does to champion them.
Gill German
Clwyd North is a proud coastal constituency, home to a dedicated hospitality sector with many small businesses, including the recently opened Bobcats Coffee, where young entrepreneur Bobby is an example to us all. Economic circumstances have been tough after a decade of neglect by the Tories. Will the Chancellor outline the Treasury’s plans to support the small businesses that are such a vital part of our local economy?
Rachel Reeves
From the next financial year, this Government will introduce permanently lower rates for high street, retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000, and we are doing that exactly to support the sort of businesses that my hon. Friend champions.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Earlier this month, Harbour Energy announced that it would be cutting 25% of its onshore workforce, blaming the Government’s punitive fiscal position and challenging regulatory environment. When the news was announced, the Chancellor said that this was just a commercial decision by one company, so how does she explain the other energy sector jobs that have been lost in north-east Scotland in just the last few weeks? Belmar Engineering is entering liquidation, with 48 job losses. Well-Safe Solutions faces 45 job losses. Beam, a subsea technology company, has made all 200 staff redundant. With Harbour Energy’s cut of 25% of its workforce—250 jobs—we are talking about 600 jobs in total. How can the Chancellor explain that, and how will she support the industry in the spending review?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury is working closely with businesses right across the energy sector. The previous Government increased the rate of tax on energy companies to 75%, and we increased it by three percentage points to 78%, reflecting the fact that energy companies have enjoyed huge profits since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. When people’s bills have gone up, it is right that we ask the energy companies making those profits to contribute a little more.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
What changes will the Chancellor introduce in the spring statement to compensate for the growth-threatening sword of Damocles she has just placed over the Scottish fishing industry? She should know, but probably does not, that 70% of revenue from fishing and aquaculture comes from Scotland, and she should know, but probably does not, that the fishing industry in Scotland is 50 times larger for Scotland’s economy than for the UK’s. Can she explain what discussions she had with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation or the Scottish Government before making this damaging decision?
Rachel Reeves
I was very pleased that the Scottish salmon association welcomed the trade deal that we secured with the EU yesterday. Some 70% of the fish that is caught in UK waters is sold into European markets. That will now benefit from the sanitary and phytosanitary deal that we have secured within that deal. We have rolled over the deal that the previous Government secured, giving certainty to fishermen in Scotland and across the UK. We have made it easier for them to export into European markets. We have ensured that we can sell shellfish again into European markets, and we announced yesterday the £360 million package of measures to support coastal and fishing industries. The Scottish National party is now in an absurd situation where it supports Reform and the Tories in opposing the deal with the EU.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I welcome the Chancellor’s answers on growth. She has been a strong champion of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, but my constituents are concerned to know that she will lend her support to Lord Vallance’s efforts to join up across Departments and ensure that there is the social infrastructure to support the growth. My constituents worry that hospitals, schools and roads will not keep up with the ambitious pace that Lord Vallance is proposing.
Rachel Reeves
That is an opportune question, because I will be meeting Lord Vallance this afternoon to discuss the work he is taking forward on the Ox-Cam corridor to bring more good jobs, paying good wages, not only to Oxford and Cambridge, but, crucially, to the towns and cities in between. Some of the extra money we are putting into capital investment will absolutely be going to support the huge growth opportunities in that part of the world.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Of course, the best way to improve economic growth is for this Chancellor to stop punishing businesses with higher taxes. Within the spending review, the key is to improve public sector productivity. As the Chancellor knows, one of the key aspects in doing that is the use of technology. This Government have substantial advantages over the next few years with major advances in artificial intelligence technology, but those can only be captured if the Treasury sets clear directions for Departments, including incentives and penalties. What directives has His Majesty’s Treasury given to Departments to improve productivity through the adoption of artificial intelligence? Specifically, does that advice include a requirement for the use of agentic AI during the multi-year spending period?
Rachel Reeves
I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to welcome the investment of Universal Studios in Bedfordshire, which will be a massive boon to the county’s economy.
On supporting the adoption of AI, we are doing two key things. First, we are supporting that sector investing in the UK, and the deal we secured with the US will help bring more investment into our digital sector. Secondly, and crucially, we are improving the productivity of our public services. The hon. Gentleman will see more about that when we publish the spending review on 11 June. We are absolutely determined to boost productivity in the public sector, after the mess in which it was left by the Conservatives.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
The Government are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible. The personal allowance means those earning below £12,570 pay no tax. At our first Budget, we decided not to extend the freeze on personal tax thresholds, which was implemented by the previous Government.
Munira Wilson
I thank the Minister for his response, but what short and long-term assessments have Ministers made of the cost to the taxpayer of the deep cuts in grants for therapy for some of the most vulnerable and traumatised children in our country through the adoption and special guardianship support fund? Given the Treasury’s intransigence in putting more money into the fund to meet rising demand, it is likely that adoption and kinship care placements will fail, resulting in more children in the care system in the short term. In the long term, sadly, we know that care-experienced children are four times more likely to end up with a criminal conviction. There is a moral and economic case to support this fund properly.
James Murray
I very much recognise, both as a constituency MP and as a Minister, the importance of making sure that adoptive parents can build a strong family unit with their adoptive children. If I may make a broader point, the only reason we can invest in public services is because of difficult decisions we have taken around taxation. The problem with the Liberal Democrats and other parties on the Opposition Benches is that they are happy to support the extra funding for public spending, but not the tax rises necessary to pay for it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This is not an issue on which to make a party political point. The reality is that a 40% cut to the adoption and special guardianship support fund will be deeply impactful for young people who have experienced significant trauma—abuse, neglect and so much more. Given that our mental health services are not fit for purpose at the moment, it is imperative that we make the right investment so that those young people are not denied a life course opportunity if that fund is cut. Will the Minister review the decision and ensure that we have the proper funding that young people need?
James Murray
As my hon. Friend will know, spending decisions are for the Chief Secretary of the Treasury to discuss with Departments. I make the general point that investment in mental health, for instance, which she mentioned, is possible only because of the decisions we have taken on taxation to ensure that we can support public spending on mental health services and on support for young people.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
That is absolutely the right question. We all understandably hear calls for higher rates of pension saving, but the prior question is this: how do we ensure that savers get the best bang for their buck for every penny they save? The forthcoming pension schemes Bill will help make that happen, with bigger pension schemes and fewer small pension pots, driving down costs and driving up saving rates for pensioners.
Sarah Edwards
Can the Minister share with me, as chair of the reconstituted all-party parliamentary group on pensions and growth, any plans for how counties that are outside mayoral authorities, such as Staffordshire, could benefit from pension reforms to encourage more investment in the UK, to support infrastructure, jobs and local regeneration?
Torsten Bell
I certainly can. Our reforms to the local government pension scheme will support local investment in every part of England and Wales. Our defence spending plans will be felt on the ground—total defence spending in the west midlands totals £1.6 billion a year. We are building reservoirs again, including one in the west midlands. We are also getting the country trading once again, including businesses in Tamworth, where PI-KEM, a specialist chemical supplier, recently won a major export order, with £100,000 in UK Export Finance support. Britain, and Tamworth, are open for business.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I want to ask about 18-year-olds, who are just starting off, being encouraged to take out a pension. Whenever I was 18, my mother took me down to see John Thompson, the pensions man in Ballywalter, and he said, “You’re going to take a pension.” I asked, “What for, Mum?” She said, “You’re taking a pension.” So I took the pension. Does the Minister agree that what everybody really needs is somebody like my mother to encourage them to take a pension?
Torsten Bell
I did not know where that was going, but I know that I speak for everybody in the House when I say that the whole country needs someone like the hon. Gentleman’s mother.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Kick-starting economic growth is this Government’s No. 1 mission. From the next financial year, South Yorkshire combined authority will receive a single flexible funding pot through its integrated settlement, and the East Midlands combined authority will benefit from a new advanced manufacturing and logistics park, unlocking up to £1 billion of investment. Both areas will benefit from £240 million of investment towards trailblazers to tackle economic inactivity.
Dr Tidball
The speciality steel site at Stocksbridge in my constituency has a strategically significant, highly specialist capability to produce world-leading steel that is crucial to our national defence, aerospace and energy industries. The site employs 650 people and has an excellent skills training centre. I welcome the Government’s £2.5 billion commitment to our UK steel industry. What discussions has the Chancellor had with the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that the Government do everything they can to secure the British steel industry by using our domestic steel assets productively, and in particular the Stocksbridge speciality steel site?
Rachel Reeves
Although I will not get into detailed discussions about one individual company, last year the Government set out the £2.5 billion steel fund in the Budget to preserve and grow steel manufacturing in the UK. In the trade deals we have secured with the US and with the EU in the last couple of weeks, we have reduced tariffs on steel exports, which will be good for the British steel industry.
Baggy Shanker
Shockingly, in Derby South 62% of adults in the community are financially vulnerable, which is far above the national average of 38%. To lift people out of this vicious cycle, we need a growing economy, but for those who are worried about how they will make it to the next payday, dreading an unexpected bill or struggling to feed their family, the benefits of growth can feel miles out of reach. Will the Chancellor outline how her plan for growth will put money in people’s pockets and deliver change for those in our struggling communities?
Rachel Reeves
We will shortly publish a financial inclusion strategy, as well as extending the household support fund to support some of the most vulnerable. There are huge opportunities in Derby, as my hon. Friend knows. I was at Rolls Royce in Derby just last week. What we are doing on trade deals, particularly with the US, hugely supports our aerospace sector, along with the increased spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP, which helps to invest in Great British firms and, indeed, in Great British steel.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I am aware that Derby’s economy was blighted last November by a foul smell said to be emanating from its local water treatment works. Similar is true of my constituency, due to the failure of Southern Water’s air scrubbing system. Will the Chancellor ensure that the spending review grants the Environment Agency the resources it needs to crack down on smell nuisances so that the water companies get a grip on the matter, for the benefit of local growth and our economy?
Mr Speaker
Supplementary questions must be relevant to the question on the Order Paper—forget it.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
This Government are securing economic growth. Last week, the numbers published showed that the economy grew by 0.7% in the first quarter of this year, including an 8% increase year on year in investment spending. We are now the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Since the general election, there have been four cuts in interest rates, 200,000 jobs created and three trade deals secured. Britain’s economy is stronger, but I will continue to do everything in my power to ensure that working people are better off.
Rosie Duffield
Westminster is once again buzzing with the latest U-turns, speculation and briefings over the Chancellor’s policies on the winter fuel allowance and the two-child benefit cap. There is less of a buzz for the visitors to Canterbury food bank, however, which last month distributed enough food to make 13,545 meals, in a 47% rise on the same period last year. Will the Chancellor end the serious anxiety of those experiencing fuel and food poverty now and reverse those policies?
Rachel Reeves
The only reason that we have been able to grow the economy and get those cuts in interest rates, which help working families in Canterbury and right across our country, is because we have returned stability to our economy. That means never making a policy commitment without being able to say where the money comes from, which is what got our country into a mess under the previous Government. We have set out the policies that we needed to put investment into the NHS and secure our public finances.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the official opening of the Charles Hammond berth. As she knows, we set up Great British Energy in Scotland, bringing forward £300 million of investment ahead of the spending review to secure jobs and supply chains. Funding for the Port of Cromarty Firth, announced in March, is expected to support up to 1,000 highly skilled jobs, while our uplift to the clean energy bonus will support offshore wind supply chains across the country. That is yet another example of the Government working with business and of a Labour Government delivering for the people of Scotland.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Will the Chancellor explain what the Economic Secretary to the Treasury meant last week when she said that there will be no tax rises on individuals at the autumn Budget? Will the Chancellor similarly confirm that there will be no tax increases on businesses?
Rachel Reeves
In our manifesto, we set out that we would not increase taxes on working people—that is, the income tax, national insurance or VAT that they pay. That is why we also reversed the previous Government’s decision to increase fuel duty, which would have had a disastrous effect on working people in our country. We will set out all other tax policy at the Budget.
Sir Mel Stride
What many up and down the country are asking is why that manifesto pledge not to impose taxes on working people was broken. Last week the Pensions Minister confirmed to the House that the Government would never interfere with the fiduciary duty of pension trustees to get the best return for their members, but when the Chancellor was questioned on that topic by Bloomberg the very same day, she said:
“I am never going to say never”.
This is chaos. The Government cannot even speak with one voice. It is clear that the right hon. Lady and the Pensions Minister cannot both be right, so will she now put the record straight?
Rachel Reeves
We have secured an agreement with the biggest pension companies to invest on a voluntary basis in UK unlisted equities and infrastructure, which is something the Conservatives never achieved. We are getting investment into British infrastructure and British businesses because that is the way to grow the economy and support working people.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Darren Jones
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed to increasing spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP, with an ambition to go further to 3% in the next Parliament when economic and fiscal conditions allow. As part of that increase in spending, we are making sure that UK companies and UK workers get the benefit, including in places such as Wolverhampton, through apprenticeships, good jobs and good growth.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Yesterday the Chancellor said that she understands the concerns that some people have about the limit at which the winter fuel payment is removed. Does she therefore now agree that restricting the eligibility so tightly was a mistake?
Rachel Reeves
As the hon. Lady knows, when I became Chancellor last year, we inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances—not in some year in the future, but in the financial year that we were already three or four months into. This meant that we had to make difficult and urgent decisions to put our public finances back on a firm footing—because, unlike the Conservatives, I will never play fast and loose with the public finances.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
We are determined to go further and faster to reform business rates, which is why we will publish an update paper in the summer. I am also glad that we can work with councils such as Ipswich to ensure that we can turn around town centres after years of Conservative decline.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
We are in weekly touch with the Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates mortgages, and under this Government we have seen four interest rate cuts since the election, which is bringing mortgage rates down for hard-working people across the country.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Rachel Reeves
I very much agree, but what is truly extraordinary is that the Conservatives, Reform and the Scottish National party have voted against or abstained on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and they do not support any of the trade deals that we have secured to support working people in our country.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
James Murray
I am sorry to hear about the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent. To reassure her and her constituent, one of my priorities as chair of the HMRC board is to improve HMRC’s day-to-day performance. We have seen the percentage of telephony adviser attempts handled go from 59% last March to 80% this March. It will remain a priority for me to modernise and digitise the service.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
Rachel Reeves
As my hon. Friend knows, sometimes the UK carbon price has been higher, but sometimes it has been lower than in the EU. This deal will ensure a bigger market that, on average, brings prices down. We are confident that the deal secured yesterday will bring more good jobs and bring down bills for consumers.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Scottish councils now have the power to introduce a tourism levy. That has gone down extremely badly with the hospitality sector. In particular, they fear a tax on a tax—that would be VAT. Will the Government look at zero rating that in the event that a tourism levy is introduced?
Rachel Reeves
I want to welcome tourists to Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is why we are securing trade deals with countries around the world, showing that we as a country are open for business. In the end, it is up to the Scottish Government which additional taxes they introduce, but as with income tax, the SNP never takes the side of ordinary working people.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Last week I raised with the Minister for Social Security and Disability the case of a local disability charity being hit by increased bank charges, and the Minister committed to work with me on the issue. Will Treasury Ministers do the same so that we can take these banks to task and support fantastic local organisations?
Emma Reynolds
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Access to banking services is a particular issue in North East Fife, where the limitations of the access to cash legislation are becoming clear. Will the financial inclusion committee agree to look at the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 to ensure that we get the access to banking services that local communities need?
Emma Reynolds
Our Government secured the commitment of the banking industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across the country; 200 have already been agreed and over 150 are open. The financial inclusion committee, which I chair, is looking at financial inclusion, including digital banking and ensuring that people have the bank accounts they need.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on securing the Mansion House accord, which will channel billions into the economy and make a real difference to my constituents. One of the reasons that pension funds agreed to join the accord was because of the strong pipeline of investable projects that the Government are creating. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s infrastructure plans and planning reforms, opposed by the Conservatives, will unlock growth?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Raising investment in the UK is about boosting not just the supply of capital, but the demand for it—the investment pipeline. We are approving infrastructure projects, from wind farms to reservoirs, that the Conservatives blocked for years. By reforming the planning system, we are doing something really radical: building homes.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The roll-out of banking hubs is helping to a small degree, but what plans do the Government have to increase the number of banking hubs beyond those in the pipeline?
Emma Reynolds
As I said in my previous answer, we have secured the commitment of the industry to open 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. The FCA keeps the access to cash rules under review. As legislated for under the last Government, it has the power to make rules to ensure that there is access to cash across the country.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, there was a lot of coverage of the Chancellor’s comments about the ISA limit. She pledged to keep it at £20,000 but did not specify how much within that would be cash and how much would be investments. Can the Minister reassure me that she is seriously considering the impact on the mortgage-lending market of changing the cash ISA limit?
Emma Reynolds
As we announced in the spring statement, we are looking for options for ISA reform to ensure that we get the balance right between cash and equities. I can reassure my hon. Friend that we understand that cash savings are a vital tool for people and act as a financial buffer for a rainy day.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I am sure that the Chancellor subscribes to the basic principle that if the cost of something is put up, we will see less of it. That is why Governments have, over many years, put taxes on things like smoking. Does she accept that the principle also applies to employing people—that the more expensive the Government make employing people, with their jobs tax increasing NICs for employers, the less we will see of that?
Rachel Reeves
The Conservative party is a good example of that. The cost of the Conservative party went up, and its number of MPs shrank.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The recent report by the independent commission on neighbourhoods shows that 98% of Blackpool’s population is living in high-need neighbourhoods. With 34 mission-critical neighbourhoods in my constituency, Blackpool is desperate for investment and economic growth. Will the Chancellor outline what the Government are doing to improve growth in our forgotten coastal towns?
Rachel Reeves
Yesterday we announced £360 million of investment in coastal and fishing communities. That will be vital to ensure that those communities continue to thrive.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service has suffered a real-terms funding cut, partly because the majority of firefighters are on call so the employer national insurance contributions were not sufficiently compensated. Will Ministers commit to reviewing the funding formula to fit the needs of communities, and to undertaking a local impact assessment on the effect of the funding cuts on public and firefighter safety?
Darren Jones
The Government have already increased NHS spending by £22.6 billion, police funding by £1.1 billion, and fire and rescue authority funding by £65.5 million. Further spending will be set out in the June spending review, but this is another example of a Labour Government delivering on the promise of change.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
To alleviate grinding penury for millions of people, the Chancellor could introduce an annual wealth tax on multimillionaires, which would raise approximately £24 billion per annum, yet she refuses to entertain the idea and considers cuts to welfare acceptable. Why do “tough political choices” always seem to impact the most vulnerable?
Rachel Reeves
At the Budget last year, we increased the rate of tax on non-doms, we increased capital gains tax, we increased the carried interest on bonuses and we introduced VAT on private schools. This Government are ensuring that the wealthiest pay their fair share, because that is a basic Labour principle.
UK-EU Summit
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, I will update the House on the three recent trade deals that we have struck in the national interest.
First, however, I would like to say something about the horrific situation in Gaza, where the level of suffering, with innocent children being bombed again, is utterly intolerable. Over the weekend we co-ordinated a response with our allies, as set out in my statement with President Macron and Prime Minister Carney last night. I want to put on record today that we are horrified by the escalation from Israel. We repeat our demand for a ceasefire, as the only way to free the hostages; we repeat our opposition to settlements in the west bank; and we repeat our demand to massively scale up humanitarian assistance to Gaza. The recent announcement that Israel will allow a “basic quantity of food” into Gaza is totally and utterly inadequate, so we must co-ordinate our response, because this war has gone on for far too long. We cannot allow the people of Gaza to starve, and the Foreign Secretary will come to the House shortly to set out our response in detail.
Let me turn now to the three deals that this Government have struck. The principles we took into the negotiations are clear and simple. Does it drive down bills? Does it drive up jobs? Does it strengthen our borders? In each case, the answer is a resoundingly yes. These deals release us from the tired arguments of the past and, as an independent sovereign nation, allow us to seize the opportunities of the future—a clear message, sent across the globe, that Britain is back on the world stage.
We have a trade deal with the world’s fastest growing economy, India, cutting tariffs for British industries, which is a huge boost for our whisky and gin distilleries—their only concern now is whether they can produce enough to sell—and for our car manufacturers, with tariffs slashed from over 100% to just 10%, and no concessions on visas. We have a trade deal with the world’s richest economy, the United States, slashing tariffs, saving thousands upon thousands of jobs in car manufacturing in places like Jaguar Land Rover, protecting our steel and aluminium exports, and safeguarding the interests of our hugely important pharmaceutical sector.
But I can already see that, when it comes to this hat-trick of deals, it is our new partnership with the EU that the Opposition most want to talk about—and given their abject failure to strike a deal with India or the US, I cannot say I blame them—so let me spell out the benefits of this deal, which gives our country an unprecedented level of access to the EU market: the best access of any nation outside the EU or European Free Trade Association.
I will start with our security. When Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine over three years ago, a gauntlet was thrown down, and it is our responsibility to step up. That is what this world demands, and it is what this partnership delivers, strengthening our national security through a new security and defence partnership that paves the way for British defence firms to access the EU’s €150 billion defence fund. That will support British jobs, British wages and British livelihoods.
The partnership also increases co-operation on emissions trading, saving UK businesses from having to pay up to £800 million in EU carbon taxes—once again, backing British businesses. The deal will drive down bills with increased co-operation on energy, because the agreement negotiated by the Conservative party left us with a more expensive way of working with our neighbours—a needless rupture, despite our grids being connected by undersea cables. This partnership brings those systems together again, benefiting British bill payers and boosting clean British power in the North sea.
This partnership also strengthens our borders, because again, the previous deal left a huge gap and weakened our ability to work together to tackle illegal migration—the ultimate cross-border challenge. It closes that gap, including joint work on returns, preventing channel crossings and working upstream in key source and transit countries, co-operating along the whole migration route to strengthen our hand in the fight against the vile smuggling gangs. It boosts our co-operation on law enforcement, combating terrorism and serious organised crime with closer operational work with agencies like Europol and better sharing of intelligence and data, including, for the first time, facial imaging.
This partnership helps British holidaymakers, who will be able to use e-gates when they travel to Europe, ending those huge queues at passport control. It delivers for our young people, because we are now on a path towards a controlled youth experience scheme, with firm caps on numbers and visa controls—a relationship we have with so many countries around the world, some of which were even set up by the Conservative party. We should be proud to give our young people that opportunity. And, not for the first time, this Government have delivered for Britain’s steel industry, protecting our steel exports from new EU tariffs and backing our steel sector to the hilt.
Last but certainly not least, we have a new sanitary and phytosanitary deal, as promised in our manifesto, which will cut the price of a weekly shop, meaning that there will be more money in the pockets of working people, less red tape for our exporters, no more lorry drivers sitting for 16 hours at the border with rotting food in the back, and no more needless checks—the inevitable consequence of the Conservatives’ policies, which made it so much harder to trade even within our own market, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The deal means that British goods that have long been off the menu in Europe can regain their true place, including shellfish, which are hugely important for Cornwall, Devon and Scotland. Not only does our deal on fish provide stability, with no increase in the amount that EU vessels can catch in British waters, but the new SPS agreement slashes costs and red tape for our exports to the European market. We sell 70% of our seafood to that market, so there is a huge opportunity that Britain’s fisheries, in which we have made a £360 million investment, will now look to exploit.
The reaction to this deal from business has been absolutely clear. Mr Speaker, I know you are a stickler for keeping to time, so I do not have time to run through the list of supportive quotes from businesses. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”]
The Prime Minister
This is not the full list, but the new partnership has been backed by the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the British Retail Consortium, Asda, Morrisons, Salmon Scotland, the Food & Drink Federation, the British Chamber of Commerce, Ryanair, Vodafone and producers of meat, milk and poultry—the list goes on and on. I wonder whether that long list of businesses coming out in support of the deal will temper the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition—but then again, for weeks now, she has been dismissive of the benefits of any trade deal, in defiance, frankly, of her party’s history. It is not just the Conservatives that I am talking about; the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not here, and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) have both shown, in their own way, that their parties simply do not get it; if your whole approach to our allies is about striking a pose, you do not get to strike a deal. What that means in a world like ours, where deals are ever more the currency of security and justice, is that you do not get to make a difference, and you do not get to deliver for Britain. That is what this partnership means.
For years, we were told that this could not be done. What the Conservatives meant was that they could not do it. We were told that a deal with the US or India was impossible; what they meant was that it was impossible for them. We were told that a choice must be made between the US and EU; what they meant was that they could not do a deal with both. This Government can and will, because we stay in the room, we fight for the national interest, and we put the British people first. These deals represent a signal that we are back on the world stage—a global champion of free trade, playing our historic role on European security—but above all, they are deals that put money in the pockets of working people, because that is what independent, sovereign nations do. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Prime Minister talks about a hat trick of deals—they are own goals. In 2020, the Conservatives concluded the trade and co-operation agreement, the largest and most comprehensive free trade agreement in the world. We agreed to come back in five years with improved terms. This renegotiation should have been an opportunity to improve terms for our country, but the terms are improved for the EU. The Prime Minister can dress it up as much as he wants, but he has failed. It is bad for bills; it is bad for jobs; and it is bad for borders.
This is not a deal made for Britain; this deal is made for Labour’s public relations, to show Labour on the world stage, but it is a stitch-up for our country in return for short-term headlines. Let us take the Prime Minister’s abject failures one by one. First, on fishing, he has given away the prize most desired by EU member states, and he has done so for almost nothing. It is very easy to sign deals if you are prepared to give everything away for pennies. This deal locks out our fishermen until 2038. We are now in a worse position than the Faroe Islands—a set of islands with the population of Scarborough, but which gets to have annual negotiations. The Prime Minister quoted some organisations that welcome his deal—he does not listen to them normally—but he left one out deliberately: the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has described the deal as a surrender and a giveaway. This is a Prime Minister who would pay to give away his family silver. Why is the Prime Minister selling our fishermen down the river? Is it because they do not vote Labour?
Secondly, on food and agriculture, the Prime Minister is going to pay the EU to abide by laws that we have no say on. While British farmers struggle with the family farms tax that his Chancellor has imposed on them, their regulations will now be made in Paris and enforced in Brussels. It is a total capitulation. We are not in the EU, and we are not at the table, so can the Prime Minister tell us how he will ensure accountability for the hundreds of regulations that he has signed this country up to?
Thirdly, on energy, the Prime Minister has shackled us to the EU’s emissions trading scheme. That means that the Government can no longer cut energy costs without the EU’s permission. It will also unravel parts of the India free trade agreement that he has just negotiated. This is not a technicality; it is a betrayal. The House should be in no doubt that this means higher bills, more pain and less flexibility.
Fourthly, on the Prime Minister’s manifesto promises, he said that we would not rejoin the single market. He promised no new payments, and that he would protect British interests. That promise has lasted about as long as his commitment to protect pensioners’ winter fuel allowance. He said whatever was needed to win power, and now he will say whatever is needed to keep it, even if it means selling out our sovereignty, our businesses and the public.
The truth is that most of what was announced yesterday was not a deal. There was no binding agreement on anything. Most of the items outlined are simply agreements to enter into further discussions, which we are already having. The Prime Minister is boasting that we will now avoid airport queues because we will get access to EU e-gates. It sounds great, except it is not true; some airports already allow that, and this deal does not guarantee it anywhere, as each country still has to agree. That sums up this deal perfectly: it is a lot of spin to disguise the terrible substance.
Having previously ruled out a youth mobility scheme, the Prime Minister is now desperately trying to hide his latest U-turn by rebranding the scheme as an experience. That is risible. We have no details on any cap or time limit, which begs the question: why are the Government talking about increasing migration before they have got a grip on the small boats or the legal migration system? I know that the Prime Minister does not like answering questions, but people out there want to know. Can we have some honesty about what has been discussed? How many young European workers does the Prime Minister think would be acceptable, and will they be able to bring dependants?
Even the defence commitments in this deal are hopelessly one-sided. We are making payments, but the EU is offering dialogue and consultation. This is a pitiful return for the country that leads NATO in Europe, and has troops on the ground in Estonia, defending our allies. Can the Prime Minister tell us why there was not a single word in his statement about the money that we will now be sending to Brussels? Can he set out how much those payments will cost taxpayers? In government, details matter, and so does honesty. [Laughter.] Labour Members are laughing, but this is a bad deal for the country. Look at them. This is how they laughed at the Budget. They have no idea what it is that they have signed up to. The Prime Minister said that he would stay out of the single market; he is going into the single market for agrifood, electricity and energy. He said that he would stay out of the customs union, but he is accepting EU tariff rules. How does he plan to stop the EU changing them to our disadvantage? He has no idea, and neither do any of them.
The British people know when they are being misled. They know that headlines fail. The Prime Minister did not listen to the CBI on the jobs tax, and he did not listen to the Federation of Small Businesses on the family farms tax. This deal has already unravelled. The damage is becoming clear, and the political consequences will be huge, and here he is, trumpeting his success. When he stands up in a moment, he will deflect, dismiss and distract, but we all know the truth. This is a fiction of a speech, a fraud of a deal, and a failure of a Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
Oh dear. That was just such an unserious response. The right hon. Lady says that details matter in government; they matter in opposition as well. The SPS agreement cuts red tape and bureaucracy for all food and agricultural products going to the EU. It is a massive boost for our supermarkets, our farmers and others. Why is it that all the supermarkets have come out behind this deal? Because they know how important the SPS agreement is. It is completely in our favour. There is a huge amount of detail there. It is the best agreement.
On defence and security, we have greater operational co-ordination, and the right hon. Lady is against it at a time like this. It opens the gate to the EU defence procurement fund of €150 billion; that was a condition of the deal. She complains about emissions. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] I will tell you how much. Businesses were going to pay £800 million a year in tariffs that they will not now pay. That is why they are coming out in support of the deal. That is how much. The detail matters.
On energy, we are already connected, but we are not using that energy connection. We have electrical access to the market. On steel, we are getting rid of the tariffs. That will support British steel, but the right hon. Lady is against that, yet again. She says that e-gates access is already in existence; this deal clears the way for e-gates access. That is the huge difference it makes. [Interruption.] If any Conservative Members doubt that, they should travel across a border today and see the long queues.
On law enforcement, we have better operational working with Europol, and the right hon. Lady is against it. We have information sharing on facial mapping and dealing with criminal records, and she is against it. She is absolutely unserious. She is also against the India deal, which of course does huge things for trade in sectors such as whisky, where their only concern is whether they can produce enough. They have been absolutely clear about supporting the India deal—a deal that the Conservatives tried to do—and she now says that she is against it.
We have the US deal, which saved thousands upon thousands of jobs in car manufacturing and at Jaguar Land Rover. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady had the chance to make that trip to JLR, but she really ought to before she responds like that again. The US deal reduces tariffs on steel, so that our steel can be sold to America, and supports our whisky and gin, and she is against it. She is against every single deal. She is the only ex-Trade Secretary who is against every single deal. These deals have been welcomed broadly because they are good deals. You do not get a great long list of endorsements from all the business associations and companies for no—[Interruption.] The Conservatives are so unserious; they are lost in a descent into the abyss. They used to be a proud party of trading agreements, and they have slid off into the abyss. That is where they are.
On fishing, none of the rights negotiated by the Conservatives have been removed. There is no change in access for coastal communities, which is the same as before. There is no reduction in the British quota or increase in the EU quota; they are the same as before. We have reciprocal arrangements, which are the same as before. What is new is having the SPS agreement for the first time, and it is permanent. They were unable to do that. It reopens the EU market for shellfish and makes it much easier to sell British fish to our largest trading partner. That is hugely significant, because 72% of British fish is traded into EU markets, and it is now easier to do that. We are backing that with £360 million through our fishing and coastal grants. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the youth experience scheme. That scheme is capped, it is time-limited, and it is balanced.
In relation to standards, the truth is this: we are currently aligned in our standards, but we do not get the benefit of that. We want to continue to have high standards; that is what the British public want, and it is what this deal delivers. We will have a role in shaping any future rules, and application of them is specifically subject to our constitutional arrangements. We will have a process in this Parliament to apply the rules, but to be clear, we are already applying those rules at the moment—we are just not getting the advantage. This deal strips that away. It is good for our country and good for our economy, and it is a shame that the Leader of the Opposition cannot stand up and support it.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
This deal is good for business and good for Britain. I congratulate the Prime Minister on embracing a good half of the Select Committee’s recommendations, which—if I might say so—were agreed on a cross-party basis. While some in this House are proposing trade barriers, the Prime Minister is building trade bridges, and that is in the national interest.
We have a deal, but we do not have a date. The Office for Budget Responsibility cannot score the gains, businesses cannot plan for the benefits, and we cannot suspend customs checks in Northern Ireland until we know when the new SPS checks will come into force. What timetable has the Prime Minister given his negotiators for when that SPS deal will come into effect? Business needs certainty, and for that, we need clarity.
The Prime Minister
First, let me pick up on my right hon. Friend’s point about the cross-party support of the Select Committee. There are Conservative Members who I think are ashamed by the response of the Leader of the Opposition, and know very well that these are good deals that should be supported. A number of her Back-Bench MPs are already coming out and saying that these deals are good and in the national interest. [Hon. Members: “Who?”] You know who they are.
I assure my right hon. Friend that we have moved at pace to get the deals, and our instruction to our teams now is to move at pace to implement them. That is what we will do. We negotiated these deals in a short number of months, and we will keep moving at the same pace.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the appalling situation in Gaza. When he is working with our French and Canadian colleagues to put pressure on Netanyahu, will he consider, with the French, formally recognising the state of Palestine?
Turning to the EU reset deal, the Prime Minister knows that we do not think this deal goes far enough to fix our broken relationship with Europe, but there are many parts of it that we welcome. We have long been arguing for an agrifood deal to help British farmers export to Europe; for a youth mobility scheme to give our young people incredible new opportunities and British businesses, especially in hospitality, a boost; and for closer alliances on defence in the face of Putin’s imperialism and Trump’s unpredictability. I welcome the progress on those issues, even if there is only very limited progress on things such as youth mobility.
We have all seen the terrible damage caused by the Conservatives’ Brexit deal, and hearing the Conservative leader complain today is like listening to a backseat driver who previously crashed the car. Our country has moved on from the divisive Brexit wars of a decade ago, and some Members of this House need to do the same. However, does the Prime Minister accept that this deal must be only the first step, and that we must be far more ambitious in strengthening our economic and security ties with our nearest neighbours? We believe that a bespoke customs union is a key part of that—not turning back to the past, but forming a new partnership that serves our national interest. I know that the Prime Minister once made that a red line, but he will accept that the world has changed since then, so will he open negotiations on a customs union to get a better deal for Britain—a trade deal to dwarf all other trade deals?
The Prime Minister
On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about this deal being a first step, it is intended that this is the beginning of a process to complete what we have already agreed. We also intend to have annual summits so that we can take our co-operation and co-ordination further, step by step, and we will do that while keeping to the red lines in our manifesto.
On the question of a customs union, the problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal—as I know he knows—is that we have just struck deals with India and the US. If we now undo that good work, we undo all the benefits of those two deals. For JLR and other car manufacturers, this is the here and now of their jobs at the moment. That is why we had our red lines and kept to those red lines, and I am not prepared to rip up the benefits that we have negotiated in those deals.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for what he has said about Gaza. The message he is sending to Netanyahu’s far-right Government could not be clearer, and it should have the unanimous support of this House. It is essentially, “This must stop.”
Turning to the grown-up EU deal, which comes hard on the heels of the two other recent trade agreements, the Government are rightly confident that those deals will be popular and will provide great benefits to our country. As such, I ask the Prime Minister this: why not take this opportunity to fix a glaring hole in our democracy and simply put those agreements to a vote, allowing them to be scrutinised by this place? I can assure him that they will be passed.
The Prime Minister
As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a process for implementing any agreement. All of these agreements will require legislation, and therefore they will go through the House on that basis.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Can I just point out to the Prime Minister that nothing can undo the fact that 17.5 million people voted leave? They voted to take back control of our laws and stop paying money to the EU. That was a considerably larger number than the 9.7 million people who voted Labour at the last election, but now the Prime Minister is submitting to EU regulations without any control and starting to pay money back to the European Union—he is giving up control over our laws and restoring payments to the European Union. He will pay a bitter political price for this betrayal.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we had red lines about not rejoining the EU—no single market, no customs union and no freedom of movement. We were told that it was impossible to negotiate a better deal with the EU with those red lines, but we have just done it. We have also shown that we are outside the EU, because as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, having deals with India and the US is inconsistent with membership of the EU. There could be no better evidence that we are not going back into the EU; nor are these negotiations on that basis. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that well, so I am surprised at the way in which he has put his question.
As for control of borders, net migration quadrupled after Brexit to nearly a million. That was not controlling our borders; it was a complete lack of control by the Conservative party. On the question of payments, it is important to appreciate that we have achieved unprecedented access to EU markets without the budgetary payments of member states. That is an incredible achievement. The only payment under the SPS agreement is administrative—to support the relevant costs of implementing and administering the scheme. For schemes and payments where it is in our national interest, we will negotiate proportionate contributions, as already happens under the deal negotiated by the Conservatives—for example, in relation to research and development and Horizon. The hon. Gentleman knows all that very well.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on this achievement, on top of two great trade deals. This is important if we are trying to deliver growth in the economy. Could the Prime Minister outline what he thinks the two or three main gains are to boost the economy in short order, so that we can build the public spending that we so badly need?
The Prime Minister
Our approach has been on the question of bringing our bills down, which is why the SPS agreement is so important, and of protecting and driving up jobs, which is why the EU, India and US agreements are all so important. That is particularly the case for car manufacturing, but equally so for pharmaceuticals, which are protected under our agreement. However, there is a bigger picture: these are three individual trade deals, but taken together they show that other countries want to do deals with the UK now in a way that they did not before.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
With youth unemployment higher in Europe—in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Sweden—I can see why the EU pushed for a youth mobility scheme: to help get its youth unemployment figures down. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what impact assessment he has done of his youth scheme? What effect will it have on youth unemployment among young Brits, particularly white working-class boys, who suffer the most? Can he also tell the House today what cap he has put on the number of people coming to the UK? If he cannot, this is a bitter betrayal of British youth.
The Prime Minister
The agreement gives young people in the United Kingdom the opportunity to work, to study and to travel in Europe. It will be a capped scheme of limited duration and with visas. This, again, is something that everyone said we could not negotiate, and we have negotiated it. As for the right hon. Lady’s question about what we are doing for young people in this country, she should look to the Trailblazer scheme that we set up to help young people back into work.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister join me in inviting Conservative Members to celebrate the restoration of access to our British shellfishers, and the reduction in frictions on the 70% of our British seafood that is exported to the EU? Will he encourage those Conservative Members to get out there and help us to deploy the £360 million of fishing and coastal community funding that we have unlocked?
The Prime Minister
Under the Conservatives’ deal, shellfish was locked out, but it can now be sold back into the market, which is hugely important to places such as Cornwall. That is why their response to this is so uncertain and, if I may say so, un-Tory.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
On six separate occasions since the beginning of the year I have asked the Paymaster General about plans for a youth mobility scheme, and every single time he has told me that Labour has no plans. I realise that I was in error and should have asked about a youth experience scheme, but let me ask the Prime Minister now whether he has a timescale for when such a scheme can be put into operation and we can start to see the benefits that Liberal Democrats know it can bring to young people here in the UK and across the EU.
The Prime Minister
We have moved apace to get this far, but we now need to move apace to implement what we agreed yesterday, so we will be doing that, and we will update the House as we do so.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I congratulate the Prime Minister and his colleagues on their success at the summit. The Government’s hard work has paid off: this is a good deal and a good first step. Businesses will benefit from a reduction in red tape, and consumers will see lower bills in the long run. The announcement on youth experience and Erasmus+ will be welcomed by the many young people in my constituency. I also welcome the recognition of the value of touring artists in both the EU and the UK. I realise that the barriers to touring are complex, but will the PM commit himself to keeping up the hard work so we can begin to reduce and break down those barriers?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has raised an important point about touring artists. We are absolutely committed to securing a better deal for them, and that will be part of the ongoing work as we move forward from this summit to the next.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I think the Front Benches need to calm the jets a wee bit. This is obviously not a surrender, just as it is obviously no substitute for membership of the European Union; nor, indeed, is it, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly today, providing “unprecedented access” to the EU market—that is simply absurd.
The deal does provide for co-operation on carbon storage, so will the Prime Minister build on that good work by committing his Government to providing the financial support that is necessary to take forward the Acorn project in the north-east of Scotland?
The Prime Minister
The deal does allow us to move forward on renewables and carbon capture as part of the package around renewables, which is why it is so important across the United Kingdom, but particularly in Scotland because of the potential for job opportunities there, so of course we will press on in that regard. I would gently ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider again why he should not support this deal for the benefit of the whisky sector in Scotland, and given that yesterday Salmon Scotland came out hugely in favour of it. He should stand up and support the work that we are doing.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My constituency is home to the world’s oldest biscuit factory: Carr’s has been making Table Water crackers, ginger nuts and custard creams for many decades, and in about 15 years’ time it will celebrate 200 years in business. Can the Prime Minister say more about the importance of this deal to food and drink businesses such as pladis, which owns and operates the Carr’s biscuit factory?
The Prime Minister
For food, for biscuits and all the content covered by the SPS agreement, this deal is a massive step forward. It gets rid of the red tape and bureaucracy that cost each business thousands upon thousands of pounds. This is good for biscuits, good for business.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
May I have a serious answer to a very narrow and specific question? We know how many fishing rights the Prime Minister was prepared to give away for how many years in order to accede to the EU’s demands, but how much UK taxpayers’ money is he willing to hand over to the EU in order to sign up to its protectionist demands?
The Prime Minister
I remind the right hon. Lady that nothing that was negotiated on fishing by the previous Government has been given away; quite the contrary. On costs—I gave a full answer earlier—we are not paying into the EU budget in the way that EU members do, and that is why this unprecedented access is so important. In relation to schemes and programmes, yes, we will make a proportionate contribution, on the same basis, with the same principles, that the Conservative party—the then Government—negotiated the current arrangements on Horizon and research and development. It is hard to see why, having negotiated those arrangements, it is now suddenly against them.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
The energy industry is central to our mission for growth, but it is also important to our tackling of the generational challenge that is climate change. This is a sentiment felt in my constituency, which is proud to be a regional hub of carbon capture and hydrogen storage. Will the Prime Minister explain how the deal supports the energy industry so that we can pursue the growth, bring down energy bills and tackle climate change?
The Prime Minister
It does so in two ways. It makes permanent the energy chapter in the current deal, and it goes beyond that to allow us to co-operate and co-ordinate more closely on energy; we have the ability for connection already, but we can now take better advantage of it.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Successive Governments and successive Parliaments have caused unnecessary and at times intolerable damage to our Union. We recognise the reductions in some checks on some issues, but can the Prime Minister explain why, if animals and animal products are now suitable to come to Northern Ireland free of checks, the European Union is still intent on banning the very veterinary medicines that are taken by those animals? If standards are the same in the United Kingdom and the European Union—and this Parliament has already decided that CE markings will be retained—why are products and manufactured goods not part of the arrangement? Will the Prime Minister confirm to this Parliament that it is his intention to rid Northern Ireland of the Windsor framework and to get rid of the barriers within our Union?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the SPS agreement that we have negotiated for the UK as a whole is good for Northern Ireland because it complements the current SPS agreement for Northern Ireland that it comes up against. That will be a huge step forward for Northern Ireland, which I know he cares about, and others care about, and I care about. It is among the advantages of the SPS deal that we have struck.
I do understand the issue of veterinary medicines, and we are working to resolve the problem that the right hon. Gentleman has rightly described. I think we are in a better position to resolve it by co-operating and co-ordinating with the EU, which is what we are doing. On the Windsor framework, it is important that we implement the agreements that we have in place, because the blunt truth is that no one will make further agreements with a country that walks away from agreements that it has already put in place.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
The last Tory Government left the British people at the back of the European queue. That was true for exporters, for farmers and for businesses, but most obviously it was true for my constituents who stood and watched other nations skip through the e-gates at airports while they waited for hours. Given that East Renfrewshire holidaymakers are eager to spend more time at the poolside and less time at passport control, can the Prime Minister tell me when he expects to see the benefits of the arrangements involving the use of e-gates?
The Prime Minister
The arrangement we got to yesterday with the EU has absolute clarity: there is no impediment to e-gates, which means that we can now work with member states to get them in place as quickly as possible. We have already started our work with them to get e-gates through. [Interruption.] We have now cleared the barrier and are getting on with it. For many years, we have had queues because of the Conservatives’ bad deal—so pipe down.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The most pernicious part of this deal is dynamic alignment, by which we become an automatic rule-taker from the European Union. Labour has been briefing journalists that we have an opt-out from that. I have read the document in detail, and we do not. Besides, the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter in a dispute, so the EU will always win. The British people voted peacefully and democratically to leave the European Union, so why has the Prime Minister surrendered that right and made us a rule-taker from the EU once again?
The Prime Minister
I had forgotten about some of the nonsense that is spouted. On the question of how the rules are made, they will go through a parliamentary process in this House.
The Prime Minister
We are already aligned. We are in alignment; we are just not getting the benefit of it. This deal gives us the benefit, which will be counted in business, jobs and bills. In relation to an independent arbiter, under this agreement there is independent arbitration where there are disputes.
The Prime Minister
They all know this. Every trade deal has an arbitration clause to deal with the settlement of disputes. All trade deals have that, including all the trade deals that the Conservatives negotiated.
On the question of the ECJ, if an issue of European law needs to be referred by the independent arbitrators to the court, it will give a ruling on the interpretation. It will then pass back to the arbitrators to make the final decision. That is how trade deals work, but I understand the Conservatives’ new policy. Their new policy is against any trade deals. That has never been the Conservative party’s policy before, but it is good that we have clarity now.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
This deal is very welcome, particularly for my farmers in Morecambe and Lunesdale. When I was a young person, I benefited from a year in New Zealand and a year in Spain. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will do everything he can to ensure that other young Brits get the same opportunities that I did?
The Prime Minister
I want young people in this country to have the opportunity under the scheme to work, to travel, and to involve themselves in volunteering and other activities in Europe.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Thanks to the appalling deal that the Conservatives did with the EU in 2020, we saw farmers lose 34% of their export market into the European Union. That contributed to a 41% drop in incomes for livestock farmers in my constituency and across the country, so we are encouraged to hear about the access to the European market for our farmers. Can the Prime Minister say more about that and when farmers in Westmorland and beyond might avail themselves of those opportunities?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which will be of huge interest to his constituents. If I have got his number right, he said there was a 41% drop in trade because of the deal that the previous Government did for farmers, who they claim to champion. As he will appreciate, this deal ensures that food and agriculture going into the EU will, under the SPS agreement, do so without any red tape or bureaucracy. That will make it much easier for his constituents, and for farmers generally, to trade in the EU market and will bring down their costs, which is hugely important for farmers and his constituents.
On the question of timing, we will do it as quickly as possible. We are moving at pace. I appreciate that for farmers in his constituency and across the country, it is hugely important to undo the damage that the previous Government did.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister on this deal. Manchester has a student population of over 100,000, many of whom I represent. They will be pleased to hear, as I am, that the UK and the EU will develop a scheme focused on student exchange, supporting young people to study, volunteer, work or travel across Europe. Does the Prime Minister agree that this deal will provide life-changing experiences for our young people and strengthen our broken relationship with the EU for generations to come?
The Prime Minister
I can confirm that I want those experiences and opportunities for our young people, and I think the country wants those experiences for young people. I am not even sure the Conservatives are genuinely against better opportunities for our young people to work and travel in Europe.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
In Boston and Skegness, my fishermen are furious that the Prime Minister has surrendered the fishing industry. My constituents are furious that he has surrendered on freedom of movement and on rule taking under the ECJ. But there is good news: does Prime Minister accept that he has also surrendered the jobs of many of his Back-Bench MPs to Reform at the next general election?
The Prime Minister
I will happily explain to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents the huge benefits of these deals, measured in jobs that will be saved, jobs that can now thrive, and bills that will come down. It is really important for our economy that we have these deals. That is in the interests of his constituents, and it is in the interests of the whole country.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
When it comes to evaluating the merits of the deal, who would the Prime Minister suggest my Livingston constituents listen to? Should it be the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, NFU Scotland or Salmon Scotland, all of which have welcomed the deal, or should they listen to John Swinney, who is lining up with the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in a desperate, misguided attempt to create a constitutional grievance over a deal that the Deputy First Minister of Scotland has called “important progress”?
The Prime Minister
I was surprised to see the SNP First Minister line up with Reform and the Leader of the Opposition against a deal that has been welcomed by the likes of Salmon Scotland, a huge exporter from Scotland, because they know it is good for their business. That is a pretty small and miserable club for the SNP to be in.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If the Prime Minister is right that our food standards are already in alignment with those of the EU, why could we not have negotiated the deal on the basis of mutual recognition of those standards, as other countries have done, rather than open ourselves up to having to alter our standards in line with whatever the EU may decide to change in the future?
The Prime Minister
That is a very good question that the right hon. Gentleman should put to Boris Johnson.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I absolutely welcome this deal, which puts us on the map as an outward-looking nation again. Above all, the benefits that it brings young people in Edinburgh South West are absolutely worth noting. We know that the deal will bring lower bills for people shopping for food and buying energy across the UK. Based on that, can the Prime Minister understand why the SNP is uniting with Reform and the Conservatives to take an isolationist approach on international trade?
The Prime Minister
I do think it is really hard to fathom, and I hope that SNP Members reconsider their position, because lining up against better trade and better business opportunities for Scotland is not in Scotland’s interest. To be lining up with Reform is not a place that I would expect them to be, but that is where they are.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I admire the Prime Minister’s faith that this deal may well end the tired arguments of the past, but judging on today’s display, I think we need to end the Conservatives—the tired party of the past to my right—before that is the case. A generation of young people have missed out on the opportunities offered by the Erasmus scheme due to the disastrous Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservatives. We are encouraged by the words in the deal about the Erasmus scheme, but what is the timescale for offering that opportunity to our young people once again?
The Prime Minister
I do not think the Conservatives need any help in retiring from the national stage—they are well on their way. It is obviously important that we take a balanced approach in negotiating access to Erasmus. As with other aspects, we want to move ahead on what we have negotiated as quickly as we can. We have moved at speed to get this far, and the instruction from both sides is to move at speed on the other elements.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when she says that what matters is whether the terms of the deal have improved for the country, and that detail matters. Some 16,000 firms in this country stopped exporting to Europe under the deal that her Government negotiated and exports dropped by a third, because the price of her Brexit was paperwork. Under this deal, the Government are getting rid of the much-hated export health certificate, which is worth an extra £200 on every single consignment. This Government’s deal will help business; her Government’s deal hurt business. Can the Prime Minister confirm that as part of reviewing the charges at the border, he will also look at that the Tories’ hated border operating model, so we can really get business moving?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend puts her finger on it. Under the Tories’ deal, there was huge bureaucracy, huge red tape, huge cost to businesses. The reason businesses have come out to support this deal in huge numbers is because they know it will make life better for them, improve their business opportunities, and drive our economy forward.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I asked the Prime Minister on 7 May to reassure the House that he would not hand over hard-won controls over UK fishing waters in backroom deals with Brussels. In reply, he said:
“a better deal…can be had.”—[Official Report, 7 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 679.]
Does he agree that EU access to our waters until 2038 is only a better deal for Brussels and nothing short of a betrayal of British coastal communities?
The Prime Minister
The deal we have struck makes it easier for fishermen to sell into the EU market. Some 72% of their fish is sold into the EU market. Until we came along with the SPS agreement, which is permanent, they had to put up with the red tape, bureaucracy and added cost that the Tory party negotiated with disastrous consequences. This makes it easier for them to sell their fish into the market, which is hugely important to them. On shellfish exports, which were banned by the Tory party, the door is open again and they can sell into the market—hugely important.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I put on the record my thanks to the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office for this landmark first step in the Government’s reset with the European Union. As the Government remove barriers to trade, what further information can the Prime Minister share with the House about how the deal will bring down the cost of living, including for my Bolton West constituents?
The Prime Minister
I point my hon. Friend to the endorsements from the very many supermarkets yesterday who made precisely that point. It will allow them now to lower the price of goods and food on their shelves. That is good for them and their businesses, it is good for working people, and it massively helps with the cost of living.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
These incremental improvements are welcome as we begin to move on from some of the illusions of Brexit, although we had all this and far, far more 10 years ago. The Prime Minister once argued that
“we should retain the benefits of the single market”.—[Official Report, 1 May 2017; Vol. 630, c. 879.]
Given his recent tendency to dismiss the views of others, what would he say to his younger self?
The Prime Minister
I think last week I was overly rude and I apologise. I do respect the right hon. Member, and she makes a serious point. We are now outside the EU. We had red lines in our manifesto on the single market. We have kept to those red lines and delivered a very good deal.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on securing this deal. Does he agree with me that the attitude displayed by the Conservatives betrays a fundamental dislike and mistrust of all things European, which makes them totally inadequate to accept any sort of deal whatever with the EU? Can he confirm that no matter where an international trade deal is done, whether through World Trade Organisation rules or with Europe, there is always an arbitration system?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I do not think the Conservatives are just against all things European, because they say they are against the India deal as well. That is a deal they tried for eight long years to negotiate. It is deeply embarrassing for them to say that that was what they were trying to negotiate and now they are against it. They are against the deal with the US, which they said they wanted to negotiate, which saves thousands upon thousands of jobs. Go to Jaguar Land Rover and tell those workers that you are going to reverse the deal, and look at the expressions on their faces. It is further evidence of the decline of the Tory party, away from free trade. I never thought I would see that, but we are seeing that now under this Leader of the Opposition. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about arbitration clauses: they are there in every trade deal that has ever been struck.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I do not want to be a dog in the manger, but the Prime Minister’s statement appears to be very strong on self-congratulation and very short on detail. I know he does not like answering detailed questions, but the response he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) was quite simply unacceptable. When will this deal be signed off in a form that this House will be able to debate properly and vote on?
The Prime Minister
The detail of the agreement we reached yesterday was set out in a document which we released during the course of yesterday. If the right hon. Gentleman has not had the chance to see that, I will make sure that he does. On the detailed text that follows, obviously that needs to be drafted in legal form so that everybody can see it, of course, and we can debate and scrutinise it. None of this can go through without legislation, so he will have that opportunity. It is quite right that he presses for it.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The new UK-EU agreement is a welcome and pragmatic step towards rebuilding a strong trading relationship with our closest economic partner:
“this deal will help reduce costs, cut red tape, and make it easier for Scottish businesses to compete and grow across European markets.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the chief executive of the Scottish chambers of commerce. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that when Labour negotiates, businesses and customers in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South benefit?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are reasons why the Scottish chambers of commerce is coming out in support of the deal. It recognises the huge benefits. It is very important that we do everything we can for working people and businesses in Scotland. That is what we are delivering.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
On behalf of the Green party, I broadly welcome the progress made at the summit yesterday. It is not quite the step change we need, but it is a step forward towards the closest possible relationship with our closest neighbours that we continue to champion. I would gently point out that it is hardly unprecedented, because, of course, up until we left the EU we had a much better relationship. Given that free movement of people, in addition to goods, services and capital, is such an important component of growth and building good relationships, why is the Prime Minister being so timid on the youth mobility scheme, given the huge benefits it would offer to our young people and our country as a whole?
The Prime Minister
We had a clear red line in our manifesto on freedom of movement. We did that because we had a referendum, and at the heart of that referendum, or one of the key issues, was freedom of movement. Everybody made their case and the country voted to leave. We respect that and that is why we put the red line in. What we have now negotiated is a scheme that does not cross our red lines, but is good for young people both here and in Europe.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I would like to turn to the co-operation aspect of the agreement, on which I congratulate the Prime Minister. When I was an international liaison prosecutor, my colleagues and I in the Crown Prosecution Service, Eurojust and Europol were relieved when the trade and co-operation agreement was finally agreed. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that this new deal enhances and improves our ability to tackle cross-border serious and organised crime, and to keep the people of the UK safe?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her previous work. One of the important things I was able to do when I was chief prosecutor was to play a part in Eurojust. Before we left the EU, we could play our full part in Eurojust. That meant we shared evidence, strategy, arrest arrangements and issues about where a case would be prosecuted. We want to ensure that we improve law enforcement by making sure that, wherever we can, we can co-operate better with Europe. That was not possible under the deal that the Conservative party negotiated. I want to make sure that we have better co-operation on criminal justice issues.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The previous deal done by the Conservatives tied up many businesses in red tape, so I warmly welcome the progress on SPS. But advanced manufacturers in my constituency are part of integrated supply chains with the EU and they are still tied up in red tape. In light of the further summits that will be held, will the Prime Minister outline what the Government will do to reduce that red tape and allow them to grow jobs in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman. On SPS, we have taken that step—the red tape goes—but we do want to reduce trade barriers wherever we can, both with the EU and with anywhere else, frankly. At a time when we are moving into a new era on trade and the economy—we certainly are—we need to reduce trade barriers across the country for the reasons we set out.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his work on this deal, which takes important steps in resetting our relationship with the EU. Beyond the lowering of trade barriers, the prospect of a youth experience scheme will excite many of my younger constituents. Does the Prime Minister agree that far from being a concession, a youth experience scheme, mirroring agreements that we already have with countries like Australia and New Zealand, would create fulfilling cultural opportunities for young people across the country?
The Prime Minister
I agree. I would remind the House that we have agreements in place with a number of other countries, some of which were actually negotiated by the Conservatives. I find it hard to believe that anybody in this House genuinely wants to make it harder for our young people to work, study and travel in Europe.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
We need 15 billion barrels of oil and gas between now and 2050; we are currently expected to produce just 4 billion. New licences would support tens of thousands of jobs in this country and tens of billions in tax revenue. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the agreement on alignment on climate policies will not stand in the way of common-sense restoration of new licences in the North sea, so that we can produce the oil and gas we must consume in this country?
The Prime Minister
We have been clear about honouring new licences, and there is nothing in this deal that cuts across what we have said previously on that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
A trade deal with the world’s fastest-growing economy, which the Tories failed to achieve; a trade deal with the world’s richest economy, which they also failed to achieve; and a trade deal with the world’s biggest trading bloc, which the Tories and Reform would tear up, despite the enormous benefits for British businesses, consumers and tourists—does the Prime Minister agree that all that, plus financial stability, investment in key public services and our national security and infrastructure, makes the UK the best place to start and grow a business in the world? Would he further agree that given our fantastic quality of living, our great universities and our skilled and passionate people, the north-east should be the destination of choice for such investment?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that the three trade deals taken together do indicate that other countries want to negotiate and deal with the UK because they can see the path that we are on. That is good and it should be welcomed, because there are huge benefits. Of course, the north-east and my hon. Friend’s constituents should benefit under all three of those deals.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union in 2016, and overwhelmingly support rejoining it today—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members might want to listen. That fact has been continuously ignored by successive UK Governments. The limited measures this Government have announced do not come anywhere near to repairing the hammer blow that Brexit will continue to inflict on our public finances. Indeed, the UK Government’s own figures show that the cost of Brexit is 20 times greater, or 4% of GDP, compared with this deal. Does the Prime Minister recognise that by continuing to pursue this disastrous Brexit policy, he is demonstrating that Westminster Governments will never work in the interests of Scotland?
The Prime Minister
I find it impossible to follow the hon. Gentleman’s reasoning. He thinks we should be in the EU—that was voted on, but he is entitled to his position. However, he is also against a closer relationship. I do not understand why the SNP is against this deal. This is a closer relationship. There is a complete contradiction in the argument that he is making, which is completely out of kilter with Scottish businesses, which are welcoming what we achieved yesterday. On behalf of Scotland, the SNP should be welcoming it.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on securing this sensible, pragmatic deal, which demonstrates that we can respect the result of the 2016 referendum without settling for a bodged Boris Brexit. Does the Prime Minister agree that if the Conservatives and Reform want to rip up this deal, they should have to explain to my constituents why they should pay higher prices for food and energy?
The Prime Minister
I completely agree—the Conservatives and Reform should go around the country and explain to our constituents why they should pay higher prices. I think they would get a pretty universal response.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Our fishermen had been promised, and the EU had agreed, that annual access agreements would be reverted to from 2026, but, seemingly at the 11th hour, the Prime Minister abandoned our fishing communities, our fishing fleets and control of our seas by handing not a three, four or even five-year access agreement, but a 12-year multi-annual agreement to the EU. He sold out our fishermen to meet his self-imposed deadline for announcing the agreement and has shown that he will not stand strong for UK fishermen. Can he confirm that Parliament will have the final say on the fisheries deal, and that it will not be ratified elsewhere by unelected officials in Whitehall or Brussels?
The Prime Minister
The simple fact of the matter is that, under the agreement the Conservatives struck, it was much more difficult for fishermen to sell into the European market. We are making it much easier—it is 72% of their stock. Shellfish can be sold back into that market again, and we have set up a fund for our fishing communities. The alternative, which was to come off the current agreement and then negotiate every year with no certainty at all, would not be good for anyone.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on this deal, which will benefit so many of my constituents; it is exactly what businesses in my constituency asked for when they sent me to Parliament. The youth mobility scheme will benefit local farmers, but I want to know how young people in my area will also benefit from it opening up experiences and opportunities that they would never have otherwise dreamed of. The scheme must not just benefit middle-class kids on their gap year.
The Prime Minister
I agree wholeheartedly. It has to benefit all our young people, whether through work, travel or study, and we will make sure that it does. We want to provide young people with this important opportunity and help them to take advantage of it.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
How will Britain’s head start in gene-editing technology be impacted by the rule-taking reversionary measures that the Prime Minister has announced?
The Prime Minister
We are discussing and engaging on that issue, which, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is important.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Morrisons has said that the deal will
“ease…pressure on food prices”,
Asda has said it
“has the potential to significantly reduce costs and bureaucracy”,
and the British Retail Consortium has said it will help to “keep costs down”. Does the Prime Minister agree with their assessment that this deal will help families in Bracknell Forest and across the country facing a high cost of living?
The Prime Minister
The deal will massively help my hon. Friend’s constituents because it will bring costs down. Morrisons is not the only supermarket that has come out in support of the agreement—pretty well all the supermarkets have come out openly supporting it. There is a reason for that: it will bring the prices on their shelves down, and that is good for working people across the country.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I welcome the SPS part of yesterday’s agreement, as I am sure will all the farmers of South Devon and those exporting fish and shellfish from Brixham. The Prime Minister may not know the answer to my question, but perhaps one of his Ministers will. Will bivalve molluscs that are fished in grade B waters, which are very important for one of my major exporters, be included in the SPS agreement?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I am not going to pretend that I have the answer in my back pocket, but I will make sure that she gets a proper, detailed answer to her question, which she can then make use of with her constituents.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is brilliant that the Brexit logjam that has cast a long shadow over this House for so many years has been smashed by this Prime Minister. Could he indicate when we might hear a bit more about the youth experience scheme that has been so yearned for and so welcomed by the universities and the English language teaching sector, and also by my staff, team and son, who were born too late to have a say in any of the mess that the Tories left behind?
The Prime Minister
We will develop the plan on the youth experience scheme with our partners. We have instructed our teams to move on all fronts as quickly as we can.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Prime Minister states that a new security and defence partnership will pave the way for British defence firms to access the new European defence fund, which I am sure we can collectively agree will allow our continent to defend ourselves against Putin’s autocratic regime. How long does the Prime Minister think access to this fund will take—weeks, months or years?
The Prime Minister
It will certainly not take years. The whole point of the fund is to be part of the collective response to the challenge in Ukraine. The fund was one of the initiatives that came out of the work that we were doing with the coalition of the willing. Everybody involved wants to move at speed, and that is the basis on which we have approached this matter. What yesterday does is knock out one of the gateway issues that we were otherwise facing, so that we can work with others to access the fund, but we will work as quickly as we can, because the situation in Ukraine is extremely serious and will need to be addressed as soon as possible.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Prime Minister for negotiating this deal, which is good for the UK and, according to umpteen businesses, good for Scotland. As someone who benefited from a year in France many years ago, I welcome the work that is under way to give young people in my constituency access to a youth experience scheme, but will the Prime Minister work at pace to ensure that our sportspeople and musicians can showcase their talents and are no longer subjected to the Tories’ botched Brexit?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. We will work as quickly as we can on that issue, because, whichever way people voted, they did not vote to stop creatives and sportspeople crossing national boundaries to showcase their talent—in whatever way that may be—so we do need to resolve it.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
The impact of the Creative Europe programme between 2014 and 2019 on the UK arts, film, publishing and other creative sectors was hugely beneficial, and not just for practitioners and organisations but for the country as a whole. Will the Government look into the possibility of participating again in this creative programme to further boost the economic potential of our creative industries?
The Prime Minister
We set out yesterday the areas where we had reached agreement. We will now have annual summits, but we will approach that matter on a value-for-money basis.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General on this deal, which makes the people of York Outer better off, and, in particular, on the agreement on e-gates, which the Conservative party could never achieve. Will the Government prioritise e-gates talks with member states in popular holiday destinations such as Spain, Portugal and France to ease summer travel chaos for sun-seeking Brits?
The Prime Minister
We already are doing so, because it is important that we now get on with this as quickly as we can.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Ursula von der Leyen yesterday said that a second step of further negotiations is required before British firms would be eligible to compete for joint procurements aligned to the Security Action for Europe fund. The Prime Minister spoke warmly about the positive industry response, but the chief executive officer of the ADS Group has said that it was “somewhat underwhelming” in its lack of detail. Therefore, what is the detail on which further negotiation is required before British firms even have the possibility of bidding for access to the SAFE fund, let alone creating thousands of jobs?
The Prime Minister
Let me answer the hon. Member directly. The first thing was to get through the first gateway. As this is a fund that is being set up at the moment, the second gateway is to negotiate our way into the scheme. That was always the two-stage process. The scheme itself has not been in existence for very long and is being developed, and so, along with our European partners, we will move that on at pace.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Although residents and businesses in York will welcome this deal, our university sector is our second largest export. Will the Prime Minister say more about how this deal will benefit higher education, not least in our research base but also in being able to attract the very best into our country?
The Prime Minister
We do want to attract the very best into our country and we will continue our efforts to do so. The measures that we set out yesterday will now help in that effort. They are not the total sum of our effort, but they will help in that effort.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
After every EU summit, the people of Northern Ireland have been subjected to spin, broken promises and, in some cases, downright lies. The Prime Minister today said that the new SPS agreement will mean no more lorry drivers queuing for 16 hours at the border with rotting food in the back and no more needless checks that made the borders trade so difficult, even within our own market between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If what he is saying is true, can he tell me today that the £140 million border post being built in my constituency, spread over 10 acres and designed to carry out the very checks that he says are now disappearing, is no longer necessary and that its construction can now stop?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member raises an important point. What we want to do with this agreement is ensure that we do remove unnecessary checks wherever they are, but we particularly had in focus the situation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I want to ensure that we have real improvement in the situation on the ground and do not go to unnecessary expense. I genuinely believe that, for Northern Ireland, this was a big step in the right direction yesterday. We will continue to ensure that we make progress.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Unlike the SNP’s singular failure wholeheartedly to support our defence sector, this deal is good for Scottish defence firms. Does the Prime Minister agree that Scottish firms gaining access to the €150 billion European defence fund is a huge opportunity for jobs and manufacturers in Scotland and in my constituency of Central Ayrshire?
The Prime Minister
Yes, absolutely. Getting that gateway open is hugely important for Scottish defence and security businesses. Those businesses are world leading, and so it would be a welcome opportunity for them.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Labour Government cannot answer how much the Chagos deal cost. The Labour Government cannot answer how much NHS England has cost. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much this reset deal will cost, and that there will be no further expenditure to the EU?
The Prime Minister
I have set out how the costs will be approached, but what we are not going to do is make those budgetary payments that other EU members make. We will look at proportionate payments into schemes, as is currently the case in relation to Horizon, which was negotiated by the previous Government. But the cost of the Tories to the country has been absolutely incalculable.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on securing a landmark deal with our European neighbours? The Prime Minister will know that my constituency has been a leading light in the creative industries for a long time—and not just because my predecessor was a double Oscar-winning actress. Local actors have been coming to me expressing their frustration about securing work in Europe because of delays with work visas, and also because of the limit of 90 days for UK nationals. Can the Prime Minister reassure my local performers that they will not just be waiting in the wings while the rest of Europe takes centre stage?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, as it is of great importance to her constituents and to many others. Our creative sector is incredible. Whether people voted leave or remain, I honestly do not think that anybody really wanted or intended that our creatives should have difficulties getting on with their trade, and we will work at pace to try to resolve that.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
British people having access to e-gates is welcome. As the Minister for EU Relations told the BBC, it should ensure more time for UK residents when abroad. But my constituents have a better suggestion for achieving that. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should be developing a reciprocal travel arrangement, so that Brits can return to six-month visits to the continent, as EU visitors can here, doing away with the confusing 90-day and 180-day rule.
The Prime Minister
The e-gates will make a huge difference and will probably be the first impact that many people see. Hopefully, we will get those in train just as quickly as we can. We are also looking at other measures.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and this deal. Perhaps most important to people in Gateshead will be the downward pressure on food prices, so I ask the Prime Minister, when it comes to food prices and to this deal, would he rather listen to Asda, Morrisons and M&S, or to the Leader of the Opposition, who does not think that sandwiches are food?
The Prime Minister
I listen to businesses on this, and they are universal in what they say about food. That is why I am surprised that the Conservative party is against a deal that brings down the price of food.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Dynamic alignment undermines sovereignty, and to undermine sovereignty does not just undermine the central principle that 17.4 million people voted for; it also undermines everybody who respects the democratic outcome of that referendum. Therefore, if the Prime Minister will not think again about this Brexit betrayal, will he, at the very least, reinstate the European Scrutiny Committee of this House, so that this House can scrutinise every single rule that we now have to take rather than make?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the position in relation to how the rules will be applied. We are already aligned, but we do not get the benefit. This deal allows us to get the benefit, which is why businesses are so in favour of it. Every trade deal requires agreement on both sides as to the way forward, and this agreement is no different.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on this common-sense reset. Does he agree that the Conservatives slammed the door of opportunity in the faces of younger generations with their useless Brexit deal, and that this youth mobility scheme opens up life-changing experiences for young people from Southampton? Will he also say how schools and universities can have input into shaping the best scheme possible?
The Prime Minister
The scheme does provide great opportunity, and we will make sure that all those interested are able to help us in the design of it.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I want to re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). A constituent of mine runs an agricultural consultancy. This requires travel to the EU, which is especially frequent during seasonal peaks, and he has been hampered by the rolling 90-day rule. The issue is that EU citizens can come to the UK for 180 days in 365. We are asking for an equalisation of that scheme. Is the Prime Minister going to look at that?
The Prime Minister
We are looking at a range of issues. I completely understand the point the hon. Lady makes and the frustration that the situation causes for her constituents and for people across the country.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
I spent this morning with British metal manufacturing businesses, which are so important in my constituency and across the west midlands. Like so many other sectors, this industry welcomes the deal, particularly the emissions trading scheme linkage and the steel safeguarding that will boost jobs, boost trade and cut red tape. Does the Prime Minister agree that this deal firmly backs UK manufacturing and metal industries, and will he continue to bang the drum for them here and around the world?
The Prime Minister
I firmly agree with my hon. Friend, and what she says applies not just to this deal but to the India and US deals. We have made real progress when it comes to our exports.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Given that my constituents overwhelmingly voted to take back control of their borders in the 2016 referendum, what safeguards is the Prime Minister putting in place to ensure that his youth experience scheme is not open borders by the back door, which would be seen by my constituents as yet another Brexit betrayal?
The Prime Minister
The scheme will be time-limited, visa-led and capped. It is a good scheme for young people in this country to go to Europe, and it will have those features, which we negotiated because we had a red line about freedom of movement.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Calder Valley is home to many of the small and medium-sized enterprises that simply stopped trading with Europe because of the disastrous deal agreed by the Conservatives. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will not stop here with this deal, but will continue to work to open more of our borders to more of our businesses?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. The Federation of Small Businesses has come out strongly in favour of this deal because it knows the impact it will have on small and medium-sized businesses.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for the statement. The deal is certainly a step in the right direction, and having closer ties with Europe has got to be good for businesses and farming. Specifically on medicine supplies and shortages, I have heard from a worryingly large number of people in Winchester with chronic health conditions who require vital daily medication to manage their condition—anti-seizure medication or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medication, for example. Will the Prime Minister commit to removing medicine supply barriers with Europe and to delivering an agreement with the European Medicines Agency to ensure that we can free up such supplies?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member will have seen how far we got yesterday, but we obviously want to move forward from there. We will look at a range of other issues. I cannot make any promise or commitment here—it would be wrong to do so—but where there are frustrations, we want to unblock them. Common sense drives this.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
We have deals with India and with the United States, and now this Government are repairing our relationship with Europe—something that I and thousands of my constituents welcome. I congratulate the Prime Minister and ask him to go as fast as possible to secure the finalisation of the scheme that will allow our young people to live, work and study in Europe.
The Prime Minister
I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments, and we will go at pace to move on the commitments we made yesterday.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Some of the free trade deals we already have require us to have autonomy over our regulation. The Prime Minister has said today that we will not be a rule taker because we can discuss the rules in this place, but discussion is not the same as control. Can he confirm that he has not ceded control to disapply or diverge from regulations in Europe?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady will see from the agreement text that it is subject to our constitutional arrangements, and in the application of the rules, it is the application in this House that matters.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
Can I put on record my thanks to everyone who has worked so hard to get this hat-trick of deals across the line? The EU is Wales’s biggest trading partner, with over 90% of Welsh lamb that is exported going to the EU. Does the Prime Minister agree that this landmark agreement is brilliant news for food and drink producers in Wales, not least mussel producers and farmers in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
This deal will make a huge difference to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and she is absolutely right to champion their interests. It will hugely help their businesses, trade and local economy.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
In an earlier answer, the Prime Minister said that he would continue with the implementation of the Windsor framework. That will see more bureaucracy and red tape introduced between Great Britain and Northern Ireland before an SPS deal can be delivered. If the Prime Minister’s partnership with the EU is so positive, does he not agree that it would be better to pause the implementation of any more bureaucracy and red tape that would add costs to Northern Ireland businesses before his deal can be achieved?
The Prime Minister
I do not think we should pause the implementation of deals that we have already got, but I do agree with the underlying sentiment that we should be doing everything we can through this deal and in further steps to ensure that trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the same as across the rest of the United Kingdom.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
As the proud owner of two English bulldogs, I welcome the reintroduction of pet passports. Not only will this make it easier for us to travel to Europe with Clive and Bertie, but it will bring down the cost massively. That is not the only part of the deal that will bring bills down for British consumers. Can the Prime Minister tell us how my constituents will benefit from this deal?
The Prime Minister
An hour and a half, and we have only just got to pet passports—but I am really glad my hon. Friend mentions it. The deal contains an advance for pet passports, along with the many other advances that will progress as soon as possible. I assume that the Conservatives are against pet passport progress as well.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Will the Prime Minister admit to the British people that this deal takes the country back under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which is now able once again to overrule our courts, meaning we are surrendering our judicial sovereignty?
The Prime Minister
No, that is just wrong under the agreement. There is an independent arbitration—
The Prime Minister
It is the same as the Windsor framework, which the right hon. Gentleman’s party negotiated. This is an important point: it is an independent arbitration process. There is the same process for pretty well every trade deal that is struck, not just by us and other countries but by most other countries. In this particular case, if the independent arbitration needs reference on a point of law, it is referred to the ECJ, which then refers it back to the independent arbitrator to make a decision. That is how it operates.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I warmly welcome this landmark deal with the European Union. I welcome in particular the commitment to work towards a youth experience scheme to once again allow our young people to live, work and travel freely in Europe. Does the Prime Minister agree that although this Labour Government are taking important steps to open up opportunities that will shape our young people’s future, the Conservatives are dangerously stuck in the past?
The Prime Minister
I do agree. I think they are lost in the past—actually I think they are lost all together now, on a decline into oblivion. As I say, a once great party that used to support trade deals is now against every single trade deal. It is a pretty extraordinary turnaround.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Paragraph 27 of the common understanding published yesterday requires the “immediate application” of European Union rules relating to food, sanitary and phytosanitary safety. Can the Prime Minister set out what measures would be open to the EU should this Parliament choose not to adopt those new European Union laws?
The Prime Minister
We are not making an argument for lowering our standards, and we are proud to have high standards at the moment. We want to maintain those high standards, but there will of course be provision, should the occasion arise, for dealing with any conflicts that may emerge.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
The Business and Trade Committee visited Brussels earlier this year, where we saw at first hand how the previous Conservative Government damaged our relationships with our close trading partners—and British businesses paid the price. Can the Prime Minister confirm that this Labour Government are putting our national interest first in getting the deals, showing that Labour is the party of business?
The Prime Minister
I can. We have approached this on a serious, pragmatic basis. We have got a deal with 10 strands that massively takes our country forward. That is on top of the India deal and the US deal. The Conservatives spent many years failing to get these deals; that is the truth of it.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
In the UK-EU summit, co-operation on access to medicines was noticeably scarce. That is an area where we are falling massively behind compared with our European allies. Can the Prime Minister ask the Minister for Secondary Care to meet me, so that we can discuss why only 25% of new cancer medicines approved by the EU are fully available in the UK?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member raises an important point, and we will continue our discussions with others to try to resolve some of the frustrations—to which, common sense would suggest, we can find a better solution, and we will.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Sunderland is proud to be a city of makers, from cars to music. Without reversing Brexit, those makers need access to Europe, whether that is exporters such as Nissan, which need the certainty to export, or musicians, who need the freedom to tour. Can the Prime Minister outline how this deal will support good jobs in Sunderland, whether they be in the motor or the music industry?
The Prime Minister
Let me rest on my hon. Friend’s first example, which was of cars. The India deal, which massively slashed the tariff on cars, is good for car manufacturing and good for car exports, and the deal with the US saves thousands upon thousands of jobs in the car industry, which is why it should be welcomed.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Many will be concerned that the Prime Minister’s EU deal does not cover the UK’s participation in future EU research programmes. How will the Prime Minister ensure that we can participate in future EU research programmes once Horizon finishes?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Member knows, we are committed to Horizon. We will retain that commitment to research, because it is so important for our national interest.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
It never ceases to surprise me how little the Opposition understand about making trade deals. Perhaps that is why they never made a good one. We do not need to explain that to the 19,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency; they have been choked by the red tape agreed by the Conservatives. Those businesses agree with the Federation of Small Businesses that this deal will finally reduce and get rid of the bottleneck. Can the Prime Minister tell the businesses in my constituency and across the country when we can finally be relieved of the Tories’ red tape that is crushing our small businesses?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the red tape having such an impact on our small businesses. That is why I am pleased that we have made progress. We now need to make further progress as quickly as we can to ensure that businesses thrive in the markets in which they want to trade.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I note the careful wording of the Prime Minister’s statement—it talks about Britain being “back on the world stage”, and delivering for Britain. That is not the United Kingdom. I note that his SPS deal is for Great Britain. That, of course, is because Northern Ireland has already been captured by the EU and is subject to its laws and its customs code. That is why the Irish sea border remains. As for the SPS deal as it applies to Northern Ireland, is it correct that customs declarations and customs checks will still continue on goods from GB to Northern Ireland, even though they might be SPS goods? Those checks will still operate.
The Prime Minister
Yesterday was a step forward in that regard. The deal allows us to reduce frustrations and barriers, which nobody wants to see. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that I genuinely want us to get into the best position we can on Northern Ireland. It mattered to me in the negotiations, and it is one of the principles that we took into them. We will continue with that work, because I know how much it matters.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I suspect that even if there was a barrel of salt herring in it for every Opposition Member, this fishing deal would still not be salty enough for them. In fact, it is a sweet deal for prawn fishermen and shellfish fishermen in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, for salmon producers and for crofters, although not for their lambs. Is not the real betrayal of fishing communities the fact—this is the challenge for Reform—that 80% of England’s fishing quota is in the hands of foreign companies or the super-rich? The challenge for the SNP is that 45% of Scotland’s quota is in the hands of a few companies. The challenge for us is to unwind that privatisation of the ocean and make sure that fishing communities across the UK benefit.
The Prime Minister
That is why it is so important that we are putting the money—more than £300 million—into working with those communities to take advantage of the deal that we struck yesterday.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
We heard from Ministers over the weekend that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The Prime Minister said in his statement that the deal paves the way for access to the €150 billion defence industrial programme, SAFE—Security Action for Europe. If everything has been agreed, why does the security and defence partnership not include access to the SAFE industrial programme now?
The Prime Minister
That is because the programme itself is being developed at speed. It was only announced the other week. It was announced in response to, and as part of, the work we are doing with the coalition of the willing. Knocking out the first gateway was important. We will now work with the EU to ensure that we can access that fund as quickly as possible. It is not a long-existing fund that has been in place for years; it is developing at the moment in response to the situation in Ukraine. I think the hon. Member knows that.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The response to today’s deal has been striking. We need to drive down the cost of food for our constituents, and retailers are lining up to say that the deal will have that impact, yet the Tories and Reform would like to put those costs back on to my constituents. At a time when we should support our farmers and food producers, we are removing barriers and red tape, yet Opposition parties would like to bring those barriers back. My constituents voted for change because they were fed up with narrow ideological interests holding our country back. Does this deal not show why my constituents were so right to do so?
The Prime Minister
The principles are: bills down and jobs up, and that is exactly what this deal delivers.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Prime Minister has spent the past hour and a half indicating the benefits that he sees from the deal. Does he recognise that a potentially toxic side effect of the deal is that some on the left of UK politics will see this as the first step towards rowing back on what the people voted for nine years ago, while those on the right of UK politics will see a determination to stop them? Rather than the deal bringing people together, it could therefore cause toxic division.
The Prime Minister
We have taken a pragmatic, common-sense approach, with an absolute focus on reducing bills—that is hugely important to people, particularly in a cost of living crisis—and driving up jobs in our economy. Those are the principles that have driven this. I recognise that those at the extremes, on whichever side people want to say that they are on, will never be satisfied, but the country is fed up with nine years-worth of continued discussion, debate and toxic divide. It is time to move on from that and to look forward, not backward, and this deal will help us do that.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The truth is that this deal with the EU is good for my constituents in Fife, good for Scotland, and good for the UK. Does the Prime Minister agree that the SNP is tying itself up in knots over this deal? While the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and the Scottish First Minister are desperate to talk it down, the Deputy First Minister was in Downing Street last night saying how wonderful it is, and she is right.
The Prime Minister
I learned this morning that the Deputy First Minister was in the garden at Downing Street last night. She was with businesses for a business reception. It was buzzing, because they were celebrating the deal. It was good to have her there. I would like to see other SNP Members joining her, because she has the right judgment on this one.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Fishermen in my constituency were let down by the Conservatives and their Brexit friends, and they now feel very disappointed by the news about EU vessel access within the six to 12-mile zone. Both before and since Brexit, we have retained regulatory autonomy in that zone. Will the Prime Minister ensure that we exercise our right to control the access of vessels in that area, and have control of grandfather rights, kilowatt effort and fishing methods, as well as other regulatory controls, to ensure that the area is properly regulated?
The Prime Minister
The arrangements are the same as those currently in place, and they are reciprocal, which is really important. What will be of huge benefit to the hon. Member’s constituents will be the reduction in red tape and bureaucracy for them when selling stock to the EU market, which is where a huge percentage—over 70%—of it goes to. That will come without the red tape, which drives up their costs.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Interventions such as those from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) have really demonstrated that the Conservative party has parted company with those of us who have run small exporting businesses. Perhaps instead of collaborating with those on the Reform Benches, he could talk to small businesses in my constituency in the defence supply chain, or those who support Nissan by being in its automotive supply chain, and who stand to benefit from this trade deal. Does the Prime Minister agree that we are not carping on and talking down our country, as Reform and the Conservatives do? Instead, this Labour Government’s plan for change is delivering for British jobs and British businesses.
The Prime Minister
Yes. There is only one party of business now, and it is right here, in government.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I support the fishing sector in Portavogie in my constituency, and the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation there speaks on behalf of those in Ardglass and Kilkeel as well. As the Member for South Down (Chris Hazzard) does not bother attending the House, we have to speak for all those fishing villages. Too often in negotiations between the UK and the EU, our fishing industry has been the sacrificial lamb. Does the Prime Minister agree that just as the annexation of Northern Ireland should not have been the price that the previous Government paid for exiting the EU, the interests of both Northern Ireland and the wider UK fishing industry should not be expendable? Will he commit to bringing forward additional financial and practical support for our local fleets in those three ports, and for processors, as they grapple with reduced access in the years ahead?
The Prime Minister
I assure the hon. Member that the £360 million fund will be brought forward as quickly as possible. We can discuss with him in due course how that will affect his constituents and those he is representing effectively in the Chamber today.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on a realistic, sober, sensible deal that will deliver for businesses in my constituency, including, through the SPS deal, those like Northumberland Honey, which face real barriers to exporting. I particularly welcome the first step to a youth mobility experience. The economy of the north-east, with its world-class universities, has much to gain. Does he agree that it is through fostering co-operation, interdependence and trade that we defeat the radical right, not just in the Chamber but at the ballot box?
The Prime Minister
We need to take common-sense steps, in our national interest, on the economy, trade and business, and to give young people the opportunities that they deserve.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Our opponents talk of “surrender” and believe that they have a monopoly on concepts such as patriotism, but in order to trade we need to co-operate. Does the Prime Minister agree that co-operating with our nearest neighbours and with the United States and India is not weak and not surrender? It is strong; it is pro-business; it is pro-worker; it is in the national interest; and it is in the interests of my constituents in Rugby, businesses, farmers, holidaymakers and young people.
The Prime Minister
What is astonishing is that the Conservatives do not want to co-operate with the EU, India or the US. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition’s approach to diplomacy is to accuse the Indian Government of “fake news”. That is not a good basis for a relationship through which to negotiate a better outcome.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
We have learned a lot about trade policy in the House today. The Conservative party is still desperately defending its failed deal, and as for Reform, we had a no-show from the leader of the party of no deal. Labour is the only party that is serious about getting a good deal with the European Union. I congratulate the Prime Minister. Having campaigned for a youth mobility deal, I thank him for the agreement in principle, but ask him to go as fast as possible to ensure that our young people have the opportunity to travel and work in the European Union.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. We will move at pace on all fronts. It is important that young people have those opportunities.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank you for getting everybody in, Madam Deputy Speaker; it has been a mammoth session. I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I notice that many businesses are in support of the deal. My constituency is home to many great businesses, from manufacturing companies to pharmaceutical companies, and from defence manufacturers to food exporters. Will the Prime Minister outline how the deal will benefit my great businesses in Harlow?
The Prime Minister
It will massively reduce bureaucracy and red tape, making it easier for businesses to do business. It will also open up opportunities on defence and security. That is why it has been so welcomed by the business community.
Mr Francois
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret that in an earlier exchange the Prime Minister, who is still in his place, may have inadvertently misled the House. The point of contention is the arbitration mechanism for an SPS deal and dynamic alignment. The text says:
“The SPS Agreement should be subject to a dispute resolution mechanism with an independent arbitration panel that ensures the Court of Justice of the European Union is the ultimate authority for all questions of European Union law”,
which, of course, this is. The Prime Minister said that the Court goes back to the arbitration panel; it does that to convey its binding decision, so he is guilty of sophistry at best, and potentially something worse.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. He will know that it was not a point of order, and not a matter for the Chair, but he has put it on the record.
The Prime Minister
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not descend into silly language, like the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), but this is an important point. He and I get on, and I do not think—
The Prime Minister
It was his language, not mine, but this is an important point.
The Prime Minister
We do. There is independent arbitration here, as there is for all of this. That can settle most issues. Where an issue of European law arises, which will not always be the case—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that right hon. Members have had the opportunity to get their points on the record. We have had in excess of an hour and a half on the statement from the Prime Minister, and I think we should move on to the next business.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This weekend, the Israel Defence Forces started a new, extensive ground operation throughout Gaza: Operation Gideon’s Chariots. Five Israeli divisions now operate there. Prime Minister Netanyahu says that they are going to take control of the strip, letting only minimal amounts of food reach Gazans; to quote Mr Netanyahu,
“just enough to prevent hunger.”
Fewer than 10 trucks entered Gaza yesterday. The UN and the World Health Organisation have issued stark warnings of the threat of starvation hanging over hundreds of thousands of civilians. This is abominable. Civilians in Gaza facing starvation, homelessness and trauma, desperate for this war to end, now confront renewed bombardment, displacement and suffering. The remaining hostages, kept apart from their loved ones by Hamas for almost 600 days, are now at heightened risk from the war around them.
Two months ago the ceasefire collapsed. Since then, the humanitarian catastrophe has rapidly intensified. For 11 weeks, Israeli forces have blockaded Gaza, leaving the World Food Programme without any remaining stocks. Israel has repeatedly struck hospitals, and three more in northern Gaza ceased operations this weekend. Yet more aid workers and medical workers have been killed, after last year proved the deadliest year on record for humanitarian personnel.
The diplomatic deadlock between Israel and Hamas has also hardened. Despite the efforts of the United States, Qatar and Egypt, which we of course support, no ceasefire has emerged. We repeat our demand that Hamas release all the hostages immediately and unconditionally, and reiterate that they cannot continue to run Gaza.
We are now entering a dark new phase in this conflict. Netanyahu’s Government plan to drive Gazans from their homes into a corner of the strip to the south and permit them a fraction of the aid that they need. Yesterday, Minister Smotrich even spoke of Israeli forces “cleansing” Gaza, of “destroying what’s left” and of resident Palestinians being “relocated to third countries”. We must call this what it is: it is extremism, it is dangerous, it is repellent, it is monstrous and I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
Israel suffered a heinous attack on 7 October. The Government have always backed Israel’s right to defend itself. We have condemned Hamas and their abhorrent treatment of the hostages. We have stood with the families and demanded that their loved ones be released. Israel’s plan is morally unjustifiable, wholly disproportionate and utterly counterproductive, and whatever Israeli Ministers claim, it is not the way to bring the hostages safely home. Nearly all the hostages have been freed through negotiations, not military force. That is why hostage families themselves, and many other Israelis, oppose this plan so strongly. It will not eliminate Hamas or make Israel secure either. This war has left a generation orphaned and traumatised, ready for Hamas to recruit. As we learned in Northern Ireland, to defeat terrorists and their warped ideology, we cannot just rely on military might; we have to offer a viable political alternative. Opposing the expansion of a war that has killed thousands of children is not rewarding Hamas.
Since entering office, we have taken concerted action on Gaza. We have restored funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, supported the independence of international courts, suspended arms export licences, provided food and medical care to hundreds of thousands of Gazans and worked with Arab partners on a plan to ensure a reconstructed Gaza no longer run by Hamas. Since Israel restarted strikes on Gaza, this Government have demanded that Israel change course.
Privately, in my conversations with Foreign Minister Sa’ar and Strategic Affairs Minister Dermer, and publicly, in repeated joint statements with my French and German counterparts, we have made clear that Israel’s actions are intolerable. We have raised our concerns in the UN Security Council and before the International Court of Justice. Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister joined leaders from France and Canada in strongly opposing the expansion of Israel’s military operations. The UK also led a further statement with 27 partners criticising Israel’s proposed new aid delivery mechanism and defending the essential humanitarian principles of the international system that the UK did so much to establish in the first place.
Our message is clear. There is a UN plan ready to deliver aid at the scale needed, with mitigations against aid diversion. There are brave humanitarians ready to do their jobs. There are over 9,000 trucks at the border. Prime Minister Netanyahu: end this blockade now and let the aid in.
Regrettably, despite our efforts, this Israeli Government’s egregious actions and rhetoric have continued. They are isolating Israel from its friends and partners around the world, undermining the interests of the Israeli people and damaging the image of the state of Israel in the eyes of the world. I find this deeply painful, as a lifelong friend of Israel and a believer in the values expressed in its declaration of independence. As the Prime Minister and fellow leaders said yesterday, we cannot stand by in the face of this new deterioration. It is incompatible with the principles that underpin our bilateral relationship, it is rejected by Members across this House, and frankly, it is an affront to the values of the British people. Therefore, today I am announcing that we have suspended negotiations with this Israeli Government on a new free trade agreement and we will be reviewing co-operation with them under the 2030 bilateral road map. The Netanyahu Government’s actions have made this necessary.
Today, the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) is summoning the Israeli ambassador to the Foreign Office to convey this message. I say now to the people of Israel that we want—I want—a strong friendship with you based on shared values, with flourishing ties between our people and societies. We are unwavering in our commitment to your security and to your future, to countering the very real threat from Iran, the scourge of terrorism and the evils of antisemitism. However, the conduct of the war in Gaza is damaging our relationship with their Government and, as the Prime Minister has said, if Israel pursues this military offensive as it has threatened, failing to ensure the unhindered provision of aid, we will take further action in response.
The UK, will not give up on a two-state solution: Israelis living within secure borders, recognised and at peace with their neighbours, free from the threat of terrorism; and Palestinians living in their own state, in dignity and security, free of occupation. The two-state solution remains the ideal framework; indeed, it is the only framework for a just and lasting peace. Yet as the House knows, its very viability is in peril, endangered not only by the war in Gaza but by the spread of illegal Israeli settlements and outposts across the occupied west bank with the explicit support of this Israeli Government.
There are now weekly meetings to approve new settlement construction. Settlement approval has accelerated while settler violence has soared. Here, too, we have acted: repeatedly pressing for a change in course and direction, sanctioning seven entities in October and signing a landmark agreement to bolster support for the Palestinian Authority when Prime Minister Mustafa visited London last month. But here too, we must do more. Today, we are therefore imposing sanctions on a further three individuals and four entities involved in the settler movement. I have seen for myself the consequences of settler violence, the fear of its victims and the impunity of its perpetrators. Today, we are demonstrating again that we will continue to act against those carrying out heinous abuses of human rights.
Despite the glimmer of hope from January’s ceasefire, the suffering in this conflict has worsened. January showed that another path was possible, and we urge the Netanyahu Government to choose this path. The world is judging. History will judge them. Blocking aid, expanding the war and dismissing the concerns of their friends and partners is indefensible and it must stop. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance sight of his statement. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is appalling and we continue to see the intolerable suffering of life being lost. A sustainable end to this terrible conflict is urgently and desperately needed, and that means the release of the remaining 58 hostages from the cruel Hamas captivity that we have all witnessed for too long; it means a significant increase in aid getting into Gaza; and it means a new future for Gaza, free from the terror and misery caused by Hamas, who bear responsibility for the suffering we have seen unfolding since 7 October 2023. I will take each of those three issues in turn.
First, on the hostages, will the Foreign Secretary explain what recent engagements he has had to try to secure their release and return to their loved ones? Is Britain contributing to an overall strategy to free the hostages? Are we in the room for these critical discussions? We know the hard work that went into all this at the beginning of the year.
Secondly, on aid, I have been asking the Government for weeks for clarity over the way they are using their influence to get aid into Gaza. On 6 and 14 May, we questioned the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), on the steps being taken to unblock aid delivery. We have asked the Government for details of their engagement with Israel, about their response to Israel’s plans for an alternative aid delivery model, and about what practical solutions the UK has worked on with Israel to address concerns about aid diversion, but no substantive answers were given. What have the Government been doing in recent weeks to facilitate the delivery of aid and find practical solutions with other countries to get aid in?
Have the Government just been criticising Israel, or have they been offering to work constructively to find solutions on aid delivery and securing a ceasefire? We see from the joint statement issued yesterday that the Government and other international partners may not be supporting or participating in the aid delivery model proposed by Israel, so can the Foreign Secretary explain why that conclusion has been reached?
Priti Patel
If I can return to my remarks, how does that non-participation help to get aid into Gaza and stop the suffering that is being experienced by everyone? [Interruption.] Members shake their heads, but we should all be focused on securing—[Interruption.] Labour Members should be ashamed of themselves, because the focus of this House should be on getting aid into Gaza. The UK—[Interruption.] I can speak as someone who has supported aid getting into Gaza and other humanitarian crises. The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) might want to intervene rather than calling me out and saying that my comments are shameful. The UK has consistently been a world leader when it comes to aid delivery. We should be at the forefront of finding practical solutions and supporting the delivery of aid to those in need, so has the Foreign Secretary, in the approach that he has just outlined towards Israel, done all he can to secure an increase in aid? Has the UK’s influence fallen in this aid discussion and in the dialogue with Israel?
Thirdly, on the future of Gaza, the Government have agreed with our position that there can be no future for Hamas—that is completely non-negotiable—so what practical steps are being taken to end their role in Gaza and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure? What co-ordinated international steps are being taken to stem the flow of money, weapons and support bankrolled by Iran? We are still awaiting an Iran strategy from the Government. Can the Foreign Secretary expand upon this?
We had a statement last month from the Foreign Secretary on the memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority. Can he give an update on what steps are being taken to improve the governance of the PA? The MOU posed many questions, but I do not need to go over them again as I have raised them previously. The UK obviously needs to be involved in this process, given our historical role in, for example, the Abraham accords. This may be our best shot when it comes to regional peace, and the Foreign Secretary must convince us that we have influence when it comes to the ceasefire and negotiating a better future in this part of the world. What discussions have taken place with Administration of the United States—one country that does have influence—on peace efforts and getting aid into Gaza?
In conclusion, strong words will do little to resolve the real challenges and the suffering that we are seeing day in, day out—[Interruption.] That is a matter for the Government to address. It should be a cause for concern that we have reached a situation where the statements and actions that have been echoed by the Government today—I am referring to the Prime Minister’s joint statement with France and Canada—have now been supported by Hamas, a terrorist organisation that I proscribed as Home Secretary—[Interruption.] They have actually put out a statement, and I am sure the Foreign Secretary has seen it.
The Foreign Secretary’s decision to tear up trade negotiations with Israel and stop the bilateral road map will not—[Interruption.] It is not shocking. These are important questions. If the Foreign Secretary finds this—[Interruption.] If he cannot answer these questions, that is fine—[Interruption.] Then please do answer the questions, because they are important—[Interruption.] I would if Members did not keep interrupting me. It is quite obvious that the Government do not want to respond to these important questions, but this is important because there is so much human suffering. I understand the Foreign Secretary’s points about the steps he is taking with Israel, but how is this going to help now when it comes to wider security issues and threats from Iran? How do we know that this will not be self-defeating in any way?
Mr Lammy
For decades there has been a cross-party commitment to a two-state solution and the pursuit of peace from friends of both Israel and the Palestinian people across this House. It was the Thatcher Government that imposed an arms embargo after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It was David Cameron who first called Gaza a prison camp, and it was Theresa May’s Government that championed UN resolution 2334 on settlements. It was William Hague who worked with John Kerry on the push for peace and condemned the idea of moving the British embassy to Jerusalem. Sadly, today, it seems that the Conservative party, or at least its current Front Bench, is refusing to confront the appalling reality of what is happening in Gaza and what the Netanyahu Government are doing.
The right hon. Lady seems incapable of offering any serious criticism about the egregious actions of the Netanyahu Government, unlike many hon. Members on her own side. The whole House should be able to utterly condemn the Israeli Government’s denial of food to hungry children. It is wrong. It is appalling. Will she condemn it? Well, the whole House has seen her response. Opposing the expansion of a war that has killed thousands of children is not rewarding Hamas. Opposing the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians is not rewarding Hamas. On this side of the House, we are crystal clear that what is happening is morally wrong and unjustifiable, and it needs to stop.
That is why we have taken the actions we have. The right hon. Lady knows hostage families are deeply concerned about what is happening and about their loved ones—she knows that. She knows we oppose the blockade on aid—does she? It was not clear from her statement whether she does oppose the blockade of aid to children. She should note that our diplomats led that call, with 27 countries joining us, to condemn what is happening and stand on the side of truth and history. What a shame she could not bring herself to do so today.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Just last week, the UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher warned that the Security Council must act “decisively” to prevent genocide. Today, he said that 14,000 babies could be dead in the next 48 hours. The level of destruction we have seen of the Palestinian people and their land is remarkable. Israel has shown that it will not respond to diplomatic appeals. We now need the continuation of a full arms embargo, sanctions, accountability for war crimes, immediate recognition of the state of Palestine, and the return of UNRWA. What additional steps will the Foreign Secretary take to stave off this genocide?
Mr Lammy
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the announcement I have made today on further sanctions, building on the announcement I made back in October. It is very important that we send a clear message to Israel that it should allow the full resumption of aid into Gaza immediately and should enable the UN and humanitarian organisations to work independently and impartially to save lives, reduce suffering and maintain dignity. She will have noted the co-ordinated statement of 27 countries, including Canada, Denmark, Finland, France and many others, who came together to make their views crystal clear about what we now see happening, what we expect to see happen, and the further action that will have to take place if we do not.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I also thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I know that he, like me, has been horrified by the scenes coming out of Gaza. Tom Fletcher, the UN’s humanitarian chief, has indeed highlighted and predicted the imminent death of thousands of infants without immediate aid, and said that the amount of aid entering the strip is but “a drop in the ocean”.
Let us be clear that mass starvation will do nothing to remove Hamas or secure the release of the hostages, so I welcome yesterday’s joint statement with Canada and France. In it, the Prime Minister spoke of taking further action if Israel does not fully lift its aid blockade and draw back from its expansion of military activity. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the expanded sanctions list includes extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who have advocated illegal actions to dispossess Palestinians across the occupied territories, and if not, why not? Will the Government go beyond reviewing the 2030 bilateral road map and urgently suspend it unless the Government of Israel change path? Will they now finally block the export of all UK arms to Israel?
In response to my letter to the Foreign Secretary last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), reaffirmed the Government’s position that they consider that Israel only “risks” breaching international law through its blockade. I ask the Secretary of State what more Israel would have to do to the people of Gaza for its actions to constitute not simply a “risk”, but an actual breach of international law.
The Minister also stated in his reply that the Government would only proceed with recognition of the state of Palestine at
“a time that is most conducive to the peace process”.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me and the Liberal Democrats that the time to recognise Palestine is now and that immediate recognition—ideally jointly with France at next month’s summit—would send the strongest possible signal about the UK’s commitment to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have condemned the statements of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in the past. On 6 May, Israel’s Finance Minister Smotrich said:
“Gaza will be entirely destroyed, civilians will be sent to…the south to a humanitarian zone without Hamas or terrorism, and from there they will start to leave in great numbers to third countries”.
We condemn that language. We condemn the language of Minister Ben-Gvir and, of course, we keep that language under review and continue to discuss these issues with our international partners.
The hon. Gentleman asks about recognition and the work that we see France and Saudi Arabia doing. Of course, we are in close dialogue with our P5 partner of France and with Saudi Arabia, in fact. I touched on these issues with the Saudi Arabian PM in Rome at the weekend. The hon. Gentleman asked about the road map. As I have said, we will review the road map. He will recognise that there are elements of that road map, particularly as they pertain to security issues and the work we do jointly on Iran, that would not be right to suspend, but we are reviewing it—as we should, given the circumstances. I have said time and again that we have suspended arms sales that could be used in Gaza, notwithstanding those we must necessarily retain that particularly pertain to the supply chain on F-35s and their use in warfare in other theatres with which we have an interest.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his strong statement. It feels like it has taken a long time for us to get to this point. When something is intolerable, we stop it from happening some way or another. Will this actually stop what is happening in Gaza, or is it too late? The fact that Netanyahu has said he will let a small amount of aid in means that he understands he has been withholding aid. That is a breach of international law, and we must call it out for what it is. We must insist that the hostages, and also the prisoners held without charge, are returned.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend rightly prays in aid of international humanitarian law. She knows that because we in this country were one of the great architects of that international humanitarian law, we have to stand by it, and when we see it breached, we have to call it out. I began that process less than three months into office back in September when I suspended arms sales to Israel. I am terribly sad that we have had to act in this way to suspend any discussion of a new trade deal with Israel and to review our road map with Israel. It is deeply worrying that three leaders had to come together to put out that statement to make it crystal clear that the actions taking place must now come to an end, or there will be further acts to bring this war to an end. We will do all we can.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, which is the strongest statement I have heard in this House on the issue in recent times. I welcome the actions and sanctions that have been announced today, and I hope the Government will continue to keep those under review and take further measures if necessary. Is it not now increasingly clear that the Israeli Prime Minister has misled the US President over allowing aid back into Gaza? Ten trucks is a perverse and pathetic token. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Israeli Prime Minister is in real danger of taking the support of both the American people and the US President for granted?
Mr Lammy
I noted reports today of deep frustration in the US Administration in relation to what they are seeing. Certainly, President Trump has said that this war is just going on too long, and I think he said that again last week on his own visits to the middle east. I note the right hon. Gentleman’s tweets and that he has been raising these issues. Is he as concerned as I am about the position of his Front Bench?
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I agree that January provided a small window and glimmer of hope—hope for the innocent civilians who have continued to be bombed for many months; hope for the innocent hostages, who just want to be reunited with their families; hope that was withered away by the Netanyahu Government, who broke that ceasefire. The Foreign Secretary is right that the world is watching; it is also watching us in the UK Parliament. The UK is legally bound to prevent acts of genocide. Does he agree that there must be clear and tangible consequences for Israel if it continues to have blatant disregard for international law and to use food and aid as weapons of punishment?
Mr Lammy
It is because of those very same issues, and my concern that the denial of essential humanitarian assistance to a civilian population is unacceptable and risks breaching international humanitarian law, that I suspended arms back in September. I want us to get back to a ceasefire; I want us to get back to diplomacy. There cannot be a role for Hamas, but there can never be a role for using food as a tool of war.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The anger and the outrage of the Foreign Secretary is appreciated by us all, and I sense that it is genuine, but he knows as well as I do that the Israelis could not give a damn about what he says in this Chamber or indeed about the statement. As he will know, since that statement was issued, dozens of Palestinians have been killed and there have been voices of defiance from the Israeli Government.
The statement mentions the taking of concrete action. I am not quite sure what the trigger for that is. Many of us in this Chamber have been trying to spur the Government into action over the past few months. We have tried anger and outrage and got nowhere, and we have tried shaming Ministers into action and got nowhere, so maybe we need to beg. Do those on the Treasury Bench need us to beg for the lives of those Palestinian children before they will trigger that concrete action, whatever it might be? I am urging the Foreign Secretary—I am begging him—to pluck up all his moral authority and courage, stand up in Government against the blockage in Downing Street, and please try to save those children’s lives as soon as possible.
Mr Lammy
I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I take issue with the way he began his question. I think it is wrong to characterise the whole of Israel in the way he did. It is not that the Israelis could not give a fig about what is said from this Front Bench—that is not the case. Our issue today, and the reason I have taken the decisions I have about a new free trade agreement, a review of the road map and the announcement of further sanctions, is the position of the Netanyahu Government and the language from those Ministers. That is why I was so shocked that the Opposition Front Benchers could not stand up and find their own moral authority. I am proud of what we have done since coming into government, right from the beginning. I want to see an end to this war, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. Our diplomats are doing all they can to try to use our lever to bring this war to an end.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s very strong statement and thank him for his work on this matter. He confirmed the words of Minister Smotrich—that Israel’s goal is to destroy everything that is left in the Gaza strip. Smotrich has also said that Israel will carry out the “conquering” and “cleansing” of the Gaza strip. Prime Minister Netanyahu has praised those words, saying that Smotrich was speaking the truth. That is effectively an explicit admission that Israeli officials intend to carry out ethnic cleansing. What are we doing to satisfy our obligations under the Geneva convention to prevent a genocide from taking place, and why are we not sanctioning Minister Smotrich?
Mr Lammy
Our obligations were met, under our legislation to ensure that none of us is complicit in any acts that breach international humanitarian law, when I suspended arms back in September. My hon. Friend will remember that, in opposition, many of us were surprised and shocked that the previous Government failed to do that. Our obligations were met, but they were not satisfied because the war still goes on. That is why, working with international partners, I have announced further measures today. It is why we continue to discuss these issues with the Israeli Government. And it is why the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has summoned the Israeli ambassador, to make our position crystal clear.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Members will see that about 70 colleagues wish to contribute. This is an important statement and there is equally important business to follow. Members may all help each other by asking short questions. I call Stephen Flynn.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—no pressure.
To see the Foreign Secretary finally find some fire in his belly on this issue was certainly most appreciated, but it was long overdue. Ultimately, as has been mentioned, the Government are still a block to action. Would he support this House being given votes on whether we support the work of the ICJ and the ICC, on whether we recognise the state of Palestine, and on ending all arms sales to Israel?
Mr Lammy
Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have had fire in my belly since the day I was born in the Whittington hospital in north London—he can be sure of that. This House led the call for the international criminal architecture that we have, and we will continue, as successive Governments have, to support that international architecture.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The children of Gaza are being not just starved to death but bombed to death as Israel tries to wipe Palestine itself off the map, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, particularly his robust action on the illegal settlements in the west bank and on suspending any free trade agreement talks with Israel. Does he agree that history will judge all Governments around the world, and every Member of this House, not just on what we said but on what we did in the face of this 21st century atrocity?
Mr Lammy
I recognise why my hon. Friend puts his remarks in the way he does. What we must do is act in concert. This is deeply frustrating, of course, but he knows history and will recognise that the ability of the UK to act unilaterally or with one other partner was determined in the Suez crisis, when it was crystal clear that we no longer had unilateral influence in the middle east. That is why it is so important that 27 partners came together, and that I continue to discuss these issues with Secretary of State Rubio, and with Vice-President Vance, with whom I discussed them on Sunday.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I doubt whether there is a single Member of this House who does not wish to see the 58 remaining hostages returned to their families, whether dead or alive. I think that the Foreign Secretary was right to say that genocide and war crimes—my words, not his—are not the way to get the hostages released. There are parents and grandparents in this House who will stand up for children anywhere in the world—I am prepared to nail my colours to that mast. We have to take action; we cannot stand by and do nothing.
A number of Privy Counsellors—all of us, I think—wrote to the Prime Minister relatively recently, calling for the two-state solution to be imposed immediately. Sadly, that private letter did not receive a response, which is why it was published. Foreign Secretary, please take that message back to the Prime Minister and act.
Mr Lammy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in a cross-party spirit. He brings great authority and experience to these matters. He knows that, as a P5 nation, we are talking to our French counterparts about the way forward as we head to their conference next month. We are also talking to Saudi Arabia, which is jointly hosting that conference. I recognise why he raises these issues, particularly in relation to children, in the manner in which he does.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for these essential actions: the sanctions on extremist settlers and the suspension of our trade negotiations with Israel. It is important that Israel sees that its allies will not stand by while it continues to forcibly displace Palestinians and block aid. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what further discussions he has had with the EU on suspending the EU-Israel association agreement, so that we can put further pressure on Israel to stop the brutalisation of Palestinians in Gaza?
Mr Lammy
I can confirm that I was invited to the EU Foreign Ministers’ informal meeting just under two weeks ago, at which these issues were discussed, and I was able to discuss these issues with EU High Representative Kaja Kallas just yesterday.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
In correspondence to the Business and Trade Committee earlier this year, the Government said that some of the reasoning for not stopping licences for F-35-related components was the need to maintain arms for Ukraine. What practical steps have been taken in the three months since that letter was sent to ensure that weapons manufacture and supply to Ukraine is separated from the supply chains to Israel and the occupied territories?
Mr Lammy
I stand by the decisions we have taken to meet our obligations for security around the world and the decisions we have made in relation to the F-35s. I want to make it clear that our decision to suspend arms sales that could be used in Gaza is a serious one, and we are absolutely content that we are meeting all obligations that I set out back in September.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Yesterday, Israel admitted that it allowed only five aid trucks into Gaza for over 2 million people—that is more than Northern Ireland’s entire population. This weaponisation of food is morally reprehensible. We must impose an arms embargo and sanctions on the Israeli officials who are responsible for these heinous crimes: Benjamin Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. I welcome the joint Government statement with Canada and France. Given that time is running out with every moment we stand here talking about this issue, can the Secretary of State clarify the conditions and timeframe for the very firmest of action?
Mr Lammy
We have made these decisions today. My hon. Friend will recognise that there is an important conference convened by France and Saudi Arabia, where we will work jointly with those partners. I ask her to look carefully at the leaders’ statement and our absolute commitment to take further action if necessary in the coming days and weeks in terms of the course of action that the Netanyahu Government are set to take, of military expansion and the blockade of aid.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
This Government have consistently maintained that the determination of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes is a matter for a competent court, yet the lawyers instructed by this Government to defend against a case brought by Al-Haq recently have been unequivocal that it is this Government’s firm position that no genocide is occurring, that we have no legal obligations to the International Court of Justice ruling and that it is a matter for Parliament, not the courts. I ask the Foreign Secretary to clarify: are those lawyers speaking on behalf of this Government, and if that truly is the Government’s position, will he finally explain why he sees military support for Israel as compatible with our obligations under international law, rather than saying it is simply a matter for the courts?
Mr Lammy
That is a crude caricature of a very serious issue. I took a decision back in September in relation to international humanitarian law in suspending arms sales that could be used in Gaza because these are very serious issues—I understand the issues that are before the ICC and the ICJ, and they are very serious. It is because votes in this Parliament helped to set up those mechanisms and made us part of them that I leave it to them to make the necessary determinations that they must properly make.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We have seen the slaughter of innocents going on for far too long, and as others have said, people are dying right now. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday with France and Canada. The Foreign Secretary mentioned that he had met Vice-President Vance. To get a breakthrough, because Israel is not listening, America needs to be part of this. Can he tell us about that conversation with Vice-President Vance and whether he has any hope that we can make a statement jointly with the US as well?
Mr Lammy
I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents will be deeply concerned about what is happening. We had hoped, and I know Vice-President Vance had hoped, that we would get a breakthrough in the ceasefire that was being brokered by the United States, Qatar and Egypt. She will have seen that the United States has been able to strike direct deals—it got its hostage out last week by going direct to Hamas—and that the breakthrough we had hoped for towards the end of last week has not come through. I do not foresee a ceasefire deal at this stage. That is why the only way forward is through more diplomacy, not less. It is not through military means. We have to be crystal clear that we disagree with the course that the Netanyahu Government are now taking.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The House wants to know, and Israel needs to know, exactly what the Foreign Secretary means by “further action”.
Mr Lammy
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Oxford English Dictionary and look at the two words.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the actions he has taken. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s joint statement yesterday. The word “genocide” is used quite often here, and all indicators point towards that happening. I appreciate the suspension of negotiations on a free trade agreement, but children are still dying every single day, and people are losing their homes. What will it take? What do we have to wait for to call it what it is and act to stop what is happening?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend talks with such integrity, and I know that she has been a consistent ambassador for the Palestinian people in this House. She feels the same as most of our constituents, who want this to stop now. The actions we have taken bilaterally are a diplomatic move by the United Kingdom Government to exert influence to try to make it stop, but she knows history—she knows that we cannot do that unilaterally. I wish I could stand at this Dispatch Box and say that we could. If I were standing here in 1950, that might have been possible, but here we are in 2025. We must work in concert with other partners. That is why the statement from the Foreign Ministers of 27 countries is so important. It is why we have taken the actions we have today, and it is why we have indicated that we will act further if we need to, particularly as we head to this important conference in New York convened by France and Saudi Arabia, working alongside them.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The UN has warned that 14,000 babies could die in the next 48 hours. Concrete action against Netanyahu’s murderous Government is long overdue. We know that this Government are not prepared to make a determination on genocide, but they have told us that they are making ongoing assessments of the risk. Will they now finally release that risk assessment for this House and the public to see, to prove that this Government take their obligations under international law seriously and mean what they say about concrete action?
Mr Lammy
I remind the hon. Lady that last year we gave £129 million in humanitarian support to the people of Gaza and the occupied territories. A lot of that support was for medical aid, which this Government began to provide with vigour as soon as we came back to Parliament in September. Behind her question is a serious point. It falls to me to make serious decisions about the sale of arms where there might be or where there is a clear risk of a breach in humanitarian law. I took that quasi-judicial decision very soberly and seriously in September last year, and that has continued to be the position since.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I welcome today’s steps forward, particularly on trade. The fact that we are on the brink of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is such a collective global failure that it betrays words. Unlike the shadow Foreign Secretary, will the Foreign Secretary confirm the UK’s total opposition to Israeli plans to replace humanitarian non-governmental organisations and the UN with mercenaries? On the important statement by the UK, France and Canada, threatening further important multilateral action if Israel does not stop, what is the red line? We have been here before with the Rafah offensive, when the international community said it would stop Israel but it did not. Gaza is out of time.
Mr Lammy
Let me be crystal clear: this Government oppose Israel’s model for aid, which does not respect humanitarian principles and cannot deliver aid effectively at speed or at the scale required. It is wrong and it is dangerous for the humanitarian system.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Earlier, the Foreign Secretary used the phrase “morally wrong”. I entirely agree with that, and I am sure we can all agree that the original Hamas massacre is equally morally unacceptable. May I take him back to the issue of recognition? I am one of the Members who has previously supported the recognition of the state of Palestine. If there were a free vote in the House, I think there would be overwhelming support for that, which would give the Government moral authority to take even more robust further action, so may I suggest that they take that course of action?
Mr Lammy
UK bilateral recognition is the single most important action that the United Kingdom can take with regard to Palestinian statehood, which is why it is important for us to get the timing right and to work with partners as we consider the issues very closely. I have talked about the international conference in June on the implementation of the two-state solution, which we will of course be attending; we are talking with our partners about it and they will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and last night’s collective statement. However, repeated strong words without action now ring hollow. Netanyahu’s Government continue with the starvation and killing of innocent Palestinians. Suspending trade negotiations and other steps that the Foreign Secretary has announced today will not stop the killing of innocent Palestinians, because we are dealing with an extremist right-wing Netanyahu Government. Concrete steps to uphold our humanitarian commitments are overdue, so when will the Foreign Secretary impose a full arms embargo on Israel and recognise Palestine?
Mr Lammy
We have imposed a ban on arms sales for use in Gaza—we did that in September. I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents will care a lot about the war in Ukraine and other conflicts across the world, and therefore he will recognise the decision that we have made, particularly about the F-35 supply chain. The whole House will have heard his points on recognition.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I also pay tribute to the humanitarian workers in Gaza, who are risking their lives to help the Palestinian people. The very powerful words by our own UN humanitarian chief have already been referenced. He said that 14,000 babies need food within the next 48 hours or they will face starvation. He also said that we have not moved fast enough in the past in the face of other war crimes. Starvation is a weapon of war and it is against humanitarian law. The Secretary of State has said that he will not stand by and that, unless aid gets in, the Government will take consequential action—so how quickly will the Government take action to save the lives of those Palestinian babies?
Mr Lammy
Four hundred and thirty aid workers have been killed—Gaza is the deadliest place on earth for humanitarians. The hon. Lady is right to recognise those tremendous aid workers. Let me also reference the medical workers and the children who have lost their lives. It is absolutely appalling. We will continue to do all we can to bring this to an end.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that we are all absolutely horrified that the Israeli Government are creating a mass starvation event in Gaza. We are seeing the language of a Gaza plan that talks about the “concentration” of the Palestinian people in the south of Gaza, and even works against its own citizens. Nine Israeli citizens have been arrested—including civil society leader Alon-Lee Green, who I hosted in Parliament only last week—and have not yet been released. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this is a deliberate and systematic attempt to destroy the Palestinian people in Gaza? Is it not time that, instead of sanctioning those taking orders, we sanction those giving the orders in the Israeli Government?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend has consistently raised these issues. The abandonment and displacement of Gazans to that small strip is entirely unacceptable. The idea that we could see this go on right through 2026 is abominable. Tom Fletcher was right to speak out in recent days, and that is why we are seeing this response from international partners. I hope that Netanyahu heeds the words of friends.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is essential that aid reaches innocent civilians in Gaza, as the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), was equally clear in stating. It is also vital that this war comes to a swift end. However, in searching for that path to peace, is it not equally vital that we reflect on certain realities? It is not Israel that has shut down the ceasefires so far or is rejecting terms in attempts to broker a new one—it is Hamas. It is not Israel holding 58 hostages—it is Hamas. It is not Israel that is misappropriating aid and selling it on at profit—it is Hamas. Is it not a damning indictment of this Government’s foreign policy that it is Hamas who are cheerleading this new stance?
Mr Lammy
I do not think that on any of the six occasions when I have made a statement on this subject at this Dispatch Box, I have not condemned Hamas, what they did on 7 October and those who are keeping hostages. Let me be clear: I believe that Hamas are holding hostage the Palestinian people, but just as we can hold to that, we can hold in our heart and mind that it is morally reprehensible to continue this blockade, and to reduce 400 humanitarian aid points to four. That is impossible and intolerable, and the United Kingdom must speak up against it.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
This statement is welcome, but I believe that the Foreign Secretary has heard the strength of the feeling on the Government Benches that more needs to be done. I believe that he is more in tune with the families of the hostages who were at the border yesterday, protesting against what the Israeli Government are doing; we should show solidarity with them for standing up to Prime Minister Netanyahu. If solidarity matters, let the Foreign Secretary hear Labour Members call for a vote on recognising Palestine; he has heard Members of other parties call for that vote. We held a vote on that in this place in 2014, but it is fair to say that a minority of the people who supported the motion are in the House today. The conference is before him; would not a vote on the issue in the House show that we speak as one in calling for an end to what is happening in Gaza, and in calling for recognition of the Palestinians’ right to exist?
Mr Lammy
The British people made a determination when they voted Labour at the last general election. My hon. Friend knows that in our manifesto, we committed to Palestinian recognition in the right circumstances. I have said a lot about the conference that is coming up on a two-state solution, and she will no doubt read a lot about it. Given that we are only days away from it, that is what should concentrate minds at this time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Colleagues can see by just looking around the Chamber that not everybody is going to get in. This statement has already gone on for an hour. I will try to go fast, but I need your help, with short questions and shorter answers.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Can the Foreign Secretary tell us exactly what arms have been supplied to Israel over the past six months? What arms are being supplied now to Israel? What is RAF Akrotiri being used for? Is it supporting the Israeli war machine? Can he inform the House categorically that no component part of an F-35 jet made in Britain is being supplied to Israel, for it to continue its bombardment of Gaza?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a similar question a few weeks ago, and I gave him the answer that we suspended arms sales; that was a sober decision we made. They are not being given to Israel for use in Gaza at this time—that is a strict decision under our export licensing regime—save for the carve-out we made for F-35s. I know he disagrees with that, but that is the position, because we are not prepared to disrupt supply chains across the world.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
What we have heard from senior UN officials this morning should frankly send shivers down the spine of every Member in this Chamber. Some 14,000 Palestinian children could die in the next 48 hours because of Israel’s actions. Today we are getting stronger words, but limited action, and the time for it is long, long past. We need further bold and immediate action. We need to end all arms sales to Israel, impose economic sanctions and ban Israeli settlement goods. What are the Government waiting for?
Mr Lammy
I set out the position as it stands today, and I ask my hon. Friend to look carefully at the Prime Minister’s statement just this morning, and at what he has indicated. Further action could be taken if we do not see this further expansion, and the restriction of aid, come to an end.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I welcome today’s statement. I reiterate the calls of my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for the recognition of Palestine and the immediate cessation of all arms sales to Israel. As important as those are, given that the UN has said that 14,000 children and babies may die in the next 48 hours, I reiterate what many Members have asked today: what concrete action can be taken against an illegal blockade that is preventing medicine and food from getting to these people? Does it include making air drops of aid with our allies?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman asks what the concrete action is. It is really straightforward: it is that Netanyahu stops—that he halts his course of action. We are taking concrete action with our allies to try to bring this to an end, but the hon. Gentleman knows that in the end, this is in the hands of the Israeli Government. Holding up our hands and expressing disgust is not sufficient—I recognise that—but the Israeli Government will be held to account if they do not act.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I very much welcome the tone and content of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, although I sincerely wish it had come a long time ago. I have to tell him, though, that British arms are still getting through to Israel in vast quantities to wreak havoc. The question is whether what he says will stop the genocide. For months, the Government have claimed that they cannot make an assessment of whether there is a serious risk of genocide as they are waiting for a determination by the courts. The Government told the High Court last week that they had already conducted an assessment under the genocide convention, so which is it? Has a determination been made, and if so, does the Foreign Secretary want to correct the record?
Mr Lammy
Arms are not getting to Israel that could be used in Gaza. My hon. Friend will recognise that the United Kingdom is a very small supplier of arms to Israel in percentage terms. I cannot account for other countries, and other countries have not made the decision that we have made. I stand by the assessments I have made that led to me suspending arms.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The House has debated this issue regularly for many months—in fact, for well over a year. However, we must remind ourselves why we are doing this. It is because brutal terrorists burned, raped, murdered, and tortured innocent citizens and took hostages, and then continued a conflict against Israel. In his expressions of anger today, the Foreign Secretary could have been much more balanced. Instead of talking about attacking hospitals, why is he not condemning the terrorists who use hospitals as bases, knowing the consequences? Instead of talking about the lack of aid, why is he not recognising the aid that is given, and the fact that that aid must not be allowed to be abused by terrorists in Israel, and—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Our constituents are watching.
Mr Lammy
On every occasion on which I have stood at this Dispatch Box and spoken on this matter, I have raised the reprehensible behaviour that took place on 7 October, and the reprehensible behaviour of Hamas. I have done that today, and I will do it again.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The atrocities happening in Gaza and on the west bank—and even worse atrocities are threatened—amount to the worst attack on Palestinians since the Nakba 77 years ago. Will the Foreign Secretary give the Netanyahu regime reason to pause by imposing sanctions on its Ministers and banning trade with illegal settlements, and will he give hope to the Palestinian people by recognising the state of Palestine now?
Mr Lammy
I will not comment on any future sanctions, except to say that as my hon. Friend knows, we keep these issues under review. He will have seen the Prime Minister’s statement on these matters a few moments ago, and indeed his statement alongside the Canadian and French leaders. I know that my hon. Friend has long campaigned on the second issue that he raised; his views are very well known.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary talks of children orphaned. The prediction is that 14,000 babies will die. If that comes true, it would wipe out an entire generation. We have also seen families burned alive in tents, in events that have shocked the world. Enough is enough. I join the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) in begging the Foreign Secretary—on my knees, if I need to—to take more action. I accept that more settlers have been sanctioned, but it must be time for the Israeli Government to face sanctions. Please can the Foreign Secretary confirm that that option is actively being explored?
Mr Lammy
I have said what I have said from the Dispatch Box, and we have taken further action today. Let us see tomorrow what that yields.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Between October and December 2024, the Government approved export licences worth more than £127 million for Israel, exceeding the total approved under the Tories between 2020 and 2023. The equipment funded by those licences, granted after the Government’s so-called temporary suspension, includes components for lethal F-35 fighter jets—jets that Israel is now flying at five times the usual rate, decimating Gaza. Children are starving, families have been wiped out and hospitals have been destroyed, yet the Government claim in court that there is “no evidence” that Israel targets civilians. The Foreign Secretary is personally responsible, and refuses to ban all arms sales to this genocidal state. Like many people throughout Britain, I have to ask the Foreign Secretary: how do you sleep at night?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend has raised figures that I do not recognise, and she has raised, once again, the issue of arms sales to Israel. I banned the sale of arms that could be used in Gaza. I know that my hon. Friend is keen on clickbait, but I am not going to be baited at this Dispatch Box.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
May I repeat the question asked by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), which went unanswered? Last week, 65 members of nine political parties in both Houses wrote to the Prime Minister, asking him to publish the most recent genocide assessment—the one that persuaded him to send his lawyers to the High Court to argue that
“no genocide has occurred or is occurring”.
Will the Government now publish that assessment, so we can all understand how on earth they arrived at the conclusion that the horrors we have witnessed, day in, day out, for months in Gaza do not constitute a genocide?
Mr Lammy
I answered that question earlier. I made a sober assessment, based on whether there was a clear risk from our export licensing, and I stand by the statements that I have made.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but 14,000 babies will die within 48 hours, and since the statement began, hundreds will have died from starvation and famine. The unstated objective of Netanyahu is to displace Palestinians to Jordan and Egypt. One of the concrete actions that the Foreign Secretary can take is to immediately recognise Palestine. Will he do that to stop the genocide that is happening there?
Mr Lammy
I think I have now answered that question many times, but the whole House will have heard what my hon. Friend has said.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I, too, cautiously welcome the Foreign Secretary’s passion and his statement, although they come a little late for 51,000 Palestinians. He has talked of the suspension of negotiations on new trade deals; would not a suspension of existing trade deals be more effective? If the Foreign Secretary does indeed believe that the behaviour of the Israeli Government is abominable, may I ask why a Minister partied with the Israelis just last week, while 370 Gazans were massacred and the world was mourning for them? Does that not undermine trust in the UK’s role in this conflict?
Mr Lammy
As I said earlier to the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), it is important that we make a distinction between the Israeli people and the current direction of the Israeli Government, and I insist that we be precise in our language on that point.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The situation in Gaza is utterly intolerable, and the Foreign Secretary has convinced the House of his passion, anger and indignation, but he will know that angry rhetoric means nothing if it is not accompanied by forceful actions. I am not one of those people who say that no action has been taken by the Government, because they have taken action, but it has not had the desired effect. Will the Foreign Secretary now say that he will recognise the state of Palestine, will stop any intelligence-sharing with Israel, and will stop the supply of components that might be used in its war machine?
Mr Lammy
Again, I have said much on this matter, particularly on the point about recognition. I am glad that my hon. Friend has recognised what the Government have done, because this is the Government who increased humanitarian aid to the Gazans, and who absolutely made clear our position on international humanitarian law—we did not see that under the last Government. We suspended the sale of arms for use in Gaza. We issued further sanctions on settlers. We have issued more sanctions today. We have now suspended a free trade agreement. We have acted collectively with our partners. We led the charge to get those two diplomatic statements this weekend. We are doing all that we can, and it is now for the Israeli Government to act.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary rightly talks about a two-state solution being the only framework through which we can find a just and lasting peace, and this has long been the case. He also talks about bilateral and multilateral talks at the upcoming conference. If that conference does not achieve the hoped-for success, will the Government consider unilaterally recognising the state of Palestine?
Mr Lammy
Our position was set out in the Labour manifesto: we believe in recognition. We have always believed that recognition should be part of the process, and that is what we are discussing with our French, Saudi Arabian and other partners.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Starvation is a horrific and entirely preventable way to die. Some 14,000 babies’ lives are at risk in the next 48 hours. To put that in perspective, 15,000 babies are born each and every year in South Yorkshire—nearly all of them would be wiped out in two days if that was the situation here. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he will take to make sure that that does not happen? What more can be done to ensure that there is access to urgently needed aid to prevent it?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to bring to mind, as other hon. Members have done, the children, the babies and the words of Tom Fletcher. I reassure her that when the Prime Minister sat in his office with Prime Minister Mustafa of the Palestinian Authority, he raised the children of the occupied territories. We keep that in mind in our actions, and it has guided us today.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for reiterating the Government’s commitment to take further concrete action in concert with international allies should the Israeli Government fail to cease their military offensive and, indeed, lift restrictions on humanitarian aid. Given the immediacy of the crisis and warnings that up to 14,000 children are at risk of starvation, could the Foreign Secretary please reassure the House that those further concrete steps will be taken at such a time as to prevent the mass starvation of innocent children?
Mr Lammy
As I said before, and as the Prime Minister’s statement indicates, we will take further concrete action if necessary. It is my sincere hope that we will not need to take that action because Prime Minister Netanyahu will heed what those within his country and the international community are saying.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
The record of Netanyahu is that he has not heeded the statements made here or elsewhere, and I think the general view of the House is that there is a need for urgent action with regard to the desperate situation. Can we come back to the proposal that has been raised before by a number of us? If the Israelis are not willing to provide aid, others must do so. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we cannot take unilateral action, but this Government are good at calling for coalitions of the willing, so can we now put on the table a call for a coalition of the willing to set a deadline for the Israeli Government to deliver aid, and failing that we will start taking action by delivering aid by air, sea or whatever other method we can use?
Mr Lammy
The 27 partners that we orchestrated—including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the EU—are a coalition of the willing. Our diplomats did that in the past few days. Yes, we will carry out airdrops if necessary, working particularly with our Jordanian partners, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that airdrops are not the way to feed the people of Gaza at this point—it is by ending the blockade.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I, too, welcome the statement from the Foreign Secretary and the change in tone. However, I am disappointed to note that the actions announced relate to new trade deals. Last week was the 77th anniversary of the Nakba—Arabic for catastrophe—which commemorates the murder of over 15,000 Palestinians and the illegal forced displacement of more than 750,000 Palestinians from their homes during the establishment of the state of Israel. The Nakba was not a one-time historical event. It accelerated a process of dispossession, erasure, violence and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people which began under British colonial rule. The current genocide in Gaza is just the latest in that process. Will the Foreign Secretary now take this opportunity, on the 77th anniversary of the Nakba and amid the ongoing starvation of 2 million people today, to end all existing military, economic and diplomatic support for Israel as a matter of legal obligation, to ensure that the UK is no longer complicit in Israel’s great violations of international law?
Mr Lammy
As I said before and will say again, the Palestinian cause is a just cause and that is why we are opposed to the further displacement of the Palestinian people, and to those in the Israeli Government who talk about cleansing and driving people out from their land. I repeat that we stand by a two-state solution.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the ministerial team, who have done so much work to get the statement out and other deliverables. Given that 14,000 babies are about to lose their lives in the next 48 hours and hundreds of Palestinians have been slaughtered overnight, what are the red lines and what is the timeframe for action? If babies have only 48 hours, it needs to be of that order.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will have heard what I said from the Dispatch Box, she will have seen the efforts of the diplomatic community to come together, and she will know that the United Kingdom is not able to act unilaterally and affect decisions in Israel, but we must take the steps we can take with others and we are doing that. She is absolutely right to call to mind those children, particularly those who may lose their lives in the hours ahead.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Although it is long overdue, I warmly welcome the sentiment behind the Government’s announcement. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and I visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories last month. What we saw there was absolutely shocking. Others have described it as apartheid; I think it is actually worse than that. The Foreign Secretary said that the question of the recognition of the Palestinian state is one which is stuck in a process, but can he not at least today accept that he can recognise the right of Palestinians to statehood and democracy?
Mr Lammy
What we are discussing with France, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is how we can affect things on the ground. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that others have recognised a Palestinian state, but we would not be having this debate if that had affected things on the ground. That is the seriousness of what we are discussing with France. I have to say, as the country’s chief diplomat, that I stand by the seriousness of making a decision that might bring about change on the ground.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The United Nations has stated that 14,000 babies could starve to death if aid does not get in. My right hon. Friend described that as intolerable, but it sometimes feels like we still tolerate it. What will the escalation of diplomatic measures against the Israeli Government look like, so we can stop this atrocity from happening?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend the Minister for the middle east has left the Chamber because he has summoned the Israeli ambassador. He will be discussing the issues I have discussed and the mood of the House, and urging her to watch this debate, because we need to see action on the ground.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Fourteen thousand babies is the number: 14,000 babies will die in Gaza within the next 48 hours if aid is not let in. Minister, I ask you, does your Government honestly believe that what is happening in Gaza is not a genocide? What are your Government doing to stop genocide in Gaza? It seems that you are comfortable in supplying weapons to a state that is equally comfortable in starving children. I finish by asking: what actions are you going to take? Perhaps you could expel the Israeli ambassador.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. “What actions are you going to take”? The hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know that that is not appropriate language. I should not have to repeat myself.
Mr Lammy
We took action when we suspended the sale to Israel of arms that could be used in Gaza, which we did back in September. I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at the remarks I made then and to recognise that decision made by me and this Government.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement today, the suspension of trade talks with Israel and further sanctions on Israeli settlers. However, in the horror of Gaza, it is clear that the Israeli Government are not listening to the exhortations of the international community and that they are very unlikely to listen to this further action today, so I want to press the Foreign Secretary. The UN has placed a timescale on the lifespan of babies in Gaza—it is not too much to ask that the Government set out a timescale for the meaningful further action that they will take in the event, as seems likely, that the Israeli Government do not change course.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend has been a champion of the Palestinian people and has raised the issue of this conflict for many months. I refer her to the statements of Yair Golan, the Israeli Opposition leader and former IDF member, who has urged the Netanyahu Government to listen, as he fears that Israel is losing friends and will become “a pariah state”.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Food is the means of life, and it must not be used as a weapon of war. The Foreign Secretary has rightly condemned its use as morally wrong, but it is also a breach of international humanitarian law. He has condemned as unjustifiable and disproportionate Minister Smotrich’s proposals to cleanse Gaza and displace and destroy all within it. If Mr Smotrich’s plan is carried out in the coming days, does my right hon. Friend agree that he will have to use a different word: genocide? Will he now sanction Minister Smotrich?
Mr Lammy
I have heard what my hon. Friend has said. He will know that the Prime Minister has said that there might well have to be further action, but we urge the Israeli Government to step back from what they are doing. Of course, we continue to condemn the extremist language used by the Israeli Government, such as “ethnic cleansing”.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s condemnation of the illegal actions and vile words used by the Israeli Government. It is heartening and humane to hold Israel accountable for its slaughter of innocent Palestinians, the withholding of aid, settler expansion and its shameless plans to “conquer, cleanse and stay” in Gaza. We need action to show that we will not tolerate this indiscriminate violence, which is effectively ethnic cleansing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our next step should be to recognise the state of Palestine? Will he outline what actions he will take to stop the impending deaths by starvation?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend’s question mirrors what is felt across this House: concern for the children, the issue of recognition and, of course, the action—not, I suspect, just by the United Kingdom—that is necessary from the international community.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
As others have said, 14,000 babies are at immediate risk of starvation—this could not be a more serious moment. I welcome the suspension of trade negotiations and the expansion of sanctions. However, with other sanctions designations—on human rights and corruption; on Russia, Georgia, Belarus and others—we have taken them to the political level. Will the Foreign Secretary consider extending the sanctions regime to the political decision makers advocating for ethnic cleansing and the takeover of Gaza?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is one of the House’s experts on how our sanctions regime works, and I can reassure him that all that he has outlined is under consideration?
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
The senseless and deliberate suffering in Gaza must end, and humanitarian aid is crucial to achieve that aim and to help thousands of children. If the Israeli Government continue to politicise humanitarian aid and withhold it with their blockades, what sanctions will this Government consider and then impose?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She uses the word “politicise”, but I am afraid that this is not just politicisation, but weaponisation of aid and the use of food and medical supplies. That is entirely unacceptable and abominable, which is why I have said very clearly that the UK Government stand against it.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The impact on children is particularly devastating—15,000 children have been killed and 93% are now at critical risk of famine. Save the Children reports that Palestinian children in Israeli-run prisons are facing things worse that abuse, including physical violence and sexual assault. Some have been forced to strip, held in extreme temperatures and denied contact with their families. Those are not the actions of a democratic state. I urge the Foreign Secretary to act on behalf of those children, and may I ask him what steps he is taking to press for their immediate release?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. When considering those assessments under international humanitarian law, I pay particularly regard to the way that detainees are treated. There is a clear risk that international humanitarian law has been breached in this area, so she is right to call to mind those children who may be detained, and the human dignity that all children, wherever they are in the world, deserve.
I recognise that I have not been able to answer all the questions in the hour and a half that I have been on my feet, but I hope that our friends in Israel have seen the strength of feeling across the House today.
Points of Order
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that today we have had the heavy assent from the Foreign Secretary that, ahead of the Palestinian state discussions led by Saudi Arabia and France at the UN in June, the British Government are on their way to recognising a Palestinian state, which I would welcome. But ahead of that, may I seek your guidance on how Members across this House who feel very strongly about this issue will have an opportunity to vote ahead of that meeting in order that the Government have full authority from this Parliament on the issue of recognising a Palestinian state?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I think the right hon. Member knows that that point of order is a matter not for the Chair, but for the Government. No doubt the Foreign Secretary and those on the Front Bench will have heard him and will respond in due course.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can remind the House what the processes are for us to obtain an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24, on the basis that this situation is so dire and so acute that a number of us may wish to apply for such a debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I and the right hon. Member both came into Parliament together. He knows how to obtain a Standing Order No. 24 debate, so he does not need me to remind him of the process. He will get much advice from the Speaker’s Office. Without doubt, the strength of feeling has been heard repeatedly, in the statement and in those two points of order, by the Foreign Secretary and Ministers on the Front Bench.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that I and other colleagues have been raising the issue of UK residents in Northern Ireland, many of whom have lived here for decades as taxpayers and voters, but who were born a few miles across the border in the Irish Republic. They have not been able to avail themselves of a UK passport in the same way as others who live in Northern Ireland can obtain an Irish passport. This was brought to a head by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) exactly one year ago this week, when his Bill received Royal Assent and became law. Despite my repeated parliamentary questions to the Home Secretary, I have been unable even to get a date by which the first UK passports will be issued to people in Northern Ireland. Has the Home Secretary or a Home Office Minister indicated to the Speaker’s Office their intention to make a statement to the House, to finally announce when this injustice will end?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of this point of order. I have had no indication from Ministers that they intend to come to the House to make a statement on this matter, but I note that it is Home Office questions on Monday and he still has time to table an oral question to the Home Secretary.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, which I chair, is responsible for examining cross-cutting issues of national security. You will appreciate that the UK faces a great range of external threats and internal challenges around resilience and the choices it makes about its relationships with allies and partners. The JCNSS is following the Government’s efforts to address these matters very closely, and the work of the National Security Adviser is central to that success.
Since the role’s creation in 2010, every NSA has appeared before the Committee for a public accountability session—until now. Of course, some more sensitive conversations need to be held behind closed doors, but the public sessions are an essential way in which the Prime Minister’s primary adviser on issues of national security is held to account by Parliament.
Despite their commitment to transparency in numerous exchanges, the Government remain steadfast that the NSA will not be accountable to Parliament. I am concerned that the Government are using a quirk of his appointment—as a special adviser rather than the permanent official—to erode democratic norms, which future, less benevolent Governments could exploit. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise me on how my Committee can get the Government to prove that they are committed to increasing transparency, to recognise the dangerous precedent that they are setting and to allow the NSA to appear before us?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The attendance of witnesses before Select Committees is not a matter for the Chair. However, it is surprising that the current National Security Adviser has declined to appear before the Joint Committee when all of his predecessors have been willing to do so. The Government’s own guidance on the matter states:
“Parliament has powers to call any individual to give evidence… When a Select Committee indicates that it wishes to take evidence from any particular names official, including special advisers, the presumption is that Ministers will seek to agree such a request.”
I am sure that the Clerks will be able to advise the hon. Member and his Committee on how best to pursue the matter further.
Bill Presented
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Lisa Smart, supported by Ben Maguire and Josh Babarinde, presented a Bill to amend the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 to make provision about the interpretation of that Act in relation to domestic abuse.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 246).
Reasonable Adjustments (Duty on Employers to Respond)
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about a deadline by which employers must respond to requests for reasonable adjustments from disabled workers; and for connected purposes.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my proud membership of Unison. I thank the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), for being present today.
Before being elected, I was the national officer for disability equality at the country’s biggest trade union, Unison. I was also a shop steward for many years, where I represented workers who were having problems at work, and it was disabled workers more than any others who were facing problems. In fact, disabled workers made up about two thirds of my cases as a union rep. By law, employers have to make changes to help disabled people stay in their jobs. These are called reasonable adjustments. They can include changes such as a special keyboard to reduce arthritis pain, IT software to help workers with dyslexia, or a start time of 10 o’clock instead of 9 o’clock, after tablets have kicked in.
Unison’s research found that almost three quarters of disabled workers are turned down for such reasonable adjustments, and even where the employer has said yes, about a quarter of disabled workers wait a year or more to have the changes put in place. The most common story I heard from disabled workers was that they were just ignored by their employer—they never got a reply at all. For many, that meant that they had to do their job while in pain, or they were set up to fail, because they did not have the right equipment. Their manager would start to criticise their performance, because it is hard for someone to hit their targets when they are in constant pain. They would end up having to take time off sick. Before they knew it, they would be pushed out the door. Others just resigned because the pain or stress was too much. That was all because their employer refused to make those small changes that would have kept them in work.
Employers can get away with this because there is no legal deadline by which they have to reply to disabled workers’ requests for reasonable adjustments. That contrasts with other employment rights, such as flexible working requests, where the employer has to reply within eight weeks. There is no such rule for reasonable adjustments. That serious gap is leading to disabled people being pushed out of good jobs and on to benefits. My Bill would set a clear deadline for employers to reply to disabled workers making a request for reasonable adjustments.
There are already more than 5 million disabled people in work, but that represents less than 52% of disabled people, compared with 80% of non-disabled people being in work. That 29-point difference between the percentage of disabled people in employment versus non-disabled people is called the disability employment gap, and Governments have tried and failed to crack it for years.
This Labour Government are finally offering disabled people a chance at equality. We have already passed the Employment Rights Bill, which gives everyone the right to flexible working, but that will especially help disabled people, who could benefit from more breaks or part-time working to manage pain or fatigue. On top of that, our pathways to work plan will invest £1.8 billion into employment support for disabled people. A recent Learning and Work Institute report found that two in 10 disabled people on benefits want to work, but at least half of them are getting no help to find a job.
When I visited West Ealing jobcentre in my constituency last August and asked staff who a disabled person could speak to about finding a job that met their needs, they had no answer—there was no help available. Imagine what it must be like for someone who wants to work but is stuck in a system that will not let them, and that forces them to live on benefits when they do not want to and do not have to.
This Government are investing in new trailblazer schemes to support disabled people who want to work. As part of that, the West London Alliance, which covers Ealing Southall, did a simple thing. It sent an email to local disabled people on long-term sickness benefits due to musculoskeletal conditions and asked whether they wanted help finding a job. More than 200 of people replied straightaway to say yes, they wanted help. That is 200 disabled people who had been sitting on benefits with no help at all under the previous Government.
Labour’s plan will give disabled people who want to work the help they need. Our Employment Rights Bill and our increase to the national living wage will ensure that those are good-quality, decently paid jobs, too. This Labour Government’s plan to get Britain working also offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to radically transform the workplace so that it finally works for disabled people. Sir Charlie Mayfield, the former John Lewis boss, has been asked by Government to come up with ideas to make work more accessible and to ensure that employers take more responsibility for supporting disabled workers to stay in their jobs.
My Bill would give a right to a response to reasonable adjustment requests to the 5 million disabled people already in work, and it would help open up jobs to hundreds and thousands of disabled people who want to work, but I look forward to seeing what other ideas the report identifies. I hope that the Mayfield review will look at some of the demands of the disability employment charter, of which I was a founding member when I worked for Unison. It includes ideas such as a stronger right to paid disability leave for assessment, rehabilitation and training. The Learning and Work Institute report found that, taken together, the investments that the Labour Government are making could lead to up to 165,000 disabled people moving from benefits to decent jobs—what an achievement that would be.
Too many disabled people face losing jobs they love because employers simply do not give them the help they need to thrive at work. The Government’s record £1.8 billion investment in employment support will help disabled people who want to work, but we must ensure that those jobs are long-lasting. That is why employers must be held to a clear deadline to agree to the small changes that disabled workers need in order to get on at work.
The Government’s Get Britain Working plan is an opportunity to transform the workplace so that it fits around the needs of disabled workers. My new Bill would support that aim by giving more disabled people the chance to enjoy good-quality jobs, which are the best route out of poverty and can unleash their many talents. I hope that the Government will consider taking it forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Deirdre Costigan, Katrina Murray, Mark Ferguson, Anneliese Midgley, Laurence Turner, Sarah Russell, Chris Bloore, Lee Barron, Tom Rutland, Uma Kumaran, Natasha Irons and Dr Marie Tidball present the Bill.
Deirdre Costigan accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June, and to be printed (Bill 247).
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When the Government took office just 10 months ago, we inherited a justice system in crisis—our prisons were on the point of collapse, and the backlog in our courts was at record levels and rising fast—and victims were all too often paying the price. The Government are beginning the long and hard work of rebuilding our justice system so that it serves victims once more. In my eyes, that means meeting three principles.
The first is that justice must be swift. It is all too easily said that justice delayed means justice denied, but few have had the bravery to wrestle with the implications of that. This Government are investing more in court sitting days than any before them, but we know that that is not enough, so we will pursue reform—even if it courts opposition—in the pursuit of swifter justice for victims. That is why I have asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose once-in-a-generation reform of our courts. Jury trials will always be a cornerstone of our legal system for the most serious cases, but it is clear that we must consider whether there are cases heard before a jury today that could be heard in a different way, such as in front of a magistrate or a new intermediate court, in order to deliver the swifter justice that victims deserve.
The second principle of a justice system that serves victims is that punishment must be certain. This Government inherited the grotesque position of having more prisoners than prison cells. If prisons run out of space, victims pay the price. If courts hold trials and the police are forced to stop making arrests, crime goes unpunished and victims see no justice done. This Government will ensure that criminals face punishment. We are building 14,000 prison places in the largest expansion since the Victorian era, after 14 years in which the Conservatives added just 500 cells to our prison estate. We are also reforming sentencing so that our prisons never run out of space again and there is always space inside for dangerous offenders.
The third and final principle of a justice system that serves victims is that they are not retraumatised by their engagement with it. That third principle is what unites the specific measures set out in the Bill, and I will start by speaking about those which will force criminals to attend their sentencing in court.
In recent years, too many offenders have been allowed to cower in their cells rather than face the consequences of their actions. That is a final insult to victims and their families because it robs them of the chance to tell offenders, through victim impact statements, the pain they have caused. It robs victims and their families of the opportunity to look the offender in the eye and see them face the consequences of their crime and the full reality of their punishment. The Bill will change that.
The Bill gives judges the power to order criminals to attend sentencing hearings, it makes it clear that reasonable force can be used to ensure that happens and it hands out punishments to those who still defy that order. Adult offenders could face up to an additional two years in prison and an unlimited fine. I know, however, that that is little punishment for those who are serving long sentences or perhaps whole life orders, because they did not expect to see the light of day at all. For that reason, we will also give judges the power to impose prison sanctions on offenders, including confining criminals to their cells, the loss of privileges and, going further, limits on social visits.
If offenders appear in the dock but behave in a disruptive or disrespectful way, as has all too often been the case in recent months, judges must have the ability to remove them from the courtroom so that the hearing can continue and justice can be served. The Bill will give a judge the ability to impose the same penalties both on those who refuse to attend their sentencing and on those who attend but attempt to disrupt proceedings. While the previous Government brought forward similar measures, we are going further by expanding the range of punishment available through amending prison rules, which will expand the sanctions available to judges, and by extending the length of time for which such sanctions can be applied.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome this section of the Bill. My constituent, Sabina Nessa, was brutally murdered when she was on her way out to meet a friend. Her murderer refused to attend court and participate in his sentencing, and that caused a great deal of distress to her family. I therefore welcome the move not just to force these characters to turn up in court, but to apply sanctions when they do not comply; my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on that.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend speaks of one of the tragic cases that has led to these changes in the law and on which, in fairness, the previous Government were also seeking to act before the election was called. We are pleased to go further on sanctions. I know that some of the families we are talking about are here and I will pay tribute to them in a few moments’ time.
We will take a delegated power to allow the Secretary of State to specify sanctions in regulations. Those regulations will provide discretion to prison governors, who hold a legal responsibility and accountability for what happens inside prisons. Judges will retain discretion over when to order offenders to attend. This means that, in cases where a victim’s family does not want to see the offender forced to attend, judges can decide differently. As this is a delegated power, the list of sanctions is not presented on the face of the Bill, but it will be rooted in the Prison Rules 1999, which will be amended and extended. The Secretary of State will have the ability to add more sanctions quickly and easily, should that be necessary. This approach offers much more flexibility than a rigid list, which would require the lengthy process of primary legislation to amend it.
I know that, for many, this day has been a long time coming. I am sure the House will therefore join me in paying tribute to the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, and I would like to welcome to this place Cheryl Korbel, Antonia Elverson, Jebina Islam, and Ayse Hussein and her daughter Angel, who are in the Public Gallery today. They have suffered unimaginable pain and then faced the indescribable trauma of an offender who would not face them. They have fought tirelessly to bring about this law, and we owe them a debt of thanks for their courage and fortitude. Today is their day, and it will have a lasting impact for others yet to come, who should never have to face what they have endured. While nothing will ever lessen the pain of such immense loss suffered by these families, this measure in the Bill is brought forward in the name and memories of Olivia, Zara, Sabina and Jan.
The Bill will also address the trauma that reverberates years after a parent has sexually abused their child. Today, a parent convicted of sexually abusing their child can continue to exercise parental responsibility for them. From behind bars, these vile abusers have been able to continue interfering in the lives of their children. Today a mother has to request that parental responsibility is restricted in a case where a father has committed a sexual offence against their child; now, we will automatically restrict the exercise of parental responsibility by anyone sentenced to four years or more for serious child sexual abuse against their children. This will restrict those rights from the moment of sentencing, so that children are immediately protected. It sends a clear message that abusers no longer have the power to exercise control. Making this step automatic will spare families the trauma of having to go through proceedings in the family courts, giving them the space they need to begin healing and move on with their lives.
The previous Government brought forward proposals in their Criminal Justice Bill to apply this measure to offences committed against all children, but that measure was restricted to child rape. Under their proposals, a parent could commit a wide range of heinous sexual offences against their child, including sexual assault and sexual exploitation, and not be covered. We believe that was too narrowly drawn; it overlooked the devastating impact of a parent committing other serious sexual offences against their own child—so although we supported the measures in opposition, we are now strengthening them in government.
Our measure will cover all serious sexual offences committed by a parent against a child they have parental responsibility for, such as sexual assault and sexual exploitation, causing a child to watch a sexual act and sexual activity without consent. There is no denying that we are in novel territory with this measure and, as such, we have a duty to take a balanced approach. This automatic restriction can, and likely will, be challenged. We do not yet know how many challenges the courts will receive. We have a responsibility to ensure that the courts are not overwhelmed, and that vulnerable children going through the family court do not suffer. For that reason, we have chosen to expand the offences beyond child rape, but to begin by restricting our measures to serious sexual offences where a perpetrator holds parental responsibility for their victim.
I have heard the strength of feeling from survivors and campaigners who want to see our measure extended to all offences against any child, not just where a perpetrator has parental responsibility. I understand the calls on us to be as ambitious as possible, and to expand this to a wider cohort of offenders, but we believe that our measure is stronger than what came before and is the right starting point for this novel change. We will work collaboratively and constructively with Members from across the House, and with those in the sector. I say to them that this is the beginning of legal change in this area, not the end.
The Bill will also strengthen the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, so that victims are not forced to fight every fight themselves, but have the commissioner—both the individual and the office—to fight for them. That will ensure that there is proper accountability when victims are let down by the justice system, and that victims are not retraumatised by having to fight for every improvement to the system.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. and learned Friend is making an excellent presentation to the House. My constituent Kevin Curran has campaigned all his life in memory of his brother Declan, who tragically took his own life. He was a victim of child sexual abuse. The ability to access therapeutic services is one issue, but another is that many providers are reluctant to give their services because evidence from medical records could be used to try to break a case. Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure not only that people can access therapeutic services, but that their records will not be used in evidence to destroy a case?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I am sorry about the case of her constituent. She will know that her request is one of the leading recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and the Department of Health and Social Care has committed to taking it forward. I know that we will see more progress made in this area.
Under the Bill, for the first time, the Victims’ Commissioner will be able to act on individual cases that expose systemic failure. They will have the power to request information from agencies on why a failing has happened, what will be done to address it, and how we can drive change across the system.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I welcome the inclusion of this measure in the Bill. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that the extension of the measure to local authorities and social housing providers is essential if the Victims’ Commissioner is to fully represent victims of antisocial behaviour?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member makes a powerful point, and I will say later why the Government and I reject the idea that antisocial behaviour is low level and therefore outside the purview of the Victims’ Commissioner; that is why we are extending the commissioner’s powers. I welcome the support that the measure has received from the hon. Gentleman and others across the House. I hope we can all work collaboratively on the measure to ensure that it takes proper effect.
The Bill will also require the commissioner to produce a new independent assessment each year, providing much-needed scrutiny of how public agencies meet their duties under the victims code. It will ensure that victims’ rights are being upheld and, where they are not, that action is taken.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill; what she has outlined is exactly what we wanted to hear. My constituent has asked me this question. During the restoration of justice, the victim often feels isolated from the process. Does the Minister believe that if the Bill is to be effective, communication is key? Does the Bill go far enough in ensuring an obligation to communicate? I know she wants that communication, but I ask for my constituent, and to satisfy my conscience.
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member makes an important point about communication with victims, and I will come a little later to the measures in that area that will enhance the system and provide a good foundation for us to build on, so that victims have the information that they need to get through criminal justice system processes, and are kept updated once an offender has served their sentence and is on licence in the community.
Jim Shannon
Will the Minister ensure that the legislation also applies to Northern Ireland? I understand that it does, but I meant to ask that question before; apologies for not doing so.
Shabana Mahmood
These matters are devolved in Northern Ireland—the Bill applies to England and Wales—but we are in regular contact with our counterparts in Northern Ireland. I know that the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), will engage with counterparts to ensure that, where possible, arrangements reflect each other. We all have an interest in ensuring that the whole system, across the UK, is as strong as it can be.
The Bill will also ensure greater accountability for how agencies respond to victims of antisocial behaviour. As the House will know, that is an area in which many victims are not heard and not supported. Incidents are too often dismissed as minor or low-level crimes, when they have a devastating effect on local communities and on people’s lives. The Bill will empower the Victims’ Commissioner to request information from local authorities, and from social housing providers, which sit outside the criminal justice system, so that the commissioner can better understand how victims of antisocial behaviour are being supported. Those measures are an important first step towards rebuilding victims’ confidence in the system, ensuring that their voices are heard, and leaving public bodies in no doubt that they will be held to account when they fall short.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent and compelling speech. I warmly welcome what she is saying, which closely resonates with the feelings of many of my constituents in Reading town centre and elsewhere who have unfortunately suffered from antisocial behaviour in many different forms. I am sure that colleagues from around the country have experienced the same. I commend her approach and thank her for her work.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that this part of the Bill will get lots of support from across the House. By strengthening the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers, so that they can take more action on antisocial behaviour, it is important that we send the clear message that we will not tolerate antisocial behaviour ruining the lives of constituents up and down the country.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Antisocial behaviour is a huge issue in my constituency. I have seen its impact on many of my constituents; it blights the community and makes people fearful in their own home. I have felt my constituents’ real disappointment when it has been labelled low-level crime; that has affected how supported they feel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must absolutely ensure that antisocial behaviour is not dismissed as low-level crime, and that its victims are put at the forefront of our justice system?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is an assiduous champion for the people of Clwyd East. Let me assure her that I approach this as a constituency MP just as much as I do as a Cabinet Minister. Far too many of my constituents have, like hers, suffered antisocial behaviour and been unable to move on in their life because of the trauma that they suffered, day in, day out. They feel like nobody takes it seriously. Under the Bill, the Victims’ Commissioner will be able to hold local authorities and social housing providers to account to ensure that they deliver for the victims of antisocial behaviour.
Let me move on to other measures in the Bill. The victim contact scheme plays a critical role in ensuring that information is communicated to those who are eligible to receive it. The legislation that governs it is over 20 years old, and there are issues with the scope and operation of the scheme. Victims repeatedly say that the criminal justice system is too complex, disjointed and difficult to navigate, including when they try to access support. Where we can simplify and rationalise the system, we should. That is why the Bill will streamline the system. It will bring victims who are currently served by different operational schemes into the victim contact scheme, and will provide all victims with one clear route for requesting information, through a new dedicated helpline. Taken together, the measures will better support victims and ensure that they receive the right information about offenders at the right time.
I move on to measures that will improve efficiency and deliver swifter justice for the victims of crime. Timely access to justice is a cornerstone of public confidence in our legal system, yet we face a shortage of prosecutors—an issue that directly contributes to delays in our courts. Legislation prevents the appointment of qualified legal professionals—such as Chartered Institute of Legal Executives practitioners—as Crown prosecutors, even when those individuals are eminently capable, have experience in criminal litigation, and hold the necessary rights of audience.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Only this weekend, I was discussing with a district Crown prosecutor and another Crown prosecutor the backlog in our court system, and they expressed strong concern about the recruitment and retention problem in the Crown Prosecution Service. I welcome this new measure, which will go a long way to ensuring that we have enough Crown prosecutors, so that the backlog in the court system can be eased.
Shabana Mahmood
We hope that the Bill will provide some immediate relief when it comes to the recruitment of prosecutors, because it will address an outdated constraint, remove unnecessary legislative barriers, and allow the CPS to recruit Crown prosecutors from a broader, more diverse pool of talent. Estimates suggest that there may be more than 800 CILEX specialist criminal practitioners who have expressed an interest in becoming a Crown prosecutor. The measure will support greater flexibility in resourcing, and may help to shorten waiting times for cases to be prosecuted. It supports our manifesto pledge to ensure that more prosecutors are available and, above all, may help reduce the long, painful wait that many victims face for their case to come to court.
We are committed to reforming the private prosecution system, so that it is fairer and has the right safeguards. Through the Bill, we are taking the first steps towards longer-term change. Although private prosecutions play an important role in our justice system, the way private prosecutors’ costs are awarded can provide perverse incentives for firms to bring private prosecutions. Costs in private prosecutions can be more than five times higher than in cases where both defence and prosecution are funded via fees that are set out in regulations. That is why the Bill will give the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations to set rates at which prosecutors can recover their costs from central funds in private prosecutions. That will ensure the best use of public funds and reduce the incentive for private prosecutors to prioritise profit when considering bringing criminal proceedings.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is about to mention that this comes from a proposal made by the Justice Committee as long ago as 2020, under my distinguished predecessor, Sir Bob Neill KC. I am glad to see that the measure is finally reaching the statute book.
Shabana Mahmood
I was just about to pay tribute to the Justice Committee for its work, to Sir Bob Neill, and to my hon. Friend, the current esteemed Chair of that Committee. I thank him and Members past and present for pushing for Government action on this matter, and I am glad that we have been able to include this measure in the Bill.
Let me turn to measures on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As the House will know, the scheme is a safeguard that allows the Attorney General to refer certain cases to the Court of Appeal. That action is taken if it is believed that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence. However, in practice, the 28-day statutory time limit for referral has proven problematic when cases have been brought to the Attorney General’s attention late in that period.
The Bill will ensure that every eligible case is properly scrutinised, and will guarantee that the Attorney General has 14 full days to assess any request received in the final fortnight of that 28-day window. This change will ensure that enough time is allowed for cases to be fully considered and referred to the Court of Appeal as necessary, and will provide greater clarity to victims, families and the public.
Finally, the Bill will create greater consistency in the courts through a targeted and technical amendment to magistrates court sentencing powers for six offences. We are tidying up an anomaly that we inherited. These six offences were not included in legislative changes made by the previous Government. By ensuring that everything is aligned, this change will ultimately help to avoid confusion and errors in sentencing.
The Bill marks an important step forward in our mission to rebuild our justice system, so that it serves the victims who, in recent years, it has all too often failed. It brings forward long-overdue reforms that will strengthen victims’ rights, force offenders to attend their sentencing hearings, restrict the parental responsibility of convicted child sex offenders, and further empower the Victims’ Commissioner.
The criminal justice system in this country suffered terribly at the hands of the Conservative party: the backlog in our courts is long and growing longer; our prisons are trapped in a cycle of crisis; and victims have paid the price. This Government are beginning the work of reversing that damage. We will deliver swifter justice for victims, and ensure that criminals face certain punishment and that our justice system serves victims, rather than subjects them to trauma on top of what they have already suffered. I know this is just the beginning and that there is much more that we must do, but the work is under way and I look forward to a constructive debate ahead. I commend the Bill to the House.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
In recent months, I have sat with Jeremy and Susan Everard, whose daughter, Sarah, was murdered in the most horrific circumstances; with Paula Hudgell, whose little boy, Tony, lost both legs through brutality and who asks why his abusers will one day walk free; with Katie Brett, whose sister, Sasha, was stabbed to death at 16; and with Ayse Hussein, cousin of Jan Mustafa, whose body was found in a freezer after a catalogue of official failings. Their stories are harrowing and their bravery and resilience is incredibly inspiring. They, and the relatives of countless other victims, have formed the Justice for Victims campaign group, because serious criminals are “escaping proper punishment.” Their demand is clear: make the system value the lives of those who were damaged or even taken.
We welcome legislation in the name of victims, but it must be worthy of that title. A Bill that carries the word “victims” should put victims first in practice and not just in prose. I appreciate, as the Secretary of State has rightly said, that some measures in the Bill are stronger than those in the predecessor Bill, but some measures are less strong, or at least different, to those in the prior Bill. Parliamentary time is precious. I know from my own period in government that one cannot always return to the same issues time and again, however worthy the topic, so we must not waste the opportunity afforded by the Bill to enact the most radical and serious changes to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of victims. I will explain why and make what I hope will be seen as constructive proposals to the Secretary of State.
First, victims rightly want offenders to face them at sentence and to confront their crimes. All too often, cowardly criminals squirm away from the consequences of their actions, so I welcome the intent behind clause 1, which proposes to correct that. I question how the Minister will deliver recalcitrant offenders to court, when our own prison officers are already fighting for their lives with bare hands and little serious protection. That is not a new problem, but it is one that we all have to confront together. With no kit, there can be no confidence. In the wake of the HMP Frankland attack, the Minister’s idea of a limited taser trial sometime this summer in a handful of prisons, for specifically trained staff only, seems inadequate. We still do not issue every single officer with a stab-proof vest; body armour is “under review”.
Clause 1, for understandable and right reasons, piles fresh duties on staff, who tell me that they are already one assault away from leaving the service. Until Ministers issue full body armour and staff our escort units properly, this duty will be a burden to them. Officers will not feel safe to force violent offenders out of their cells, not least because the Bill affords them only the use of “reasonable force”, not the ability to use force as long as it is not grossly disproportionate, which should surely be the threshold in law. Judges making such orders need only to take into consideration the “reasonable excuse” of an offender to override the concern and the will of victims. What is the reasonable excuse to dodge justice? Surely that should be tightened to the most exceptional circumstances.
Where in this Bill is the right for victims’ views to be heard and recorded in court? Some victims will want the offender to come before the court, even in the knowledge that they will be highly disruptive, challenge the solemnity of the court and, frankly, behave in a way that many would consider to be deeply shocking and even scarring. Surely that should be broadly the victim’s choice; they should at least be properly consulted by the judge. This legislation is ultimately for the victims, even if the judge might have reservations or it leads to challenging situations or confrontations that we are not accustomed to in our courts.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does my right hon. Friend agree that using the test of reasonable force, as the Lord Chancellor proposes, raises the unpleasant prospect that prisoners so forced might bring claims for damages against the Lord Chancellor, which would be a further insult to victims? I firmly support my right hon. Friend’s view that “grossly disproportionate” is the correct legal test to use.
Robert Jenrick
I agree with the point that my hon. Friend has made. Given that the threshold of “grossly disproportionate” is an available and established concept in law, why not apply it in these circumstances, so that we can equip the criminal justice system with the standard it needs to ensure that in all bar the most exceptional circumstances, these individuals are brought to court if it is the wish of the victims of crime?
Secondly, Ministers say that clause 3 protects children from predatory parents, but the devil is in the detail. Only abuse of an offender’s own child counts—a point understandably made by the Labour party when it was in opposition. If a man rapes a neighbour’s child, he keeps full rights over his own infant daughter. The BBC this morning highlighted the case of Bethan, who was forced to spend £30,000 in the family court to strip her ex-husband, jailed for the gravest of offences, of parental responsibility. Bethan’s family call the Bill very disappointing, because it would not protect them.
Additionally, offenders jailed for three years and 11 months, which is still a grave sentence, retain their rights. Where is the logic behind four years? Thus far, that is unexplained. Where is the child’s best interest? Conversely, the Bill states that the order
“does not cease to have effect if…the offender is acquitted”
on appeal, so an exonerated parent may still be barred for life unless they marshal funds to return to court. That is neither proportionate nor principled. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s view that that may well be a starting point, but let us get this clause right. This is the opportunity, and it may well be the only one for some time.
I turn to clause 11. The unduly lenient sentence scheme is the last safety valve for victims when a judge gets it badly wrong, and I know how important that is. Just last week, a case that I referred to the Attorney General alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) was heard in the Court of Appeal, and three defendants had their sentences increased. Today, a victim has only 28 days from the date of sentence to request that the Attorney General make a referral. That clock starts even while they are still waiting for the official transcript to land.
Everyone in this House has met families who discovered the scheme after the deadline, who will forever wonder whether justice slipped through their fingers because they Google-searched the rules a week too late or did not reach out to their lawyers or friends in the system who were more knowledgeable. I have been very struck recently when speaking to victims—even victims of some of the most prominent and heinous crimes of modern times, who one might have thought would have been equipped with the very best legal advice and support—who simply did not know that the scheme even existed, let alone that it had such a short time limit attached to it.
Clause 11 gives only the Attorney General, not the victim, an extra 14 days when the paperwork arrives on day 28. Officials get six weeks; the mother of a murdered child still gets only four. Ministers claim that this is levelling the playing field, but it is nothing of the sort. Victims’ groups, from rape and sexual abuse centres to the Centre for Women’s Justice, have pleaded for a straightforward fix: double the victim application window to 56 days, and require the Crown Prosecution Service to notify every complainant in writing of the existence of the scheme and of that deadline on the day of the sentence. Those groups asked for time; on this occasion, the Government have delivered bureaucracy. That is clause 11 in a nutshell—a lifeline for Whitehall and the Attorney General’s staff, but not for the people we are sent to Parliament to defend.
Let me now turn to what the Bill does not try to do. The court backlog is spiralling, and the Ministry of Justice cannot yet provide a date by which it will start to come down. Going before the Justice Select Committee, its permanent secretary could not answer that most basic question for an official charged with leading the service. When is this going to start getting better? Cases are being listed today for as far away as 2029; meanwhile, victims are in limbo with their lives left on hold. Justice delayed is justice denied. Today, 74 courtrooms across the country are sitting empty because the Justice Secretary still has not taken the Lady Chief Justice up on her offer of extra sitting days. There is barely anything in this Bill that will put a dent in the court backlog—nothing that maximises court sitting days. Not one clause addresses listings, disclosure or digital evidence.
For many people, our justice system is opaque and secretive. I am a firm believer that sunlight is the best disinfectant—that greater transparency drives change and enhances confidence—but there is nothing in this Bill that enhances transparency on the court backlog, such as publishing the number of courtrooms that are not sitting each day and why they are not sitting. It falls to start-ups producing websites and apps to provide that information, not the Ministry of Justice itself. Nothing in this Bill increases access to court transcripts, so that victims, the press and the public can see justice dispensed. That issue was recently given further prominence by the public’s shock and anger when they heard or read fragments of the transcripts of grooming gang trials. As technology transforms the ability of the courts to provide reliable transcripts using artificial intelligence, we should provide a better and more transparent service to the public and the media. That is possible, so why not use this Bill to establish basic standards in law for the benefit of every victim across our country?
There is also nothing in the Bill that mandates the publication of data on offenders’ visa status or asylum status, so that we know where offenders are coming from. We need that information in order to design a criminal justice system and, above all, an immigration system that protects the British public. The London Victims’ Commissioner has said that the £1 billion of unpaid court fines is “truly astounding”, and that the failure of the Courts and Tribunals Service to recoup outstanding offenders’ fines must come under greater scrutiny. Again, the Bill is silent on that—it contains no extra powers to recoup that money. At a time when the Ministry of Justice’s budget is unquestionably under strain, why not do everything to recoup unpaid court fines, beginning with those? Victims are suffering as a result.
We welcome legislation in the name of victims, but it must be worthy of that title. Victims have asked for justice that is swift and certain; in many respects, this Bill is slow and tentative. I urge the Government to amend it—to strengthen it—so that it really does put victims first, in practice and not just in prose. Where it does, the Secretary of State and the Government will have our support, for justice and for the victims.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
This Bill builds on the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, passed by the last Parliament, to improve the experience of victims in the criminal justice system, the functions of the Victims’ Commissioner and, more generally, the administration of criminal justice. Like its predecessor, this Bill is published against the backdrop of significant court backlogs, with victims of crime too often waiting years for their cases to come to court, and with criminal legal aid advocates turning away from the profession. This Government have taken steps to tackle those deep-rooted problems, built up over years by the last Government’s failure to invest in the criminal justice system, but until they are resolved, victims will continue to suffer harm for too long.
On 27 March this year, the latest criminal court statistics were published, showing a record high of 74,651 outstanding cases in the Crown court, as at the end of December 2024. Also in March, the Victims’ Commissioner published a report entitled “Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown court backlog on victims, victim services and the criminal justice system”. The report concluded:
“With the increased number of victims held in the system because of the backlog, victim services are under increasing pressure which impairs their ability to provide the accessible, high-quality support that victims need.”
It called for
“The government to explore how victims whose cases are going to trial might be given a single point of contact to improve communication and ensure their Victims’ Code entitlements are delivered… The restoration of an independent Courts’ Inspectorate so that the operation of the Court Service is subject to rigorous independent scrutiny… Providing emergency funding to victim support services to help them cope with increased caseloads arising from the court backlog crisis.”
My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor wrote to the Select Committee in April, in response to concerns that changes proposed in Sir Brian Leveson’s review would not have a direct impact on delays in the Crown court for a considerable time. My right hon. Friend noted:
“The system requires substantial reform, and the department looks forward to receiving the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts’ recommendations on longer-term structural reform options later this spring, followed by recommendations on the efficiency and timeliness of court processes by Autumn.”
It is against that challenging background that we debate the Bill today. I welcome the measures in it, and I know that the ministerial team will use the leverage that it gives them to improve the lot of victims in the criminal justice system, but, as in every other aspect of the work of the Ministry of Justice, they have been set a difficult task by past neglect.
Let me comment briefly on the main provisions in the Bill. First, it deals with attendance at sentencing hearings. It will give Crown court judges an express statutory power to order the attendance of offenders at their sentencing hearings and to sanction those who refuse to comply with such an order, or who attend but then commit contempt by misbehaving or disrupting the proceedings and are removed as a result. They may receive up to two years’ additional imprisonment and/or the imposition of prison sanctions. Those proposals have been welcomed by advocates for victims and organisations working in the violence against women and girls sector. However, there are some concerns about how these provisions will work in practice and about the implications for judges, court staff, prison officers, prison escort officers and prison governors.
Secondly, the Bill deals with restricting parental responsibility. Concerns have been raised that people convicted of serious crimes can retain their parental responsibility unless an application is made to the court to restrict or terminate it. That means, for example, that they can potentially ask for school reports, be consulted on medical issues, and withhold their consent to a child’s going on holiday or being issued with a passport.
In last year’s King’s Speech, the Government committed to legislating to restrict parental responsibility for child sex offenders. The new provisions automatically restrict a person’s parental responsibility when they are sentenced to four or more years in prison for a “serious” child sexual abuse offence against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility. This means that instead of the non-offending parent or carer having to drive the process, the offender’s parental responsibility will be automatically restricted at the point when they are sentenced.
Thirdly, I will discuss victims’ rights. The Bill will: update the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to expand the eligibility criteria to victims of more offences, who will then be covered by the victim contact scheme; create a victims helpline for some victims who are not covered by the scheme; expand the definition of “victim” for the purposes of the scheme; and ensure greater consistency for victims of offenders who are subject to a hospital order.
Fourthly, I will address the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. In their manifesto, the Government committed to increasing the power of the Victims’ Commissioner. The Bill achieves that by allowing the Victims’ Commissioner to exercise their functions in individual cases that raise public policy issues, placing a duty on local authorities and social housing providers to co-operate with the commissioner for the purposes of supporting victims and witnesses of antisocial behaviour, and empowering the commissioner to report independently on the victims’ code.
Fifthly, I will speak to prosecutions. The Bill seeks to increase the flexibility of the director of public prosecutions in appointing Crown prosecutors. It will remove the legislative barrier that is preventing CILEX lawyers, who have specialist qualifications and more limited rights of audience, from becoming Crown prosecutors.
Sixthly, I will discuss the cost of private prosecutions. In June 2020, the Justice Committee launched an inquiry into the fairness of private prosecutions and the need for procedural safeguards, following a request from the Criminal Cases Review Commission that arose from the Horizon scandal. The Committee recommended that the Government should
“urgently review funding arrangements for private prosecutions in order to address the inequality of access”
and
“ensure a fair balance between the prosecutor and the defendant”.
In March 2021 the then Government accepted the Committee’s conclusions and agreed that
“costs recoverable from central funds by a private prosecutor should be limited in the same way that costs so recoverable by an acquitted defendant already are, by being capped at legal aid rates.”
They said that this would require amendments to the existing legislation, and I am pleased that, through clause 10, the Lord Chancellor is able to make regulations to achieve that aim.
Finally, the Bill introduces greater flexibility into the unduly lenient sentence scheme, as requested by, among others, the Victims’ Commissioner for London. There are other technical changes in the Bill, but those are the major proposals and I welcome them all. In aggregate, they both assist victims in their progress through the criminal justice system and reform that system to make it more consistent and user-friendly.
The Bill is not a panacea for the troubles afflicting the criminal courts—that will require more radical root-and-branch reform, and for that we await the findings of the independent review—but it is a step along the road towards a fairer and more humane criminal justice system for victims.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
It means a lot to be speaking about this Bill as the Liberal Democrats’ justice spokesperson, but also as someone who has engaged extensively with the criminal justice system as a victim. When I came out the other end of a gruelling Crown court trial as a victim several years ago, I pledged to myself that I would do everything I could to play a part in fixing a system that too often re-traumatises and punishes victims.
When I was part of survivors group therapy with Survivors UK a few years ago, I processed my experiences of abuse alongside 11 other brave men, some of whom are watching today. I swore to those lads that I would never forget their stories, and that I would do what I could to help transform our pain into justice for victims and survivors in the future.
When I meet victims of crime who come to see me for help in my constituency, I promise them that I will throw the kitchen sink at fighting for the support that they need and deserve, so my contribution today is for all of them. I say on their behalf that it is time to shift the centre of gravity back to victims in our criminal justice system. It is time to give victims their voices back. It is time to dignify victims’ experiences with action.
That is why Liberal Democrats fully support the Bill’s efforts to address, for example, the horror of children still being subject to the parental responsibility of those deplorable parents who are convicted of serious sexual offences against them. That is why we welcome the proposed victims’ helpline, eligible for victims whose perpetrators are sentenced, regardless of length, so they can get information about perpetrators’ release and so on. That will go some way to help address some of the concerns I have expressed about the shortcomings of the existing victim contact scheme. I thank the Government for taking on board the feedback from me and many other Members and groups.
It is why the Liberal Democrats also welcome the Bill’s measures to strengthen the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, empowering them almost to act more like an ombudsman who can take up the causes of individual victims where it is in the public interest. That is why we agree that defendants should participate in sentencing hearings, because robust rehabilitation necessarily involves facing up to one’s actions and understanding the impact of them on their victims.
Liberal Democrats believe that the Bill could be even more ambitious for victims and survivors. That is why, while supporting the Bill in the remaining stages of the legislative process, we will be challenging the Government to address some of the serious omissions that stand to leave victims without the protections they need. The first—the Minister knows this is coming—is on domestic abuse.
The Liberal Democrats have highlighted that this Government have inherited a scandalous state of affairs, where the state does not know how many domestic abusers are behind bars. The Government do not know the reoffending rate of domestic abusers in our criminal justice system. The reason is that there is not a specific identifier in our system, whether it is an offence or something else. Since November last year, we have been screaming out for the Government to deploy robust measures to officially identify domestic abuse perpetrators on a statutory basis, so that victims and survivors can be better protected. I am genuinely grateful that the Government have agreed to seriously develop a way of identifying perpetrators. I know that work is happening behind the scenes, but I would like the Minister to confirm on the record whether we can work together to achieve that in this Bill, or, if not in this Bill, in which piece of legislation in future we might be able to see some progress.
The second gap is on court transcripts. Victims and survivors need measures that deliver fair access to court transcripts. The shadow Justice Secretary forgot to mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) has led the way on the issue in this place, repeatedly urging the previously Government to make permanent the pilot scheme.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
One of my constituents, a victim of domestic abuse, has written to me about the work Sarah has done, which has resonated across the country. My constituent said that access to transcripts was difficult. She welcomed the pilot from the Ministry of Justice but said that the communication around that for victims was not good enough. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever work is done, we need to ensure that victims are communicated with so that they know what powers they have to access the information they need?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind Members that we refer to colleagues not by their first or second names, but by their constituency.
Josh Babarinde
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right; it is critical not only that victims’ rights are strengthened, but that victims have the knowledge of those rights and entitlements so that they can invoke them, enforce them and, fundamentally, benefit from them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has been urging the Government to make permanent the pilot scheme that affords victims of rape and other sexual offences a record of their sentencing remarks free of charge. She has campaigned on this issue for years, not just since the populist bandwagon has been in town, like some others in this House.
With the pilot scheme ending imminently, we must not return to a world in which some victims are charged up to a staggering £22,000 just to see a write-up of their case. This is exclusionary justice, delivered at an eye-watering price. As well as campaigning for the pilot to be extended, we would therefore push the Government to expand it to cover a far wider pool of victims and survivors.
On a similar note, as a constituency MP, I encourage the Government to take steps to encourage not just written but audiovisual records of court proceedings to be made available to victims and survivors. A mother came to a recent constituency surgery to share with me that her son, who has special educational needs and is non-verbal, was restrained on home-to-school transport, and legal proceedings were kicked off as a result. The mother did not get to see the video evidence of the incident until the court case, and has had no access to that harrowing and traumatic evidence since. She ought to have the right to it, so I hope the Government will be able to help us on that matter.
A third gap is on national insurance contributions. We need support for victims’ charities, who have said that the hike in contributions in the Budget will take their services and the victims who rely on them to the brink. A fourth gap is on family courts. We need measures to prevent abusers from using parental alienation proceedings to perpetrate their abuse. A fifth gap is on the court backlogs, which leave so many victims in the lurch for years—when can victims expect to see measures to tackle them?
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats are concerned that these gaps in the Bill risk overshadowing many measures that I know Ministers have been working hard on. We look forward to supporting the Bill and its efforts to ensure that victims are heard, protected and respected. We will challenge the Government to go further and faster to ensure that victims and survivors get the support they deserve and that they do not pay the price for the neglect they were subject to under the previous Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There are many colleagues hoping to contribute; to enable hon. Members to prepare, I inform the House that after the next speaker there will be a speaking limit of four minutes.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Today, I will speak to one part of the Bill, which will require convicted offenders to attend their sentencing hearings and provide consequences where they refuse. It is known as Olivia’s law.
Olivia Pratt-Korbel was nine years old when she was murdered in her own home by a stranger with a gun. The murderer, Thomas Cashman, fired a bullet through the door of Olivia’s home, which passed through the wrist of my constituent, Cheryl Korbel—Olivia’s mother—before hitting Olivia in the chest and ending her life. Cheryl and her cousin Antonia are with us in the Under-Gallery today.
To lose a child to murder in your own home, while you try to protect them, is a burden that no parent should ever be asked to bear, but under our current justice system convicted criminals can opt out of attending their own sentencing. That is what Olivia’s murderer did. Cashman remained in his cell, refusing to face the court, to hear Cheryl’s words or to look her in the eye. It was the act of a coward. That injustice must end.
Nothing in this world can bring Olivia back. But instead of collapsing under this weight, Cheryl fought back. She and her family have campaigned so that no other family would suffer the same. Olivia’s law is her work. It is Olivia’s legacy, and it is Cheryl’s legacy.
Today I will read out Cheryl’s victim impact statement. These are the words that the murderer—the coward—Thomas Cashman refused to hear. I want the words of Cheryl Korbel committed to this House, so that they will be on record in this place forever. Let her words ring out in this Chamber, like they should have done in Cashman’s ears that day.
“Olivia was born six weeks early on 13 June 2013 at Whiston hospital weighing 4lbs 2oz. She was so tiny that she fitted in one hand. She had the most beautiful tanned skin. There wasn’t a blemish on her.
The tiny little bundle grew into a toddler, having the most perfect chubby rolls on her legs. Every time we went out, we were stopped by anyone and everyone, saying how beautiful she was, especially her big, beautiful brown eyes and thick curly hair.
Ryan and Chloe adored her as their baby sister. She slept in my room until she was one and then she moved into the big room with Chloe.
Liv wasn’t the best sleeper and would wake up of a night. Often by the time I got to her Chloe was already up and soothing her. Chloe was like a second mother to Liv.
The years passed by too quick and Liv started nursery. She was loved by everyone. She loved to play, in particular playing house and princesses. Cinderella was their favourite.
At home she would dress her dog Gizmo up in a blanket and put him in a pram, pushing him around the house. Gizmo still brings his blanket into me now.
More years passed and Liv skipped into her first day of reception. I was heartbroken but she was so happy and content. I couldn’t believe my baby was going into big school. She loved helping others and especially the role of being the teacher’s helper. She had a special bond with one of her teachers.
Liv was such a social butterfly. She was particularly good with younger children and was such a caring little girl. Liv had really long and beautiful brown hair. Something she was very proud and particular about.
A few weeks before she was cruelly taken away from us Liv had heard about the Little Princess Trust and what they do, from a friend in school. After talking to me, Liv decided she wanted to donate 12 inches of her hair, in her words, ‘for the sick kids to have beautiful wigs’.
We then went online together and applied for the sponsor form. Liv was due to have her hair cut on 27 August.
Liv was a girly girl and loved to play with makeup. She loved shoes with heels on. She didn’t want to wear trainers, ever. She had her own style and would wear what she wanted to wear even though it often didn’t match.
She would go to our Tony’s house with the girls and come down in their clothes and say she’d just found them. Those clothes would then make their way to our house and the girls would never see them again.
As Ryan and Chloe got older and began doing their own things, it became mostly me and her on our own. She was nicknamed my shadow. We were just always together, me, Liv and Pearl her purple bear.
This was once Chloe’s bear, but Liv took a liking to it and decided it was now hers. Pearl was her comfort blanket.
Each evening was different with Liv. One night we could be watching Matilda while she was upside down on the couch. The next night, she would leave me watching H2O while she sneaked upstairs to Ryan’s room whilst he was out so she could lie on his bed watching YouTube on her iPad.
Liv never stopped talking. Literally never. Even if she wasn’t directly talking to anyone, she would be chatting away. One thing I miss most is hearing her say ‘mum’.
I just miss hearing her voice. It’s just so quiet. I would do and give anything in the world to have her chatting to me. It’s so very lonely without her. Everything is just so quiet. I just can’t cope with the silence.
Setting my alarm at half seven in the morning is something I still do because it’s ingrained in me. The day goes by in a blur and then gets to half two and I think about the school pickup, something I will never get to do again as a mum.
She was and will always be my baby. But I miss the routine we had. My mind keeps telling me that I’ve forgotten to pick her up from school.
Now tea time was a big thing for me. Because it was so centred around her and what she wanted for tea.
Everything I do and everywhere I go is a constant reminder that she is not there with me.
This happened in our home where we felt safe and should have been safe. We had no choice but to leave the home that was Liv’s first and only home. When the police left and we weren’t allowed back there, it was heartbreaking.
I walked in and it was if time had stood still. The cups of tea still sitting on the coffee table, next to her Little Princess Trust sponsor form. Liv’s new bike still propped up on its stand. One of her dolls laying on the living room floor and her brand new sparkly shoes in a box.
Right at that moment I was home. We were back to how our lives were before that night. And I soaked up the surroundings until reality dawned and brought me back to my living nightmare. Packing up our home was horrendous. Having to pack up our lives, having to strip Liv’s bed, pack her clothes, toys, jewellery, her memories into a box.
No mother should ever have to do that.
We left our friends, our neighbours. My neighbour Chris was amazing and often when I needed to go to work would sit with Liv until Chloe got home from college.
It’s so hard to go back to the area where I grew up and where I raised all three of my children, the area where some of my closest friends live. The smallest of things remind me of Liv, her friends playing in the streets. When I see them it’s hard to accept she is no longer here.
Moving into the new house was difficult for all of us. Not being able to make her bed, put her clothes away. The toothbrush in the bathroom and not having her favourite food in the fridge.
And that night when I realised Liv had been shot and needed me. I was not able to do CPR properly on her because of my injury. I did not have full use of my hand and I felt helpless. It was only then my neighbour came in and tried all he could to save my baby.
My worst nightmare was being separated from Liv and not being with her when she needed me the most. I was the first person to hold my baby girl and as her mum I should have been the last.
I cannot get my head around how Cashman continued to shoot after hearing the terrifying screams. The utter devastation he has caused, he doesn’t care. How could he? His actions have left the biggest hole in our lives that can never be filled.
That man set out to do a job and he didn’t care about anyone else. Or who got in the way. He certainly couldn’t own it either. Ryan, Chloe and I are just existing day to day and have been since it happened.
We have been waiting for the trial and focusing on it and not addressing how utterly broken we are as a family. I cannot even think about rebuilding our lives without her.
Because of this we have missed out on so much, my nan who was 92 adored Liv and Liv her. Recently my nan’s health deteriorated, and she was admitted into hospital. A couple of weeks ago we were able to bring her home on end of life care.
Due to being at court every day we have not been able to spend enough quality time with her; my main focus has been getting justice for Liv. I believe she held on long enough to hear that that coward had been found guilty. Sadly my nan passed away last night.
My nine-year-old Liv was the light of our lives, our beautiful, sassy, chatty girl who never ran out of energy. She was a character, she was my baby, she had amazing qualities and knew what she wanted in life.
She will never get to make her holy communion, wear that prom dress or have a sweet 16th birthday, walk down the aisle with the man of her dreams or become a mother of her own children. All that promise for her future so cruelly taken away.
Now I have to drive to the cemetery to be close to my baby daughter. I sit with her and talk to her telling her I miss her smile, her kisses, her cuddles, her voice.
I tell her she will live on in my heart, she will always be with us, my little shadow.
We love you endless amounts Liv.”
Let Cheryl’s words be heard. Let them be honoured. Let Olivia’s law pass, and make sure that no victim’s voice is ever shut out of justice again. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for sharing that with us. It was important that the House heard it.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I pay tribute to that powerful contribution from the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley). Our thoughts and prayers are with Liv’s family in the Gallery.
I truly welcome the provision of better information for victims of crime. It is essential that victims are at the heart of justice. As Baroness Newlove has said in regard to domestic abuse:
“Victims and survivors of domestic abuse must be able to trust in our criminal justice system—that it will provide a robust, trauma-informed response that prioritises their safety while holding perpetrators to account.”
We must ensure that victims feel not only that they will get justice, but that they can trust the system. We need to restore trust and confidence in our system.
I am glad to see that the Bill will bring more victims into the scope of the victim contact scheme. They must be given more information about an offender’s upcoming release and the discharge of licence conditions, and should be notified of key events, such as an offender’s transfer to an open prison. One of my constituents raised with me the case of a domestic abuse survivor who, along with her unborn child, survived an attempted murder by her ex-partner. Although he received an 18-year sentence in 2016, in March this year he was eligible for open prison placement four years early, and that was incredibly distressing. As they often say, perpetrators of domestic abuse know everything about their victims. They know where they live, where they work and where their children go to school. It is terrifying for victims to find that perpetrators are potentially being released early; they cannot prepare for that. I want parole boards involved in the decision to give an open prison placement to a domestic abuse offender, so that we can ensure that victims’ voices are heard.
It was said earlier that timely access to justice is key, but confidence is, too, and we must be careful about the language we use. We must ensure that all victims trust our legal system, and I fear that some discussions do more harm than good.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor for bringing forward this much-needed legislation, which will change our justice system for the better by strengthening support for victims and holding those who violate our laws to account.
In my constituency of Heywood and Middleton North, the scars of serious crime and antisocial behaviour and an inundated court system hold back our communities. My constituents and people across the country are looking for answers to those challenges, rather than the posturing that we see all too frequently in some quarters. This Bill goes a long way to providing those answers, and I know that the changes will be truly welcomed in my constituency.
Last week, I held a town hall event focused on crime and antisocial behaviour in Spotland, an area that I am proud to represent and to relay concerns from today. I place on record my gratitude to all those who attended, and who gave their stories, as well as those from Rochdale borough council, Greater Manchester police and Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, who also attended and were questioned by local residents. We covered a vast array of issues in a constructive and thoughtful manner, and I believe we got to the crux of what keeps people in Spotland and across my constituency awake at night: ultimately, it is the safety and security of their families and loved ones.
Across our borough, stalking offences, dangerous driving, off-road bikes and drug crime have been growing in prominence. In Greater Manchester, our court backlogs are some of the largest in the country. Most people I spoke to at the event were weary after years of cuts that reduced the police presence, which is essential, and consistent under-investment in our courts. They have seen a system that was built to protect them pushed to the brink and unable to respond effectively to the changing nature of crime in our communities.
Despite the challenging nature of what we discussed, I did not come away disheartened. On the contrary, I came away hopeful and determined to take my constituents’ concerns forward. Communities are rarely unresponsive to challenges, or idle in the face of them. In fact, they want to be part of the solution. People in my constituency want to work alongside authorities and local leaders to make our streets safer and to make sure that victims are supported and perpetrators face the full force of the law. They want common-sense and considered interventions from Government, like the ones before us today.
I will touch on one of the Bill’s provisions that will make a real difference to the communities I represent. First, the shadow of on-street grooming still hangs over families and survivors in my constituency. That is alongside wicked present-day crimes perpetrated against children across the country, the cruelty and cowardice of which remain with victims for life. According to the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, 500,000 children will experience some form of child sexual abuse every year in England and Wales. A third of childhood sexual abuse offences are committed in the family environment. We must make sure that children who are exploited or abused no longer remain under the responsibility of a family member capable of committing such vile acts. That is why I commend the provisions in the Bill to restrict parental responsibility for offenders sentenced for abusing young children.
Families must feel that they have a place to turn to when this unimaginable violation befalls a loved one, and must feel supported in law. I wholeheartedly support the steps to minimise bureaucracy and limit procedural burdens in a way that mitigates the further distress put on families, so that they can begin to rebuild what the perpetrator has shattered. I also support other measures in the Bill, including the provision that mandates perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearing or face further penalties.
As we know, crime does not exist only at a single point in time; its implications live on for victims, sometimes forever. Neither is it faceless. Behind each criminal act is a perpetrator who should face the consequences of their decisions. They should be made to look at the damage they have done to a person’s life, and to hear the verdict on their crimes. The Bill gives victims agency—
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her incredible speech, to Olivia’s family, and to the Government for listening to their call and including that provision in the Bill. I want to talk a little more about provision for victims, and in particular my court transcripts campaign; the Minister knows this is coming. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his generous tribute on that point.
I am really disappointed that there is no mention of court transcripts in the Bill. Trials are lengthy and traumatising experiences, which victims do not routinely attend; some are actively advised against doing so. Reviewing the sentencing remarks can help provide victims and survivors with clarity and closure, but too often accessing those sentencing remarks is unaffordable, which only adds more barriers to achieving justice. That is why throughout the last Parliament I campaigned on providing victims and survivors with free access to copies of their transcripts. I am glad that my open letter to the then Justice Secretary received support from the then Mother and Father of the House, as well as the former Chair of the Justice Committee.
I was glad to have cross-party signatories to my amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill in the last Parliament, which, if accepted, would have enabled all victims to receive a transcript of both the sentencing remarks and the judge’s summing up free of charge. Despite broad support, the amendment was ultimately unsuccessful both in this House and in the other place, where a similar amendment was tabled by my colleague Baroness Brinton and blocked by 187 Tory peers.
Given the previous Government’s refusal to address this gross inequality and their inexplicable opposition to this policy, letting down victims and survivors, I have been interested in the Conservatives’ change of heart. I notice the shadow Justice Secretary’s recent support for transcripts, and the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) raised the issue of the accessibility of court transcripts with the Justice Secretary last month. I am glad to see indications that they may be finally acknowledging the extent to which the last Government failed victims.
Following my campaigning on this issue, and the invaluable work of campaign groups working to support victims, I am glad that a 12-month pilot scheme was introduced in May last year. The scheme gives victims of sexual assault and rape access to court transcripts of their trials at no cost to them. Victims and survivors who have made use of the pilot have reported that its impact has been transformational, yet to my recent question on the issue, the Minister responded:
“We are currently assessing the pilot’s uptake and impact and will be able to say more on our plans for future provision in due course.”
As I am sure the Minister is aware, last week I introduced a Bill to the House that called for the rape and sexual offences free sentencing remarks pilot scheme to be made permanent. My recent early-day motion on this issue, which calls for the scheme to be expanded to cover all victims of crime, has also received cross-party support. If the Government do not make the scheme permanent, not only will they fail victims, but they will be not upholding the commitment in the King’s Speech last year to strengthening support for victims.
I have heard directly from constituents who have accessed their transcripts, having not attended their trial, as well as from members of the public from across the country who have been through similar experiences. They have told me of the hugely positive impact that accessing a court transcript has had on them and their journey. With just eight days until the scheme is due to end, and given that I still await a response to the letter that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne sent to the Justice Secretary on the issue, will the Minister outline the future plans for the scheme? I urge her to make support for victims permanent. I also ask the Ministry to make clear its basis for discontinuing the pilot scheme.
I welcome so many measures in the Bill, and I really welcome its additional support for victims. I really hope that as the Bill continues through the House, we can amend it to extend the pilot scheme and make it permanent.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the Women and Equalities Committee. Rape survivors are too often hidden in plain sight. In Bolsover, my constituency, 10,554 women will have been raped or sexually assaulted since they were 16—a third in their own homes—in Shirebrook, Tibshelf, Wessington, Barlborough and every village and town in between, and 5,277 of them will have been raped more than once; 880 will have reported it, and if we are lucky, 26 will have seen a charge brought.
I have permission to share the experience of one of the wonderful constituents who reached out to me. She said,
“I was spiked in a hotel and sexually assaulted in my room where I thought I would be safe.”
As a result, she says,
“I lost my job, my marriage nearly crumbled and I lost six of my son’s most formative years because my brain shut down completely…and I went into survival mode.”
She continues:
“We need to raise our boys better, to respect and work alongside women without judgement or expectations around sex”.
She is right, but this is not just a Bolsover problem; this is a society issue. Rape is a part of our national story—a part that we are not telling—and we cannot continue with a culture where he did it and she hid it.
Women do not report because they have been let down by the courts for too long. That was the case for another of my constituents, who went four years and five months from rape to trial, with multiple suicide attempts. I am so pleased that this Government are doing something about this, and are treating violence against women and girls as the national emergency that it is. The measures in this Bill mean that victims of crime will finally be put first.
The Bill is also our opportunity to put a full stop to a lifetime of ongoing trauma. I will keep speaking about the 10 babies born every day to their mummies who have been raped—six children in my constituency every year, and in every constituency across England and Wales. We see those children hidden in plain sight on our school visits; we see them as adults in the workplace; they drink among us in the pub. But their brave mothers have hidden the story behind their existence throughout history—often even from them.
The mums tell me about the struggle to bond with a baby who looks like the man who hurt them. They tell me about the pain of loving their children and also wishing that they did not exist. They tell me about living with the threat of their rapist being part of their life forever. One survivor said that she could not report the crime because the perpetrator had parental responsibility, and told her that he would use it if she reported it. Being charged, going to prison—nothing would take away his rights around the child who was conceived when he raped her. This Bill is our opportunity to change that. I call on our Government to remove parental responsibility where a child is conceived via rape. Our precious children can no longer be the only proceed of crime to which a criminal has lifelong access.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is a privilege, as a Member of Parliament, to support our constituents in their hour of greatest need. All too often, that is when they are a victim of an appalling crime. Many of the constituents I speak to are at their wits’ end; they are desperate to be heard, helped and protected. They rightly want their tormentors to be made to stop, and they want justice.
Many of the steps taken in the Bill will be welcomed on both sides of the House and by victims across our country. It is right, for example, that we restrict convicted sex offenders’ access to their children, and it is right that we give victims more information about their offenders’ release. However, the calls for justice for the victims of grooming and rape gangs grow only louder. Across this country, people are rightly horrified by these crimes and the subsequent cover-up, which represents the biggest national scandal in our history, yet the Government have failed to use this opportunity to deliver real justice for those victims and survivors.
Last month, I spoke in this place of the details of just some of these disgusting crimes. I was able to so because of the organisation Open Justice for All, which has purchased, redacted and published transcripts from some of these court cases. However, it has been refused permission to do that in several instances, because a judge has claimed that there “no public interest” in doing so. This is wrong. Of course we must make sure that the anonymity of victims is protected, but nobody is suggesting doing anything to compromise that. These were public trials held in open court, and at the moment the transcripts represent the only way to get to the truth of these revolting crimes that have been carried out across Britain for far too long.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Is not the answer, in part at least, a national statutory inquiry into what occurred, not least because we do not actually know whether it is still going on? That inquiry would expose so much, which would allow all those right-thinking people to take the action necessary and protect so many of the people who might be at risk from further horrors.
Katie Lam
I can only agree with my right hon. Friend. It is appalling that such transcripts are currently the only way to understand what has happened in these cases. Relatedly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has previously said:
“These aren’t just legal documents, they’re historical documents that tell the story in detail of some of the worst crimes in our recent history”.
This Bill acknowledges that transparent information about our justice system is in the interests of victims, but it does nothing to address the problem. What is more, due to the current limits on appeals against unduly lenient sentences, many victims of these horrific grooming and rape gangs will be denied a vital opportunity to seek real justice. In far too many of these cases, we have seen courts hand down lenient sentences. For far too many victims, there will be no redress and their abusers will walk free. Often after just a few short years, these monsters are back in the communities they came from, walking among us and walking among their victims.
Just last week, the Court of Appeal revisited the case of three men who were convicted of raping a teenage girl in Yorkshire. Ibrar Hussain and brothers Imtiaz and Fayaz Ahmed were convicted in January for committing unspeakably evil crimes against a 13-year-old girl. In the first instance, they each received sentences of less than 10 years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) referred this case to the Attorney General. In this instance, the court rightly ruled that these sentences were far too short. This Bill should have made it easier for victims to seek such redress. It does not.
Mrs Blundell
This Government have announced specific support for five local inquiries and are getting on with the implementation of the recommendations of the Jay report. Would the hon. Member like to comment on what the previous Government did on this subject?
Katie Lam
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. There are several points that I would like to make in response. First, five local inquiries is nothing like enough. These events took place in 50 towns and all the victims deserve justice. Secondly, there are trends across the country and only a national inquiry can get to the bottom of those. Thirdly, she mentions the Jay inquiry. Inquiries are very often specific. The Hillsborough inquiry did not investigate every football match. The infected blood inquiry did not look at the whole of the NHS. The Manchester Arena inquiry did not address every terrorist attack. There has been an inquiry into child sex abuse, but that is not a specific inquiry into the specific phenomenon of groups of mostly Asian Muslim men grooming and sexually torturing mainly white children, facilitated and covered up by those in the British state whose job it was to look after them. That is a specific phenomenon, a particular stain on our country, and it deserves a dedicated inquiry.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Katie Lam
I am coming to the end of my speech.
I am sure that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister want fairness for victims, so will they please amend the Bill, first, to offer the independent national inquiry into grooming and rape gangs that the country and victims need; secondly, to ensure that all such transcripts, appropriately redacted, be made available to the public; and, thirdly, to allow victims greater ability to appeal against the shockingly short sentences that we see all too often?
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I pay tribute to Liv’s family and to Cheryl for her powerful statement.
I want to focus on the victims of state violence and the fact that they are missing from the Bill. I want to remember the 97 victims who perished at Hillsborough, and their families who have been through so much and fought for justice for so long. I also want us to remember our Government’s commitment to those families to bring in the long-overdue legal duty of candour on public officials, otherwise known as the Hillsborough law. The Bill as it stands is a major missed opportunity to make good on that promise and finally deliver justice for the 97. We have failed to meet our own self-imposed deadline for this year’s 36th anniversary—a painful moment for Liverpool made yet more painful by broken promises and the threat that this commitment may be watered down when it is eventually brought forward.
The core of the Hillsborough law is straightforward: a statutory duty of candour on all public bodies and officials. That means that when incidents occur, those in power must proactively tell the truth, share all relevant information and co-operate fully with investigations and inquiries. There can be no more defensive PR operations, no more smear campaigns against victims, and no more families forced to battle the system for decades just to have their loved ones’ names cleared.
Without a full Hillsborough law, the cycle of cover-ups will continue. From Grenfell to the infected blood scandal, we have seen time and again that institutions act to protect themselves as a priority, leaving ordinary people to pay the price. This Bill is an unmissable opportunity for the Government to make good on their promises. I hope the Minister will listen to the strength of feeling and bring back a Government amendment that implements a full legal duty of candour on public officials.
I also want to take the opportunity to raise the important Inquest campaign for a national oversight mechanism, which is backed by 70 organisations. It is the subject of a private Member’s Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), which is making its way through this place. Public and private bodies have a duty to keep us safe from harm, but every year hundreds of people die preventable state-related deaths. The lack of any mechanism for learning from past tragedies is a huge part of that. When someone dies after contact with the state, hundreds of vital recommendations are made following inquests and inquiries. That includes deaths of people in police and prison custody and in mental health settings, and following disasters at Grenfell and Hillsborough. These families need transparency, accountability and action so that changes are made to prevent future deaths in similar preventable circumstances.
Introducing a mechanism would be a watershed moment for families bereaved at the hands of the state, and it would be unforgivable for us to miss the opportunity that the Bill presents to bring forward such a mechanism. When it comes to victims of the state and public bodies, the details in the Bill are severely lacking. I hope the Minister will listen to the points I have raised and come back with some Government amendments to improve accountability and oversight mechanisms to ensure justice for all in tragedies at the hands of the state.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I welcome the Bill as an important first step towards a more accountable criminal justice system—one that reflects the needs and voices of survivors of crime. Too often, victims have been let down by a system that fails to grasp their trauma and recognise their experiences. They are expected to navigate an underfunded and overstretched justice process that all too frequently delays or even denies justice. I sincerely hope that the Bill is just the beginning of a wider governmental approach to fix the crisis in the criminal justice system, including the court backlog and the mess left behind by the previous Government.
Liberal Democrats support the creation of a specific domestic abuse aggravated offence, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his tireless work on the issue. In February, two men from Hampshire were released as part of the early release scheme, even though they had both been convicted of domestic abuse. The former partners of those men said that they were terrified and felt unable to regain control of their lives. One of the victims said:
“He got three years, I got life.”
The law should be changed to reflect the full impact of domestic abuse on its victims.
I recently met a constituent whose ex-husband was convicted of sexual communication with a child but was permitted to change his name. Even though the Crime and Policing Bill will require registered sex offenders to notify police and seek permission before changing their names, serious risks remain. My constituent’s case highlights how sex offenders can conceal their identities by changing their names. That was raised in the last Parliament by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). Will the Government take action to protect victims and survivors from that loophole allowing registered sex offenders to change their names to avoid detection?
I am glad that the Government are taking steps to support victims and survivors of crime. I hope that more will be done to ensure that the criminal justice system truly protects the most vulnerable and delivers accessible and fair justice that is centred on the needs of those it is meant to serve.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
May I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and to Olivia’s family for their powerful campaign?
The Bill seeks to challenge the power imbalance that has long existed in our justice system between perpetrators and their victims—for too long, offenders have had the upper hand. I am proud that this Bill and this Government will finally put victims first. The Bill will strengthen our courts, reinforce the core principles of our justice system and provide greater protection for the victims of crime. It will grant our courts the power to order offenders to attend their sentencing hearings, using reasonable force if necessary, and to extend sentences and impose sanctions in prison for the cowards who refuse to face up to what they have done.
Once and for all, our justice system will ensure that those who commit crimes are held fully accountable for their actions. The Bill will strengthen the role of the Victims’ Commissioner in monitoring and reporting on compliance with the victims code. In doing so, it will drive meaningful and lasting change to ensure that victims’ rights are not only recognised but firmly upheld. At its core, the Bill is about shifting the balance of power, moving it away from offenders and placing it in the hands of survivors. It is about safeguarding the rights of every person across the country.
The shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), is no longer in his place, but he said that he wants transparency. Well, let us give him some transparency on the previous Government’s record on justice for victims. Ten months ago, this Government inherited a justice system in crisis, because the last Conservative Government left prisons on the brink of collapse, a backlog in our courts and a system that failed victims up and down this country. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) about how few people report rape in the first place, but shockingly, 60% of those who do report it drop out of the criminal justice system before getting to trial and are often retraumatised by the system. It is a shame that the shadow Justice Secretary is too busy—perhaps with his leadership bid—to hear what I am about to say: justice under the Conservative party means more offenders escaping justice and fewer victims receiving it. [Interruption.] The Conservatives do not like to hear it, but that is their record in government.
As many Members across the House will know, we are facing an alarming rise in domestic abuse. Sadly, in Gloucester we are all too aware of the scale of that crisis. In December last year alone, nearly 250 arrests related to domestic abuse were made. Given how desperate and widespread that issue is, I am proud that the measures in the Bill will help to deliver justice for the one in four women and one in seven men who have experienced domestic abuse, and for the constituents I represent, who need and deserve that justice. Having spoken in my constituency surgeries to survivors and victims of domestic abuse, I welcome in particular the changes that the Government are making to ensure that victims receive information and support, particularly about their offender’s release. I hope that that will be part of wider reform of the parole and tagging system, which has led to far too many of my constituents being let down in the past.
I am inspired by the pace and ambition with which the Government are delivering on their ambition to tackle and halve violence against women and girls. On the off-chance that the Government might welcome more ideas on how we can better support victims, I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to back my Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill, which aims, like this Bill, to place power in the hands of survivors and support them as they seek justice and rebuild their lives.
This Bill brings us a step closer to halving violence against women and girls and delivering the transformative plan for change that our country and my constituents so urgently need. I look forward to voting to give the Bill its Second Reading.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for speaking so movingly about Olivia and her family. I rise primarily to speak about the victim-centred measures in the Bill and would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her engagement with me on this matter and with my constituent Rhianon Bragg, a formidable activist who has done so much work to improve support and services for victims.
The expanded victim contact scheme should see more victims able to get adequate information about their offenders’ sentences and make representations about licence conditions or supervision requirements as they relate to them. Similarly, the victim helpline will give more victims the information they need. I truly welcome those measures, which the UK Government say will cost an extra £0.2 million for HM Prison and Probation Service each year, with updating the victim contact scheme costing £20,000 and the victim helpline costing between £100,000 and £200,000.
I am concerned about whether those costings will be sufficient. As co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group, I call on the Government to commit to delivering the additional resources necessary for the Probation Service to deal with the inevitable increase in demand, both initially and as victims become more aware that they have these rights. There is a risk of overextending a service that is already in a workload and staffing crisis, at the expense of victims.
Extending the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner is also welcome. Victims should always feel secure that the commissioner can and will do everything in their power to tackle shortcomings where the victims live. That is why I continue my call for a victims’ commissioner for Wales, to represent victims of crimes in the specific context of Wales, where many victim support services and important policy levers, such as those relating to health and social care, are devolved and held to account by the Senedd.
At this point I will mention another aspect of the Bill: the Crown prosecution recruitment. We need personnel in the criminal justice system in Wales who can operate in Welsh and English, so I call on the Government to seek such personnel. Of course, devolving the entire criminal justice system in Wales, as recommended by three independent commissions, would be the best way to ensure a well-focused approach to victim support. In the meantime, a victims’ commissioner for Wales would ensure that the particular voices and experiences of victims in Wales are properly represented. We need only look to the fantastic work done by the London Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, to see what is possible when we have a focused approach.
The Victims and Courts Bill is a good basis on which to build. There are ways in which it could go further to better support victims, particularly in Wales, and I look forward to seeing how it develops with amendments in Committee.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Given the time limit, I first want to say a huge thank you to the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and to the Solicitor General, who are ably supported by our amazing female team at the Home Office.
I will not go through everything that is fantastic about the Bill, which is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve things for victims. I just want to suggest three ways in which it could be an even better Bill, as my hon. Friend the Minister is always open to suggestions. The first is the unfair use of so-called bad character evidence, which allows the cross-examination of rape victim-survivors about their previous sexual assaults. This has nothing to do with the court case in front of them; it is about victim blaming, intimidating the victim and making the victim afraid to go to court. It would improve the Bill if we did not allow so-called bad character evidence to be used in these proceedings.
Secondly, we need to recognise, as is in law, that victims of domestic abuse are often victims of coercive control. That can include things like taking out loans in their name, but in extreme cases it can be about coercing them to break the law. We need a way for courts to recognise when a victim of domestic abuse has been coerced into committing a crime as part of that domestic abuse, so that the crime is treated as such and seen as part of the ongoing abuse.
Thirdly, I have been campaigning on the issue of person at risk of violence orders. When somebody leaves a domestic abuse situation, they often leave with a lot of debt. In order to keep their address hidden from the perpetrator, they must obtain a person at risk of violence order, involving not only another retraumatising court process but an additional £308 that they must find every time they move. Despite the fact that there may be an active court case or the perpetrator may have been arrested, victims have to independently prove that they are a person at risk of violence.
This Bill is all about ensuring that victims can get justice. Part of getting justice is being able to leave abusive situations and being protected while they do that. My three suggestions would help to strengthen the Bill and increase the confidence of victim-survivors in justice.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Imagine a school night with a child being repeatedly asked by his father if he had completed his homework. The child replied, in an exasperated tone, “Yes”. His dad came towards him with his fist, ready to punch him, but the boy’s mum stepped into the space in front of that fist and pushed her son out of its way. The full force of that fist hit her so hard that she was spun around and fell down the stairs, bruising her arms, legs and back. From the top of the stairs, the child’s father shouted to his son, “Look what you made me do.”
The boy’s mother left her husband, taking the children with her. Social services were aware that the same father made statements that he was capable of killing. Then imagine a situation where, despite knowing all of that, a family court permitted that father of those two boys five hours of unsupervised contact per week.
My constituent Claire Throssell does not need to imagine this nightmare: she and her two sons, Jack and Paul Sykes, lived it. On a two-hour contact visit, permitted by that court and allowed to go ahead by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, Jack and Paul Sykes were locked in the attic by their father. Using gasoline, their dad set multiple fires alight across their home. Paul, aged nine, died at the scene after his older brother tried to save him, and then Jack, aged just 12, died later in hospital. The father also killed himself in the blaze. Jack and Paul’s voices were not heard by social services, by CAFCASS or by the family court. The only time Jack’s voice was heard was when, as he was held in the fireman’s arms, he used the last of his strength to say, “My dad did this and he did it on purpose.”
There must be urgent reform of the presumption of contact in law, on the basis of evidence, principle and to ensure children’s voices are put at the heart of our family courts system. Legal principle means that parents should always be given contact with their children, even in circumstances where there is a known domestic abuser. The harm report, published in 2020 by the Ministry of Justice’s expert panel on harm, was clear that the presumption should not remain in its present form.
The Bill before us today presents the ideal opportunity to make changes to the family courts and to deliver for the victims of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. It already ensures that the justice system serves victims, rather than subjecting them to further trauma on top of what they have already suffered.
Labour’s important mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade will require a national effort and the use of every single tool available to target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence. Now we need to do what the previous Conservative Government failed to do and hold family courts to the same standard by taking a child-centred approach and repealing the presumption of contact where a parent is a known domestic abuser.
The Government must act now to save the lives of children for generations to come by ending contact at any cost. Let us not just imagine a world in which the voices of children are put at the heart of our family court system, where children such as Jack and Paul are listened to, not ignored, and no more towns such as mine are left to grieve—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady must recognise that there is a time limit so that Members can get in.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Ilford South has been collectively traumatised by sexual violence and domestic abuse. Together, we have mourned the murders of Harshita Brella and Zara Aleena. Together, we are horrified at the cases of physical and sexual violence that women and girls face every day, many of which go unreported. That is why the Victims and Courts Bill before us today is so desperately needed, because it promises to help us bring justice and empower victim-survivors.
I thank all those who have made the Bill possible, especially the victim-survivors whose voices gave it power and made it real. Although their work has been indispensable, I know that it must never fall on the shoulders of survivors alone to drive policy change. We must all come together to share the burden of fixing the violence that is so deeply embedded in our society. That is why I feel it is so incumbent on me as a male Member to engage with this Bill and see it through. Sexual violence and domestic abuse are men’s issues as much as they are women’s issues.
If I may speak candidly, my conversations with survivors in my work as London Councils’ lead on community safety and violence against women and girls have taught me that victim-survivors are often doubly traumatised—they are first traumatised by the experience of their abuse, then retraumatised by a justice system that is opaque, difficult to navigate and, quite frankly, not built for them.
Sir John Hayes
There is a third trauma when a sentence that emanates from the court is unduly lenient. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Attorney General has the power to review unduly lenient sentences, but only within 28 days of the date of a sentence. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling for the length of time to be extended, in the name of victims?
Jas Athwal
Certainly, as somebody who stands for justice, I will always support anything that would make it stronger.
I welcome this Bill as a start to addressing the injustice that survivors face and a vital step in achieving our plan to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. Through the updated victim contact scheme and the new victim helpline, this Bill simplifies one aspect of the justice system that survivors must navigate. This single, harmonised scheme means that victim-survivors will have a clear route to requesting information about an offender’s release, should they want it, empowering those survivors.
Another welcome aspect of the Bill is the automatic restriction of parental responsibility for perpetrators of child sexual offences. Sexual violence against children is particularly vile and traumatising for families and survivors alike, with survivors taking an average of 22 years before they feel able to disclose their abuse. This Bill will prevent perpetrators from involvement in a child’s life, safeguarding children from further trauma and enabling them to start healing.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The hon. Member is talking about the length of time it can take for victims of sexual violence to get over their trauma and seek help. Does he agree that organisations such as Rape Crisis do absolutely vital work in helping survivors of sexual abuse and rape to move past what has happened? Does he also agree that it would be a fantastic improvement to the Bill if there was some national Government oversight of how much money is put into funding such victim services?
Jas Athwal
Certainly, coming from a local council that is strapped for cash, I agree with the hon. Member’s emphasis; we must look at that as we go forward.
The Bill will prevent perpetrators from being involved in a child’s life, safeguarding children from further trauma and enabling them to start healing. This new restriction is shamefully overdue. Our current system is not built for survivors; it is full of gaps and loopholes for predators, reflects society’s biases and is perilously hard to navigate. To truly centre survivors, the Bill should go further. The automatic restriction of parental responsibility should be extended so that if an individual abuses any child, not just their own, their parental rights are automatically removed. That would further safeguard children, saving families the vast personal and emotional cost of navigating the family court system and ultimately preventing the retraumatisation of survivors and their families.
I welcome the Government’s actions to begin building a justice system that finally centres survivors, rather than treating them like an afterthought, and I hope this Bill will empower those who have not been properly protected for so long. However, as we know, there is still so much further to go and so many more battles remain to be fought in order to prevent sexual violence and empower victim-survivors—online, in our schools, in our homes and on our streets. This Bill is a desperately needed first step, but it must be the beginning of our campaign to get justice for victim-survivors, not the end.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), and to Cheryl and her family for their fight for justice.
Having worked with both adult and child victims of traumatic abuse, I was glad to stand last year on a manifesto that committed to reforming the system to put the needs of victims first, and to ensure they get the support they need and deserve. This Bill is part of that mission. I am pleased that it strengthens victims’ rights, forces offenders to attend sentencing hearings, and empowers the Victims’ Commissioner to do more to stand up for victims and hold public bodies to account where there are failings. Nevertheless, there are three areas in which I believe we should go further and faster.
First, we know that victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence are faced with a postcode lottery when it comes to accessing specialist support. They are left at the mercy of the various budgetary decisions made by each area’s police and crime commissioner, local authority and health bodies.
Emily Darlington
What does my hon. Friend say to a police and crime commissioner, such as the one for Thames valley, who does not fund sexual abuse support services in Milton Keynes?
Jess Asato
I believe that all police and crime commissioners ought to fund those services—hopefully the Minister can respond to that point. It is clearly outrageous that any victim of sexual violence should be left without any service at all.
Where specialist domestic abuse services do exist, they are faced with a deeply precarious financial situation that is severely hampering the ability of victims to access the support they need. Fewer than half of victims and survivors are able to access the community-based support they want. Without that support, some victims may be unable to leave domestic abuse perpetrators, or may return to them when they find it too difficult to escape their controlling behaviour. In 2022, only 7% of victims who wanted their perpetrator to receive support to change their behaviour and stop reoffending were able to get that, and recent research undertaken by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has found that 27% of services are having to turn away child victims from vital support due to a lack of capacity.
For those reasons, I believe this legislation needs to include a statutory duty to commission specialist domestic abuse and sexual violence services based in the community for both adult and child victims. It is a stain on our nation that victims of the most unimaginable trauma do not have a right to support after abuse. A new statutory duty would also allow us to create parity with the accommodation-based services that were introduced by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, so that community-based services are given the same legislative protection.
Secondly, I believe that the parents and carers of victims of serious sexual and violent crimes also require support as third-party victims. A campaign on this issue has been led by Cath Pickles, the chief executive officer of Restitute, an amazing local charity that supports third-party victims. These crimes fracture families and support networks, and those who are left to care for primary victims often develop their own mental health issues and may even have to give up work. There are mothers who must face picking up the pieces after the sexual abuse of their child, and families who have to support domestic abuse victims as they fight for justice. We should look to include them in the scope of the support available to victims, because the impact of abuse does not just harm the primary victim, but can destroy the victim’s family too.
Finally, I recognise that we must not risk a very welcome step forward with potential legal challenges, but I believe we ought to look again having at a stricter definition for the purpose of depriving people of parental responsibility, especially where there is a risk to the child. Many will simply not comprehend how the serious sexual abuse of a child is compatible with the right to family life. What about the child’s right to live a life free from harm? I hope that the Government are willing to work with me, and with others, to tighten that aspect, among others that I have mentioned, as the Bill progresses through the House.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as a member of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Today marks a defining moment—a moment when we finally put victims at the heart of our justice system. For countless people in Bolton, that moment is long overdue. I am proud to support the Bill: proud because it empowers judges to compel offenders to attend their sentencing so that no victim is left speaking into a void; proud because it finally—finally!—removes parental rights from child sex offenders, something that I can hardly believe we are doing only now, in 2025; proud because it gives real power to the Victims’ Commissioner to demand answers, scrutinise the system and drive change; and proud because it will speed up justice and tear down needless barriers. Survivors deserve a system that works for them, not against them.
From conversations on doorsteps and from constituency surgeries, I know that far too many of my constituents have experienced domestic abuse and coercive control. That is why I have been working with those at Bolton’s frontline organisations, including Fortalice and Endeavour, who understand what is at stake and the difference that the Bill will make. Fortalice provides refuge and support for domestic abuse survivors. Its chief executive, Gill Smallwood, told me that it had received more than 400 referrals since January alone, and that the Bill would finally deliver the change that victims need. Gill told me that, right now, victims are left in the dark about bail conditions or release dates. The Bill will change that: it will allow victims, finally, to be kept informed by enabling them to nominate a trusted professional to receive updates, and to access information through a dedicated helpline.
Endeavour, another local charity, supports high-risk young people, black and minoritised survivors, and older victims. Its chief executive, Jill Caldwell, told me of a woman who had had to flee her home, job and support network, simply because she had not been told that her abuser had been released. The Bill would have prevented that. By guaranteeing victims the right to up-to-date information, we are ending uncertainty and removing the burden on victims to constantly chase, ask, call and email for updates. We are saying, “You deserve to know; you deserve to be safe; you deserve to be heard and to be reassured at a time of complete uncertainty, when you have already endured so much.”
The Bill is ambitious, but my constituents in Bolton need it to go further. Right now, 82% of domestic abuse victims never report the abuse, not because nothing happened but because they fear they will not be believed, and for those who do, the courtroom can become a second site of trauma. Time and again, constituents have told me about the misuse of “bad character” evidence, when a survivor’s past is wilfully distorted to discredit that person. That is not justice; it is re-victimisation. The Bill must change evidence standards so that no survivor’s trauma is ever twisted into testimony against them.
The Bill also gives us a long overdue chance to fix the way in which domestic abuse is handled in the family court system. I urge the ministerial team to go further, and to strengthen protections for the children of abusers. Survivors in my constituency are still forced into contact with abusers who intentionally exploit the legal process to maintain control. We know that the family court system was not built to withstand this kind of manipulation, and that abusers have learnt exactly how to weaponise that—and win. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—CAFCASS—relies on outdated, prejudiced views of what a family should look like, prioritising contact with both parents even when one has a proven history of domestic abuse. This antiquated policy prioritises the family unit over the child’s best interests, even when the cost is the child’s trust, stability and wellbeing, so the Bill must go further.
Finally, the Bill can end a quiet injustice: the punishing of women simply for surviving abuse.
I am proud that this Labour Government are putting power back into the hands of victims, and I fully support the Bill.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), the families of victims across this country who are here listening to us today, and the victims who are seeking justice through this Bill? I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her strong articulation of concerns about rape and domestic abuse, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her very strong speech. There have been some extremely passionate speeches today, with constituents’ views at their heart.
As a former police officer, I have seen the criminal justice system from both sides, and I can tell the House that it has fallen short in recent years—not just in prosecuting crime, but in supporting those who are most harmed by it. We have heard similar testimony today. This Bill is an important and necessary step towards restoring the principle that justice is not just about punishing offenders, important though that is. It is also about standing up for the most important part: victims. As I have said in Westminster Hall debates, justice delayed is justice denied. Given the previous Government’s record with regard to policing cuts, soaring court waiting times, the mismanagement of probation services and our prisons being left full, I am afraid the inheritance is dire, but this Government are trying to correct those mistakes. I will cover just three points, because I am conscious that other colleagues wish to speak.
On victims’ rights, it is absolutely correct that we should have reasonable ways of getting a perpetrator into a courtroom, but the Bill needs to go further; I would support audiovisual recording of such things. We do that for the Supreme Court, where people are able to see sentencing. With victims’ consent, justice for high-profile cases should be in the public domain. I urge the Government to go further by allowing the rest of society to see justice being served, as I think we are now reaching that point in our technological development.
I welcome the fact that the Bill grants victims a statutory right—not just a courtesy—to be kept informed and to have their voices heard during critical stages of the process. I also support granting enhanced powers to the Victims’ Commissioner. As someone who worked as a police officer, I know that antisocial behaviour, from nuisance biking to graffiti and persistent noise, is a major problem in many communities across the country. The Victims’ Commissioner will have the power to stand up to local councils and other bodies of authority on behalf of people who have less of a voice in society. I welcome that measure, because I believe that victims of antisocial behaviour should be treated the same as any other victim of crime.
I welcome the time limits for sentencing reviews, which the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned. He will be aware that the Bill extends those limits; if a review is received in the last 14 days of the existing 28-day period, there will be an additional 14 days to act. Could the Bill go further? Of course it could, but this is a welcome step none the less.
Lastly, I will discuss the court backlogs and the impacts on communities, which I have raised in Westminster Hall debates. I welcome the powers in the Bill to improve sentencing powers for six offences, including unlawful subletting, breaches of restraining orders and violation of criminal behaviour orders. We need to get the magistrates to step in and work with that.
In short, there is a lot in this Bill that we should support. I encourage colleagues to vote for it today.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
This Government were elected on a promise to deliver a justice system that puts the needs of victims first. I stood in my constituency to support our police to tackle crime, take back control of our town centre and crack down on antisocial behaviour. Today’s Bill, alongside the other landmark legislation introduced by this Government that I have voted for in this House, offers further progress on delivering on that mission for people in Mansfield. There are three parts of the Bill that I would like to highlight; they will be particularly welcomed in my constituency. First of all, there is the strengthening of the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. Under previous Governments, victims have too often been let down when navigating the criminal justice system, which has made them feel like an afterthought. It is encouraging to see victims at the centre of the Bill, which has been welcomed by victims’ organisations and charities. They recognise the legislation’s potential to make a meaningful difference.
Secondly, the Bill introduces the ability for judges to hand down sanctions to offenders who refuse to attend hearings, including a restriction on social visits and a longer sentence. There are numerous examples of murderers refusing to attend sentencing hearings, and that has led to recognition that we need to clarify the courts’ powers to compel attendance. We know that for some victims, the presence of the offender in court is extremely important for closure and resolution. I welcome the fact that the Bill will force criminals to understand and face up to the consequences of their crimes.
Sir John Hayes
At the risk of being repetitive, will the hon. Gentleman press, as I have done—I think the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) agreed with me—for lenient sentences to be dealt with more severely? That is, the Attorney General should have extra time to review those sentences. There is nothing worse for a victim than seeing the perpetrator of the crime given an unduly lenient sentence.
Steve Yemm
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important and salient point, and I thank him for raising it.
Thirdly, the Bill will place a duty on local authorities and social housing providers to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner on antisocial behaviour. I have spoken many times in Parliament about the need to do more to support the victims of antisocial behaviour in my constituency. Members will all know from their casework inbox that antisocial behaviour is not always a criminal justice matter, and that other agencies, such as local authorities and social housing providers, play an essential part in supporting victims. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the fact that the Bill will empower the Victims’ Commissioner to get the information needed to identify systemic issues, make informed recommendations and scrutinise how the system as a whole responds to that type of behaviour.
In conclusion, the Bill will ensure that the criminal justice system serves victims. The previous Government allowed the prison system to reach the point of collapse, and all too often, victims paid the price. By contrast, Labour is fixing that mess and reforming the social justice system. Today I will vote for this landmark legislation, because I know that its measures will be welcomed back home in my Mansfield constituency.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Every day, we Members hear from our constituents that victims of crime have been sidelined, and left to navigate a system that often feels indifferent to their suffering. My decision about what to raise in today’s debate stems from a conversation I had in my constituency surgery a few weeks ago with a constituent who has asked to remain anonymous.
My constituent told me of an abusive relationship that she was in, which resulted in the birth of a child. My constituent ended up in court in a custody battle over her child. In the trial, she was accused of refusing the father contact. She told me how that horrific experience made her feel. She felt that the court system was used as a form of abuse by her former partner. Her claim against him was dismissed as being her word against his, and she asked me to look again at parental rights in the context of abusive relationships. I also heard about a constituent—who, again, asked to remain anonymous—who had been beaten by their partner, who then gained full custody of their child. These are just two of hundreds of similar stories that I have heard, thousands of similar stories that my constituents could tell, and millions of similar stories that women and girls—and, indeed, men and boys—around the country could communicate to us.
We are looking again at these laws today. Under the Bill, courts will be used to empower victims, alleged perpetrators will be required to attend court hearings, the victim contact scheme will help victims to navigate the legal system and will have a dedicated helpline, and automatic parental rights will be restricted in cases of child sexual abuse, exactly as they should be.
The Bill also includes measures to address antisocial behaviour, a subject on which I have received lots of representations from constituents, as I am sure colleagues from across the House will have done. At my constituency surgery on Saturday morning, an individual talked me through the horrific death threats that he had been receiving daily from his neighbour, who spent hours a day screaming through the walls of their semi-detached home at my constituent and his family. This behaviour left my constituent afraid to leave his home. Under current regulations, ultimately nothing was done, and this behaviour began to let up only when the neighbour decided to move away of their own volition. That is not good enough.
When the system fails, it is the victims who suffer first and who suffer the most. They deserve better, and this Bill is a critical part of that better future. Today, let us send a message that the days of delay, denial and degradation are over, and that from now on, our justice system will put victims first.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to rise in support of the Government’s Victims and Courts Bill, an important and overdue piece of legislation that puts victims where they should always be: at the heart of our criminal justice system.
For too long, victims in towns such as Horwich, Westhoughton and Bolton in my constituency have been treated as bystanders—forgotten once the police investigation ends, let down by poor communication and denied a voice in the system that should be shaped to uphold their rights. I am pleased that the Bill will go some way to fixing those issues.
Indeed, the Bill will give the Victims’ Commissioner tools to better hold the system to account and stand up for victims, and therefore to deliver on this party’s manifesto commitment made at last year’s general election. In particular, I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s remarks on new powers for judges to compel offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. Too many families have watched in disbelief as those convicted of the most appalling crimes refuse to face the consequences of their actions in court. This legislation is about upholding dignity in the courtroom and giving victims the right to see justice done.
Crucially, the Bill will also help to tackle the interminable delays and appalling inequality of access to justice left by the Conservatives, after 14 years in power, for this Labour Government to sort out. It will remove legislative barriers that prevent qualified practitioners from being appointed Crown prosecutors, thereby making our system more efficient, flexible and, crucially, diverse. It will empower the CPS to recruit from a broader talent pool, ensuring that cases are prosecuted more swiftly and reducing unacceptable backlogs, enabling the Government to finally ensure quicker justice for my constituents in the magistrates court and the Crown court at Bolton.
Finally, I welcome the provisions in the Bill to close loopholes in the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which have been remarked on by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). The Bill will ensure that the Attorney General will always have at least 14 days to consider a referral, even if it is made at the end of the 28-day limit. These provisions will guarantee that victims and the public are not denied proper scrutiny of lenient sentences due to late submissions. This Bill is thoughtful, robust and, above all, victim-focused. I look forward to supporting it during its passage through this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Front-Bench speakers for the winding-up speeches. I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank Members from all parts of the House for their contributions to the debate. We have heard powerful speeches that reflect the deep importance of the Bill, and the heavy responsibility that we all carry for delivering justice not just in name, but in practice. Like others, I pay tribute to the campaigners who have joined us, whom I was privileged to meet briefly earlier, and who are in the Gallery. They have all campaigned on behalf of their loved ones—Sabina Nessa, Zara Aleena, Jan Mustafa and Olivia Pratt-Korbel. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her incredibly powerful contribution. To see Cheryl hear those words, knowing that they were going on the record, will have impacted so many Members today. I am sure that it will be something that Cheryl will never forget. We must not forget how difficult the campaigning has been. All campaigners have had to relive experiences and deal with the most unimaginable memories. They pay a very heavy price every time they have had to do that, and I thank them for it, and I know that other Members will do the same.
The Opposition welcome the intent behind this legislation. Measures to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings and to remove parental responsibility from serious child sex offenders were committed to, and work was begun on them, by the previous Government. The provisions to compel offenders to attend their sentencing hearings come after we have seen one too many disgraceful examples in recent years of the most serious and violent criminals hiding from justice, and from the pain that they have caused. That must end.
We welcome cross-party support on this matter, but at present, the Bill leaves out an important principle. The decision to require an offender’s attendance should fundamentally be driven by the wishes of the victims and their families. It is they who must live with the consequences of the crime, and they who should be at the centre of deciding whether the person who harmed them should be made to face them in court. Justice must not just be seen to be done, but should be shaped by those it seeks to serve. We will push for changes to this legislation during its future stages to ensure that is the case. We also want to make sure that the correct balance is struck on the use of force. The Prison Officers’ Association is clear: notwithstanding concerns about prison officers’ equipment, they will not resile from taking offenders to court. The legislation needs to ensure that only in the most exceptional circumstances does that not happen.
We have heard concerning stories about parents having to spend tens of thousands of pounds in court to remove parental rights from serious sexual offenders, and I welcome the fact that the previous Government planned legislation to begin addressing that. We welcome our shared desire to act on this issue, but the Minister will have heard campaigners’ concerns that the approach in the Bill does not cut it. I welcome the Minister’s public commitment to considering how to strengthen it.
Last year, when in opposition, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is sitting in the Gallery, supported an amendment for a much broader measure than the Government are proposing today. I encourage her to speak to her colleague on the Front Bench about how this measure falls short. The debate then was around whether the measure should apply to offenders perpetrating offences against any children, and about where to set the threshold. Our proposed measure was not perfect, but this measure is the worst of both worlds. It relates only those who have offended against their own children, and there is quite a high bar, in that they have to have been sentenced to at least four years. I think that we can do better than that.
We also welcome improvements to victims’ information rights and the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. That role, which has been maintained by Governments of all parties for a significant time now, is incredibly important. Baroness Newlove, the commissioner, will look closely at the Bill, and will support victims and campaigners in their efforts to ensure that it delivers. She has also consistently raised a possible source of funding—funding is always a challenge for every Government Department: unpaid victim surcharges. The £1 billion-plus might help fund some of the work that we want to do.
Although there are measures that we welcome, there are changes that are being trailed as measures for victims, but that are nothing of the sort, such as the changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which have caused confusion even in the Chamber among Labour Members; for example, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) seemed to think that these are measures for victims. The measure on the unduly lenient sentence scheme is nothing to do with victims.
A total of 14,000 people signed the petition for Sasha’s law, which was set up by campaigner Katie Brett, who is on the Justice for Victims group, in memory of her sister Sasha. If the House will forgive me, I will detail what happened to her sister. She was murdered in 2013. Aged just 16, she was raped and stabbed more than 100 times, and her body was set on fire. Katie and her family believe that her killer met the criteria for a whole-life order, but he was only given a minimum sentence of 35 years. Katie and her family did not know anything about the right of appeal, and even if they did, who really thinks most people are in the right state of mind to think about that sort of thing within 28 days of the sentence being passed? Katie is not alone. Ayse Hussein, another member of the campaign group who was also in the Gallery today, campaigns in memory of her cousin, Jan. Jan’s killer had raped, tortured and imprisoned various girls and young women, and also murdered Henriett Szucs and hid the bodies of both women in a freezer. He did not receive a whole-life sentence, and would probably leave prison one day. Again, her family knew nothing of the right to appeal.
When they saw that changes were to be made to the scheme, campaigners reasonably thought that the changes would extend the 28-day time limit for victims, but no: the Government want to give more time not to victims and families but to themselves. More time for Government means that they have longer to think about and reflect on these deeply personal and sensitive matters than victims will have. That is bordering on insulting, and I think the Minister will share my concerns. In Committee we will put forward amendments that require victims, not just the Government, to be given more time. I hope we will have the support of Labour Members who have committed today to supporting that measure, such as the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal).
We welcome the creation of a statutory right for victims to have information about an offender’s release, but we want to know how this will be delivered, who will staff the helplines, how victims will know their rights, and what exactly they will be told. For some time, the Victims’ Commissioner has raised the question of whether victims should get to know the specific release date.
Sir John Hayes
To be clear, the current situation allows victims 28 days for a referral, and the Bill extends the period for consideration to 14 days. What we want is for victims to have longer, and it seems absolutely right that that should happen. It would be a perfectly reasonable amendment for the Government to table in order to back victims. Is that really too much to ask?
Dr Mullan
My right hon. Friend has laid out the situation correctly. I counted three Labour Members in the Chamber today who already support such a measure. I look forward to them voting in support of an amendment along those lines given what they have said today, but I might not hold my breath.
Let us be clear that victims of crime need more than just the measures in the Bill. They need a criminal justice system that works and delivers justice swiftly, fairly and consistently. That is where the Bill falls short. When we were in government, we toughened up sentences for the worst criminals. We began the difficult task of unpicking automatic halfway early release for offenders, which was introduced by Labour. We quadrupled legal aid for victims and enshrined the victims code in law. We dedicated £230 million to our tackling domestic abuse plan, including a quadrupling of funding for victims and support services, and we introduced tagging of domestic abusers.
Labour Members made a lot of promises in opposition, including on measures in the Bill. It is now up to them to deliver. The Bill might tighten certain laws and improve the experience for some victims, but it fails to address the elephant in the room. It does nothing to tackle the fundamental problems that victims face every day when trying to access justice. For all the good the Bill may do, it does nothing to address the mounting pressures on our courts after the Government spent almost a year dragging their feet instead of doing everything they could to get the courts operating at maximum capacity. Even now the Lord Chancellor is not pulling every lever available when it comes to court sitting days, as the Lady Chief Justice has repeatedly asked her to do. The truth is that victims are still waiting months, sometimes years, for their cases to be heard. Trials collapse, and offenders walk free—none of that is fixed by this Bill. Being a victim of crime is life-changing. The very least a just society can do is ensure that victims are respected, protected and supported through the process.
We also urge the Government to commit to greater transparency across the criminal justice system. Without reliable data we cannot have accountability, and without accountability we cannot have reform. We will press for the regular publication of statistics on court and hearing delays, trial backlogs, court occupancy rates and administrative performance. Victims and the public alike have a right to understand where and why the system is falling short.
Although we will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, we will continue to work constructively to improve the legislation in important ways. We support many of its goals, but we will continue to ask the difficult questions: is it deliverable and enforceable, and will it actually make victims’ lives better as it intends? Let us make this legislation a genuine step towards a justice system that works better. Justice cannot be delayed, and it cannot be selective; it must be felt tangibly, fairly and swiftly by those who need it most. They deserve nothing less.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a true privilege to deliver the closing speech on Second Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill. I would like to start by paying tribute to the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, most of whom have been in the Gallery and whom I have had the privilege of getting to know over the past few months. As today’s debate has shown, the House agrees that justice is not optional. Criminals should never be allowed to hide away from it. I am grateful to all of the families for their tireless campaigning to bring forward measures on sentencing hearings. The changes are an important step forward for victims and a testament to their courage.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her very powerful words today. They were not just her words but the words of Cheryl Korbel, whose words will stay with me forever and whose words should have been heard by her daughter’s killer. This Bill is a legacy for Olivia and for all those who have been failed by the justice system.
As the Lord Chancellor has already outlined, this Bill has victims’ experience at its core. As the Victims Minister, it is an honour to meet victims and survivors every single day in this role. This Bill has been created with them at its heart. I echo the tribute from the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) to the Justice for Victims campaigners, who I have also had the privilege of meeting. Becky and Glenn Youens, Susan and Jeremy Everard, Katie Brett—whose story we have also powerfully heard from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan)—Paula Hudgell and Ayse Hussein, who is with us today, have all helped to change the law, and we owe them all a huge debt of thanks for that.
This Bill will make the justice system more efficient—it is a system, and it all needs to work for it to operate effectively—so that victims can begin to move on with their lives faster. I sincerely thank Members from all parties for the thoughtful, powerful, sometimes emotional, but mostly constructive way in which they have contributed to the debate today. Support and justice for victims should never be political. I stand here willing to work with anyone of any stripe and of any colour to make sure that we bring forward the strongest package available for victims.
The issues and the inheritance of our justice system have long been discussed in this place. It is well known to Members what a state our justice system was in when we came into office just 10 months ago, but this Government have begun to rebuild its foundations. This Bill will be just the beginning, not the end of our reform programme for victims. We have the independent review of our criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson. That will lead to a more effective and efficient criminal courts system, improving timeliness for victims, witnesses and defendants without jeopardising the requirement for a fair trial for all involved. We await the imminent outcome of David Gauke’s review into sentencing, which will address a number of the issues that Members have raised today.
Turning to some of the issues raised, I will respond first to my friend, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I am proud to work with him for victims in this place. He has always been constructive and is always seeking to do what is right. Although I cannot give him the commitment today, I am meeting him tomorrow morning, and we will hopefully have imminent news for him on a lot of the work we have been doing together. I also thank his fellow Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for all her work on court transcripts and specifically the pilot for sentencing remarks transcripts in cases of rape and serious sexual offences. Having spoken to victims and survivors, I know how vital that is for them. The pilot is due to end next week and we will soon be publishing our response and how we intend to take that forward. I look forward to speaking with her further on that soon.
Many Members spoke about the parental responsibility measures. I stress that the Government have heard the strength of feeling on this issue. Our focus must be on automatically restricting parental responsibility for offenders who have committed serious child sexual abuse offences—the most heinous crimes in society. We are taking that step today in this Bill for those who have committed these offences against a child for whom they personally hold parental responsibility, because we need to protect those in direct harm. I stress and echo the words of the Secretary of State that this is a novel and untested change in the law. The response from perpetrators is unpredictable, so we have chosen to focus first on cases of highest harm, because we do not want unintended consequences and we need to prioritise all vulnerable children who are going through the family courts. However, this is the beginning, as we have said, and we look forward to working constructively across the House on this measure.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I know that my hon. Friend cares deeply about this issue. In the course of the passage of the Bill, will the Government look at amendments that could see the family courts end the presumption of contact and ensure we end this cycle of abuse?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is a champion for the cause of protecting children going through the family courts, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), whose contribution today was equally powerful. Meeting her constituent Claire Throssell, and hearing the story of Jack and Paul, will stick with me forever. I think about that on a daily basis.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the family justice system delivers the right outcomes for survivors of domestic abuse and their children. We have heard loud and clear concerns in the Chamber and from outside on the need to go further. A child’s welfare must always be the family court’s paramount consideration when making decisions about that child’s life. The Ministry of Justice has undertaken a review on presumption of parental involvement, and its findings, along with any recommendations, will be published shortly. I look forward to working with hon. Members across the House, including my hon. Friends, on that soon.
Right hon. and hon. Members across the House made many comments about the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, welcoming measures in the Bill about extending the time limit for the Attorney General to look effectively at cases so that justice can be served. As they will know, the Law Commission is undertaking a review into the scheme as a whole, and I—and I am sure the Law Commission—would welcome their feedback on that. We will look closely at the findings of that review to ensure that any recommendations are carried out effectively.
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way—by the way, I have always liked her. I take at face value what she has said. Will that Law Commission review be in time to amend the Bill? That is key. If it will not be on time, how can we handle that?
Alex Davies-Jones
It is important to look at any Law Commission recommendations properly and effectively. Of course there will be time, because we are in the first year of a five-year Parliament and this will not be the Ministry of Justice’s only Bill. As I have said, the justice system that we inherited from the previous Government was in crisis, and we are beginning to put it back piece by piece, starting with our prisons, our courts, our victim support and family courts, looking at the system as a whole. Further legislative vehicles will come forward from the Ministry of Justice where recommendations that have been reviewed could be adopted.
I know that we are short on time, but I want to turn to the comments made by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) about the IICSA. I will put it on the record again—I think it needs to be said—that the Government are absolutely focused on delivering meaningful change for victims impacted by these horrendous crimes. Earlier this year, we published our plan for responding to the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse through the Crime and Policing Bill, on which I am proud also to be a Minister. We are strengthening the law by introducing a mandatory reporting duty to make it an offence to fail to report or to cover up child sexual abuse. We are also legislating in that Bill to make grooming a statutory aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offences to ensure that that behaviour is reflected in the sentencing of perpetrators.
We also plan to legislate to remove the three-year limit for compensation claims and shift the burden of proof from victims to defendants in the civil courts, as well as amend the law of apologies to encourage employers to apologise to people wronged by their employees. A legislative vehicle is currently being identified for that measure. I stress again that the Government are getting on with the job of delivering for those victims and survivors. We are not delaying; we are actively working at pace to ensure that justice will be served and support is available.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) raised the case of Rhianon Bragg. Again, I was proud to have the opportunity to meet Rhianon and to discuss her case. Through the Bill, we will be strengthening the victim notification scheme and opening it up to more victims, ensuring that timely communication is available. Victims have told me time and again that that is needed; this change will be testament to that. On her calls for Wales, she will know that, as a proud Welsh MP, I will always stand up for Wales and for Pontypridd. A justice system that covers England and Wales robustly is important, and I will ensure that it is there. I will meet the Welsh Government soon to feed back her specific concerns.
A number of colleagues mentioned bad character evidence. They will be aware that the Law Commission is looking into that, and we will carefully consider its recommendations. I stress again that I am willing to work constructively with right hon. and hon. Members on all the issues that have been raised. The Bill is one of many legislative vehicles that we will have.
The Bill stands before us as a legacy for the victims and survivors that I have had the honour of meeting in my 10 months in this role. These changes are long overdue. They will strengthen our justice system and help deliver the accountability and service that victims of crime want and deserve. I urge the House to give them its full support. I stand ready to work with everyone on that. I proudly commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Victims and Courts Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Victims and Courts Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 26 June 2025.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.
Victims and Courts Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Victims and Courts Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.
School Buildings: Northumberland and Newcastle
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I am glad to have secured this important debate and to see the Members who have stayed in the Chamber and who share my concerns about the conditions of school buildings in Northumberland, in Newcastle and across the country. Speaking on the conditions of school buildings and the education of our young people should not be used for political gain or for making cheap political points—to be clear, I am not here to do that.
I regularly visit schools throughout my constituency. Despite being schools in the largest geographical constituency in England, they are all united by a clear, overarching similarity: the dedication of teachers and staff to ensuring that their students can access the best possible education and resources. From Queen Elizabeth high school to the Sele first school to Hexham middle school and Longhorsley St Helen’s Church of England first school, the list goes on. There is an unwavering strength of community throughout the local schools, fostered by the teachers, the parents, the staff and the students, and it is a testament to the constituency that the region I represent cares so much about the future of our young people.
When we invest in the condition of our schools, we are not just fixing buildings and infrastructure; we are investing in the education of our students and the future of our young people, creating a secure learning environment that should allow all students to reach their full potential. Unfortunately for students of Prudhoe community high school in my constituency, those young people have been let down.
In February, mere months before students were set to sit their GCSE and A-level examinations, structural engineers discovered cracks that threatened the safety of students, staff and teachers. As a result, the school was closed while investigations were conducted. It is testament to the strength of Prudhoe’s community, to the staff and headteacher Annemarie Moore, and to the Cheviot Learning Trust that students have been successfully relocated, with minimal disruption, to a building in Washington.
Relocating IT equipment, removing furniture, and launching cleaning and repairs is no small feat, and I commend everyone involved for their dedication to Prudhoe’s students and to finding the most appropriate location for them to continue their education in what must be some very trying circumstances. I think back to my own experience of doing GCSEs and A-levels not that long ago. It was challenging enough to do them in a school that was great as it was. It is another thing to imagine doing that with the stress and while losing all that time on the bus every week.
Although everyone accepts that the best outcome would have been for students to go back into school to receive their education on site, that simply would not have been safe. I commend the Department for Education for the hard work, support and reassurance that it has provided to the students, teachers, parents and staff every step of the way. However, the situation raises an urgent question: how can a school built less than nine years ago, under the previous Government, be closed due to cracks in the building’s infrastructure? There is one clear answer to me: the blatant disregard of the previous Government for my constituency’s community. The Conservative Government had launched the priority school building programme with the intention of
“rebuilding and refurbishing school buildings in the worst condition across the country.”
They appear to have achieved what could be described as the opposite.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this matter for debate. I spoke to him this afternoon to seek his permission to intervene on him tonight, and he has given me that opportunity.
He is right to highlight the issue of schools and their importance. The most important thing about schools is the children—the pupils—as he has clearly outlined. When a school is only eight or nine years old, there should be a warranty that covers all eventualities. The hon. Gentleman might be coming to that and to telling us where the warranty works and does not work. I would expect, as I am sure he would if he had a house with a warranty on it, that there would be substantial cover to ensure that the school could be repaired and that the children could get back there—because that is the most important thing: the children.
Joe Morris
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: the most important thing is the children. This is about the children of Prudhoe and the whole community. If he ever has the opportunity to visit Prudhoe community high school, which I hope he does, he will see the most extraordinary set of students, and staff who are desperate to get their children back on site and back into learning. PCHS was where my mum went to school, so I have a very personal link to it. I have spoken to the headteacher multiple times about making sure that we get those students back on site with the correct support that is needed, so I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech—he is clearly a passionate advocate for his schools in Northumberland. Another school in Northumberland is Berwick Academy, which was Berwick community high school until it became an academy in 2011. Over the years it has been good, but it now requires improvement. In terms of its physical condition, unfortunately the students’ toilets now have black mould, which—he was talking about the previous Government—is a terrible failing. We are still waiting on the plan to rebuild that school. In 2021 the county council had a plan to rebuild it, but we are still waiting on an outline business case. Does he agree that these are just not good enough standards for our students, for our parents and for our community as a whole in Northumberland?
Joe Morris
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his constituency and for the north of the county. Too often schools in Northumberland have been victims of the mañana attitude of Northumberland county council. For far too long, whether it is on this or on SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—transport, the council has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to issues affecting the children of Northumberland.
The structural issues at the school have damaged not only the community but the children’s education. One thing that really stuck out to me was a quote from a former Conservative Education Minister saying that those schools were built
“one third cheaper per square metre on average than schools built under the Building Schools for the Future Programme”,
which was Labour’s flagship programme. Educational services should not just be used for political gain when our country and our county’s young people depend on them. The students of Prudhoe deserve and need a safe place to continue their education. They need it in the short term, and they need it in the long term.
When a report was leaked to The Observer that a senior official at the Department for Education had described the “upcoming risk” three years ago that many schools were in such disrepair that they were a “risk to life”, I do not believe that a newly rebuilt community high school in Prudhoe was one of the ones at the top of their minds. The school’s facilities were described as fantastic when it reopened, and they were a welcome investment, but it is clear that something has gone seriously wrong. I completely take the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the need to look at a warranty. For my generation, a warranty is something we consider for a mobile phone, not a public institution like a school, but clearly something needs to be done.
I would really like the Minister to reflect on what can be done to investigate how this went so badly wrong and how this community was let down, because the students of PCHS deserve nothing more. They deserve better. They deserve, at the very least, an apology. To experience a school closing for an indeterminate period of time is a disruption that no student should have to experience. It uproots lives, derails routine and destabilises students. No child should have to go through this. No parent should be forced to watch their child go through this. As the hon. Member for Strangford indicated, school is not just a building where children learn; it is a building where children should feel safe, supported and at home.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I have had a visit today from students at St Wilfrid’s school in Branton—the 17th, of the 43 schools in my constituency, that I have seen or visited—and they spoke about the fabric of the school, and of the importance of the buildings to ensuring not just that students have the right learning environment, but that teachers, parents and the community can feel proud to have a place where children can thrive. The fabric of the building is really important for education. Would my hon. Friend agree that we need to do something for all schools across the country to ensure that their fabric is maintained and looked after?
Joe Morris
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Like him, I have done my best to visit as many schools in the constituency as I can—having said that, I can feel letters coming in from headteachers to suggest that I have not yet got around to visiting. The fabric of the schools is important. Ensuring that schools feel invested in is important, whether they are the smaller schools in my constituency like Kielder, which is incredibly small and has a tightly focused and tight-knit group of young people and staff, or some of the larger schools—or, indeed, some of the schools out of my constituency, in Newcastle, attended by some children from Callerton and Throckley.
Some of the damage done to the community in Prudhoe is due to the feeling that they were led up the garden path. Prudhoe is an incredible community. It is one of the shining lights of the Tyne valley. It is one of the best places to visit, and to be, in my constituency, although all towns in the Tyne valley are excellent. It deserves so much more—it deserves a Rolls-Royce of a school—but not only was the last Labour Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme scrapped; the replacement programme appears poorly crafted at best.
I want briefly to mention another school in my constituency. Haydon Bridge high school has a dedicated teaching force and a headteacher, in David Nisbet, who works tirelessly for his community and is focused on innovative ways of improving the school, on employability, on moving forward and improving outcomes for students. I do not want to mislead the House, but I believe the school serves a catchment area larger than the M25. The challenges for such a rural school are massive. I visited the school fairly recently and we discussed some of the challenges it faced, including getting adequate funds and support. It did get some minor investment under the last Government, which is obviously welcome—don’t get me wrong—but it did not touch the sides of what was needed. I would like to see Northumberland county council do something about the state of the toilets in that school, which the headteacher told me was the No. 1 issue raised by the student voice. These are little things that could be done; it is a council-maintained school, and the council should step in and take action.
There is a list of inadequacies in the backing provided to those schools—I could go on. How could these conditions for a school building, and inadequate investment, possibly foster an educational environment that helps students to reach their full potential? I want to draw attention to the work of the RISE programme. I had some correspondence with the head of Haydon Bridge, who recognised that the contextual support that Haydon Bridge high school is now getting—that is mindful of its hyper-rural, hyper-sparsely populated location—is welcome. That contextual support, in relation to schools’ structural elements and the socioeconomic make-up of their student bodies, is necessary.
What I have been saying is applicable not just to PCHS and Haydon Bridge high school, but to every school building throughout Northumberland, Newcastle and the north-east that was on the receiving end of 14 years of Conservative neglect. Throughout my constituency, we have wonderful teachers who adapt to the diverse needs of the communities they teach, from the western edge of Newcastle and places like Throckley, and the towns and villages of the Tyne valley, to the most remote communities in the Allen valleys and north Tyne. All those teachers are striving to ensure that their pupils have the best possible start in life. It is only right that their dedication and hard work is delivered in buildings that are fit for the present and for the future.
I will continue to speak up for our young people to ensure that they access not only the education they need, but the education they deserve. I will continue to give a voice to Northumberland, Newcastle and the north-east more broadly. Chronic underfunding, deliberate neglect and thoughtless oversight is what the Conservative contempt for the west of Northumberland brought during 100 years of domination, but that needs to end with this Labour Government.
I once again thank the Department for Education for their dedication and commitment to supporting the community of Prudhoe; I thank Sunderland College for its gracious hospitality in hosting the staff and students of Prudhoe community high school in its Washington campus; and I thank the teachers and staff of PCHS for doing everything they possibly could so students could continue accessing their education, and for reassuring parents during a very difficult transition. Most of all, I pay tribute to the community of Prudhoe and to the councillors who have worked particularly hard, including Angie Scott and Lawrence O’Donnell, who have been fantastic voices for their community during a fraught time.
I am grateful for those who did not jump in and immediately seek to politicise the matter or score points when the news about Prudhoe community high school first broke. Although it is important that we look at this situation in context and at the damage done by the poor decisions made by the previous Government, this is not about scoring points; it is about getting a fair deal for a community that has suffered for too long. It is time that the previous Government are held to account for their failure and neglect, and that starts with what happened to the students and staff at Prudhoe community high school.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) for securing a debate on this important subject. I know that he is a tireless champion for children and young people in his constituency, and a strong voice on the matters that he has raised. I also thank all Members who have contributed through interventions.
Education is at the heart of this Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity and give every young person the best start in life, no matter their background. Fourteen years after the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme, this Government inherited a school estate in dire need of repair. We are committed to fixing the foundations for staff and pupils, and determined to drive high and rising education standards for children across the country. That is why we protected key education priorities at the Budget, increasing investment this financial year to £2.1 billion to improve the condition of school buildings —up from £1.8 billion last year—and have committed to continuing the current school rebuilding programme.
We are driving forward that programme, including for five schools and colleges in Northumberland and Newcastle. Starting this April, we are kicking off work on 100 school rebuilding projects and ramping up the pace of delivery, backed by £1.4 billion this year, in recognition of the urgent need to improve the condition of school buildings. We are funding the permanent removal of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in schools and colleges across England, working directly with affected schools on plans to suit individual needs.
We support local authorities, academy trusts and voluntary aided school bodies, which are responsible for keeping their buildings safe and in good working order, by providing capital funding, rebuilding programmes, and extensive guidance and support. They work with their schools on a day-to-day basis and are best placed to manage their buildings, with local knowledge of individual condition, need and priorities. Where the Department for Education is notified of a significant safety issue with a school building that cannot be managed with local resources, we provide additional advice and support on a case-by-case basis. We want all schools and colleges to have the resources and buildings that they need to give our young people the freedom to learn in safe, high-quality environments.
On the specific points raised by my hon. Friend, I appreciate the significant disruption and challenges that the Prudhoe community high school building closure has caused for everyone involved. The safety of pupils and staff is paramount. We have been providing advice and support to the responsible body since we were made aware of the building issues that led to the decision by the trust to close the school in February 2025. We have worked closely with the school trust to identify alternative accommodation options to return pupils to face-to-face education as quickly as possible. All pupils were relocated to the Sunderland College Washington campus, as a whole school community, and resumed face-to-face education from 31 March. I can assure him that our priority and focus remain to return pupils to education on the school site as soon as possible.
I am aware that the school was built as part of the priority school building programme in 2016, as my hon. Friend identified. From our own investigations, we understand that the issue is an isolated one. We are working closely with the trust as its investigations continue into the cause of the problem as a matter of priority. We will continue to work with the trust on remediation options to enable a return to the school site.
We are a mission-led Government, dedicated to breaking down the barriers to opportunity and giving every child the best start in life. We cannot do that without well-maintained buildings in which children and young people can learn safely. That is why we have recently published our school estate management standards, gathering in one place links to key policies, processes and practical advice on the basics of managing a school estate, to help the bodies that manage school buildings daily to progress to fully effective practice. Driving high and rising school standards is at the heart of our plan for change to improve children’s life chances, and high-quality, sustainable buildings are a key part of that. For too long our school estate has been neglected. This Government are gripping that issue and ensuring that school buildings are fit for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 23 April. Before outlining the provisions, I will briefly provide some context. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning—OPRED—minimises the offshore sector’s impact on the environment by controlling air emissions and discharges to sea, and by reducing disturbance over the life cycle of operations, from seismic surveys through to post-decommissioning monitoring.
OPRED recoups the eligible costs of its regulatory functions from industry in the oil and gas offshore sector, to which I shall refer as the offshore sector, rather than from the taxpayer. OPRED’s recoverable costs are covered in two ways: first, by using the fees regulations; and secondly, by five charging schemes that do not require legislative change and will be amended administratively.
OPRED’s annual fees income is around £6.7 million, recovered from about 100 companies. Currently, the fees that it charges are based on hourly rates of £201 for environmental specialists and £104 for non-specialists. Environmental specialists are technical staff who carry out the functions of the Secretary of State, and non-specialists are support staff.
The current hourly rates have been in force since June 2022. Having reviewed the cost base, OPRED concluded that the existing rates need to be revised to reflect today’s costs for regulatory services. The fees regulations will therefore amend the charging provisions by increasing the hourly rate to £210 for environmental specialists and to £114 for non-specialists. OPRED’s fees are determined by adding the recorded number of hours worked per person on cost-recoverable activities and multiplying them by the hourly rates for environmental specialists and non-specialists, respectively.
The new hourly rates were approved by His Majesty’s Treasury in December 2024 and were calculated in line with the Treasury’s “Managing public money” guidance. They cover the expenditure on all resources used by OPRED to support its activities, such as staff salaries, accommodation, IT and legal services. There is no formal requirement to consult on the proposed changes. However, OPRED informed the offshore sector of the planned revisions to the hourly rates in February 2025, and no representations were received. OPRED’s fees regime guidance will be revised to reflect the new hourly rates.
I conclude by emphasising that this revision to the hourly rates will allow OPRED to recover the eligible costs of providing regulatory services from those who benefit from them, rather than passing on the costs to the taxpayer. I hope that hon. Members will support this measure, and I commend the draft fees regulations to the Committee.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Murrison. I am pleased to respond to the draft regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. This legislation, as we have just heard, will increase the hourly rate of fees charged under environmental regulations related to the offshore oil and gas industry. There may not be an impact assessment for this specific change, but it is part of a broader shift in energy policy that is increasing costs and threatening the viability of our offshore industries.
It is, I am afraid, economic madness to refuse to issue new licences in the North sea and to tax the oil and gas sector out of existence. Doing so only makes us more dependent on dirtier foreign imports—imported liquefied natural gas produces four times the emissions of North sea oil and gas. It also puts around 120,000 jobs at risk and will lead to less revenue for the Exchequer in the long run, at a time when the public finances are under strain.
I invite the Minister to see the madness of that approach. We are refusing to drill for our own natural resources while importing Norwegian oil and gas drilled from the very same seabed, impoverishing ourselves and enriching the Norwegians. The company profits, the jobs, the prosperity and security, the tax revenues—it all goes to Norway when it could be ours. It is surely no coincidence that we now have the highest industrial energy prices in Europe, while data published yesterday shows that the output of our energy-intensive industries has fallen to a 35-year low.
Removing oil and gas from the equation is an ideological and destructive move. It does not serve our national interest or help our struggling industries. The Government should be much more hard-headed about their approach to energy. Lower prices, more jobs, higher growth and stronger revenue, not ideology, should be the objectives. Instead, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is driving us towards economic and national decline.
Sarah Jones
Although it was unclear, I think the Opposition support these regulations. If they do, I am grateful. We do not need to replay the arguments about the dash to clean power, which is the only way to bring down our energy costs in the long term. We do not need to rehearse the fact that the North sea is a declining basin that has seen 70,000 job losses over the last few years.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Given the Government’s best case is that the UK economy will import gas, particularly from Norway, until 2050 and beyond, does the Minister not concede that, since we are going to be using gas, it would be better for our balance of payments if we produced that gas in this country, even from a declining basin?
Sarah Jones
Gas is still being produced in this country, and that will continue for many years to come, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We could rehearse these arguments, but I am not sure they are pertinent to these draft regulations. I will just celebrate the fact that we are now the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and that the economy, more broadly, is on the up—long may that continue. I thank the Opposition for their support for the draft regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Newcastle United Carabao Cup Win
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eleventh sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk and to switch electronic devices to silent, please. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Interventions are taken at the discretion of the Member who has the Floor and they should be short and pithy. Members may bob to make another speech if they want to speak at greater length.
Clause 79
Areas for development and remit
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. We have now reached part 4 of the Bill, which concerns development corporations. Among other reforms, the Government are clear that boosting housing supply requires renewed focus on building large-scale new communities across England. Development corporations are statutory bodies established for the purpose of urban development and regeneration. They are important vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. The four clauses in this part are designed to create a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework for their operation.
Clause 79 strengthens development corporations by providing greater clarity and flexibility for them in terms of the variety, extent and types of geographical area over which they can operate. That will ensure that development corporations can be used to respond to site-specific challenges, without having to retrofit the scope of the project to match the development corporation model used. The changes are necessary to ensure that development corporations are suitable for modern development needs. They will enable delivery of more large-scale developments, including consented sites that have been stuck in the system for far too long. They will be vital to the delivery of new large-scale projects, such as the new generation of new towns to which the Government are committed.
Existing legislation provides for five types of development corporation. It is probably worth mentioning them to aid our deliberations: the new town development corporation, the urban development corporation, the mayoral development corporation, the locally-led new town development corporation and the new locally-led urban development corporation, which was introduced in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and is subject to the commencement of its provisions.
Clause 79 clarifies that new town development corporations can deliver urban extensions—expansions of existing urban sites—and that new town development corporations and urban development corporations can develop brownfield and greenfield sites. The clause also expands the remit of mayoral development corporations so that they can be used to deliver new settlements, including on greenfield sites, as well as urban regeneration projects. That will ensure that mayors have the right powers to deliver the range of places their communities need.
Finally, the clause creates maximum application and flexibility for new town development corporations by allowing separate, non-contiguous parcels of land to be designated for development, aligning NTDCs with the other development corporation models. A single new town development corporation will also be able to oversee the laying out of more than one new town site.
By making the legislative framework clearer and more flexible, the reforms will facilitate the use of development corporations and therefore unlock more sites for development, further supporting the Government’s growth mission and the delivery of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I welcome these measures to make development corporations fit for purpose. In my constituency, as members of the Committee may know, Ebbsfleet development corporation is building Ebbsfleet garden city. That experience shows how important it is that we align infrastructure delivery with housing growth to ensure that communities are supported from day one with everything that they need to live full and healthy lives. I welcome the clause. Development corporations outside Ebbsfleet, across the country, are an extremely important tool to get the right, well-balanced developments planned and built, so that they become communities. The clauses in part 4 give development corporations the flexibility to adapt, each one to a unique circumstance.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister to come back on if possible. First, given that development corporations are time-limited, what consideration has been given to the need for them to plan for their legacy, and to how their newly-built amenities will be catered for after closure, especially given the financial challenges faced by local government? Secondly, I know there is some desire in the sector for development corporations to have an explicit aim to provide upskilling and training for local residents, so that the economic benefits of their work can be shared across the local area. Have the Government looked at that, or might they consider looking at that in future?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for those questions. To be clear, the purpose of the clause is to ensure clarity around the remit and functions of development corporations. I understand his points about legacy and the wider contributions that development corporations can make, not least to construction and other skills areas. I am happy to take those up with him outside the Committee and to provide full responses on those points, but they are slightly outside the scope of this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 79 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Duties to have regard to sustainable development and climate change
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 80 seeks to ensure that all types of development corporation must aim to contribute to sustainable development, climate change mitigation and adaption, and good design. The delivery of large-scale development and regeneration projects is vital to boost the housing supply, as I just mentioned. We must ensure, however, that large-scale new communities are delivered sustainably, with care for our climate, and that they have good design and quality at their heart.
Currently, only new town development corporations are required to aim to contribute to sustainable development and have regard to the desirability of good design. The current legislative framework does not require any development corporation model to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaption. Clause 80 will change that by amending current legislation to ensure that all development corporations must aim to contribute to sustainable development, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and good design.
Through the changes, we will create certainty for local communities that development corporations working in their areas will put sustainable development, climate change, and good design at the heart of delivery. I commend the simple, straightforward and, I hope, uncontroversial clause to the Committee.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I want to express my absolute support for this clause. I chair the all-party parliamentary water group and the APPG for sustainable flood and drought management, and prior to my time in this place, I worked in the world of design and engineering around the climate, so this is an important issue for me. I support sustainable urban drainage systems, especially after this April and May, as it looks like we will have had the driest spring in 100 years. We need to consider what we are doing on developments about drought, with grey water recycling, and we need to look at how we address future flood risk and build resilience in new towns—and existing ones as well. I am happy to see this measure in the Bill.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I, too, rise to support this clause, but I note that here we will mitigate “and” adapt to climate change, whereas in the spatial development strategies, we will mitigate “or” adapt to climate change. Without wishing to nit-pick, I feel that point needs to be made.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not rehearse our previous debate, in which I was clear that the Government’s intention, and what the Bill delivers, on spatial development strategies does account for mitigation and adaptation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for their support of this clause.
This clause is important because, in some cases, development corporations taking on planning powers will already be subject to such duties, but we know that not every development corporation will take on planning powers. Some will have a major role to play in development through master planning, for example, and we want to cater for all eventualities. It is therefore essential that development corporations are subject to the duties in this clause, independent of whether they take planning powers, to cater for the full range of uses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 80 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 81
Powers in relation to infrastructure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 81 primarily seeks to standardise the list of infrastructure that development corporations can deliver to be in line with that of mayoral development corporations. The co-ordination of infrastructure with large-scale property development is essential. However, the current legislation is inconsistent concerning the types of infrastructure that different development corporation models can provide, creating unnecessary uncertainty.
In particular, the existing legislation sets out a long list of infrastructure that mayoral development corporations can provide, but the same list is not currently applied to new town and urban development corporations. Clause 81 addresses that by standardising the list of infrastructure that development corporations can provide. It also goes further in adding heat networks to the list. This recognises heat as a distinct utility, alongside others such as water, gas and electricity. The addition of heat networks will also empower development corporations in their aims with respect to sustainable development and climate change, a point that we have just debated.
Existing legislation also places unnecessary restrictions on new town development corporations to deliver transport infrastructure. Clause 81 therefore removes the restriction on new town development corporations so that they can provide railways, light railways and tramways. No other type of development corporation is subject to this restriction, and provision of sustainable transport systems is vital to delivering large-scale developments. These measures will ensure that development corporations are on an equal footing to deliver the infrastructure to unlock more sites and co-ordinate more housing infrastructure and transport in the public interest. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It is good to see the Minister and all members of the Committee here again; I have déjà vu, but we are still happy, aren’t we? [Interruption.] “Speak for yourself,” the Minister says.
We generally welcome the powers in relation to infrastructure in clause 81. I particularly welcome what the Minister said about removing restrictions to deliver infrastructure such as trams. That is a welcome move to deliver for those of us who have had constantly had frustrations at the lack of ability to get that infrastructure, but I would like to ask a few questions. Having said that, I deem that the clause does not account for the varying needs and characteristics of different regions. Can he reassure the Committee about the effective standardisation that he is promoting?
We do not necessarily have an argument with it, but we would like to examine the checks and balances in the consultation element of what the Minister is proposing to ensure that there is not a one-size-fits-all model. Even though I know that is what standardisation aims to do, I hope he would accept that in varying regions, with the wants and needs of different communities, that may not be appropriate at all times. Will he outline the checks and balances and how that could be varied according to the needs of local communities? Other than that, the Opposition welcome the clause and the Minister’s commitment to infrastructure.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that question. I think it raises a slightly wider debate than the provisions of the clause and their purposive effect, but he raises a valuable point. Decisions to designate and grant powers to a development corporation must be made via regulations. They are subject to statutory consultation and are carefully made with consideration given to issues of oversight and governance. The particular model selected in a particular area will be chosen by the relevant parties on the basis that it is the model that best suits what they are trying to achieve.
I take the shadow Minister’s point about regional variation in the sense that all this clause does is standardise the list of infrastructure that can be provided by development corporations of all types, making it equal to the existing list that applies to mayoral development corporations. It is a simple simplification to ensure standardisation across the infrastructure that can be provided across all models.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
Exercise of transport functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 82 seeks to introduce a new duty for relevant local transport authorities to co-operate with development corporations in the development and implementation of their plans, Too often developments are not co-ordinated with the transport infrastructure needed to service existing and new communities. That has detrimental impacts on quality of life, productivity and economic growth. Development corporations cannot currently take on local transport powers. As a result, there can be significant delays and barriers to delivering essential transport infrastructure, particularly where local transport authorities are unaligned with the plans of development corporations. Clause 82 will therefore place a duty of co-operation on local transport authorities to ensure that sites delivered by development corporations include the necessary transport infrastructure and are seamlessly integrated into the wider spatial plan for the area.
Local transport authorities must have regard to the plans of development corporations and co-operate in the development and implementation of their plans. Where that duty is not fulfilled—resulting, for example, in a failure to produce key outputs in an agreed timeframe or transport provisions being blocked and impacting growth potential—the Secretary of State will have a new power to direct relevant local transport authorities. Where the direction is not complied with, and as a last resort, the Secretary of State will have the new power to transfer specific transport functions from local transport authorities to the development corporation in question.
In addition to transport planning functions, the transfer may also include specific property rights and liabilities—for example, in instances where the development corporation needs to undertake upgrades to existing highways within its red line area. Any such transfer will be made by regulations and in relation to the development corporation’s red line area. The measures are intended to increase co-operation while ensuring that development corporations can ultimately deliver necessary transport infrastructure in a timely manner. I want to be very clear: our preferred approach is for the development corporation to work with the local transport authority in the first instance. The measures are therefore escalatory and will be used only as a last resort. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to transport infrastructure. We have had disagreements on other parts of the Bill that we have discussed in previous sittings, and no doubt we will in this afternoon’s sitting on the new clauses, but I think this part of the Bill genuinely tries to reform models to make sure that transport infrastructure, which is often controversial, is delivered. We welcome his commitment and foresight in that.
The clause aims to address, as we know, the co-ordination issues between development corporations and fragmented local transport authorities by placing the statutory duty of co-operation on the latter. Although the intention to improve alignment between housing and transport planning is welcome, I have a couple of questions about its practical impact and enforceability. None of the questions comes from a place of criticising or carping; they are to get genuine clarification for Opposition Members. By simply requiring transport authorities to “have regard to” and “co-operate” with development corporations, does the Minister not have a concern that the plans may not be sufficient to ensure meaningful collaboration? The terms are legally vague and may result in only minimal compliance. He has said that it is escalatory, but I wonder whether the clause needs to be slightly strengthened, in terms of “have regard to” and “co-operate”.
The clause stops short of granting development corporations any direct transport powers. That may be a fundamental disagreement between us, if the Minister does not believe they should have those powers, but we have a concern about the good intentions not being delivered on because of that collaboration and “having regard to”. Other than that, we welcome the clause, which will make a huge difference in delivering the fundamental change that we need in regional and local communities.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Ms Jardine. I welcome the clause. In the area where I live in Warwickshire, public transport is woeful, which means that children and young people are left behind because they cannot access school and college facilities. It also means that people are reluctant to make a trip to the hospital because they simply cannot get there.
The clause means that young people can have aspirations for their future and live in communities that are connected. The powers will be very welcome in areas like mine where transport authorities seem reluctant to fulfil their functions. I really welcome it.
Jim Dickson
I also very much welcome the clause, which rectifies the fragmentation of housing and transport and therefore the inability to co-ordinate them. It will be hugely important to the new towns that the Government are planning in order to fulfil our housing targets.
I have one query for the Minister. The clause covers local transport authorities and their relationship with development corporations. Did he consider including a provision on the relationship between development corporations and national transport bodies such as National Highways? I can foresee situations in which co-operation between those bodies will be necessary to achieve the aims of the development corporation. In such a situation, would he use powers to ensure that National Highways co-operates with the development corporation, or at least broker the conversation to enable that to happen?
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the support for the clause that hon. Members have indicated. The integration of transport infrastructure and its timely delivery are essential to delivering large-scale urban developments, and that is what the clause will facilitate.
The shadow Minister and others asked me whether the wording is sufficient to deliver the objectives of the clause. I will reflect on that, as I always do, but we are clear that introducing a duty on local transport authorities to have regard to and co-operate with development corporations—this is our preferred approach in the instance—will facilitate co-operation. Each development corporation will respond to particular and localised delivery challenges, with differences in transport requirements for each development, so it is not possible to specify the nature of the co-operation required in all cases.
In practical terms, officials in my Department will support the development corporation to have those conversations with local transport authorities, try to get a shared understanding and resolve transport challenges in particular circumstances. As a necessary minimum, we will expect local transport authorities to engage constructively with the development corporation’s plans for transport delivery and not unduly block the delivery of transport infrastructure that is necessary to unlock growth in the red line area.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I support this clause on development corporations and transport. NHS and healthcare services in the new development corporations are also vital, so why did the Government not include a clause that would make local NHS trusts behave in the way that the Minister wants transport authorities to behave, so that development corporations cater for healthcare needs as well?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We just debated a clause about standardising the list of infrastructure that all development corporations can bring forward, but clause 82 addresses a specific gap in the legislation, which is that development corporations cannot have transport powers and are reliant on local transport authorities to bring them forward. I do not dismiss his point about wider infrastructure—we have debated it elsewhere, and I have taken on board the points that hon. Members have raised—but the clause addresses a specific issue and outlines a way of dealing with it. As I say, the preferred approach is co-operation in the first instance and working with the local transport authority in question.
The ability to transfer transport powers, which is available under the clause, is ultimately a backstop measure, and escalation via direction is an initial measure to address insufficient co-operation. The clause clearly sets out how the escalatory process will work, although it is worth saying that decisions to either direct or transfer powers will be taken on a case-by-case basis and applied only where there is good reason to believe that co-operation on the part of the local transport authority is not forthcoming and necessary transport infrastructure is not delivered.
We think that the backstop is necessary for cases where the local transport authority refuses to co-operate and is blocking necessary infrastructure that the development corporation requires for its urban regeneration and development needs. On that basis, I hope I have reassured hon. Members.
Paul Holmes
You may rule me out of order, Ms Jardine—I entirely expect that you might—but I want to follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne on health services. I know that it is not directly in the scope of this clause, but I want to explore the fact that, in many of our constituencies, integrated care boards, which, as the Minister will know, are locally responsible for the provision of health services, simply are not doing the work that is needed on demographic or infrastructure changes because of the silo-based approach to central and local government. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he will go away and work with the Department of Health and Social Care—maybe other clauses could be included—on how we can bring that together and allow those health facilities, as well as transport issues, to be delivered?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that question. Hansard will correct me if I am wrong, but I feel that I have already given a commitment in that area, which I am more than happy to give again, on the following basis: to the extent that essential infrastructure and amenities, particularly those delivered via the existing developer contribution system, are not forthcoming in the manner required or in a timely manner, and where section 106 agreements are not being honoured, the Government are looking to take action to strengthen the existing system. There are two aspects to this. One is ensuring that local authorities are in a position to, on a fairly equal basis, negotiate with an applicant and get a good section 106 agreement. Then, there is the other part of the process, which is ensuring that the agreements entered into are honoured.
However, in some instances—I think I have recognised this in a previous debate—there is a co-ordination issue. I am interested in what more can be done and I am exploring that across Government Departments. ICBs are a good example—there have been examples in my constituency. In certain cases, it may be that the 106 agreement or other provision is not bringing forward the necessary—let us put it in very practical terms—GP centre. In other cases, as I hear from many hon. Members across the country, the 106 has facilitated the construction of the building, but there is a workforce challenge. That is a wider challenge for Government and the Department of Health and Social Care to address, which they are doing. I think that co-ordination can help us to address some of these problems.
To bring us back to the clause that we are debating, we are talking specifically about instances of a development corporation, either within the red line area or outside it where transport infrastructure is necessary to facilitate growth within it. We need a mechanism to ensure that co-operation occurs with the local transport authority. As I have said, judged on a case-by-case basis, in instances where the local transport authority in question is not co-operating, or where Government have good reason to believe that it will not co-operate, we need a measure to ensure that those powers are transferred or a direction is put in place. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 83
Electronic service etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clauses 83 to 92 relate to compulsory purchase and are designed as a group to improve the compulsory purchase order process and land compensation rules to enable more effective land assembly through public sector-led schemes. As hon. Members will no doubt be aware—I am sure that they have read every word—the Government’s 2024 manifesto made a commitment to further reform compulsory purchase compensation rules to improve land assembly, speed up site delivery and deliver housing, infrastructure, amenity and transport benefits in the public interest. That manifesto promised that a Labour Government would take steps to ensure that, for specific types of development schemes, landowners are awarded fair compensation rather than inflated prices based on the prospect of planning permission.
The Government’s reforms, which were outlined in the consultation published at the end of 2024, are necessary to deliver the housing and critical infrastructure that this country needs and to make it more attractive for the public sector to use its compulsory purchase powers to deliver development in the right places. That is the intent behind the clauses that we are debating this morning. To be clear, changes introduced in the Bill are not targeted at farmers or any particular landowners, and they make a limited addition to the existing power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value, so it may apply to parish or town council CPOs facilitating affordable housing provision.
I made this point on Second Reading and I want to be clear: there is nothing in the Bill that changes the core principle of compulsory purchase—that it must be used only where negotiations to acquire land by agreement have not succeeded and where there is a compelling case in the public interest. It will be for individual authorities to decide where it is most appropriate to use their CPO powers to deliver their schemes in the public interest. Taken together, the clauses will ensure that quicker decisions on CPOs can be made, the administrative costs of undertaking the process are reduced, and a better balance is struck so compensation paid to landowners is, as I have said, fair but not excessive.
Clause 83 amends the legislation underpinning the compulsory purchase process and compensation rules to allow the service of statutory notices to be undertaken by electronic methods of communication. Allowing CPO notices to be served on parties by electronic communication will ensure that the CPO process is modernised and made more efficient. Notices may be served by electronic communication providing the person receiving the notice has provided an address for such a service, such as an email address. Where an address is not provided, the existing methods of service—for example, by post—will remain. The default method for service of notices on public authorities will be electronic communication, providing the authority has specified an address for communicating about the specific CPO in question. The clause, which again I hope is uncontroversial, simply intends to modernise and speed up the compulsory purchase process and reduce the administrative costs, and I commend it to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I will take the tactic of discussing each clause relating to CPOs at a time, if that is all right with the Minister. I know he had to give an overview of clauses 83 to 92, but we would like to scope out some questions before coming on to new clause 52, which we will discuss under clause 88, where most of our disagreement comes from.
I understand what the Minister has said about CPO reform and not targeting farmers. However, the record of this Government’s relationship with farmers in other areas of policy has raised anxieties about agricultural land and the rights of farmers, and the amount of compensation that tenant farmers versus occupied land farmers will be offered. Some of the reforms that the Minister is making raise questions about the Government’s general campaign against farming and agriculture in this country, which we remain very concerned about in other areas of policy, but we will discuss those issues in a moderate and constructive manner when we debate later clauses.
Clause 83 concerns electronic services. We generally welcome any simplification and reduction in costs and administration; that is why I am a Conversative. However, we believe that the clause could still raise some implementation challenges. Public authorities are presumed to consult with an electronic service if they provide a relevant email or web address, but that assumption may lead to issues where authorities have multiple points of contact or emails go unattended, potentially causing delays or disputes within an effective service.
Secondly, the clause introduces a default presumption that notices are received the next business day after sending, but that might not hold in practice—for example, if the message is caught in a spam filter or fails to send due to technical error. There could be some conflicts and complications in some of the cases that the clause seeks to amend. The legislation could benefit from a clearer mechanism for confirming receipt to reduce uncertainty or legal challenge further down the line.
Moreover, although the shift to digital communication is welcome, the clause stops short of encouraging or mandating broader digital transformation across the CPO process. For instance, there is no mention of a centralised digital portal for tracking notices or verifying delivery, which could further enhance transparency and reduce administrative friction. Although modest in scope, the clause is a positive step towards a more efficient compulsory purchase regime, notwithstanding the concerns that we have about further reforms, but its practical success will hinge on thoughtful implementation, clear guidance and ongoing support for acquiring authorities and affected parties.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for those fair and reasonable questions. I will provide a reassurance on the central mechanism by which we expect the Bill to operate. Electronic communication will become the default. Where parties do not agree to receive service of notice by electronic methods, or do not provide an electronic address for service, they will continue to receive notices by post, hand delivery or it being left at their address, so there is a clear mechanism for those who do not want to, or feel they cannot, receive such notices by electronic communication.
However, authorities will need to ensure that the electronic address given by recipients for service of notice is the one used when they serve notices electronically on that person. Where an action is triggered by the receipt of a notice under the CPO process, the legislation is clear that if notice is served by electronic communication, the notice will be taken to have been received on the next working day—“working day” is defined in the legislation. We will, of course, provide guidance for local authorities on best practice, and ensure that routes to legal challenge on procedural grounds are maintained.
The central point on which we must be clear is that where parties have agreed in writing to receive service of notice by electronic methods, the burden of responsibility for responding to an action triggered by receipt of a notice will lie solely with the recipient. If they do not feel able to administer the process on those grounds, there is an option to still receive notices in the existing manner.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. Is this proposed to become the default across Government? In my experience as a magistrate, large numbers of people do not attend court. The rules essentially say that a notice is deemed served if it has been posted to a correct postal address of the individual concerned. Clearly, that could become more efficient in the days of electronic communication. However, are we going to find that there is a sufficiently consistent approach, especially in situations where there is a dispute between the landowner and those acting in pursuit of the compulsory purchase order, so that there are no misunderstandings by lawyers advising people about which rules apply under this specific legislation, as opposed to other legislation of which they also have experience?
Matthew Pennycook
I take the shadow Minister’s point. He tempts me to opine on digital communication strategy across Government, but it is too early in the morning to do that. Different Government Departments are taking forward reform in different ways. I recognise the point he makes. It may or may not interest the Committee that I am required to do jury service in the coming weeks, which the Whips have some issue with. I received electronic and postal notice of that jury service. Different processes are in different stages of reform.
We are very clear that, for this process, we want to move to default electronic communication, which has lots of administrative benefits, but we have made provision for those who do not feel that they can move, or want to move, to that type of notice. We will, as I have said, provide guidance for local authorities on best practice and ensure that routes to legal challenge on procedural grounds are minimised. However, I will take the hon. Member’s point away. I am happy to share it with ministerial colleagues in other Departments. I think it is a fair challenge that the Government should ensure that, across the board, to the extent that they possibly can, they have a uniform approach to moving to electronic communication in instances where they want to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 83 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84
Required content of newspaper notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Although we are maintaining the requirement for notices on the making and confirmation of CPOs to be published in newspapers, this clause simplifies the information required in the description of land included in those newspaper notices. Instead of giving complete, detailed descriptions of land, authorities will be able to comply with the requirement by briefly identifying the land through stating its postal address or, where that is not available, briefly describing its location. This will mean that newspaper notices contain succinct and clear information regarding the description of land included in CPOs and not overly complex text, ensuring that they are easier to understand and making the CPO process more accessible. The simplification of information in this regard will deliver administrative cost savings for acquiring authorities. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
Again, we do not see the clause as particularly controversial, but we would like to ask some questions. Can I put on record, first, that I wish the Minister well with his jury service? We will see whether he is the living embodiment of being “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. I am sure that the Whips will love the fact that one of their Ministers is off-site—hopefully on Report so that we can get most of our amendments through.
As the Minister said, clause 84 aims to streamline the content requirements for newspaper notices related to CPOs by permitting either the use of a postal address or a general location description where a specific address is not available. The clause is expected to reduce administrative complexity and cost, which is a welcome step for authorities managing CPOs under tight timelines and budgets.
However, while simplification is beneficial, there is a risk that overly brief or vague descriptions could undermine transparency for affected landowners or the wider public. Newspaper notices remain a critical means of ensuring that individuals who may not be directly notified are still informed about CPOs that could affect them. If the language becomes too generic, individuals may be unaware that their land is included in an order, potentially limiting opportunities for objections or engagement.
The clause could benefit from safeguards or accompanying guidance to ensure that clarity and public accessibility are maintained, especially in cases involving rural land, undeveloped plots or where postal addresses are unclear. Moreover, the clause does not address whether digital platforms could supplement or eventually replace newspaper notices, which could further modernise the process while improving public access to information. Overall, the clause is a pragmatic reform, but we must strike the right balance between efficiency and the need for meaningful public engagement.
Has the Minister had any feedback from local newspaper industry representatives saying that they are concerned, given some of the ways in which these notices provide an income stream to a sector that is increasingly under pressure in being able to communicate with our local residents?
Matthew Pennycook
I again thank the shadow Minister for that fair and reasonable challenge. I recognise—as the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, would—that the loss of local newspapers is very keenly felt in a London context. Blogs and other things have sprung up in their place, but this is definitely an issue. That is one of the reasons why we have determined not to remove the requirement to publish CPO notices in newspapers. We think that that does have benefits, particularly for members of the public who cannot access the internet, but we do think that a modernisation of the process is necessary.
This is not about reducing transparency; it is about making the administrative process more proportionate and more cost-effective. The key point is that the information contained in the newspaper notice will still give the location of the land and other information, and, importantly, as I have said, that will be complemented by information available in site notices affixed to the land in question, notices served on individuals, and information published about the CPO on the acquiring authority’s website—for example, electronic copies of the CPO, including a map and notices. The requirement to describe the land fully in these other notices is not changing. We are just trying to make more proportionate the information contained in the newspaper notice in question.
David Simmonds
I agree with my fellow shadow Minister that the Government are landing in the right place on this. It was a great frustration for many of us who served in local government that quite a few of those newspapers moved to being online-only, but maintained a print edition because that meant that they could charge the local authority £5,000 for putting a notice in that, if it was a lonely hearts ad or someone selling their car, would have been £25. The system has been abused at the expense of council tax payers for quite a long time, and this moves us a bit more to the right location.
Matthew Pennycook
I think I have said enough. There is no further information that I can provide on the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
Confirmation by acquiring authority: orders with modifications
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 85 will speed up decisions on CPOs where no objections have been received. Currently, where a CPO is not objected to, the confirmation decision can be made by the acquiring authority, providing certain conditions have been met. One condition is that the CPO does not require modification—for example, to correct an error in the drafting of the order. That adds unnecessary delay and prevents authorities from taking earlier possession of land to deliver benefits in the public interest.
Clause 85 allows an acquiring authority to confirm its own compulsory purchase order with modifications, providing that they do not affect a person’s interest in the land. Where they do, it introduces the ability for acquiring authorities to confirm their own CPOs where modifications are required, providing that the modifications do not affect a person’s interest in a controversial way. Where modifications need to be made to a CPO— for example, to remove land from the CPO, or to correct a drafting error such as the wrong colour used on the map to identify land—the confirming authority will set out in a notice what modifications are required. Acquiring authorities will not be allowed to add new land into CPOs or exclude part of a plot of land from CPOs, as such changes could provoke objections. In those circumstances, the modification and confirmation of the CPO will still be made by the confirming authority.
The changes are intended to speed up the decision-making process for CPOs that have not been objected to, and to allow benefits in the public interest to be delivered more efficiently. They will be particularly helpful in situations where, as part of a wider land assembly exercise, an acquiring authority needs to exercise its compulsory purchase powers to acquire title to land in unknown ownership. Modifications that do affect a person’s interest in land are allowed, but only if the affected person gives their consent for the modification being made. For these reasons, the Government believe that the clause will enable the CPO process to better benefit the public interest.
Paul Holmes
Again, we welcome the Minister taking a pragmatic approach to streamlining the process. That would be useful to some elements of CPOs, with minor modifications. Although the clause is framed around efficiency, however, it raises some concerns about checks and balances. Even modifications deemed minor can have implications for how land is used or valued. Relying on the judgment of the acquiring authority alone may create a risk of oversight or perceived conflicts of interest.
The provision for consent from affected landowners offers a safeguard, but in practice, there may be power imbalances that undermine the voluntariness of that consent, especially if pressure to expedite delivery is high. Furthermore, the process for how affected parties are informed and how modifications are assessed as “non-impactful” remains vague. Without clear guidance or criteria, the risk of inconsistent applications across authorities is significant. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that specific issue. Although the goal of speeding up land assembly for public benefit is legitimate, greater transparency and procedural clarity is essential to ensure that the clause does not erode public trust in the compulsory purchase process.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome that question from the shadow Minister. We are confident that the power will not be misused. The legislation will allow acquiring authorities to make minor modifications to CPOs in cases where they do not affect a landowner’s interests, other than with the landowner’s consent. We broadly consider that such modifications are non-controversial and will not provoke objections, but given the strength of feeling that the shadow Minister has expressed on the matter, I am more than happy to write to him to set out some further clarification of how we believe the process would operate, and why we do not think there is risk of misuse in the way that he fears.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86
General vesting declarations: advancement of vesting by agreement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
These clauses introduce provision to allow more flexibility for taking possession of land subject to compulsory purchase. Currently, before an acquiring authority can take possession of land under the general vesting declaration procedure, it must give a minimum of three months’ notice to those with an interest in the land. Generally, this is to allow those who occupy or use the land time to relocate, move out or arrange alternative access. Clauses 86 and 87 introduce the ability for authorities to take earlier possession of land in certain circumstances.
Paul Holmes
I will make some brief comments on the clauses. On clause 86, we believe that the conditions under which earlier possession may occur, such as when land is unoccupied, unsafe or where ownership is unknown, are potentially valid, but they rely heavily on subjective judgements by the acquiring authority. For instance, allowing the authority to determine whether items left on the land are of significant value or whether the land is
“unfit for its ordinary use”
introduces a risk of inconsistent or contested interpretations. The exclusion of illegal occupation from the definition of occupancy is also fraught with complexity, particularly in areas where land may be informally used by vulnerable individuals.
Although the clause provides a process for effective parties to make representations, it does not establish an independent mechanism for appeal or review if the acquiring authority rejects those representations. That could weaken procedural safeguards and may leave individuals or communities with limited recourse. Furthermore, although the clause excludes partial acquisitions of buildings, the broader implications for owners of derelict or disputed property could be significant, particularly in urban regeneration contexts where such assets are common.
Overall, while the reform seeks to introduce efficiency, it must be implemented with caution to avoid undermining rights to property and due process. Stronger safeguards, such as independent oversight of early possession decisions and clearer statutory definitions, may be necessary to prevent potential misuse or unintended consequences.
On the surface, the provisions in clause 87 appear pragmatic: they enable willing parties to bypass the standard three-month wait under the general vesting declaration procedure, and instead agree to an earlier possession date no sooner than six weeks after the publication of the CPO confirmation notice. We accept that this could reduce delays in project delivery, particularly where landowners prefer a swift resolution, or where prolonged possession timelines would otherwise stall regeneration or infrastructure efforts.
However, the clause’s wider implications warrant attention. While this is an agreement-based route, the inherent power imbalance in the compulsory purchase context can make voluntary agreements feel pressurised. Landowners—particularly smaller ones or those with limited legal support—may feel compelled to agree to early possession without fully understanding their rights or the valuation consequences. The clause attempts to address compensation timing and valuation issues, but the technical nature of the provisions may still leave room for confusion or disputes. I look to the Minister for reassurance.
The exclusion of counter-notice rights in cases of partial early possession under schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 also weakens the landowner’s ability to negotiate fairly, as it removes a potential tool for resisting piecemeal acquisitions that may render the remainder of the property less viable. While efficiency is a legitimate goal, it must be weighed against individual rights and procedural fairness.
Overall, while the clause introduces a useful flexibility for streamlined land acquisition, it should be accompanied by strong safeguards, including clear guidance for landowners, transparent compensation mechanisms and accessible dispute resolution processes, to prevent coercion and ensure genuinely informed agreements.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for those questions. As ever, I will reflect on his request for procedural fairness to be maintained, but in broad terms, I would say that abuses of the kind he suggests are highly unlikely. I am more than happy to provide him with further reassurance on that point.
Given that clause 87 is about undertaking the procedure in question by agreement, I think it is less controversial. On clause 86, it will be for the acquiring authority to be confident that the conditions for the use of the power have been met, and to objectively identify where it thinks that the conditions for the use of the power have been met. In doing so, it will be for acquiring authorities to respond to and defend against any disputes or challenges made on the use of the power.
Where the land includes a dwelling, the acquiring authority is empowered only to expedite the vesting of the land if the dwelling is unfit for human habitation within the well-understood meaning set out in section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, included within the power to take early possession of land or buildings is a safeguard to prevent the vesting of land from being brought forward where there is disagreement as to whether the land is unoccupied or is in a condition that it is fit for use, or where an occupant identifies themselves to the authority. As I have said, parties can make representations to the acquiring authority that those conditions have not been met, but ultimately, the decision as to whether they have or not remains with the acquiring authority. However, I am happy to reflect on whether there is a need for further safeguards in this area and to update the shadow Minister accordingly.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 88
Adjustment of basic and occupier’s loss payments
Paul Holmes
I do not know whether this is helpful clarification procedurally, but on this group, I would like to speak only to new clause 52 under the name of the official Opposition. We are happy not to press amendments 134 to 147 at this stage.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 52—Alignment of basic and occupier’s loss payments—
“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 33B (occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.
(3) In section 33C (occupier’s loss payment: other land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.”
This new clause, being an amendment of the Land Compensation Act 1973, would align the occupier’s loss payments with the basic loss payments at 7.5% of the value of the party’s interest.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for not pressing amendments 134 to 147. I would not have been able to accept them for reasons I could have gone into at some length.
I will deal with the clause and then new clause 52, which the Opposition still wish to move. To ensure that compensation paid to those whose land is compulsorily acquired is fair, clause 88 makes changes to the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the framework for basic and occupier’s loss payments. Loss payments exist to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase. They are valued either on the market value of a person’s interest or on an amount calculated by reference to the area of the land or buildings known as the “land amount” or “building amount”, whichever is the highest.
The market value of a freehold interest is often more than the market value of a leasehold interest held by an occupying tenant, which often has little or no market value. That usually results in occupying tenants receiving less compensation than owners. As occupying tenants bear the burden of having to close or relocate their businesses, the existing allocation of loss payments is poorly targeted. It unduly favours investor owners over occupying businesses or agricultural tenants who incur greater costs. The Government believe that to be unfair. The clause therefore amends the 1973 Act to adjust the balance of loss payments in favour of occupiers.
Under our changes, we are increasing the land and buildings amount payments, which will benefit occupiers as that is the payment that they usually receive. That will better reflect the level of disruption and inconvenience caused to them through compulsory purchase, compared with investor-owners. It also ensures that the compensation regime is fair. To be clear, the reforms to the CPO process and compensation rules will not encourage the use of any particular type of CPO or change the fundamental principle that there must always be a compelling case in the public interest for use of a CPO.
The changes being made to the loss payments regime will benefit tenant farmers whose land interest is compulsorily acquired, as they will receive a fairer share of compensation to reflect the level of inconvenience that they experience from CPOs. The changes under the clause will not result in landowners being paid less than market value for the compulsory purchase of their interests.
The clause also simplifies the method of calculating the buildings amount for occupier’s loss payments relating to non-agricultural land by using the gross internal area method instead of gross external area, which we believe is more consistent with industry standards. The clause applies to England only, apart from the change to the method of calculating buildings amounts, since the Welsh Ministers have devolved competence to reform loss payments for CPOs in Wales. I therefore see the clause as an integral part of ensuring that the CPO process is built on a fair and balanced compensation process, relative to the level of disruption and inconvenience caused to occupiers of land by a CPO. I commend the clause to the Committee.
I am more than happy to respond in due course, but will first turn briefly to non-Government new clause 52, which seeks to introduce a change to the loss payment compensation regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973. The new clause would increase the amount that occupiers of buildings or land subject to a CPO would be entitled to, and place them on an equal footing with owners. Clause 88 already achieves, in part, what the shadow Minister is looking for: it increases the loss payment compensation due to occupiers of buildings and land in the way that the new clause seeks to do. The purpose of loss payments, however, is to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase, and it is occupiers, rather than investor owners, who bear the greater burden in that respect because they are the ones who will need to close or relocate their businesses.
As I said, the clause rebalances loss payment compensation to allow occupiers to claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. We believe that that rebalancing of loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers is the right approach. While the clause does some of what new clause 52 seeks to achieve, elements of the new clause are problematic for the reasons I set out. I am afraid I will not be able to accept the new clause, and I ask the shadow Minister not to move it.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that detailed assessment of the clause. Lord knows how long his speech would have been if we had referred to the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) tabled. I thought I would spare the Minister that—and also spare myself having to explain them. We will table more amendments on Report.
As the Minister explained, the clause revises key provisions of part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, particularly loss payments to landowners and occupiers whose properties in England are subject to compulsory purchase. The intent behind the changes is to ensure that compensation more accurately reflects the disruption and inconvenience caused to affected individuals.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions about compulsory purchase and redevelopment and regeneration schemes. A significant regeneration scheme has been proposed in Basingstoke for the communities of South Ham and Buckskin by the housing association SNG. To say that the consultation with residents has been badly handled is an understatement. I have been calling for a complete reset of the project by SNG, which has fundamentally failed to take the community with it. It has lost the trust of many people, from its tenants to local homeowners and private renters. It must rebuild that trust. I have committed to working with residents to ensure that any plans benefit and have the support of the local community.
One of the key concerns of the community is the threat of widespread compulsory purchase. Can the Minister confirm that nothing in the Bill will weaken the voice or say of residents involved in redevelopment or regeneration schemes, where CPO is involved? Can he also confirm that CPO should always be used as a last resort, that it must always be taken in the public interest, and that it will not change the compensation available to ordinary owner-occupiers and tenants involved in such regeneration schemes?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank all Members for their contributions. To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, I do not think that I can add much more to the very clear set of principles that have guided our approach in opening this particular part of the Bill. This is not particularly directed at the shadow Minister, but there has been a fair amount of scaremongering about what the compulsory purchase provisions in the Bill entail, which has not always been completely accurate—let me put it as gently as that.
In response to a number of the challenges, I recognise why the shadow Minister raised his point, and I addressed the point about the Welsh Government. Welsh Ministers have devolved competence to reform loss payments for CPO in Wales, and therefore this clause applies in the way that I have set out. On the more substantive point, without getting into individual cases, I note the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke made and I appreciate why he raised it, but he will also recognise why I cannot comment on specific instances of CPO use.
On the general principle of the Bill, I will say a couple of things to the shadow Minister. First, we are not removing the ability for landowners and occupiers to claim for a basic occupier’s loss payment. The Government consider it necessary to rebalance how loss payments are allocated between owners and occupiers to ensure—this is the guiding principle—that those who experience the most level of disruption and inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase are compensated fairly.
The shadow Minister pushed me to reassure him and to go away and reflect to ensure that the system has equal parity. We already have a two-tier system in place; there are differing rates for tenants and landowners. All we are seeking to do through this clause is rebalance the loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers for the reasons that I have given. Landowners and occupiers can still claim for loss payments in addition to claiming compensation for the market value of their land, disturbance costs and other reasonable costs incurred because of a CPO, such as legal and other professional fees.
We may have a principal difference of opinion here; however, on the substantive point, although we have a two-tier system already, we think that it is right to rebalance that two-tier system and weight it slightly more in favour of occupiers of land so that they are entitled to the higher amount of 7.5%, and owners of land to the lower amount of 2.5%. We think that is right, and for that reason, we will not be able to accept new clause 52.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89
Home loss payments: exclusions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 89 amends the Land Compensation Act 1973 and introduces provision to exclude the right to a home loss payment in certain situations. A home loss payment is an additional amount of compensation paid to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO. We have just had a debate about a slightly different aspect of what the Government intend to effect by these provisions.
Under the current provisions, where property owners have failed to comply with a statutory notice or order served on them to make improvements to their neglected land or properties, their right to basic and occupier’s loss payments may be excluded. There are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments. Clause 89 amends the 1973 Act to apply this exclusion to home loss payments also. The situations where home loss payments may be excluded will include where certain improvement notices or orders have been served on a person and they fail to undertake the necessary works.
Local authorities can expend significant resource and cost using CPO powers to acquire neglected properties to bring them back into use. Where property owners fail to undertake mandated improvement works to their properties, they should not be able to benefit financially through claiming a home loss payment. Non-compliance with improvement notices or orders can increase the costs to the public purse of bringing valuable housing resources back into use through use of CPOs. If memory serves, we had a short debate on empty homes and what more the Government can do, and I think that making changes in this area will help with that. Introducing provision for these circumstances will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers. It will support the delivery of more housing for communities. It also further ensures that the compensation regime is fair.
Paul Holmes
I have nothing further to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Temporary possession of land in connection with compulsory purchase
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 90 amends the power to take temporary possession of land under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. Promoters of major infrastructure have indicated that their current consenting regimes provide flexibility for the taking of temporary possession of land, and should the 2017 Act power be commenced, that flexibility would be taken away. The clause sets out that the power for acquiring authorities to take temporary possession of land by agreement or compulsion under the 2017 Act does not apply in respect of: first, other express temporary possession powers provided for by other Acts; secondly, development consent orders made under the Planning Act 2008, and infrastructure consent orders made under the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024; thirdly, orders made under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
The clause will enable the taking of temporary possession under the 2017 Act, without interfering with the process for taking temporary possession under development consent orders, infrastructure consent orders or transport and works orders. It will help ensure continued flexibility for the delivery of critical infrastructure, while paving the way for the taking of temporary possession under other regimes such as the CPO process and the New Towns Act 1981.
Paul Holmes
We do not have much to say on this clause, but it would be rude if I did not say something. [Interruption.] I know Government Back Benchers agree.
Clause 90 provides a targeted amendment to the temporary possession provisions under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, clarifying the scope of that Act’s powers in relation to other legislative frameworks. It stipulates that the temporary possession powers under the 2017 Act do not apply where other Acts such as the Planning Act 2008, the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 or the Transport and Works Act 1992 already contain express provisions for temporary possession. That clarification will ensure that there is no duplication or conflict between the different legislative regimes, thereby promoting legal certainty and administrative efficiency.
By explicitly excluding scenarios where other statutory mechanisms are in place, the clause avoids overlapping authorities and potential jurisdictional confusion. Moreover, it preserves the functionality of the 2017 Act for compulsory purchase orders under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and New Towns Act 1981, ensuring that those frameworks can continue to utilise the temporary possession powers where no alternative statutory mechanism exists.
Although the clause provides a cleaner legislative structure, it may also introduce complexity for practitioners who must now navigate multiple legislative sources to determine the applicable authority for temporary possession. That could increase the burden on acquiring authorities and landowners alike, particularly in large infrastructure schemes involving various enabling statutes. Overall, the clause serves a valuable purpose in harmonising the law, but may require careful guidance to ensure that its practical application does not create uncertainty or administrative hurdles. Although we are generally supportive, I look to the Minister to see whether he deems it appropriate to provide advisory guides and accompanying documents when the legislation is enacted.
Matthew Pennycook
It is important to make one point about the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, and then to reiterate the purpose and effect of the clause. The temporary possession powers in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 still need to be commenced. Before commencing those provisions, the Government must consult on regulations relating to the reinstatement of land, subject to a period of temporary possession.
The commencement of the 2017 Act temporary possession powers is an important reform, to which the Government are committed. However, scoping of the work required to prepare the necessary consultation and draft regulations is still under consideration. The clause is an important tidying-up measure, although I will reflect on whether we can do more through guidance to ensure that the process is as clear as possible for those participating in it. In certain cases, the 2017 Act will—inadvertently, to be fair to the previous Government—prevent the powers from being used to enable major infrastructure regimes.
We want those infrastructure regimes to continue under the current legal provisions granted to them for the taking of temporary possession of land, so we think it necessary to amend the temporary possession powers introduced through the 2017 Act: to disapply them for the consenting regimes I set out, to ensure that, when commenced, the 2017 provisions operate as intended and that this does not frustrate major infrastructure coming through the other consenting regimes. I do not think I can be clearer than that. The clause is fairly straightforward and simple, but I am more than happy to take away the shadow Minister’s points about guidance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 90 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91
Amendments relating to section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 91, page 131, line 17, at end insert—
“(za) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Subsection (2) also applies if an acquiring authority submits a compulsory purchase order in relation to furthering the purposes of delivering housing targets set out in a local plan.’”
This amendment would provide that, where a compulsory purchase order is applied for to acquire land or property for the purpose of delivering housing targets set out in local plans, the prospect of planning permission being granted can be disregarded when calculating compensation (also known as “hope value”).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 86, clause 91, page 131, line 17, at end insert—
“(za) in subsection (2), at end insert “unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case subsection (5) shall not apply.”
This amendment would enable hope value to be disregarded in calculating the compulsory purchase value of land, where it is being purchased for recreational facilities.
Amendment 87, clause 91, page 131, line 18, at end insert—
“(ab) in subsection (5), at end insert “unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case this provision shall not apply.”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 86.
Clause stand part.
New clause 108—Repeal of section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961—
“In the Land Compensation Act 1961, omit section 14A.”
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to amendment 2. Before I do, I would like to welcome the tone in which the Minister has presented the clauses in this part of the Bill. I recognise and understand the intention to clarify the CPO process and enable it to work better, and I particularly welcome our discussions on clause 88—the determination to ensure a fairer distribution between tenants and owners, for example.
Amendment 2 is intended to be fully in that spirit. It recognises the reality of our dysfunctional land and housing markets in the UK, that hope value plays a part in that, and that reforming hope value could unlock significant resources for the delivery of social and affordable housing. I understand that the calculation is that reforming hope value could free up £4.5 billion a year, which could enable us to build a third more social rented homes than had previously been intended. That would be very valuable.
Under the Land Compensation Act 1961, land owners can potentially claim the value of planning permissions that have not even been thought of, let alone applied for. I understand that land with planning permission is on average worth 275 times more than land without—really quite an extraordinary step change in land value. Reforms to address the issue are very much needed.
Under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, changes were made; the previous Government recognised that there was a problem. The 2023 Act allows hope value to be removed when a development is deemed to be in pursuit of public benefit, particularly affordable housing, health and education. It is a step in the right direction, but still requires the local authority to apply to the Secretary of State for permission on a case-by-case basis. Amendment 2 would simply clarify the situation and specify that when a local authority is compulsorily purchasing land to provide affordable housing, hope value can be disregarded. It is entirely in the spirit of previous reforms to the legislation. It clarifies the situation, and it avoids the potential for councils to be subject to challenge from developers on a case-by-case basis. It does that by clarifying that when the public benefit is being served—something that the Minister has repeatedly referred to—it is clear that hope value can be disregarded, because the public benefit from providing affordable housing is, in those cases, overriding. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to amendments 86 and 87 on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). In tackling the issue of hope value, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill misses an opportunity when it comes to playing fields. The amendments seek to include recreational facilities such as playing fields by ensuring that when an acquiring authority uses a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for use as a sports or recreational facility, hope value would not be applied, thus making the cost more affordable.
The amendments would enable hard-pressed local authorities to acquire playing fields for their local communities’ use at playing-field value, instead of at an overinflated hope value, to boost additional grassroots sports provision. Such a change would allow sites such as Udney Park playing fields in Teddington, in my hon. Friend’s constituency—they have lain derelict for more than a decade under private ownership—to be acquired for public use. There is a dire need for additional playing space in the area.
The Liberal Democrats believe that everyone should have access to high-quality sports and recreation facilities in their local community. Indeed, Sport England says that those spaces are key to physical and mental health, and to community links. According to a 2023 College of Policing report, such facilities can help to reduce reoffending, particularly among young people. Up and down the country, too many communities lack the necessary land and space to support young people and families, as well as the wider community, to enjoy sport and improve their physical and mental health. I hope the Minister will consider the amendments in the spirit in which they are intended.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support the principle of what is being proposed in clause 91 and what has been said about the need to allow authorities to acquire land without paying additional hope value or value of planning permissions not yet sought or granted. It is a long-standing issue, and debates on it go back a very long time indeed; I think it began with Lloyd George, who said that it should be the state, rather than landowners, that benefits when the state invests resources or increases the value of land from its own actions.
I support the clause as a Liberal Democrat—it was in our manifesto—but I should add that it does not represent a radical or enormous change; in fact, it was the position for a great many years. Following the second world war, the Pointe Gourde case established the principle that hope value would not be paid. As has been mentioned, it was only the Land Compensation Act 1961, exaggerated by further case law in the 1970s, that gradually increased the amount of compensation payable to landowners on the basis of planning permissions not sought or obtained—that is, hope value. As we have been discussing, that frustrates and stymies the delivery of social housing, which we all wish to see, and of other public development.
For all those reasons, this is a welcome clause and we definitely support it. On amendment 2, my understanding is that the clause would allow social housing to be delivered under the provisions of clause 91, but no doubt the Minister will clarify that. We will make our decision about amendment 2 on that basis.
Finally, this has been a long campaign by a number of people and organisations, including the Town and Country Planning Association. People such as Wyndham Thomas, a pioneer in this field, long argued for a change to the hope value provisions. The change, if it comes today, will do credit to those who pushed for it for so many decades.
Paul Holmes
For the Committee’s convenience, I note that we do not plan to speak to proposed new clause 108, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins); I have just scribbled it out. We welcome some provisions of clause 91, but we have some concerns. The Minister will definitely come back to me and say, “But your Government made some reforms.” We know that, but the Opposition have some concern about the scattergun—I would not say “spontaneous”—approach to bypassing hope value, which allows its removal through a much more centralised and unfair system. As we said previously about some CPO provisions, we are concerned that the clause will be unfair on some people who are not well off or affluent.
However, overall the clause is a pragmatic and well targeted reform that aims to steer towards prioritising community benefits and affordability. We will look at it in more detail in later stages of consideration; the Minister knows that we will constructively try to reform the elements that we are concerned about. But we will not press proposed new clause 108, and are happy to let clause 91 through without a Division.
Matthew Pennycook
I will first respond to amendments 2, 86 and 87, then speak to clause 91 stand part, and finish by touching briefly on proposed new clause 108.
Amendment 2 was moved by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. As she set out, it would amend clause 91 to expand the power, introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value. The amendment proposes expanding the direction power to CPOs that are delivering housing targets set out in their local plans.
The Government agree that there is a need to address issues around the payment of hope value, but I am unable to support the amendment. Sympathetic as I am to the greater use of hope value—mayors and local authorities around the country read Hansard closely, so I stress that the Government very much want an acquiring authority to utilise the powers in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act—I cannot accept the amendment because its principal objectives can already be achieved with the existing direction power. That power has similar effects but, importantly, requires affordable housing to be part of any scheme reliant on CPO powers. We therefore do not believe that the amendment is required.
If the hon. Member for North Herefordshire wants to respond we can have an exchange on this point, but the power in question is used on a case-by-case basis according to the public interest. This Government, like the previous Government, are well aware of the need to meet the public interest test so that use of the power does not fall foul of article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998, in a true, broader application. That is why the public benefit test is important and needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Seeking to expand the use of the power beyond that test, and apply it much more widely, is problematic.
Gideon Amos
It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed what I think he is saying: that the application of compulsory purchase under clause 91 could include compulsory purchase of land that will be used for social or affordable housing.
Matthew Pennycook
I absolutely can confirm that. If the hon. Member is interested, that was set out in the extensive debates on that power during the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee. The public benefits to which the direction can apply are very clear: transport schemes but also affordable housing schemes. However, it would be judged on a case-by-case basis whether the amount of affordable housing provided, in each instance, was sufficient to meet that public benefit test.
The important point that I need to make is that the reference to the provision of affordable housing and other benefits is an important safeguard, to ensure that directions removing hope value could meet the public interest justification test and ensure that the use of the power would be compliant with human rights legislation. That is really important. Trying to draw the power too widely would fall foul of human rights legislation and we would not be able to use it in any case. That is why it has to be targeted at schemes that deliver in the public interest. That will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
The Government also have concerns that amendment 2 could introduce a change that could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest. We think that it could make the benefits delivered through use of the existing direction power less clearly identifiable and problematic for those reasons, so I will not be able to accept the amendment, although, as I say, I am sympathetic to the use of the direction in clear instances when a public benefit is at stake.
Although we have commenced the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provisions only this year, to date no acquiring authority has used them; I suspect that is partly from the usual hesitancy about being the first mover and partly about ensuring that there are sufficient skills in the acquiring authority to use it. But the Government are very clear: we do want an acquiring authority, where appropriate, to make use of the power, although we cannot draw it more widely for the reasons I have given.
I turn to amendments 86 and 87. The amendments seek to amend clause 91 and expand the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value. The amendments propose to extend the types of CPOs for which directions removing hope value may be sought to CPOs providing provision of sporting and recreational facilities. The amendments also seek to introduce a change so that CPOs that provide sporting and recreational facilities would not have to facilitate affordable housing provision when seeking directions removing hope value.
While the Government recognise the value of parks and playing fields to our communities—we could all give our own examples of how much they are cherished and loved—we are unable to support the amendments. As I have said, the non-payment of hope value to landowners through the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and justified in the public interest. Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the provisions would be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities. The proposed changes could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest, as the benefits to be delivered would be less clearly identifiable. The Government are therefore unable to support the amendments.
I turn briefly to clause stand part. Clause 91 makes amendments to the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which we have just been debating, that allows authorities to include in their CPOs directions the removal of hope value from compensation, when that is justified in the public interest. First, the clause amends the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and provides that CPOs made with directions removing hope value may be confirmed by acquiring authorities where there are no objections to the relevant CPO.
Alongside that reform, the Government intend to publish updated CPO guidance to make clear their policy that the power for inspectors to be appointed to take decisions on CPOs under the 1981 Act can be used for CPOs with directions removing hope value. CPO guidance published by my Department sets out criteria that the Secretary of State will consider in deciding whether to delegate confirmation decisions to inspectors. The updated CPO guidance, reflecting the Government’s policy, will be published when we implement the Bill’s reforms following Royal Assent. The changes will speed up the decision-making process for CPOs with directions removing hope value and ensure that the process is more efficient and effective.
Secondly, clause 91 extends the power for CPOs to include directions removing hope value to CPOs made on behalf of parish or community councils under section 125 of the Local Government Act 1972. That will allow parish or community councils, when seeking to deliver affordable housing in their areas, to acquire land without paying hope value compensation—again, when a direction removing hope value is justified in the public interest demonstrably and clearly. The change is intended to increase the viability of such schemes to deliver more affordable housing, which these communities desperately need.
Lastly, the clause amends the legislation to ensure that when CPOs are confirmed with directions removing hope value, the directions apply not only to the assessment of market value of land taken but to loss payments where the assessment of market value is a relevant factor. That makes it clearer that hope value will be removed from all heads of claim where market value is assessed. That provides for the consistent application of the principles for the assessment of the market value of land where CPOs are confirmed, with directions removing hope value. It also ensures that the compensation regime does not deliver excessive compensation where compulsory purchase is used to deliver benefits in the public interest.
I again make it clear that these reforms are not about targeting farm owners or any specific types of land or landowner. Neither do the clauses seek to change—returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke—the core principles of compulsory purchase, which remain. There is nothing in the Bill that changes the core principles of compulsory purchase. As I have said, it must be used only where negotiations to acquire land by agreement have failed, and where there is a compelling case in the public interest. To deliver the homes and infrastructure we need, we must look to unlock land in the right places. These clauses ensure we have the correct tools to realise that.
Briefly, new clause 108, tabled by the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, seeks to repeal section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed, with directions removing hope value where justified in the public interest. For that reason, I understand why the shadow Minister has at the last moment hesitated to speak to it. In essence, the new clause would remove the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which allows acquiring authorities to take forward certain types of scheme by compulsory purchase and to pay a reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest.
I disagree with the reforms made by Baron Gove—I think that is now the correct terminology—in a number of areas. He tainted his record in my Department very late on in the previous Government by abolishing mandatory housing targets under pressure from the so-called planning concern group, the ringleaders of which all lost their seats in any case. He did, however, introduce a number of very valuable reforms, one of which is that reform to CPOs. It is therefore absolutely right that we do not attempt—as the right hon. Lady clearly does, if not the shadow Minister—to remove it from the statute book.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is being slightly unfair in saying that I have chosen not to speak to the new clause at the last minute; I had always intended not to speak to it because we are very collaborative on our Opposition Front Bench in deciding what we will and will not speak to. The Minister should know that there is always a good intention behind a new clause or amendment—in this case, to restrict the unfairness to some people.
The Minister should also not be surprised that the shadow Cabinet and shadow Ministers such as myself are assessing what happened under the last Government. We are looking back and, as we have said repeatedly, we are under new leadership. The Minister will know—in a basic constitutional lesson—that no Government is bound by the actions of its predecessor, and we are not bound by the actions of our previous leader. [Interruption.] They should not be surprised by that. They were always reviewing their successes under Gordon Brown and particularly the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). They have changed a lot of their views from what they used to say then. They have definitely changed a lot of what they thought when they were under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and were extolling the virtues of loyalty.
We will look to see how we can strengthen the provisions in the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, and we will come back to it a further stage. The Minister should not always think that there is a conspiracy when I decide not to press an amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
It has been pretty dry going this morning on these clauses. For the purposes of entertaining the Committee, I just want to make sure I have understood the shadow Minister.
Matthew Pennycook
The Opposition are at liberty to change their position on any policy that the previous Government introduced, but they do not want to change policy in this area as they believe that the power is proportionate and necessary. However, the right hon. Lady still tabled the new clause to signal that they may be willing to come back to it at some point. Is that broadly right?
Paul Holmes
The Minister is being overly cynical. As he knows, our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has said that there is a mainstream review of what worked and what did not work under the very successful Conservative Government that served for the last 14 years. What we are looking at going forward is whether we need a new approach to planning reform. That is exactly what the new clause was intended to probe.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 92
New powers to appoint an inspector
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 92 amends the process for the confirmation of CPOs made under the New Towns Act 1981. Decisions to confirm CPOs made under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, such as housing and planning CPOs, can be made by inspectors on the Secretary of State’s behalf, but currently, confirmation decisions on CPOs made under the New Towns Act must be taken by the relevant Secretary of State. Clause 92 introduces a power for confirmation decisions on CPOs made under the New Towns Act to be delegated to inspectors, although the Secretary of State will retain the ability to recover decisions for their determination. This change will ensure the decision-making process for CPOs facilitating new towns is streamlined and consistent with the confirmation of other CPOs.
Clause 92 also amends the decision-making process for directions for the payment of additional compensation under schedule 2A to the Land Compensation Act 1961 where an acquiring authority has not fulfilled the commitments it relied on when it obtained a direction allowing it to acquire the land without hope value. The clause introduces a power for the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to take decisions on applications for additional compensation. This will ensure that the process for considering applications for additional compensation is more efficient and consistent with the approach set out in clause 91, which allows for the delegation of decisions on CPOs. The clause will make the authorisation process more efficient, resulting in quicker decisions.
David Simmonds
I just want to ask the Minister, in respect of the appointment of the inspector, what the Government’s thoughts are about the requirements for who that inspector would be. With reference to my fellow shadow Minister’s point on an earlier clause, one of the concerns is whether what emerges from this process will be a fair level of compensation, particularly in a constituency such as mine on the edge of London, where there is a lot of farmland—a lot of green-belt land—for which the occupiers will have paid a significant hope value premium to Parliament, sometimes decades ago. The same will be true in many potential development areas on the fringes of cities.
Clearly, it will be necessary that the inspector, who comes to a view about what an appropriate compensation payment is, has a relevant level of qualification. Again, does the Minister have a view about including a requirement for the inspector to have a relevant accountancy, surveying or other qualification that would enable them to discharge this function, or to secure the relevant advice, so that all parties can be confident in the decision that is made?
Matthew Pennycook
If the shadow Minister will allow me, I will come back to him in writing on the specific point of how the Government will ensure that the relevant inspector has the correct skillset to make the necessary decisions.
I think it is probably worth making two other points. First, how will the delegation of decisions to inspectors on CPOs made under the New Towns Act 1981 be considered? The appointment by the Secretary of State of an inspector to make the decision on a CPO made under the 1981 Act will be considered against the delegation criteria published in the Government’s guidance on the compulsory purchase process.
Secondly, there is the important question of whether the decision on an application for additional compensation will be delegated to the same inspector who considered the original CPO with the direction removing hope value. In that regard, it is important to note that the timescales between the confirmation of a CPO with a direction removing hope value and the determination of an application for additional compensation will vary in each case. As such, it may be impractical for the inspector who considered the original CPO with the direction removing hope value to determine the direction for additional compensation, so we need that flexibility.
David Simmonds
I understand the point the Minister is making. The lessons learnt from the HS2 project is that this can become a very significant source of hardship for land occupiers. I think of a constituent in his 90s who has waited six years for the payment of compensation for land that has been occupied throughout that time by HS2 in pursuance of its project. There are ongoing debates about how this will be settled. Despite an agreed figure having been reached some time ago, payment was held up. If the Minister is not minded to introduce deadlines around that, he might wish to table amendments to that effect at a later stage. I am interested in what he has to say about that.
Matthew Pennycook
I note the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I will not comment on the specific case he raises, but I am keen to provide him with as much reassurance as possible about the skillset of inspectors, and that skillset being directly applicable to the types of cases they will be looking for in terms of compensation. On the practical considerations around the timescale of the process and other issues he has raised, I am more than happy to set that down in writing to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93
Reporting on extra-territorial environmental outcomes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
As the Government move to bring forward the new system of environmental outcome reports that will replace the EU processes of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment, it is necessary to make a minor amendment to the original drafting to ensure the new system can comply with relevant international obligations. Environmental outcomes reports provide the opportunity to streamline the assessment process while securing better outcomes for nature, but it is vital we start this journey with the right powers.
Clause 93 amends the power to specify environmental outcomes to ensure they can relate to areas outside of our national jurisdiction. This is to ensure that the new system of EORs can comply with, among other things, the UK’s obligations under the Espoo convention, which requires signatories to consider the potential transboundary impact of development. This measure will ensure that, as the Government progress with developing the new system of EORs, they will have sufficient powers to ensure the new system can adequately fulfil all our international obligations.
Paul Holmes
Before we receive a statement later from the Prime Minister, can the Minister outline whether any of the movements in this domestic legislation, which stem from the transitioning of EU-derived systems, will be affected by any Government deal made between the EU and the United Kingdom?
Matthew Pennycook
I will come back to the hon. Member on that point in writing, because it is important that I am precise on it. Obviously a series of obligations stem from the trade and co-operation agreement, and they are set out. This clause specifically attempts to ensure that the new system of EORs—legislated for through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—can, once it is brought into force, function in a way that is compliant with all our international obligations. I think members of the Committee would very much support that being the case. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I would expect the Minister to write to us; I would not expect an answer on the Floor of the Committee. What the Prime Minister is going to outline later is a detailed and holistic deal. When we talk about a change that is being framed within the context of transitioning from the EU-derived systems of environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments—I have only read what is in the papers; I am sure the Minister has, too—any area that is encapsulated within that wider deal may affect this domestic legislation going forward, so I would appreciate his writing to us on that.
By expanding the geographical scope within that derived system, the clause allows for a more holistic consideration of environmental impacts, including transboundary and global effects, as the Minister has outlined, which are particularly relevant in an era of climate change, biodiversity loss, and other interconnected environmental challenges. The broadened scope may be seen as a progressive move, enabling regulators to take a more comprehensive view of environmental harm such as greenhouse gas emissions or marine pollution, which can extend well beyond national borders. It aligns with growing international expectations that environmental assessments account for broader spatial impacts, enhancing the credibility and robustness of the UK’s post-Brexit environmental governance framework, although that is potentially subject to change by the Government.
Although the clause strengthens the theoretical scope of environmental assessments, it does not clarify the practical mechanisms by which the likely significant effects beyond the UK will be evaluated or enforced. Without that clear guidance, the broader remit could become more symbolic than operational, risking inconsistencies in application. Bearing in mind the time, I would appreciate it if the Minister could briefly come back on those points, and then we would be content not to vote against the clause.
Matthew Pennycook
In speaking to the clause, I stressed that the purpose is to ensure that the new system of environmental outcomes reports introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which this Government are committed to proceeding with, is compliant with all our international obligations. I mentioned, for example, the Espoo convention. The UK is party to that convention, and thus all development must consider whether the project will have likely significant effects on the environment in other states that are also party to it. I understand the shadow Minister’s points, but this is a non-controversial clause that simply ensures that once we bring the new system into force, it is compliant with all our international obligations.
Gideon Amos
It might be helpful to point out that the Espoo convention—the transboundary convention—is not, although the shadow Minister referred to European obligations and transition, a European convention; it is a United Nations convention. It is therefore not related to Brexit. It is a convention signed under the United Nations commission. It is important that the clause addresses that.
The Espoo convention also reminded me of the training for inspectors point that the Minister made. I wonder whether the Government, given the clauses in the Bill, particularly the hope value clause we discussed earlier, would ensure that training of inspectors is brought up to date across the board to ensure that the provisions are properly applied. I declare an interest as a former inspector.
Matthew Pennycook
We value the hon. Gentleman’s expertise and insight. I would say two things. It is worth clarifying—apologies if I gave the impression otherwise—that it is for the upper tribunal to determine compensation cases, but I reassure the Opposition that when it comes to inspectors and their role in the CPO process, they have the necessary skillset. I will provide further reassurance on that point.
To the hon. Gentleman’s point on the Espoo convention, although I do not want to answer for the shadow Minister, it is right that, while the convention is not EU-derived, the new system of EORs will replace the EU-derived processes of EIAs and SEAs. I think that is the point that the shadow Minister was making. We want to ensure that the new system that replaces the EU-derived existing assessment regime is compatible with our international obligations, and nothing more.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 93 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Following a request, Members may now remove jackets if they are finding it oppressively warm.
We now come to the new clauses. I remind Committee members that Government new clauses are considered first, with other new clauses then being considered in numerical order, as listed on the amendment paper and the selection and grouping paper. Some new clauses may be grouped with others for the purpose of debate and some new clauses have already been debated during the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. When a new clause has previously been debated, it cannot be debated further when it is reached; Committee members should let me know if they wish to press it to a vote. We start with Government new clause 39, which was debated with clause 44.
New Clause 39
Surcharge on planning fees
“In the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, after section 303ZZA (inserted by section 44) insert—
‘303ZZB Surcharge on planning fees
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a surcharge to be imposed on a fee or charge paid—
(a) to a local planning authority in England under section 303(1) or (2),
(b) to the Mayor of London or a specified person under section 303(1ZA), or
(c) to the Secretary of State under section 303(1A), (2), (3) or (4A).
(2) Where regulations under subsection (1) provide for a surcharge to be imposed on a fee or charge paid to a person other than the Secretary of State, that person must pay to the Secretary of State the amount they receive from any surcharges—
(a) subject to such deductions, and
(b) at the times and in the manner,
as set out in regulations under subsection (1).
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—
(a) specify the level of the surcharge as a percentage of the level of a fee or charge;
(b) make different provision for different purposes, including setting different levels of surcharge for different fees, charges, cases or circumstances.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide that where the level of the fee or charge has been set by—
(a) a local planning authority under section 303(5A), or
(b) the Mayor of London or a specified person under section 303(5B),
the surcharge may be set as a percentage of the fee or charge that would be payable had the level of the fee or charge not been so set.
(5) The Secretary of State must list in regulations the persons whose relevant costs the surcharge is intended to cover (“listed persons”).
(6) In setting the level of the surcharge, the Secretary of State must have regard to the relevant costs of the listed persons, and must secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons.
(7) In subsections (5) and (6), “relevant costs” means the costs of providing advice, information or assistance (including the provision of a response to a consultation) in connection with—
(a) applications,
(b) proposed applications, or
(c) proposals for a permission, approval or consent,
that are made under or for the purposes of the planning Acts and that relate to land in England.
(8) Regulations under subsection (1) may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons of providing advice, information or assistance in connection with the application, proposed application or proposal in respect of which the surcharge is imposed.
(9) Paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 303(5) apply to regulations under this section as they apply to regulations under subsection (1), save that references to a fee or charge are to be read as references to the surcharge.
(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
The effect of this new clause is to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a surcharge on planning application fees. The surcharge must, if imposed, be set by reference to the costs incurred by bodies, listed in regulations, which provide advice in the planning application process, including by way of consultation responses.
Brought up, read the First time and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 42
Planning Act 2008: right to enter and survey land
“(1) Section 53 of the Planning Act 2008 (rights of entry) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (7).
(2) In subsection (1), for “Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State” substitute “An authorised person”.
(3) After subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) In subsection (1) “authorised person” means a person who is authorised in writing to exercise the power in that subsection on behalf of—
(a) a person who has made an application for an order granting development consent that has been accepted by the Secretary of State,
(b) a person who proposes to make an application for an order granting development consent, or
(c) a person who has been granted the benefit of an order granting development consent of a kind specified in subsection (1)(c).”
(4) Omit subsection (2).
(5) In subsection (4)—
(a) in the words before paragraph (a), for “authorised under subsection (1) to enter any land” substitute “acting in the exercise of a power of entry onto any land conferred under subsection (1)”;
(b) insert “and” at the end of paragraph (a);
(c) in paragraph (b)—
(i) for “any land which is occupied” substitute “the land”;
(ii) for “the occupier” substitute “every owner or occupier of the land”;
(d) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (b);
(e) omit paragraph (c).
(6) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Notice given in accordance with subsection (4)(b) must include prescribed information.
(4B) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a person to use force in the exercise of the power conferred under subsection (1) if satisfied—
(a) that another person has prevented or is likely to prevent the exercise of that power, and
(b) that it is reasonable to use force in the exercise of that power.
(4C) The force that may be authorised by a warrant is limited to that which is reasonably necessary.
(4D) A warrant authorising the person to use force must specify the number of occasions on which the person can rely on the warrant when entering land.
(4E) The number specified must be the number which the justice of the peace considers appropriate to achieve the purpose for which the entry is required.
(4F) Any evidence in proceedings for a warrant must be given on oath.”
(7) After subsection (8) insert—
“(8A) Section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (costs) applies to the determination of a question referred under subsection (8) as it applies to the determination of a question under section 1 of that Act, but as if references to the acquiring authority were references to the person from whom compensation is claimed.”
(8) In paragraph 7 of Schedule 12 to the Planning Act 2008 (application of Act to Scotland: modifications of section 53)—
(a) after paragraph (za) insert—
“(zb) in subsections (4B) and (4E), the references to a justice of the peace were references to a sheriff or summary sheriff,”;
(b) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (b);
(c) after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) in subsection (8A)—
(i) the reference to section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 were a reference to sections 9 and 11 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, and
(ii) the reference to section 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 were a reference to section 8 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, and”.
(9) In the Localism Act 2011—
(a) omit section 136(4);
(b) in paragraph 12 of Schedule 13—
(i) in sub-paragraph (2), omit “and (2)”;
(ii) omit sub-paragraph (3).”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This clause amends existing rights to enter and survey land in connection with development consent orders, to: (1) remove the requirement for authorisation by the Secretary of State before entry, and (2) allow the use of force if authorised by a warrant issued by a justice of the peace.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
At present, we know that it is taking too long for promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects to prepare applications for development consent that are robust and ready for examination. Part of the reason is the time it is taking for promoters to gain access to the land to carry out surveys to understand its condition and status, to inform their assessments of the project’s environmental impact.
The Government remain committed to ensuring that applicants and landowners reach agreements privately on when land can be accessed and on any compensation necessary as a result of activities carried out by the promoter when surveying the land. However, we appreciate that such agreements cannot be made in every circumstance. While that is regrettable, it should not come at the cost of delaying the delivery of the critical infrastructure that this country needs.
In this new clause, I am making changes to provide a more efficient route to accessing land to carry out surveys for promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects. These align with rights already available to, and often used by, DCO applicants under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The changes will give authorisation to promoters to access land on the premise that sufficient notice is given to landowners and occupiers, with regulations to be made requiring the specific information to be contained in that notice.
Should access be unreasonably prevented, promoters will be able to apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to use force to enter the land and carry out the surveys required. The use of force that may be authorised by a warrant is limited to what is reasonably necessary to exercise the power conferred by the provision. The new clause is an important step change in speeding up the preparation stage of applications for development consent and ultimately the delivery of nationally significant infrastructure projects. It will come into force when the Secretary of State introduces the associated regulations.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I have a couple of queries. I understand the spirit of the proposal; when I was involved in this part of the planning regime, almost no applications came forward for the power to enter land because of the elaborate process involved, so I very much understand and welcome the spirit in which these changes are made.
However, I ask the Minister to consider whether there is a risk of going from one extreme to the other. The new clause would grant any person who proposes to make an application the power to enter land. We would be interested to know what provisos will sit around that. Can anybody simply say, “I am going to make an application” and therefore get an order to enter land? Do the Government envisage guidance or regulations on that aspect? Generally, however, we support the clause.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the reasons why the hon. Gentleman has raised those points; I have a couple of points that may provide him with reassurance. The provisions in section 53 will allow authorised persons to carry out surveys required in connection with the preparation of environmental assessments and habitats assessments. The entry powers being sought are for a very specific purpose.
As I said, the Government strongly advocate that applicants and landowners should first reach agreements privately when access is required. The problem that the new clause is trying to address is that that does not always happen. We want to ensure that, when necessary, there is a mechanism for applicants to be able to access land and carry out the requisite surveys.
When exercising the power conferred under section 53(1), authorised persons are required to provide the owner or occupier of the land with at least 14 days’ notice of their entry. Regulations, to come forward in due course, will specify certain information that the notice will contain. That information will include details of the negotiations that have been held regarding the entry, full details of the surveys to be undertaken and the rationale for undertaking them, and evidence that the surveys are required in connection with the NSIP in question.
To the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I say that access is required for specific purposes, notice will have to be given and regulations will be forthcoming that provide further details. In general terms, however, we absolutely want in the first instance for applicants and landowners to be able to reach agreements. We think that this power is required and proportionate for circumstances when that does not take place.
Gideon Amos
Those provisos on the regulations are helpful. They are important because to go on to someone else’s land without their agreement initially is a significant power. We agree with the Minister that it should be used only as a last resort, once all the alternatives set out in the guidance have been explored.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 42 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 43
Changes to, and revocation of, development consent orders
“(1) Schedule 6 to the Planning Act 2008 (changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) Omit paragraph 2 (non-material changes to orders granting development consent) and the italic heading before it.
(3) In paragraph 3 (changes to, and revocation of, orders)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (3)(b), omit “or paragraph 2 of this Schedule”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (5A), after “should” insert “, when considered in conjunction with any other changes already made,”.
(4) In paragraph 4 (changes to, and revocation of, orders: supplementary), after sub-paragraph (6) insert—
“(6A) If a development consent order is changed in exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1), the development consent order continues in force.
(6B) If a development consent order is changed or revoked in the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1), the change or revocation takes effect on—
(a) the date on which the order making the change or revocation is made, or
(b) if the order specifies a date on which the change or revocation takes effect, the specified date.
(6C) Except in a case within sub-paragraph (7), the Secretary of State must publish an order making a change to, or revoking, a development consent order in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”
(5) In section 118 of the Planning Act 2008 (legal challenges)—
(a) omit subsection (5);
(b) in subsection (6)(b), for “notice of the change or revocation” to the end substitute “the order making the change or revocation is published.”
(6) In consequence of the amendment in subsection (2), omit—
(a) paragraph 4(6)(a) of Schedule 8 to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009,
(b) paragraph 72(4) to (7) of Schedule 13 to the Localism Act 2011,
(c) section 28(2) of the Infrastructure Act 2015,
(d) paragraph 8(3)(b)(i) of Schedule 7 to the Wales Act 2017, and
(e) section 128 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.” —(Matthew Pennycook.)
This clause amends the Planning Act 2008 concerning changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent. The key change is to repeal the procedure for making non-material changes that is currently in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to that Act.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 43 will make the process for post-consent changes to development consent orders more proportionate to the change requested. That will allow greater flexibility than the existing binary process. The current change process takes too long to deliver on the ground, and is putting developers off requesting changes that have the potential to improve design, reduce adverse environmental impacts, better meet community interests, reduce costs and speed up delivery.
The removal of the distinction between material and non-material changes will allow us to design a more proportionate single process for changes, the detail of which will be set out in new regulations. The new system will be commenced by the implementation of updated regulations. As such, there will be no impact on existing DCOs that are considering change applications in the immediate term, while the Government develop the new process alongside industry stakeholders. Transitional provisions will be included in the revised regulations to ensure an efficient transition to the new system.
The measure will support the Government’s growth and clean energy missions, giving certainty to developers, reducing cost risk and supporting faster decisions. It will ensure that we can deliver the critical infrastructure the country needs in the best form. I am grateful to the expert input provided by stakeholders through feedback on the limitations of the existing change process. Officials in my Department will continue to work with stakeholders and practitioners to refine the new process, and to ensure it delivers efficiencies and better supports the delivery of infrastructure across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 42 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 44
Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements
“Omit the following sections of the Planning Act 2008—
(a) section 42 (duty to consult);
(b) section 43 (local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b));
(c) section 44 (categories for purposes of section 42(1)(d));
(d) section 45 (timetable for consultation under section 42);
(e) section 47 (duty to consult local community);
(f) section 49 (duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause omits sections of the Planning Act 2008 which currently require a person who proposes to apply for development consent to consult particular people about the proposed application, including prescribed bodies, local authorities, the local community and persons with an interest in the land in question.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 15—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction—
“(1) Where an application to develop affordable housing has been granted, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the reasons for the amendment include—
(a) the affordability to the applicant; or
(b) that providing such affordable housing would make the development unprofitable for the applicant.
(2) This section applies where the provision of affordable housing forms the whole of or a part of the proposed development.
(3) For the purposes of this section “develop” has the meaning given by section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”
This amendment would mean that, where a developer has committed in their initial application to providing a certain number of affordable homes, they would be prohibited from lowering that provision based on affordability or profitability.
New clause 25—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction (No. 2)—
“Where an application proposes—
(a) to develop more than 10 houses, and
(b) that at least 20% of the houses to be developed will be social housing,
no amendment to the amount of social housing to be developed may be made if the amendment would reduce the amount of social housing below 20% of the houses to be developed on the grounds of viability to the applicant.”
This new clause would prevent developers from seeking to reduce commitments to provide social housing on the grounds of viability.
New clause 55—Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission—
“In section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (general condition limiting duration of planning permission), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3ZZA) Subject to subsection (4), where a development includes the construction of 100 or more houses and has not begun within the applicable period, ownership of the land on which such development was permitted transfers to the relevant local authority on the expiration of the applicable period.””
This new clause would mean that, where permission for a development of 100 homes or more is not used within the applicable period, ownership of the land to which the permission applies passes to the relevant local authority.
New clause 60—Thresholds for affordable housing provision—
“Where an application proposes or is required to provide affordable housing, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the amendment would result in the amount of affordable housing to be developed failing to exceed the higher of—
(a) the relevant authority’s affordable housing threshold, or
(b) twenty per cent of the total amount of housing provided in the development.”
This new clause would place lower limits on the amount of affordable housing developments which intend to provide such housing must provide.
New clause 61—Additional business rates for developers not completing approved development—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, hold a public consultation on providing local authorities who exercise the functions of local planning authorities with the power to levy additional business rates on—
(a) land owners, and
(b) developers
who fail to complete the development of projects for which permission has been granted within a reasonable period.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the conclusion of the public consultation, lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) a report on the findings of the consultation, and
(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to those findings.”
New clause 76—No planning permission to be granted in cases of intentional unauthorised development—
“(1) A local planning authority may not grant consent for development where there has been intentional unauthorised development in respect of the land or properties which are to be subject to that development.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “intentional unauthorised development”—
(a) includes any development of land undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission;
(b) does not include any unintentional, minor or trivial works undertaken without having obtained the relevant permission.
(3) Where works under subsection (2)(b) are undertaken, the local planning authority may require relevant permissions to be obtained retrospectively.”
New clause 82—Duty to complete development of local infrastructure—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a Development Consent Order is made providing for, or
(b) a Strategic Development Scheme includes provision for,
the development of local infrastructure.
(2) Where subsection (1) applies, the developer must deliver the relevant local infrastructure in full.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “local infrastructure” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, but must include—
(a) schools,
(b) nurseries, and
(c) General Practice clinics.
(4) A duty under this section may be disapplied [by whom] with the consent of the relevant local planning authority.”
This new clause aims to ensure that commitments to provide local infrastructure such as schools and GP clinics, approved as part of a development, are permanent and legally binding.
New clause 83—Development of land for the public benefit—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a developer has entered into an obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which requires the development of local community infrastructure; and
(b) such development—
(i) has not been completed, and it is not intended or anticipated that the development will be completed; or
(ii) has been subject to a change of circumstance which means that it will not or cannot be used for its intended purpose.
(2) Where this section applies—
(a) the relevant land remains under the ownership of the local planning authority;
(b) the local planning authority may only develop or permit the development of the land for the purposes of providing a community asset;
(c) the local planning authority must, when proposing to develop the land under subsection (2)(b), must consult the local community before commencing development or granting permission for any development.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“local community infrastructure” means a development for the benefit of the local community, including schools, nurseries, and medical centres.
“community asset” means—
(a) a public park;
(b) a public leisure facility;
(c) social housing;
(d) such other assets as the local planning authority may specify, provided that their development is to meet the needs of the local community.”
This new clause provides that land designated development as community infrastructure under a S106 agreement will not be returned to a developer to use for other purposes in the event that the original purpose is not fulfilled. It provides instead that land would remain under the control of the local planning authority for development as a community asset.
Ellie Chowns
New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), and I remind colleagues that I am the Member for North Herefordshire—always a cause for confusion. I will also speak to six other new clauses, three of which are intended to dissuade developers from engaging in land banking, and three to ensure that affordable housing targets are met.
New clause 1 would give the planning authority the power to decline future planning applications from a developer that had failed to use, or at least to make sufficient progress on, planning permission that they had already been given. This is designed to stop the practice whereby developers purchase land, get planning permission on it and do nothing with it. I think we all agree, on both sides of the Committee, that we need to expedite the building of affordable housing, so this is a proportionate and clear measure to support that. It relates to new clause 55, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. If such land is not built on, the land should transfer to the local authority, so that it can get on with doing the job instead.
New clause 61, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, suggests extending business rates for developers that do not build. Each new clause is designed to prevent the practice of land banking, to encourage developers to get on and build when they have been given planning permission.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I completely understand why the new clause has been tabled, and we support the premise behind it, but can I ask the hon. Lady for clarification? She may not know, and that is perfectly acceptable. Say an application went in for a nursing home, but the business went bust before the initial build out was delivered. If the developer wanted to change the application to allow it to build a block of flats, how would the new clause prevent that from happening? It is a genuine question, and I do not know what the answer is.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his genuine question. He highlights a case that arguably represents complexities that the Government employ lots of lawyers to fix. I do not think it would prevent a new clause such as this from progressing. The intention is to prevent land banking, and if lawyers need to tweak the language a little bit, so be it.
I will move on briefly to new clauses 15, 25 and 60, which are all about ensuring that affordable housing is actually built. New clause 60 would set a lower bound on the amount of affordable housing that was due to be constructed. New clauses 15 and 25 are intended to ensure that the affordable housing commitments that developers make in their initial applications are not subsequently chipped away at or eroded by arguments about viability.
Fundamentally, if there are issues around viability, the Government and local authorities should prioritise the building of affordable housing, not the safeguarding of developer profits. The new clauses are therefore intended to ensure that when developers commit during the planning process to building affordable houses, they stick to those commitments. I commend the new clauses to the Committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Gideon Amos
I rise to say a few words about new clause 1, but I will principally speak about our new clause 55, which is a mechanism to incentivise the building of housing developments that have lain unbuilt and undeveloped for three years.
On new clause 1, I am very sympathetic to the proposal made by the hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for North East Hertfordshire—we are only missing Hampshire—but, frankly, we prefer our approach. There is a long-standing principle in planning law that the person of the applicant is not a relevant consideration, and by and large we wish to stand by that. There is scope for the new clause to be used to prejudice particular applicants.
There is also a practical consideration. Land changes hands very quickly and, whoever owns it, different applicants can make applications. I am reminded of the famous case in Oxford of university students applying for a nuclear power station on Christ Church meadow, because a person can apply for anything on any land, whether they own it or not. In fact, the Town and Country Planning Association applied for permission for an airport on Maplin Sands, even though it was probably not going to be able to build it. Those bizarre examples demonstrate that the person of the applicant is not a relevant consideration.
Under new clause 1, a different applicant with a different name or a different agent of the same landowner could immediately come forward, so I have practical concerns about it. Our approach is to introduce a “use it or lose it” principle into the planning system. Specifically, where a development of 100 homes or more has been granted permission but not started within the applicable period—usually three years—the land will transfer to the relevant local authority. We expect that in those circumstances, the usual provisions of the Land Compensation Acts and the principles of fairness in compulsory acquisition, which I referred to in a previous debate, would apply.
We accept the principle that developers and house builders need a pipeline—a plan for their land—but three years is a significant amount of time. The recent moves to encourage the build-out of homes that have not been built have not succeeded. We have had a reduction from five years to three years in the lifespan of planning permissions, but there has not been a significant change in the build-out rate, so we need significant measures if we are to make these major schemes happen.
This is not about penalising people; it is about dealing with an issue that is clearly undermining our ability to tackle the housing crisis. Across the country, there are permissions for 1.5 million new homes that have not been built—13,000 in my authority area of Somerset alone. Those homes could house thousands of families. Research from TerraQuest, which operates the planning portal—not a particularly radical or out-there organisation —shows that a third of all homes given planning permission since 2015 have not been built. Ten years on, that shows that unbuilt permissions are an enduring problem that needs to be tackled. If all those permissions had been built out, the Government would have hit their annual 300,000 homes target in eight out of the last 10 years, and yet the approach so far focuses almost entirely on allocating more and more permissions in the hope that that will result in more homes being built.
There is no lack of planning permissions; the problem is that developers are not building out the ones they already have, because the current system does not penalise delay. Two big things could be done to improve housing supply: funding social housing and funding infrastructure. If those things were funded in a range of areas around the country, there would be almost unlimited build-out rates on stalled sites.
Developers clearly, and I think reasonably and rationally, will only build out at a rate that sustains the price of their product and their viability. They have fiduciary duties to their shareholders, and they need to maintain the viability of their companies. So they will not build out at a rate significant enough to flood the local market with housing and depress the price. We cannot blame them for wanting to make a profit—that is what we expect them to do—but we need to fund social housing publicly, as it was funded in the past, to get out of that bind. That is why I believe we need a stronger lever than we currently have.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I would like to speak to new clause 76, which is in my name.
This new clause seeks to probe the Minister’s thoughts about the success of local authorities in tackling and challenging the unauthorised development that has gone on. As he will know, the last Government made intentional unauthorised development a material consideration, meaning that planning permission could be refused, and there is a presumption that it should be refused, when development has taken place without consent.
I think it is safe to say that we do not think—many of us see this in our constituencies—that that is being enforced uniformly. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), has an open case at the moment, and I am sure all of us, as elected MPs, have had such cases in the past. There is also an issue with unauthorised encampments. The new clause goes a step further by saying that if development has taken place without authorisation, the planning authority should not grant consent. This is a probing amendment because such provisions already exist, but there are many examples across the country of enforcement not taking place.
New clause 76 requires that no planning permission is to be granted in cases of intentional unauthorised development. It would provide a power to the local planning authority not to grant consent for development
“where there has been intentional unauthorised development in respect of the land or properties which are to be subject to that development.”
It gives further detail about the meaning of “intentional unauthorised development”, which
“(a) includes any development of land undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission”,
but
“(b) does not include any unintentional, minor or trivial works undertaken without having obtained the relevant permission.”
We have put in paragraph (b) to take account of householders who have undertaken small modifications—for instance, small extensions, walls or garden sheds—that in certain circumstances would need planning permission. We do not want to persecute or make the law come down hard on those who have made a genuine mistake. This is about larger unauthorised development. The reason for tabling the new clause is that we think the Bill should go further in restricting unauthorised development, and that we want local planning authorities to be able to enforce the powers they have through the legislative changes made by the last Government.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly in the context of our earlier debate about hope value, it is important that this issue is addressed? For law-abiding citizens, nothing is more frustrating than someone carrying out an unauthorised development, potentially on a site in the green belt, as we have seen on a number of occasions, and then being able to regularise that by obtaining retrospective planning permission, when, had they applied lawfully to begin with, it would have been refused. That is an injustice in the planning system that needs to be addressed.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is right; I think that we have all seen that happen as Members of Parliament. It makes a mockery of the planning system when people—they know exactly what they are doing—retrospectively apply for permission and still reap the benefits. There was an example of this in my old constituency that involved removing trees that had tree preservation orders, in order to build on some land. Doing so destroyed that area of land, and it went completely against what should have happened. When the developer went to the local authority, it retrospectively granted planning permission, and the local villagers were outraged.
My hon. Friend is right: the new clause is meant to tackle those who know how to play the system. However, if someone has made unintentional changes to a house that could be covered under permitted development rights, but may go slightly beyond them, we would give local planning authorities the jurisdiction and authority to use their own minds in such cases.
I hope that the Minister understands why we are trying to probe him to see whether he can strengthen the Bill in relation to unauthorised development. He may have to write to me after the Committee—I am sorry to the officials for asking for another letter—about whether the last Government’s measures to give local authorities that power has worked and, if not, how we could work together to ensure that unauthorised development is stopped. We do not want to stop developments, but we think that there needs to be fairness in the planning system. People, who may not be well off, who want to make a planning application for their own home often find it a difficult experience when, just down the road, people are doing it willy-nilly whenever they want to. I look forward to clarification from the Minister. If he needs to write to me, that is absolutely fine.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak first to new clause 1, which seems to me, as someone who has worked closely with developers, ill thought out. It does not address the need to build more social and affordable homes.
Permissions that are granted, particularly on brownfield sites, often contain any number of conditions that are extremely difficult for developers to achieve—discharging conditions around environmental remediation and, for example, looking after bats or newts, which are common where I practise. There is also a lack of local authority staff competent to deal with section 106 agreements. Permissions are often granted to developers before they own the land, and there may be suitable tax reasons why people do not wish to sell the land until the following tax year. It is easy for those things to stretch over way more than three years, and sometimes up to five years. I am in favour of building more social homes, but the new clause would not achieve that objective. It also does not take into account the massive shortage of workers in the construction sector, the skills that we need or the shortage of materials, which has become even more acute in the past couple of years.
I also want to talk about new clause 76. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley has entertained us for most of the day with minor matters, but his new clause would have an effect that he has perhaps not thought about. The majority of unauthorised planning that I saw in my practice was carried out by farmers who were not able to make enough money from farming their land, so very often diversified their large warehouse-type structures and started using them for small businesses—perhaps renting them out to local engineering firms and so on. After a period of 10 years, somebody would complain in the local village and they would then apply for an authorised use certificate, and nine times out of 10, it would be granted.
The impact of new clause 76—that unauthorised change of use—would prevent those people from developing new homes on their site or opening up more opportunities for new businesses. It needs more thought and attention, because the very people who would be impacted are those who the Opposition say that they stand up for. Very often, they will be farmers who are looking to diversify their property.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I wish to speak to new clause 25, which would, for developments of more than 10 houses, require that where 20% of those houses are to be developed for social housing, developers would not be able to reduce that amount below 20% over the fullness of time, as often happens today. We all seem to support the need for more social housing, but we have debated at length in Committee how best we get there.
In the interest of brevity, and conscious that we have more new clauses coming than the entire Dead Sea scrolls, I will keep my remarks concise. We in the Liberal Democrats feel that new clause 25 is necessary to hold developers account to that 20% quota for social housing, rather than being able to fritter it away. It relates to points that we previously made, that it would seem that without more regulation, market forces alone are not succeeding in delivering the social housing that we all recognise we need.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate hon. Members speaking to these new clauses. I recognise the worthy intentions that sit behind many of them. The Government certainly recognise the challenges of many of the issues that they touch on. It will not surprise Members that the Government will not be able to accept them, but I hope I can set out in some detail why that is the case.
Let me first deal with new clauses 1, 55 and 61, all of which relate in some way to build-out. All seek to improve the speed of build-out of developments by giving local planning authorities greater control and power where developments are not built out fast enough. New clause 1 seeks to introduce a power to decline applications based on outcomes of previous grants of permission. New clause 55 seeks to introduce a new mechanism for developments of 100 houses or more where, if permission is not used within an applicable period, the ownership of the land would pass to the relevant local authority.
I want to make clear to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that the Government agree with the objective of improving the build-out rate of residential development. We want to see homes built out faster where they have consent, and I very much recognise—I say this as a constituency MP, as well as a Minister—the frustrations that stalled or delayed sites can cause to communities, particularly to people in communities who have gone through the process of putting in a view on an application. They have an application that they want to see come forward, and then the site does not develop.
The Government expect developers to do all that they can to deliver, but we do not think these new clauses are necessary to achieve that. In the case of new clause 55, which effectively involves the transfer of land to a local authority without compensation if planning permission is not commenced, we feel that would be disproportionate, not compatible with the European convention on human rights and would have a chilling effect on development, as it would create risks for developers that their planning permissions may not be implemented.
Instead, we are introducing new requirements for statutory build-out reporting by implementing the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 on commencement notices and development progress reports. That will provide local planning authorities and communities with greater transparency about the rate of build-out of developments and any delays that may occur.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Let me emphasise the point around viability and the impact of a precarious economic situation on developers’ ability to build. Does the Minister agree that the challenges for the private sector that he has set out also apply to local authorities? In estate renewal in London, for example, many have had to relook at the viability of that and have seen delays for a number of years because markets have changed and the land analysis has altered. It is a changing picture depending on the moment in time, and one that it is inextricably linked to the economic picture at the time.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right. If we are having a mature conversation about this, we have to recognise that economic circumstances can change and that the costs that developers are having to deal with—build material costs have increased significantly, particularly in London—are factors they do have to weigh in their judgments. On the other side of the coin, it is important, in strengthening the section 106 system, that we are ensuring local authorities can negotiate robustly on those agreements and that we hold developers to the commitments that they make. The Government’s intention is to do both.
Matthew Pennycook
I will, but I do not want to lead us down the path of a long debate on viability.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the Minister for giving way. He is talking about changes in viability. What does he say to councils that are in the position of having granted planning permission, had a viability assessment and agreed a 106, and the developer comes back a year or two later and says that they cannot do it and will have to put in a new planning application, have a new viability assessment and a new 106, but because the council has determined a planned application on that site, if it went to the planning inspector, there would be a lower bar for that development to get over? That is because the council has already accepted the principle of development on that site under the premise of one section 106 negotiation.
Does the Minister think that, on the second go, the developer should have to start from the beginning, have the same principles to get the development off the ground, and that the same higher bar should apply? At the end of the day it is the community that lose out from the community obligations that the developer is trying to get out of.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member tempts me into commenting on hypotheticals. I will instead say the following. There are two things happening here. We have to be aware of the ability for some existing mechanisms—section 73 applications are a good example—to be gamed in terms of viability to drive down the amount of public gain. I am aware of that, and I have been very candid about it. On the other hand, and correspondingly, if a permission such as the one he hypothetically mentioned is in place, I think that is testament to why it is so important that we bring forward measures on build-out transparency and have the powers to be able to say to developers, as the Government are saying to all developers, “If you’ve got a consent, then get on and build.”
The Government are making a variety of reforms to the planning system, which in any number of ways will provide for a more rules-based system, more certainty and will drive down development costs. We are firming up planning policy guidance and expectations. We are making it clearer and easier for developers to put in an application and we should reduce costs as well. Correspondingly, we can ask for more. We are bringing forward measures in fairly short order on build-out and we will turn on the LURA provisions that I have mentioned. On that basis, I ask for the new clauses to be withdrawn.
New clause 76, tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, seeks to prevent those who have deliberately undertaken unauthorised development from obtaining planning permission retrospectively. The Government do not condone unauthorised development and are clear that anyone seeking to undertake development should first obtain planning permission where it is required. I therefore very much appreciate the sentiment behind his new clause. I recall debating with a shadow Secretary of State this particular matter in relation to Gypsy and Traveller camps, and I appreciate that across the House there is concern about the use of unauthorised developments.
However, the Government’s view is that there may be circumstances—I am happy to set this out in writing to the shadow Minister—in which unauthorised development, even if it is intentional, may be acceptable in planning terms or may be made so by the imposition of planning conditions. I say that only to make the point that we believe that there is a need for some pragmatism here and that such developments should be considered by the local planning authority. It is already the case that intentional unauthorised development, as he said, is a material consideration. It must be weighed in the balance when determining planning applications and appeals. That approach retains local decision making.
The Government obviously keep this matter under review. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the shadow Minister about the Government’s view as to whether the enforcement powers available to local planning authorities—they have a wide range of powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance—are being used, and if not, why not. I am also more than happy to share with him our understanding of how local planning authorities and inspectors are treating unauthorised development as a material consideration, as they are now required to do. I hope that, on that basis, I have provided him with some reassurance.
Paul Holmes
I appreciate the Minister’s being so open and genuinely—I wouldn’t say I didn’t believe him before—promising to go away and look at this issue. We would like to take him up on that; we will not press our new clause today, but there are conversations to be had further down the line on this topic. Will he just confirm whether his Department holds any statistics on how many unauthorised developments we are talking about? Is there is a reporting structure for local authorities, which may be held by the Planning Inspectorate? We would like to know how his Department is monitoring the number of unauthorised developments that are using the powers that were given to local authorities, if that makes sense.
Matthew Pennycook
What I can commit to—I feel the glares from my officials on me now—is this. If we have the information, I am more than happy to have a conversation with the shadow Minister to give him a sense of, across the country, how local authorities are using their existing enforcement powers and the extent to which, although I think this will be difficult information for Government to track, local planning authorities and inspectors are relying on unauthorised development as a material consideration. I am thinking, for example, of inspectors allowing things on appeal that are unauthorised. If we have that information, I am more than happy to share it and to have that conversation with the hon. Gentleman.
Ellie Chowns
I thank all those who have contributed and the Minister for his very thoughtful responses. On new clause 1, I note the Minister’s assurances that existing mechanisms will be going some way, at least, to addressing the concerns I have raised about build-out, so I will not push it to a vote at this point. I will not push the new clauses on affordability to a vote at this point, either, because I will be speaking to new clause 3, which is specifically on this issue, but I will emphasise that when we are thinking about viability, we must remember that we have a huge crisis of a lack of affordable housing in this country. We do not have a crisis in developer profits—not at all.
I would like to cite to the Committee a paragraph from a report that I have just checked out:
“Since 2014, the largest housebuilders, and in particular the three largest housebuilders by volume (Taylor Wimpey, Barratt and Persimmon…) have consistently reported supernormal levels of profitability, with gross profit margins reaching 32% and never falling below 17%”.
That is the reality of the crisis of excess developer profits that we face in the current housing market, and it is from independent academics. In that context, I think that it is incumbent on the Government and everybody to do everything possible to ensure that viability tests are not used as an excuse by developers to wriggle out of commitments to providing affordable housing. I am genuinely concerned that the provisions in existing law and in this Bill will still leave a huge viability loophole for developers. If in the next 10 years we continue to have those levels of supernormal profits on the part of developers, this Government will have absolutely failed all those who are struggling in the face of the housing crisis.
Matthew Pennycook
I think some of this will become evident in the fullness of time. There has been an implicit criticism of the Government at several points in Committee that we are entirely reliant on a market-led approach, and are happy with an entirely developer-led, market-led approach. That is not the case. We think that targeted reforms to the planning system are necessary, but we also absolutely believe that reform of our broken house building model is required. I have said on many occasions that we are overly reliant on a speculative development model that produces bad outcomes. Hon. Members across the Committee will see before too long other measures that the Government are bringing forward to both transform and disrupt that market in ways that are beneficial.
Matthew Pennycook
Well, the market does need to be disrupted, in the particular sense that we need new entrants coming forward, and small and medium-sized enterprises and community led-housing back in the game.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington said, and I think he is right, that developers have a business model, particularly volume builders. Some are changing their business model and we would encourage change to those business models, but there is a particular model that relies on very high margins. I know the academic study that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire cited. We must and will reduce our reliance on that. We also must be careful about weighing in on viability in a way that would just stop house building coming forward in lots of cases, because that would ultimately help nobody.
A final point that I think is pertinent to this debate: I always find the nimby and yimby debate incredibly reductive, but I think that some who oppose development on the basis that they only prioritise social and affordable housing discount the fact that building homes of any tenure in localities assists people trying to access social and affordable rent. It all helps and it need not be one or the other.
Rachel Taylor
I think what comes across in some of the proposed new clauses, which is not the case in the Bill itself, is a punitive scheme for developers. What we need to do is work in partnership with smaller developers and community developers in particular, so that we can build out any number of different types of homes—whether they are apartments, bungalows, or small starter homes. All of those are important in the market and will help young people to feel that they can get on the housing ladder and not have to rely on living in their parents’ spare room until they are in their mid-30s.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a good point. To wrap this debate up, I think it is right that the Government seek to take forward planning reform in the way we have, and to streamline the planning process in a way that drops costs on developers where it is appropriate. Equally, we must be robust with developers. We want to put this mechanism in place and ensure that local authorities can negotiate section 106 agreements robustly. Where those agreements are entered into, we expect them to be delivered and we expect sites to be built out. As I say, hon. Members will not have to wait too long to see some of the changes that are not in existing law, but that the Government are bringing forward. On that basis, I hope hon. Members might not press the new clauses.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Review of the setting of local plans under the National Planning Policy Framework
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, review the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to the setting of local plans.
(2) The review must consider in particular replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites within their areas which are necessary to meet—
(a) local housing targets, and
(b) the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals.” —(Ellie Chowns.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the setting of local plans with a view to replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites which meet housing targets and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am reflecting on the comments that the Minister just made on the broken speculative model of development that we are currently stuck with. The new clause actually fits with amendment 2 to clause 91, which I spoke to earlier. Essentially, the new clause is asking the Government to review the way that local plans are set under the national planning policy framework, and specifically, to consider replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement in which the onus is on local planning authorities to identify sites in their areas that are necessary to achieve local housing targets and sustainable development. Currently, under-resourced and underfunded councils are forced to accept whatever ill-suited sites are offered up by developers. The pressure of meeting local housing needs often means that there is pressure to accept the sites that are offered rather than no sites.
The new clause does not force the Government to do anything apart from a review that specifically looks at redressing the power to identify which sites housing should be built on, and putting it much more in the hands of local planning authorities. That way they can take a genuinely strategic approach, rather than being at the mercy of developers’ initiatives, which may not be in the interests of the public.
Matthew Pennycook
New clause 2, which the hon. Lady has just spoken to, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire. The purpose of the planning system is clear: to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The UN’s sustainable development goals are important to that. It is because of their importance that they are already addressed via existing planning laws, planning policy, guidance and processes.
The objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development is being delivered by the existing requirement to prepare local plans under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The national planning policy framework already contains policy on sustainable development with the presumption in favour of sustainable development at its heart.
National policy includes how to plan for good design, sustainable modes of transport including walking and cycling, an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses and the community services and facilities needed. It recognises the importance to health, wellbeing and recreation that open space and green infrastructure provides, and is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need and seek opportunities for new provision. It also contains policies on how to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places, and sets out that the planning system should support the transition to a low-carbon future.
The NPPF is also clear that planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes. The framework must be given regard to in preparing the development plan, and is a material consideration in planning decisions. The “call for sites” process ensures early engagement with landowners and land promoters to understand the availability and achievability of land identified to deliver sustainable development. The current process ensures consideration of the economic, environmental and social impacts of proposed sites for development, and how those contribute to a more sustainable future.
The important part here is that the assessment does not in itself determine whether a site should be allocated for development. It is the role of the assessment to provide information on the range of sites that are available to meet the local authority’s requirements, but it is for the local development plan, taken through with consultation with the local community—we definitely want more consultation with communities upstream in the local plan development process—to determine which of the sites in a “call for sites” are the most suitable to meet the requirements.
While I recognise the intentions behind it, the new clause would ultimately undermine the Government priority for extensive coverage of local plans across England, which is the key mechanism that enables sustainable development and housing delivery to take place. Although I understand the spirit of the new clause, the Government oppose it, as these important matters are already being considered and addressed through existing laws, systems, national planning policy and associated guidance—which are obviously kept under review at all times. On that basis, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.
Ellie Chowns
I honestly do not entirely follow the Minister’s argument about this measure potentially replacing the work of local authorities in driving development plans, because that is specifically what the new clause is about. It is about putting more power in the hands of local authorities rather than in the hands of the developers. However, given that we have multiple other new clauses to get to, some of which I am especially keen on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Housing plans to include quotas for affordable and social housing
“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must include specific quotas for the provision of—
(a) affordable housing, and
(b) social housing.
(2) Where a national or local plan or strategy includes quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing, the plan or strategy must include justification for the quotas.”—(Ellie Chowns.)
This new clause would require national and local housing plans to include, and justify, quotas for the provision of both affordable and social housing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 8—Local planning authority discretion over affordability of housing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, provide guidance to local planning authorities on how to define or classify new or prospective developments as affordable housing.
(2) The guidance must make clear that a local planning authority may, while having regard to national or general guidelines, determine what is to be understood to be affordable housing in its area based on local needs and circumstances.”
This new clause would enable local planning authorities to use their discretion to determine whether certain housing is to be “affordable housing”.
New clause 26—Provision of Older Persons Housing and Later Living Homes—
“The Secretary of State must, within 1 year of the passing of this Act—
(a) require 10% of homes delivered through the Affordable Homes Programme to be Older Persons Housing or Later Living Homes, and
(b) provide grant funding to support the capital costs of developing Older Persons Housing and Later Living Homes.”
This new clause would support the capital costs of developing affordable and inclusive housing for older people and support the provision of adequate supply.
New clause 37—Local planning authority powers relating to new towns—
“(1) A local planning authority whose area includes the whole or any part of a new town may—
(a) include any of the area of the new town as land to be developed in any local plan which covers a period between the designation of the new town and the completion of development,
(b) include in the local planning authority’s housing target any houses expected to be provided by or in the new town during the period covered by the local planning authority’s local plan, and
(c) include any housing expected to be provided by or in the new town in any consideration of the local planning authority’s 5 year housing land supply.
(2) A local planning authority whose area includes the whole or more than 2,500 houses of a new town ma—
(a) disregard National Planning Policy Framework guidance relating to the duty on local planning authorities and county councils to cooperate on strategic matters crossing administrative boundaries, and
(b) extend the area designated for the new town through its local plan process.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘new town’ means a town developed by a corporation under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981.”
This new clause would provide local planning authorities with the ability to include new towns in local plans and housing targets, and give planning authorities certain powers with regard to new towns.
New clause 48—Review of method for assessing local housing need—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the standard method for assessing local housing need.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) how the method for assessing local housing need should consider different types of property;
(b) basing calculations on price per square metre rather than price per unit.
(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) local councils; and
(b) any other parties the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must—
(a) lay before Parliament a report which summarises the evidence considered in the review and the review’s final conclusions or recommendations;
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities and other relevant bodies on how they should calculate and consider local housing need.”
New clause 49—New towns to contribute towards housing targets—
“In any national or local plan or strategy which sets targets for the building of new houses, houses built as part of new towns may contribute to the meeting of such targets.”
New clause 50—Local Housing Plans—
“(1) A local planning authority must develop a Local Housing Plan for its area for the purposes of informing its local plan.
(2) A Local Housing Plan must outline the number and type of homes—
(a) required, and
(b) proposed to be built,
in the authority’s area.”
New clause 75—Requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development.
(2) The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”
New clause 92—Housing needs of ageing population—
“Any plan or strategy produced by a local planning authority which proposes the development of housing must include an assessment of the housing needs of an ageing population.”
Ellie Chowns
It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The new clause was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, and I give the Minister notice that I am particularly keen on it. It would require any national or local housing plan to include and justify quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing.
To me, the new clause seems like a no-brainer, and a measure that we should already have, given that we have such a huge housing crisis, have had no coherent Government housing strategy over the last decade or more, and have no serious goal to end homelessness or deal with the social housing waiting list or affordability issues. I recognise that the Government are making some efforts in the legislation they are introducing. I am particularly excited by the Minister’s promise of disruptive measures to tackle some of the remaining problems in the housing market.
We absolutely have to build more homes for social rent. In the 10 years between 2014-15 and 2023-24, England built 2.2 million homes. Would anybody like to guess what percentage of them were for social rent? Only 3% of them were for social rent, which is the only tenure that is genuinely affordable to those on the lowest incomes. I recently saw stats about the changes in planning permissions in the last six months: 6% of the permissions granted in that time have been for social rented homes. It is nowhere near enough. We desperately need more homes for social rent.
Paul Holmes
I understand and agree that we need to build more social rented homes, but does the hon. Lady not agree that the figures she gave could be perceived as being slightly simplistic, because they do not take into account the regional variations in where housing lists and social homes are most needed? I accept that social rent made up 3% of the total, and permissions recently increased to 6%, but in areas such as Southampton, London, Basingstoke or big urban centres, the proportion will be dramatically higher.
Ellie Chowns
I would be more than happy to go through spreadsheets with the hon. Member, because I like a nice spreadsheet. Although the figures might be slightly higher in London, I do not think anybody would argue that there is therefore sufficient affordable housing in London, or anywhere close to sufficient.
Ellie Chowns
I am delighted that the hon. Member agrees. We can all agree that there is a crisis in affordable and social housing. Unless we set targets to tackle that at every level of housing planning, we will be guaranteed to fail to create the affordable and social housing we need.
Nesil Caliskan
Does the hon. Member recognise that targets were in place for a number of years, and that in most cases local authorities failed to meet them, not because of a lack of trying, but because market circumstances meant that viability did not work and planning permissions could not get through, and for a variety of other reasons? Targets do not, in and of themselves, drive delivery in the numbers we need in this country.
Ellie Chowns
I recognise that multiple factors drive the delivery of social and affordable housing—and, indeed, the achievement of any targets so to do—but what the hon. Member said is a bit inconsistent, because the Government have just introduced huge new housing targets based on an argument that we have to have targets for particular numbers in particular locations, no matter how well suited or otherwise they might be to the circumstances of the local planning authorities. Members cannot argue that housing targets are really useful at the level of overall numbers but not useful in relation to affordable and social housing, which is the point of crisis.
The Minister said, in his response to a previous new clause that I spoke to, that we need to recognise that building any sort of housing is helpful. I kind of get his point; I think he is trying to make a sort of “trickle up” point—that people can trickle up out of the most affordable housing and into more expensive housing, and that vacates the cheaper housing—but the fundamental problem is that we have nowhere close to enough genuinely affordable housing, by which I mean social rented housing, being built.
This is therefore a very reasonable amendment, simply asking that, at every level of housing plan—local and national—targets are set. It does not say what those targets should be; it just says that each plan should set a target for affordable housing and social housing.
Lewis Cocking
Does the hon. Member not agree that, in most local plans—if not all local plans that come forward; I took one through for Broxbourne when I was leader of the council—we do have targets for affordable and social homes? The reason lots of those do not get built out is because of the issues that we discussed earlier around viability. Just having a target does not necessarily deliver what she and I want to deliver: more social homes. We can have that target, but it is about the viability and the costs that developers try to get out of. That is why they do not get built.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the hon. Member for his point, which is actually exactly the same point that the hon. Member for Barking made, essentially—
Ellie Chowns
Yes—both singing from the same hymn sheet on this. I refer the hon. Member for Broxbourne to the answer that I gave two minutes ago to those comments: I am not saying that just setting a target for social and affordable housing will magic it up, and I am not denying that multiple factors impact on the delivery. In fact, I think the hon. Gentleman might be so gracious as to recognise that, in many of the previous measures—and ones coming up—that I have tabled to the Bill, I have been trying to address some of those issues, for example, in relation to hope value, restrictions on local authorities, and so forth.
I am not saying that the new clause is a magic bullet, and I welcome the fact that many local plans contain targets for affordable and social housing. I certainly do not think that just having the targets will ensure that they are achieved, but if the Government are to be consistent in their own rhetoric, that setting targets is important because it gives people something to aim for, then I very much hope that they will support the setting of targets for affordable homes, and particularly social rented homes, because that is where the crisis is in our housing supply. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Olly Glover
I rise to speak to new clauses 8, 26 and 92, just to introduce briefly what they do. New clause 8 is about coming up with a more sophisticated definition of what “affordable housing” is, taking into account local needs and circumstances, while new clauses 92 and 26 are about quotas, funding and the assessment of the housing needs of an ageing and older population.
I shall keep my remarks on new clause 8 concise, because the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has made many of the points that I would otherwise have made. I agree with her that there seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance going on when those on the Government Benches express scepticism about the ability of targets for affordable and social housing to deliver progress, yet are adamant that targets for housing overall will do that. Perhaps the Minister will address that point in his remarks.
The key issue in terms of new clauses 26 and 92 is that the current definition of “affordable housing” is not considered affordable by many organisations. That particularly applies to people of an older age on a low income, who are still subject to many aspects of housing costs. It is not just me who thinks that the current definition of “affordable” is nothing of the sort. Shelter agrees, calling it
“unaffordable for those on average incomes”.
Similarly, Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have argued for affordability to be linked to local incomes, not market rates, and the Town and Country Planning Association also recommends local flexibility, stating in its housing guides that the 80% rule does not work in areas of high market distortion. Even the Labour-run Greater London Authority operates its own model, with the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, introducing a new category of “genuinely affordable” rent, which includes social rent, London living rent and shared-ownership schemes, as a way of creating a better benchmark.
As mentioned previously in this Bill Committee, house prices in constituencies such as mine still reflect a distorted market in which housing remains inordinately expensive despite enormous housing growth. Residents would certainly benefit from local authorities’ having the power to set what is meant by affordable housing, taking into account local circumstances on issues such as wages.
We also need to be more detailed and thoughtful about how we go about the issue of our ageing population. This is not just about the older old in care homes and similar facilities; it is also about people becoming old. For example, 40% of homeowners and 60% of renters aged 70 will have moved into their homes since the age of 50. Those homes may suit them when they move in, but they may not suit them as they age and will need to be adaptable. That is something that local authorities and all of us need to consider a lot more.
Equally, 50% of renters aged between 45 and 64 have no savings, and many will struggle to afford their rent in retirement. The Pensions Policy Institute estimates that if current trends continue, the cost of housing benefit for older renters will increase by 40%, or an additional £2 billion per annum.
Thinking more carefully about how we provide for an ageing population, as these new clauses propose, would benefit not just those who are affected by the cost of housing, but the public finances, given the ever-increasing housing benefit bill that we will face if we do not take serious action and change our approach. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Paul Holmes
I rise to speak to new clauses 48, 49, 50 and 75, most of which are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—I do not know whether he intends to intervene or to speak after me, but he is more than welcome to do so, because he drafted the new clauses and can do them a lot more justice then I can.
These wide-ranging provisions would help strengthen the legislation. We tabled new clause 48 because we want to review the method for assessing local housing need. The current method does not adequately account for the type of home being built. For example, a family home can accommodate more people than a one-bedroom flat, and it should count for more because it goes further towards meeting a local area’s housing need. Under the current methodology, we often end up with the wrong stock being built and with people being displaced or having to move away from long-standing connections in their local area.
New clause 48 states:
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the standard method for assessing local housing need…A review under this section must consider…how the method for assessing local housing need should consider different types of property”—
as we have indicated, that should be based on demographics and local housing lists—
“basing calculations on price per square metre rather than price per unit…In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult…local councils; and…any other parties the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is making an excellent and eloquent speech—far more excellent and eloquent than my contribution will be. Does he agree that one of the big concerns the Bill needs to address is the sense among some constituents that new housing development is not built for them or their community? We need to make sure that this debate is about homes, and that means we need greater subtlety and nuance in housing plans and the targets we set. It is not simply about delivering units—the dark towers we see in parts of central London, whose units are not available to or occupied by the local community—but about having a housing supply that reflects the needs of a particular place.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Who can say the Conservative party is divided when we have a bromance like this? My hon. Friend and I agree with each other all the time. He says that my speech is better than his, which is untrue, but he makes a serious point. The whole point of the Bill, and of our being here, is to ensure that housing is deliverable and accountable, and that it adapts to the will and the needs of local people. We are in Parliament and we stand for election predominantly to make our areas better and to leave the world in a better place, with people feeling better.
In my constituency, we have many four-bed and five-bed family homes. We also have a huge housing waiting list. Those homes cost £250,000 each. Of course, I aspire to being able to afford a house like that myself one day, but we need to ensure that the right housing is being built for people in Eastleigh and Fareham town centres. Often, they are displaced down the road to Southampton and Portsmouth, or to other areas of the country with which they have no connection. That is simply not fair. We tabled the new clause to see, first, whether the Minister agrees with it—I suspect he will do more resisting—and secondly, whether he will try to ascertain how we genuinely improve the method for assessing local housing need.
We had a brief debate about whether housing targets were warranted and whether people think they are good or bad. The Minister knows my position: I think they have been set for a particular reason, but that was a debate on a different clause. We want new towns to contribute towards meeting housing targets. As the Minister knows, new towns do not currently do that and are not included among those that can meet housing needs in local plans. New clause 49, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner tabled, would change that to include new towns, for several reasons.
First, that would give certainty to constituents that once a local plan had been developed and proposals had gone forward for consultation, they would not be surprised by the Government’s suddenly announcing a new town. The Government are prone to doing that at the moment—I say that neutrally. When that happens, an area seems to have to take much more housing because the new town does not, on paper, contribute to the targets. I believe that, because new towns do not contribute to those targets, they suffer in terms of their services and infrastructure. The new clause would help with fairness in the system and with housing targets and planning. It is not nimbyism—I agree with the Minister that the terms yimby and nimby are reductive. To provide clarity for the consumer, as well as stability for local areas, the Government should make new towns contribute to housing targets.
The Minister should view new clause 50 as productive. If he is worth his mettle, he will see that. Its purpose is to require local authorities to have a housing plan for their areas to inform their local plans. The housing plans would cover types of home, demographics and first-time buyer homes. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides that the local housing plan
“must outline the number and type of homes…(a) required, and…(b) proposed to be built…in the authority’s area.”
That would strengthen local authorities’ and local people’s ability to have a say about what they want to be built for them in their areas.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and I had an interesting meeting with several house builders. The Government should embrace and look to expand retirement villages in local plans. People are getting older, and many older people prefer to stay at home, but the system is slightly broken in terms of service charges and the leasehold model. That is not working.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way during a speech that is as eloquent as it is stylish. He makes a serious point. One change in the UK housing market is the collapse in the provision of small developers; something like 93% of homes are now built by very large housing providers. Particularly in pursuit of developing some of the smaller sites, in which the Minister has expressed a clear interest, we need to bring those types of development to market at scale. That is what new clause 75 seeks to do, and I hope that the Minister will—in a speech that will no doubt be equally eloquent and stylish as that of the shadow Minister—set out his thinking to ensure that that happens, so that the Bill does not become purely a charter for large developers while the huge number of smaller sites, which could deliver so much additional housing, are left undeveloped.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend raises a good point; in fact, we have tabled some amendments on targets regarding small and medium-sized enterprises. He is right that we must ensure that development is not just carried out by the usual large-scale developers; we must bring vibrancy into the sector and, more importantly, allow local authorities to make those decisions.
On retirement villages, the system does not work, but new clause 50 would allow local authorities to have the authority to focus on the demographics and first-time buyers. It would ensure that SME builders are allowed to be designated by the local authority to build those houses.
It is shameful that, for the first time in a long time, housing policy in this country does not have any incentives for first-time buyers. This point relates to the new clause, Ms Jardine. For the first time, we do not have incentives such as stamp duty relief or Help to Buy, so I hope that the Minister’s disruptive and radical solutions, which he teasingly announced, will include incentivisation. That would allow local authorities to say, “We have a lot of young people who should be entitled to be on the housing ladder; we want to put some first-time incentives into our local plans.”
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
On assistance for first-time buyers, is the lifetime ISA not still in operation?
Paul Holmes
Yes, the lifetime ISA is still in operation—the last Government brought it in—but it does not deliver the real numbers that we need, as the Help to Buy and stamp duty relief systems did. We brought those in, but they have been reversed.
Paul Holmes
Not yet. Those have been reversed by a lot of the things that this Government have done. For the first time, the sector does not have any incentivisation.
Paul Holmes
If he has a quote, then I am not giving way. I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow East that the local housing plans that we are proposing must also include social housing. Local authorities need to put forward a proper housing mix.
Luke Murphy
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and apologise to the rest of the Committee—I do not have a quote. Under its new leadership, his party is reflecting on the policies of the previous 14 years, so given that he is making an argument about first-time buyers and SME builders, why did the number of SME builders in the UK catastrophically decline over the past 14 years while the average age of the first-time buyer increased?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman does not have a quote, but his intervention is still misguided. He fails to realise that under the past 14 years of the Conservative Government, 800,000 people bought their first home through schemes such as Help to Buy and the stamp duty relief, and 2 million homes for first-time buyers were built. This Government have not even shown that they have the aspiration to match that, because they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers’ getting on to the housing ladder.
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that if he wants to, he can come for an appointment. By the way, we are under new leadership, and we are constantly reviewing our policies. We will be making announcements on the new products we will be bringing to people to fill the void that this Government have simply left for the first-time buyer.
Ellie Chowns
The hon. Member has issued a paean to Help to Buy, which at the time it was introduced was identified as a policy that would likely drive up housing prices and do nothing to address the real problems in the housing market. As I have repeatedly emphasised in this Committee, those problems relate particularly to affordable and social rent housing.
I have a quote for the hon. Member. A report published by the House of Lords Built Environment Committee in 2022 concluded that the
“Help to Buy scheme…inflates prices by more than its subsidy value”
and does
“not provide good value for money, which would be better spent on increasing housing supply.”
It pointed out that it cost the taxpayer £29 billion—more than £29 billion—over a decade, and that cash should have been used, as I have said, to replenish England’s falling stock of social housing.
The London School of Economics has found that Help to Buy boosted house prices in London by 8%—just that policy boosted house prices in London by 8%— and it boosted developers’ revenues by 57%. Does the hon. Member recognise that it is not a panacea for the problems in the housing market that we face, and that investing in social rent housing should be our priority?
The Chair
Order. Before we go on, could we keep to these new clauses, please, because we are getting a little off-track?
Paul Holmes
I will heed your advice, Ms Jardine, and bring this back to new clause 50.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said there should be more social homes, but that comes under the remit of local authorities to set in their housing plan. In response to what she said about Help to Buy versus social homes being a panacea, I gently say to her that I never at any stage said that Help to Buy was a panacea. I said it was part of the mix in which we could help people, if they so wished, to get on to the housing ladder for the first time.
Paul Holmes
I have not finished my point, if the hon. Lady would let me do so. I feel like the Minister last week.
I am saying that Help to Buy was part of a wider mix. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to focus on building more social housing, but I have a fundamental political disagreement with her, which is that social housing is not a panacea either. There are people who want to buy and there are people who want to be helped to buy, and that is why I say that, under this Government, the incentivisation for first-time buyers in the context of that argument has been abandoned, and that happened when we left office.
Ellie Chowns
My point is brief: given that the Government have a limited amount of money available, should it not be spent on the things that are most effective in tackling the reality of the housing crisis? It is clear that Help to Buy was not that.
Paul Holmes
I agree with the hon. Lady that the Government should be focusing on social housing. However, to be fair to them, they have announced a huge amount of money for it, as we discussed in the Westminster Hall debate six or seven weeks ago. I cannot remember the figure, but it was a great figure for building social housing. They have gone further than the last Government did on social housing, and I said in that Westminster Hall debate that I welcomed the Minister’s and the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to building that affordable and social housing, but we need a housing mix that also allows for first-time buyers. That is the argument I originally made, and I do not think many people in the House or out there would disagree that we need such a mix.
Briefly, new clause 75 relates to small site allocations in local plans. Currently, local planning authorities are expected to allocate 10% to small sites in local plans, unless they can provide a strong explanation why that is not possible. The Government have recognised the strength of feeling that small site policy generally is not working for both planning authorities and small and medium-sized developers, and they are strengthening the wording in the Bill. However, this new clause is designed to reverse that, and to up the percentage of small sites that should be accessible to SME developers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner outlined in his intervention. I think the Minister should be able to agree to it.
We discussed this morning how SME developers could be enabled to build more homes. There would be a requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites, and:
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development…The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”
I hope that also shows many Members across the House that we believe in a solid and varied housing mix, built by a solid and varied housing sector. A number of these measures will help deliver just that. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts.
The Chair
Before we go on, let me say that the Minister is under no obligation to discuss Help to Buy in his response.
Matthew Pennycook
I will obey your strictures, Ms Jardine, and avoid a debate on Help to Buy. I welcome hon. Members moving this group of new clauses, but I will be fairly brief. Although they may not want to, I am keen to debate all the other new clauses they have tabled and to make good progress through them. However, I am more than happy to address these new clauses.
It will not surprise hon. Members that the Government do not feel able to accept the new clauses, but for good reason. I am happy to discuss why and to set out, where applicable, how our proposals to disrupt—these are not disruptive proposals, just to clarify that for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley—the housing system, so that it functions better, play a part in that.
I will first address new clauses 3 and 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington respectively. It is true that the Government have not yet set a social and affordable housing target, but we are clear that we need to significantly increase the number of social and affordable homes built each year. There is a particular focus on that under this Government, because I would argue that we have seen the engineered decline of social rented housing over the previous 14 years. That included not only the significant cuts the coalition Government made to affordable housing grant, but other measures that were introduced. I think, in particular, of the generous right-to-buy discounts introduced by Grant Shapps when he was Housing Minister, which have seen our stock sold off in too large a quantity. We are determined to build more and, through the changes we are making to right to buy, to retain more of our stock, while recognising that long-term tenants should still have a right to buy, where applicable.
We do not believe that the new clauses are the right way forward. I think there is a difference—I am more than happy to debate the issue outside the Committee Room, but it is probably too extensive to go into now—between the standard method for calculating assessed housing need in the national planning policy framework, which sets overall assessed housing need numbers, with those being translated into local targets for housing as a whole, and affordable targets.
As I said, we have not set a target yet, but we are clear, through the NPPF, that local authorities should, in producing their local plan, assess their need for affordable housing and social rented homes, and then plan to meet those needs. That includes establishing the total need for affordable housing and setting out the amount of affordable housing that should be secured on development. Those plans are then obviously independently examined as to whether they are sound. We have also made changes to the NPPF to provide greater flexibility for local authorities to deliver the right tenure mix to suit the particular housing needs in their areas.
In addition, we are introducing new measures in the Bill to allow spatial development strategies to specify an amount or distribution of affordable housing to be delivered. I have also already committed to considering further steps to support social and affordable housing as part of our intent to produce a set of national policies for decision making in 2025. It is as part of those changes that further steps will, in many instances, best be taken, including on the content and timing of further updates to guidance. I really do recognise the point behind the new clauses, and we are keeping the matter under review, but for the reasons that I have given, I would ask that the new clauses are not pressed to a vote.
I now turn to new clause 49. Our approach to housing targets has been put in place to support our ambition to build 1.5 million new homes over the next five years. In our view, that reflects the scale of house building needed to address the current acute and entrenched housing crisis in this country, which I think we all recognise, and we have heard the statistics. As things stand, there are nearly 30,000 people on my local housing waiting list, and huge numbers are in temporary accommodation. Everywhere I go, I say that this is an acute and entrenched crisis; in many parts of the country, particularly for those of us in urban areas, it is nothing short of an emergency, and we need to take steps to respond to that.
The Government have been clear that new towns—this is our preferred approach as we proceed now—will deliver over and above the targets produced by the standard method across the country. I say that for the following reason, but with the caveat that we are keeping the matter under review: I do not know what precise list of recommended sites the new towns taskforce will bring forward, and some of those sites may build out in this Parliament, but a great number will either not have started building out in this Parliament or will only just have started. For that reason, I do not think it is reasonable, in many instances, to say that a significant proportion of the LHN we are asking local authorities to meet can be absorbed by a new town that is to come in a future Parliament.
Lewis Cocking
Local plans are done over a 15-year period, so they are over multiple Parliaments. When the Government set the housing targets for local councils—if what the Minister has just said is the Government’s position on new towns—should the situation not be the same as for local plans? Broxbourne has a local plan over 15 years, which is three Parliaments, so all the housing targets given to local authorities will not be done in one Parliament.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Local plans are set over a longer time horizon. There is an issue, as he knows, with the number of local plans across the country that are up to date. There are other, corresponding issues about the date at which those local plans that are brought forward begin, and whether they are brought forward at all. Our general position—I will not go any further than that—is that we are keeping this under review. It has been our stated position so far that new towns will deliver over and above the targets produced by the standard method.
When a new town might build out will be highly place-dependent; it will depend on the particular circumstances and delivery vehicle. Let us see what sites the new towns taskforce recommends. We are keeping this under review because we recognise that we need the right incentives in place to support proactive local authorities to work with us to bring new towns together. Although we have been clear that the site selection will ultimately be in the national interest, in terms of building these large-scale new communities out quickly and effectively, and ensuring that they are exemplary developments, it will obviously be far easier if local authorities are proactive and constructive.
Gideon Amos
The Minister is making a very important point. He will no doubt recall that, on a number of occasions, I have argued that those new towns should be within the housing targets. Our view is that if they are going to be successful, they need to be community led and embedded in the mission of that council area or community.
To the Minister’s point about aligning incentives, we encourage him to continue to keep that matter under review and open for a further reason: the scale of the increase in allocations. For example, my council has to find a 46% increase in housing allocations, which is extremely challenging, as it is in areas where, for example, there are green belts or protected land. It is extremely challenging for some authorities to identify land for housing, and if that has to be on top of a new town, it will be even more challenging. I welcome the Minister’s statement that he is keeping the matter under review, and we encourage him to do that.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman’s position on the matter is very clear. We will keep under review how the taskforce’s recommendations on new towns interact with housing targets.
Although I appreciate that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is seeking, understandably, to prevent areas with a new town from taking unmet need from neighbouring areas, his new clause would have the effect of discouraging effective cross-boundary co-operation on a much wider range of matters, which could lead to issues with local plans in those areas. For that reason, I ask him not to press it.
I turn to new clause 48. In our manifesto, the Government committed to restoring mandatory housing targets and reversing the supply-negative changes introduced by the previous Government in December 2023. In December 2024, we therefore implemented a new standard method for assessing housing needs that aligns with our ambition for 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament and better directs homes to where they are most needed and where housing is least affordable. The standard method is an important tool to ensure that housing is delivered in the right places, which is critical to tackling the chronic shortages facing the country across all areas and all tenures.
We consulted extensively on our changes to the standard method. Our public consultation received more than 10,000 responses from a range of relevant parties, including 387 submissions from local authorities. Our response to the consultation sets out the evidence received and how the Government have responded to the points raised. We have also published revised guidance to support authorities utilising the standard method. Given the recent consultation exercise on the revised standard method, I do not believe that new clause 48, which seeks further consultation and procedural steps, is the right way forward. I ask the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner not to press it.
I turn to the hon. Member’s new clause 50. National planning policy—specifically paragraph 72 of the NPPF—already expects local planning authorities to prepare strategic housing land availability assessments to provide evidence on land availability within their area. Authorities should then set out, through their local plans, a sufficient supply and mix of sites that can be brought forward over the plan period. Through this existing policy, local planning authorities are already expected to make an assessment of the number and type of homes that are required and proposed to be built in the authority’s area. I note the comment that several hon. Members have made about older people’s housing. I think it fair to say that the housing and planning system has not kept pace with demographic change, but that is why the Government are exploring the recommendations of the older people’s housing taskforce, for example.
In addition, we are committed to introducing the new plan-making system, which includes the following provision set out in new section 15C(8) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023:
“The local plan must take account of an assessment of the amount, and type, of housing that is needed in the local planning authority’s area, including the amount of affordable housing that is needed.”
New clause 50 would therefore duplicate national planning policy and legislation that we anticipate will come into effect later this year. It would create new burdens on local planning authorities, with the effect of delaying plan making. It would also undermine the Government’s priority for extensive coverage of local plans across England, reducing much-needed housing supply. I ask the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner not to press it.
I fully understand and support the principle behind new clause 75, tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. The Government fully recognise the benefits that small sites can offer in contributing to house building, diversifying the housing market and supporting faster build-out. We are therefore fully committed to increasing delivery on small sites and supporting our SME developers. This is a real priority for the Government. The statistics show that back in the 1980s SMEs built something like 40% of housing supply; the figure now is less than 10%. That is a large part of the reason that we are not bringing homes forward in the numbers we would want. Council house building is another example.
Via the NPPF, local authorities are already expected to allocate 10% to small sites in local plans unless they can provide a strong explanation why this is not possible. If such an explanation proves wanting, the plan can be found unsound when it is examined by an independent inspector. In line with the thinking behind new clause 75, we consulted on strengthening that requirement by making it wholly mandatory in local plans. That was part of the summer 2024 consultation on the NPPF, but the responses we received were clear that making the target fully mandatory would be resource-intensive, would put significant pressure on local authorities, would be unworkable in many areas and might lead to delays in plan making.
In the Government response to the NPPF consultation in December, we therefore made clear our intention to explore other options to support small site delivery as part of the upcoming national development management policies. I do not want to tease the Committee again, but details will be forthcoming and will be subject to consultation. Although I appreciate the principle behind new clause 75, I therefore do not believe that it is the best way to support small site delivery. I ask the hon. Member for Hamble Valley not to press it.
Paul Holmes
I am a pragmatist, so if the Minister says that he will make announcements in due course to strengthen what he already has a track record of doing, which is what the new clause seeks, we will welcome that. I must press him slightly, however. I grant that he has only been in his position for 10 months, but if the 10% is already in the NPPF and has not made any real change, and if he is reluctant to make legislative changes to enforce it, what other measures can he introduce to increase the number of houses that SME builders can build?
Matthew Pennycook
It is worth referring to the NPPF consultation in the summer and the Government response. We think that there was good reason not to make the 10% allocation mandatory. Local authorities, in particular, told us that they had concerns in that regard. There are many other things we could do. Without using this as a defence, in fairly short order the shadow Minister will see some of the measures that we want to introduce to support SME house builders. Access to land is a concern, and access to finance is another issue, as is the cumulative burden of regulation on SME house builders, which, for obvious reasons, are less able to cope with that than large-volume house builders. All of that is part of the answer, but I am sure we will have further debates on the matter once the Government have brought forth new measures in that area.
I turn to new clauses 92 and 26. I share the commitment of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to enhancing provision and choice for older people in the housing market. I agree that the need to provide sufficient housing to meet older people’s specific needs is critical. We must ensure that the housing market is moving with demographic change. I also recognise that well-designed, suitable housing can improve the quality of life, health and wellbeing of older people, as well as supporting wider Government objectives.
That is why the revised national planning policy framework already makes it clear that local authorities producing a local plan should, as I have said before, assess the size, types and tenure of housing for different groups in their communities, including older people, and reflect that in their planning policies. Supporting guidance also makes it clear that an understanding of how the ageing population affects housing needs should be considered from the early stages of plan making through to decision making.
Furthermore, clause 47 contains provision for spatial development strategies to take account of that factor. It provides that SDSs
“may specify or describe…an amount or distribution of affordable housing or any other kind of housing”
if the provision of that housing is considered
“to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”
One can well imagine how, in particular sub-regions of the country with high proportions of older people, SDSs may want to take particular account of that factor.
We will of course consider how we can continue to make progress on delivering sufficient housing for older people, as we develop our long-term housing strategy, which we will publish later this year. I recognise that that will have benefits not only in meeting housing need for older people, but further down the housing chain, by unlocking homes that are inappropriate for older people. Those people may wish to move if they have a better offer and if challenges such as those mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, such as the excessive service charges on some older people’s residential housing, are dealt with.
On new clause 26, I do not believe that introducing legislation to impose targets and capital funding for the affordable homes programme is the best way to incentivise the market to increase the supply of older people’s housing and later living homes. The Government’s view is that local housing authorities are best placed to bring forward the right amount of new housing for older persons and later living homes in their areas through the planning and care systems, and based on local need. The Government will obviously support them to do that when they set out the full details of a new grant funding programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme at the spending review on 11 June. Alongside wider investment across this Parliament, the new programme will help to deliver our commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. For that reason, I respectfully ask that none of the new clauses in this very large group are pressed to a vote.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister for his comments. I will briefly pick up on a couple of the issues he mentioned. On housing for older people, and new clause 92, I welcome the Government’s recognition that this is a serious issue, and that there are real benefits to enabling greater provision of housing for older members of the community—not least that it would also unlock housing for others. I look forward very much to the measures with which he is tantalising us coming forward. Likewise, as support for SME house builders is an issue close to the hearts of those in my constituency of North Herefordshire, I am on tenterhooks waiting for his forthcoming announcements.
However, I do intend to push new clause 3 to a vote. The Minister has not explained why he thinks that mandatory housing targets are essential, but targets for affordable and social housing are apparently unacceptable.
Matthew Pennycook
In part, I would like to correct the hon. Lady, because at no point did I say that such targets are unacceptable; I said that we have not, to date, set one. I will give her an idea of some of the reasons. The hon. Member for Broxbourne will remember discussion of this in my evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee: there are factors that bear on the delivery of social and affordable housing that sit outside the control of a local authority area.
For example, while a lot of social and affordable housing comes through section 106 agreements, large amounts come through grant funding from Government, and we cannot impose an arbitrary target without other measures, which the Government are bringing forward, being in place. We have not set a target for now; we think it is right that local authorities lead on assessing that need and ensuring that it is reflected in local plans. However, at no point did I say that it is unacceptable—
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Ms Jardine, we had agreed, through the usual channels, that the Whip would move the Adjournment for the Committee at 4 pm—that was agreed with the Labour Whip yesterday. I appreciate that, for very good reasons, she is not here today. I also understand that Ministers may have a preference, given our progress, to continue a degree further. I will not move the Adjournment if the Ministers indicate that they wish to continue a little later, but may I seek your guidance, Ms Jardine, on how to resolve that, given that the schedule on which hon. Members’ diaries have been constructed included an adjournment at 4 pm?
The Chair
I am sorry, but I have had no instruction about that. There has been no mention of it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I am standing in as both Energy Minister and a Whip, Ms Jardine. As far as I know, the assumption was that we would have made speedier progress on various clauses today, and might have concluded line-by-line scrutiny by 4 pm. I do not think it was agreed that we would adjourn at 4 pm, but I am not party to any of those conversations, so I am afraid I cannot help. I think all other hon. Members have 5 pm in their diaries—and, given the lack of progress that we have made, we probably should proceed.
David Simmonds
Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine, I accept that it was a discussion between me, as the Opposition Whip, and the Labour Whip yesterday, which is the usual channel through which times are agreed. That being the case, and in her absence, I will not move the adjournment, in order to enable the Committee to proceed. However, I respect that hon. Members may have to leave—including me, because I have built my diary around that agreement and I have childcare responsibilities.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine—I do not wish to waste any more of the Committee’s time—for my part, I am content for the Committee to sit until 5 pm to ensure that business gets through. However, given my own diary, I would take a dim view if the Government should seek to continue beyond 5 pm.
The Chair
To clarify, the Committee sits until the Government moves the adjournment, so it is entirely up to the Government as to what they wish to do.
Michael Shanks
In all our diaries, the session was from 2 pm until 5 pm. That is when the Government will adjourn.
The Chair
We will continue; I believe the hon. Member for North Herefordshire was speaking.
Ellie Chowns
I was not speaking at the moment of the point of order—the Minister was. I confess have been slightly thrown by the intervention from the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, but I think that at the time of the point of order, the Minister was intervening on my summing-up speech, which was about pushing new clause 3 to a vote. I take the Minister’s point that he did not say that such targets were unacceptable; however, if he fails to support the new clause, he is effectively indicating that it is fine for the Government to specify where houses must be built, but not to say that local authorities should specify that certain types of housing must be built, as they see fit.
Matthew Pennycook
I would genuinely like to understand the hon. Lady’s thinking in this area. Does she think that it is the role of Government to prescribe, for every local planning authority in England, the precise mixes of tenure and affordable housing, and, for example, the number of older people’s homes they bring forward? It would be helpful to have clarity on where the line is drawn.
Ellie Chowns
I am pleased to clarify that no, that is not my proposal, nor is it what the new clause says. It simply states:
“Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must include specific quotas for the provision of—
(a) affordable housing, and
(b) social housing.”
The elaboration of those national and local plans remains in the hands of those who are responsible for producing them under existing legislation. There is nothing in the new clause that says that it has to be at a specific level.
If the Government take the provision of affordable and social housing seriously, and recognise that the existing level of social rented housing—whether it is 3% or 6%—is nowhere near sufficient, then why not have the Bill specify that a quota for affordable and social housing should be set by the authorities that write the local plans? The new clause is moderate, reasonable and proportionate, and is entirely in line with the Government’s commitment to setting targets for housing overall.
The net effect of not accepting the new clause may well be that the housing market continues to be just as distorted as it currently is, so I warmly encourage the Minister to consider supporting it. I think that others will find it difficult to understand why a Labour Government would not support targets for affordable and social housing—not specifying the numbers, but requiring that such targets are a necessary part of achieving what the Government say they want to achieve in improving access to housing.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
Before we move on, I think we could all do with a brief comfort break. I will suspend the sitting until 4.15 pm, which will give us eight minutes.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 11—Accessibility requirements to be made mandatory—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—
(a) make provision for M4(2) (Access to and use of dwellings) in Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010 to be made mandatory, and
(b) issue guidance for developers and other relevant stakeholders on how M4(2) is to be complied with.”
This new clause would make the existing Building Regulations requirements in relation to accessibility, which are currently optional, mandatory.
New clause 110—Accessibility standards for new homes—
It must be a condition of any grant of planning permission for new homes that—
(a) all planned homes meet Building Regulation M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings); and
(b) where an application for planning permission is for 20 or more homes, a minimum of 15% of planned homes meet Building Regulation M4(3) (wheelchair user dwellings).”
Gideon Amos
It is a privilege to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.
New clause 5 would require building regulations to be made that require new homes to meet the zero carbon standard and to include renewable energy. Back in 2006, the then Labour Government rightly set out plans to achieve zero carbon in new housing. The same Government made a commitment in the carbon plan that there would be a regulatory requirement for zero carbon homes from 2016, which was the key date. That 2016 commitment was renewed by the coalition Government in 2011 and was included in the 2014 Infrastructure Bill. However, all the commitments to on-site efficiency standards and allowable solutions—the extra bit to make new homes zero carbon—were cancelled by the incoming Conservative Government in 2015, in a shocking retrograde step in addressing carbon emissions.
We came so close to achieving the zero carbon homes standard back then. A cross-sector ministerial taskforce had been in place from around 2008. Two preparatory upgrades to building regulations had already been made—by the Labour Government in 2010, and by the coalition Government in 2013—and regulations were drafted for the 2016 upgrade that would have delivered zero carbon homes.
Labour housing and planning Ministers who are now in the Cabinet—I will not name them in case they do not want to be named—chaired the ministerial taskforce and took the programme forward. Under the coalition Government, a predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), Andrew Stunell—to whom I pay tribute, and who introduced his first Bill on this subject back in 2004—continued the zero carbon homes programme as a Minister until 2015.
We then had the complete cancellation of the programme in 2015. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has estimated that, had the zero carbon standard been reached, residents would have paid £5 billion less in energy bills since 2016 as a result of living in better insulated and more energy-efficient homes.
My noble Friend Baroness Parminter tabled a zero carbon homes amendment to the 2015-16 Housing and Planning Bill on Report, but the then Government did not support it. The Minister at the time in the Lords said that the Government would
“introduce nearly zero energy building standards”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2016; Vol. 771, c. 925.]
Of course, that falls well short. Undeterred, the Lords voted in favour again; the then Government ultimately tabled their own amendment that committed to reviewing energy performance requirements under building regulations, but they never did so—and, again, that fell a long way short.
Almost 20 years on, we still do not have a zero carbon standard for new homes. It was, and still should be, a cross-party and cross-sector issue. There is a legal commitment to reduce carbon emissions in this country, and mandating zero carbon new homes would ensure that we do not make the task even harder for ourselves than it already is. Zero carbon homes insulate households not just in terms of energy but from fluctuations in energy prices. They reduce demand for electricity from the national grid and obviously reduce carbon footprint.
Much more recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) tried again to acquire a degree of solar generation on new homes with a private Member’s Bill—his sunshine Bill. When the Minister responded to that debate back in January, he said that
“the Government already intend to amend building regulations later this year...that will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 652.]
I am not sure why I am quoting the Minister to himself, but he will no doubt recall saying that rooftop solar deployment will increase significantly as a result.
We look forward to a response on the new clause, which moves us towards and helps to deliver zero carbon homes. It would give the Government six months to set out regulations, and it merely seeks to hold the Minister to his word on the topic. The Minister ought to emulate once more the forward-looking approach of the Labour Government back in 2006, who committed this country to a trajectory of zero carbon homes. Almost 20 years on, we and many others want the certainty of a legislative provision to secure a zero carbon future for British housing and bring the benefits of solar generation to all residents.
After all, we could have avoided building an entire new power station had this standard been introduced in 2016, as was proposed through cross-party agreement at the time. It is now almost a decade since the first zero carbon homes plan would have been introduced. This will be a lost opportunity if Parliament does not commit, finally, to taking that last step to make all new homes zero carbon.
Ellie Chowns
I warmly welcome the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I refer colleagues to the fact that I have proposed a private Member’s Bill on exactly this topic—the Carbon Emissions from Buildings (Net Zero) Bill—and my very first Westminster Hall debate was on environmental building standards, so I am fully behind the new clause.
It is essential that we build new housing to the best possible standards, and that we build new homes that are fully fit for the future. We know that doing so has social, environmental and economic benefits. It has social benefits, because it reduces people’s fuel bills and tackles issues such as mould in homes. It has environmental benefits, because, of course, there are huge energy efficiency advantages. It has economic benefits, not least because it is much more economically efficient in the long run to build houses effectively at the start so that we do not have to retrofit them years down the line. We already have a huge retrofit challenge in the coming years, so the very least we can do is to ensure that all new houses are built to zero carbon standards.
The new clause refers specifically to solar power generation on roofs. I warmly welcome the Government’s announcement—I believe it was on local election day—that they are moving in that direction. However, in zero carbon design, other factors are much more important, including building orientation, design around transport and fabric first. I would like to discuss another factor, namely embodied carbon. I have tabled new clause 91 on the subject, but I am not sure that we will get there. When we talk about zero carbon, we need to recognise both the operational carbon, which is the carbon produced by a building during its lifespan—over the next, say, 80 years—and the embodied carbon in buildings, which is becoming a larger factor in the construction industry. We will soon be at the point where embodied carbon is half of the carbon associated with a building during its lifetime.
Rachel Taylor
I thank the hon. Member for her lengthy and detailed explanation of zero carbon standards. Does she think it is appropriate to constrain the Minister to bringing forward building regulations within the short period of six months? Would that take longer? Not all of us have the same detailed and intricate knowledge of the standards that would be required, although I understand a great deal about building regulations.
Ellie Chowns
In fairness, I did not draft the new clause. I recognise that it says six months, but as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington spoke about so eloquently, we had proposals for net zero carbon building standards on the table 10 years ago. This has been in development for 20 years. The sector itself is way ahead of Government on this. A huge amount of work has been done by the Low Energy Transformation Initiative, the Royal Institute of British Architects and all sorts of organisations to develop zero carbon building standards.
Although bringing regulations forward within six months is arguably ambitious, it is not that the work is not available. The missing thing is political will, and political will can be found, as we have seen—we have passed a bill in less than 24 hours in this House within the last few weeks. Where there is political will, things can be done quickly. This is not an unreasonable proposal in this legislation. All the technical work is there; it is political will that is missing to bring forward a zero carbon standard for new homes. I could not more warmly welcome this new clause.
Olly Glover
I wish to add some concise thoughts to support the new clause, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington, which requires new homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard and include provision for generation of solar power. My comments relate to the current political context in our country, which is—regrettably, in my view—more and more cynicism about net zero and the feeling that climate change mitigation is a negative, a drag on our lives and something that will cost us loads of money.
These proposals on zero carbon homes and solar panels are the exact opposite of all that. They are a good example of how taking action on climate change and striving for net zero brings economic opportunity by stimulating supply chains and the labour force and helping people to reduce their bills, creating more money for them to spend on the wider economy. Of course, it helps our planet as well. We need to be far more radical on policies like these, and there needs to be far less delay. We really need to get on with it, because they benefit people, planet and economy.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling the new clause, and other hon. Members for speaking to it. They are all right to highlight the damage caused by the scrapping of the zero carbon homes standard back in 2015. It is worth recalling that that was widely criticised at the time, not only by environmentalists, but by house builders that had geared up to be ready to make the change. It is particularly regrettable, not least to me—I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, will feel the same—to confront the collective costs of the retrofit that is now required because those standards were not in place.
The Government agree that reducing carbon emissions from new homes is a vital part of our ambition to reach net zero by 2050, and increasing solar power in the country must play an important role in that transition. However, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington said when he referenced the debate on the private Member’s Bill that we had a few months back, it is already the Government’s intention to amend building regulations later this year and set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emission requirements for new homes. The future homes and building standards will set our homes on a path that moves away from relying on volatile fossil fuels.
We are conducting further technical stakeholder engagement on solar energy following feedback from the future homes and building standards consultation. It is our responsibility to make sure that solar provision is included in the new standards in a way that is ambitious, but technically achievable. We are working through the details to get that right. It is also our responsibility to provide industry with sufficient time to prepare to ensure that any transition to new standards is as smooth as possible. The time spent carefully engaging with industry on the future homes standard makes me confident that a smooth transition to higher standards is entirely possible.
Therefore, I can assure hon. Members that the Government remain committed to improving the energy efficiency of new homes and increasing solar panel deployment. Without seeking to tease hon. Members, who will not have to wait too long for further information in this area, we are doing that. I reassure the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that very fruitful conversations continue with the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I recognise the leadership he has shown in bringing his private Member’s Bill, which has drawn more attention to the issue. For those reasons, and in view of our firm commitment to bring forward those future standards, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might withdraw his new clause.
Gideon Amos
Before I respond to the Minister, I note that I should have spoken to new clause 11. I will not do so at length, but it would improve accessibility for new homes, make sure they are adaptable and introduce a minimum standard for them.
On the zero carbon standard, I am grateful for the Minister’s generally positive response about the direction of travel, but so far, the rhetoric has been about getting us nearer to zero carbon. We need to be bold and decide that we are finally going to make new homes zero carbon. It is a small step to take. In previous legislation, there was an allowable solution that would compensate for the final balance of emissions in any new house that could not achieve it through fabric first. It is achievable, it needs to be done, and we will push new clause 5 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 34—Sustainable drainage (No. 2)—
“The Secretary of State must, within one month of the passing of this Act—
(a) bring into force Schedule 3 (Sustainable drainage) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities, land and property developers and other relevant stakeholders on—
(i) how to incorporate sustainable drainage into new developments, and
(ii) the minimum expected standards for ongoing maintenance of sustainable drainage infrastructure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and provide guidance on the building in of sustainable drainage in future developments.
New clause 89—Review of drainage performance of new developments—
“(1) A review of a development’s drainage performance must take place five years after the completion of the development.
(2) Where a review recommends that action be taken to improve the development’s drainage performance, the developer must implement such recommendations, giving priority to those relating to flood risk.”
This new clause requires developers to review the drainage performance of a development five years after being built.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 7, which would require schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be commenced. My Liberal Democrat colleagues have pressed on this matter repeatedly over recent months and years, including in Westminster Hall. The schedule, which was never commenced, would require sustainable drainage systems—SuDS—to be provided in all but the most exceptional cases. It would establish a proper authority for regulations to ensure they are properly designed and maintained. It is not right that because of inadequate regulation and safeguards, the burden of poorly constructed drainage systems should fall on individuals who have saved for years to get their first home. Without proper enforcement of sustainable drainage, there is a real risk that the drive to increase housing numbers will exacerbate the current problems with drainage and flooding.
After the 2007 floods, Sir Michael Pitt recommended the introduction of the provision. It was duly passed as part of the 2010 Act, but it was never commenced. By 2014, the Government had consulted on the necessary guidance and were on track for commencement before the end of 2015. In 2015, the consultation came to an end, the work came to an end and it was not commenced. The policy approach taken by the then Conservative Government was that we would deal with sustainable drainage through policy, and policy would be sufficient. A little later on, in their 2023 review of the implementation of schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, they set out that a previous review had concluded that
“non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems should be made statutory: as the ambiguity makes the role of the planning authority very difficult. The review also found that in general there were no specific checking regimes in place to ensure that SuDS had been constructed as agreed, leaving concerns about unsatisfactory standards of design and construction, and of difficulties of ensuring proper maintenance once the developer has left the site.”
If only that schedule had been brought into effect, a great deal of flooding of people’s homes would have been avoided.
In the past, we have had a body of law to control our sewage and drainage system, originally from the Public Health Act 1936, which dealt with any kind of drain that is
“communicating with a public sewer”,
in the words of the Act. But SuDS are a new way of doing things, and they do not have the same body of regulation. There is therefore no longer any reason why schedule 3 should not be commenced as soon as possible, if not immediately. It should not take another flood to make that happen.
It is time to implement the recommendations of the 2008 review, the Government’s consultation response in 2014, the 2023 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs review that I quoted, and schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 before our constituents find themselves forced into communicating with a public sewer in their homes and gardens in a way that is all too close and personal.
Paul Holmes
I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on tabling the new clause. It is very similar to new clause 34, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). My hon. Friend’s goes slightly further, in that it would ensure
“minimum expected standards for ongoing maintenance”,
but we welcome the sentiment, and we understand why the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrats have tabled the new clause.
This is an issue that many of us have faced. The hon. Gentleman and I both attended a Westminster Hall debate about problems with drainage in new developments. I said then that in our constituencies, several of us could point to new developments in which planning officers and constituents had no confidence, even though the planning authority had acted entirely appropriately within the guidelines. I think particularly of Botley parish council in my constituency and Boorley Green, where development is going on along the River Hamble and further up into Winchester Street. Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was supposed to help with the expected standards.
With many new developments, a lot of the water companies are not sufficiently accountable to the people they serve. Local authorities are slightly constrained by the planning system from making the changes that they could make to help the long-standing flooding problems, if schedule 3 was brought in.
I welcome the new clause, and it will have our support. We will work with the hon. Gentleman on Report to strengthen the new clause. I do not mean that there is anything wrong with it, but I would like it to be combined with new clause 33 and the standards on ongoing maintenance. I hope the hon. Gentleman takes that as a helpful suggestion, and we look forward to supporting his new clause.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak in support of new clause 7. I have spoken about flooding in the main Chamber at least five times. Constituents have come to see me in my surgeries to tell me that they have been flooded out of their new homes only six months after they were built, because of a lack of appropriate drainage. As climate change brings us greater extremes and severity of weather, we know that frequent flooding will become even more of a problem, so it is imperative that any new building is flood resilient.
I draw the Committee’s attention to my new clauses 85 and 86, which I will move if we have time tomorrow or on Thursday. They are also designed to prevent building on flood plains, and to ensure that flood resilience measures are in place for all new buildings. It is quite extraordinary that 15 years after SuDS were provided for in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, they have still not been brought in. I add my voice to those of my Lib Dem and Conservative colleagues urging the Government to support the new clause, and to ensure that all new building is genuinely flood resilient and does not contribute to further problems downstream for other areas, housing or infrastructure.
Olly Glover
I rise to speak to new clause 89, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). It would support what other hon. Members have been seeking with their amendments by requiring developers to review the drainage performance of a development five years after being built and by clarifying that it is very much for the developer to take remedial action when such drainage performance is found to be inadequate.
My hon. Friend tabled the amendment for a range of reasons, not least because the new house building in his constituency, and indeed in mine, has included a number of areas where drainage installation has not been done adequately. There have subsequently been lots of issues with the local authority not being willing to adopt because of that; then there has been all the usual argy-bargy that many of us are familiar with between developer and local authority.
The amendment also speaks to a concern of many residents that the scale of house building and the drainage facilities put in place contribute to local flood risk and flooding incidents. A couple of examples from my constituency: the Anderson Place estate in East Hanney and the Childrey Park estate of East Challow have had both flooding issues and those arguments between local authority and developer. For those reasons, we have tabled new clause 89 to put greater onus on developers to ensure that they are installing drainage to the required standard, and that assessment takes place subsequently within five years.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Members for proposing these amendments. Once again, the Government very much sympathise with their objectives. I personally found the recent Westminster Hall debate extremely useful in clarifying my thinking on this matter and the wider issue of water infrastructure.
The Government are strongly committed to requiring sustainable drainage systems in new development. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire cites 15 years—we have had 10 months, and within that time we have already taken steps to improve the delivery of SuDS through the planning system. The revised national planning policy framework, published in December, expanded the requirement to provide SuDS to all development with drainage implications. The framework now also makes clear that SuDS provided as part of proposals for major developments should have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard of operation for the lifetime of the development. The Government also provide planning guidance on sustainable drainage, which supports policies contained within the NPPF.
Some time has passed since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 came into force, and it is important that we consider the most efficient and effective way of securing its objectives in the current circumstances. More specifically, better delivery of SuDS may be achieved by continuing to improve the delivery of the current policy-based approach, rather than commencing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
I believe that the underlying ambition is shared. We want to improve the take-up of SuDS, but the means of achieving that are under active consideration. I understand why in all these debates hon. Members wish to push the Government because they feel an urgency to use this legislation to enact every change to the planning system that they want to see. However, I say to the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for North Herefordshire that a final decision on this particular matter will be made in the coming months. I hope that on that basis they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
I turn to new clause 89. It seeks, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage just set out, to introduce a new requirement for developers to undertake a review of the drainage performance of a development five years after being built and to take action when it is needed to improve the development’s drainage performance. As part of the planning application process, developers will need to set out plans for the long-term management of a site, including for drainage infrastructure. That will be agreed as part of the planning permission for the use of the planning conditions or section 106 agreements, and can include arrangements for agreed bodies to take on the management of drainage infrastructure.
When a developer proposes to use SuDS as part of a development, it is clear in planning practice guidance that the proposal should include arrangements for their long-term maintenance. The arrangements will include setting out an agreed body that will adopt the SuDS once the development is completed and take on the maintenance of this infrastructure.
Gideon Amos
I genuinely appreciate the Minister’s constructive response; I know that he is interested in and concerned about the issue.
We all know that the industry will have objections to new regulations—back in the day, house builders objected to being required to put bathrooms inside houses. Objections will come as surely as night follows day. Previous Governments responded by saying, “Don’t worry; we can just change policy—it will be fine.” The 2023 report explicitly states that the policy approach has not worked. We have had 10 years of experimentation and a full Government review by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the response was that the current ambiguity makes the role of the planning authority very difficult—essentially, it has not worked.
Relying on policy is also a departure from the tried-and-tested approach in which things to do with the physical structure of the building—drainage and all those matters—come under the building regulations. All drainage matters come under the building regulations, so why would sustainable drainage not be covered by regulations but be a matter of policy? That leaves the ambiguity that the DEFRA report points out, and it simply has not worked. For all those reasons, I cannot see any alternative to our pressing the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 14—Purposes and principles to be followed by parties exercising planning or development functions—
“(1) Any party exercising any function in relation to planning and development must—
(a) have regard to the purpose of the planning system outlined in subsection (2), and
(b) apply the principles outlined in subsection (3) for the purposes of achieving sustainable development.
(2) The purpose of the planning system is to promote the spatial organisation of land and resources to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health and wellbeing of individuals.
(3) The principles are—
(a) living within environmental limits;
(b) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
(c) achieving a sustainable economy;
(d) promoting good governance including promoting democratic engagement and accountability; and
(e) using sound science responsibly.
(4) For the purposes of this section, ‘sustainable development’ means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while ensuring the health and integrity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems and the species within them, as well as the wellbeing of future generations.”
The new clause would define the purpose of the planning system and of planning as promoting the efficient spatial organisation of land and resources to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health and wellbeing of individuals.
New clause 41—Exercise of planning functions to be compatible with the purpose of planning—
“(1) Any person or body exercising a planning function must do so in a manner that is compatible with the purpose of planning as set out in subsection (2).
(2) The purpose of planning is to manage the development and use of land in the long-term public interest.
(3) Anything which—
(a) addresses the long-term common good and wellbeing of current and future generations,
(b) has full regard to the achievement of the commitments in and under the Climate Change Act 2008 or the Environment Act 2021,
(c) is in accordance with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and
(d) delivers fair planning processes that are open, accessible and efficient,
is to be considered as being in the long-term public interest.
(4) In this section, a planning function means any statutory power or duty relating to the use or development of land in England.”
This new clause would introduce a purpose of planning and provide that anyone exercising a planning function must do so in a manner that is compatible with that purpose.
Gideon Amos
New clause 9 concerns healthy homes, and would ensure that national and local government plans are designed with a clear and explicit aim of improving the physical, mental and social health and wellbeing of people in those homes.
We cannot afford to keep building homes that make people ill. It is instructive to recall that the original planning system and the original planning Act emerged from the garden city movement, the public health movement and the desire to enable people to escape from slums. The first planning Act was the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act 1909, which was mainly concerned with public health. We need to re-establish the link between planning and health if we are going to improve our health outcomes, prevent health inequalities and address the sicknesses in our society.
Right now, 3.5 million homes, which are lived in by around 15% of households, fail to meet the decent homes standard. That is not just a housing issue; it is a public health issue. According to the Resolution Foundation, poor-quality housing doubles the likelihood of someone experiencing poor general health. It costs the NHS £1.4 billion a year to treat to treat and costs society an estimated £18.5 billion, because it damages productivity, education outcomes and life chances. If we are serious about levelling up and addressing health inequalities, we must start with the homes that people live in.
We know that deregulation has not worked. The extension of permitted developments under the last Government allowed the conversion of offices and shops into substandard housing, flats without windows, and rooms too small for someone to stretch their arms out without touching the walls. Those were “homes” in name only. If the Government enact any further changes to permitted development rights, they should at least adopt this new clause to ensure that those homes are healthy, regardless of how they are built.
Even the revised national planning policy framework, while nodding towards health inequalities, includes no effective levers to address them or to force those making development decisions to consider health outcomes. A vague instruction to have regard to local health inequalities is simply not enough.
Similarly, while the decent homes standard refers to health outcomes, it deals only with fixing the dangers in the existing rental stock. We need to consider health outcomes during the development stage to prevent dangers, rather than considering them only when they have already become a problem. This new clause would do that. It is about designing out risks from the start and embedding health into the DNA of planning once again, and into development policy.
This new clause is backed by the Town and Country Planning Association, which says it will establish clarity on housing standards and wider development quality, setting a level playing field for industry. That is fundamental for promoting positive health outcomes across all new homes and communities.
Surely, it is time that we moved from building homes quickly and at any cost to building them well and making them healthy for the people who live in them. I urge the Committee to support new clause 9.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak to new clauses 14 and 41, which have been grouped with new clause 9 and address the same question of what the purpose of planning should be. To be clear, new clause 14 has the support of the Town and Country Planning Association, and new clause 41 has the support of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Indeed, there is a widely held view in the planning sector that it is necessary to have a clear statutory purpose for planning, both to guide planning decisions and to make it more publicly understandable what planning does and what it is for.
The suggestion in these new clauses is that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill should take the opportunity to set out a clear purpose for planning, based on the UN’s sustainable development principles, to which, of course, the UK Government are a signatory and make fairly frequent reference. That would offer an opportunity to build consensus around the purpose of planning in all its diverse glory—not just in plan making, but in decision making.
What we have seen with the Government’s emphasis on reframing national planning policy in the NPPF as being all about economic growth is not just bad for the environment but risks missing out on the opportunity to ensure that all planning policy and decisions are good for people, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington just explained.
Creating a statutory purpose for planning would give a clear foundation for national planning policy and would help to prevent the sudden shifts in national policy direction that have been a feature of the system since 2010. As it currently stands, planning law has only an exceptionally weak duty:
“to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”.
That duty is limited only to plan making and does not extend to decision making. That existing duty contains no definition of sustainable development and makes no reference to the internationally recognised framework of the sustainable development goals.
I feel that in framing a vision for our future development, as outlined in new clause 14, a specific requirement should be placed on the Secretary of State to have special regard for the wellbeing of present and future generations in planning. Planning decisions are, by definition, long term. The world we inhabit today is shaped by planning decisions made decades in the past, so it can only be right that we explicitly recognise the needs of children and young people in both plan making and decision making.
Although new clauses 14 and 41 have slightly different wording, their intention is effectively the same, which is to ask the Secretary of State to use the Bill as an opportunity to set out a statutory purpose for planning that specifically frames all planning decisions around the broad concept of sustainable development, as very clearly articulated in the SDGs and elsewhere.
Matthew Pennycook
We can all agree that the design and use of the built and natural environment are major determinants of health and wellbeing. That is why this important matter is addressed in the planning system through both policy and guidance such as the NPPF and PPG, which includes the national design guide and the national model design code.
The hon. Lady said that the Government have made the NPPF all about economic growth. No, we are very clear that we made changes to ensure that the NPPF is pro-growth, but the NPPF makes it clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, with a fundamental part of this being to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities.
Ellie Chowns
Will the Minister set out his definition of sustainable development?
Matthew Pennycook
I will do better than that and direct the hon. Lady to the appropriate paragraphs in the NPPF, which set out a clear explanation of what is meant by the purpose and the presumption that runs through it.
The framework further sets out that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places that promote social interaction. This includes opportunities for meetings between people who might not otherwise come into contact with each other, and that enable and support healthy lives—both by promoting good health and preventing ill health, especially where this addresses identified local health and wellbeing needs and seeks to reduce health inequalities.
The framework also recognises that access to a network of high-quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for health and wellbeing and it is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and should seek opportunities for new provision.
It is a legal requirement to have regard to national policies and guidance issued by the Secretary of State, such as the NPPF and the national design guide, when preparing a local or strategic plan. Such policies and guidance are also material considerations in planning decisions, where relevant. Therefore, while I understand the intent behind this amendment, we are clear that these important matters are best recognised and addressed through national planning policy and guidance, all of which must be considered in the preparation of local plans and, where relevant, in planning decisions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for tabling new clauses 14 and 41. They are right that planning should serve a clear purpose, which is why its purpose is front and centre of our NPPF to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. What that should mean in practice is set out through the policies in the framework, and through the policies in the development plan for each area. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan in question, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is one of those material considerations and must also be taken into account in preparing the development plan.
Furthermore, there are already well established mechanisms in place to enable communities to engage with planning processes and shape the development that takes place in their area. This includes through statutory consultation, which local planning authorities are required to undertake, as the hon. Lady will be aware, for both plan making and when determining planning applications.
Ellie Chowns
Would the Minister care to explain why the TCPA and the RTPI feel that the existing framework is not adequate?
Matthew Pennycook
No, in short, and I will give the hon. Lady my explanation. I had extensive debates during the last Parliament with the TCPA and Lord Crisp, who is a proponent of healthy homes. I well understand where the TCPA is coming from, but I am not going to purport to set out the reasons why it thinks this issue is important. I am setting out the Government’s position, and why we think that existing national planning policy and guidance are sufficient in this area. However, I accept there may be a genuine difference about how necessary and beneficial it is to define a clear purpose of the planning system. The Government have a view on that, and I concede that the TCPA and others will continue to campaign in this area.
Gideon Amos
I simply make the brief point that there is a whole swathe of statutory requirements on planning—good design, sustainable development, mitigating climate change—and such legal duties can be included in planning legislation.
Matthew Pennycook
I venture to say that the hon. Gentleman almost makes my point for me. There is a whole layering of statute, policy and guidance, and if we had more time, we could have a more extensive debate on the merits or otherwise of including a clear purpose of the planning system. I am sure there would be lots of disagreement about what that purpose should be. However, on the principle, as I have set out, the Government think that planning policy and guidance are adequate to achieve the outcomes we all want to see achieved through the planning system.
Gideon Amos
Thank you, Ms Jardine. You have reminded me that I have the right to sum up, which I am happy to forgo in the interests of time. We will not push new clause 9 to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
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
Pensions: Expatriates
(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
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered pensions for people living overseas.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. For over 70 years, successive Governments have upheld the frozen pension policy. The result on those impacted has been not only a severe financial toll, but a heavy emotional burden. These individuals built their lives and careers in the United Kingdom, contributed their share through national insurance, and then, often later in life, moved abroad, in many cases to join family members. In doing so, they found themselves victims of an outdated policy. Most of them first became aware of the policy only after noticing that their state pension was not increasing in line with policies such as the triple lock, proudly founded by the Conservatives.
Let me be clear about what the frozen pension policy entails: British citizens who retire in certain countries—for example, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the Commonwealth, in fact—are denied the annual inflationary increases to their state pension. A person retiring to the USA sees their pension uprated yearly, but if they cross the border into Canada, those increases stop. That can result in elderly pensioners receiving as little as £60 a week on average, despite the current basic state pension being £176.45 a week. As many as four in 10 frozen pensioners report struggling to afford most necessities such as food or medicine.
It may be tempting to dismiss this as a problem “over there”, but British overseas pensioners are citizens who have lived, worked and grown up here. They remain citizens here; they are constituents, and, with the changes to overseas voting rules in 2024, many are now registered to vote in United Kingdom elections again. That means there are up to half a million voices who feel forgotten, neglected and increasingly betrayed by successive Governments.
Geography should not be an excuse for a lack of morality. British overseas pensioners are making their voices heard; over 75% want their representative to commit to ending frozen pensions. In 2016, at an all-party roundtable event, the now Deputy Prime Minister called for a change on frozen pensions and a commitment to finding a solution. I am glad she did so then; I am concerned that the Government are not doing so now. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that is still the position of the Deputy Prime Minister, and indeed, the Government.
Since I first raised the issue in the House of Commons last year, I have read and heard many compelling stories—for example, that of Anne Puckridge. Now 100 years old, Anne remains an inspiration to all of us, having served in the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force during world war two—I repeat: the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force—serving six months in each branch. It is fair to state that she has paid her dues to this country. After the war, she lived and worked for the vast majority of her life in the United Kingdom, until she moved to Canada in 2001. She is one of around 60,000 veterans affected by the policy.
The emotional impact of the policy cannot be overstated. Many of those affected say that they were never informed that their pension would be frozen when they moved. Anne was not told, and the campaign reports that 86% of pensioners affected had no idea the policy even existed before they were impacted. That is too little, too late.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on this timely debate. He just referred to a 100-year-old. Does he agree that the frozen pension issue is not just about the fact that people are seeing a relatively small pension compared with the one they would have had if they were still a UK resident? Because of the policy, in their final years of existence on this earth, they will have a paltry pension to pass away on.
Gregory Stafford
I entirely agree with the hon. Member, and I will come on to some of that later. He is absolutely right that there is not just a severe financial impact, but a moral impact. Constituents of ours, who have paid their dues—and, in Anne’s case, more than paid their dues given what they have done for this country—will end their days on pretty much nothing when inflation is taken into account.
Last December, I challenged the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s questions on his decision not to meet Anne during her visit to the UK—a visit that required an 8,500 mile round trip, which is no mean feat at the age of 99. She was not offered a meeting with the Prime Minister.
Anne’s story is sadly emblematic of a much wider injustice that continues to be perpetrated on our elderly. Only this year, we saw continued poor treatment through policies such as the removal of the winter fuel payment and the betrayal of the WASPI women, both causes that were vociferously supported by the Labour party in opposition. Labour is happy to freeze pensioners and happy to freeze their pensions.
The Prime Minister’s refusal to meet Anne is symbolic of a Government who are, I regret to say, unwilling to listen to some of the most elderly and vulnerable among us. That brings me to the crux of today’s debate: the Government do not seem willing to engage in any meaningful way with the overseas electorate affected by the policy. I remind hon. Members that 158 parliamentarians from across the UK and Canada wrote to the Government last October calling for an end to the policy, and more than 140,000 people signed Anne’s petition to meet the Prime Minister in December.
The most concerning aspect of the Government’s current line of response is the estimated cost of ending the policy altogether. Based on calculations made annually, the Government quote the figure of £950 million a year to uprate and backdate all pensions, but that is not the ask. The End Frozen Pensions campaign has made it abundantly clear that it is not calling for retrospective compensation. It is asking simply to receive the same annual increases going forward that are awarded to pensioners living here, and in the USA, France and a host of other countries.
The cost of such a policy change is a mere £55 million a year—a fraction of the overall pensions budget. Will the Minister agree to meet the End Frozen Pensions campaign to accurately assess the cost of what is being requested by pensioners? Will he work with us, in good faith, to find a solution that reflects the modest and realistic nature of the appeal?
Beyond the severe individual hardships, there are important and growing geopolitical consequences to the point where the policy is now creating serious diplomatic tensions with some of our closest allies, as pensions are frozen in 50 out of the 56 Commonwealth nations. How can we speak proudly of our Commonwealth partnerships while refusing full pensions to veterans in the Falkland Islands, British-born nurses in Barbados or former civil servants in Canada? Those are countries with deep and historical ties to the UK, yet they are forced to subsidise our negligence.
Australia and Canada have made their frustrations clear. Canada has been formally requesting a resolution to the issue for more than 40 years. In October, 103 Canadian parliamentarians wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to address the issue. The Canadian and Australian Governments already provide full state pension increases to their citizens living in the UK. Meanwhile, they are left picking up the tab for British citizens residing in their countries.
With Canada and Australia having just held national elections, and with new trade discussions likely on the horizon, what assessment has the Minister made of the policy’s impact on our future ability to trade and meaningfully engage with those countries? Will he look at how reciprocal barriers to the policy may be overcome?
As I draw to a close, let me return to the heart of the matter. The policy causes financial hardship for a large number of affected elderly people. It also causes indignity and isolation; their repeated dismissal by the Government is leading to their political disenfranchisement. Putting an end to this blatant injustice is not only achievable but affordable—£55 million a year is not beyond our means. What is ultimately lacking is not money, but political will.
I have one practical ask of the Minister: will he meet campaigners to more fully understand their demands? If not to resolve the issue outright, will he at least commit to acknowledge the request for uprating on a going-forward basis only? Will he agree to work with me and campaigners to explore how, at a minimum, awareness of the policy might be improved, given the vast majority of impacted pensioners still report having no knowledge of the policy’s existence prior to moving overseas? All that those pensioners are asking for is a level playing field, so that those who have contributed can live out their retirement with dignity and security.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate on an issue that is often overlooked, as I think we would all agree. It is fair to say that successive Governments have ignored this issue for decades and, understandably, many UK citizens are unaware of what would happen to their state pension if they were to relocate to one of the countries affected by this regressive arrangement.
It seems completely arbitrary that someone could emigrate to America and continue to receive an annual uprating in their state pension, but not if they went to Canada. We have heard that the blight of frozen pensions affects nearly half a million British citizens living overseas, despite the fact that they paid national insurance contributions for much of their working lives.
The impact of this arrangement is absolutely shocking. We have already heard that four in 10 frozen pensioners report that they struggle to afford items such as food and fuel. In my view, our state pension system is already insufficient to meet the needs of millions of existing and future pensioners, but let us imagine how inadequate it would be if the pension failed to rise at least in line with inflation or earnings for more than 20 years of someone’s retirement.
Most pensioners in this position were never informed that their state pension would be frozen in this way. The scandal therefore has a number of parallels with those behind other campaigns, such as that affecting women born in the 1950s, who argue that they saw their state pension age increase without due notice.
Such measures only end up hurting the most vulnerable in our society. Taken alongside recent decisions to means-test the winter fuel allowance, which was mentioned earlier; the refusal to pay compensation to the WASPI women; and the proposed cuts to disability benefits, it could appear that the Government are trying to balance the country’s books on the back of some of the poorest members of our society.
Although there will always be a cost to Government decisions, I ask the Minister to consider that beginning to uprate the frozen pensions at a future date would cost only around £55 million a year. Most commentators would understand that that is not beyond the realms of possibility. It would be a significant step not only in showing that the Government are on the side of older people who have made a contribution to our country, but in unravelling a long-standing anomaly that the public simply cannot understand.
Finally, the Government should also consider that with changes to the overseas voting rules, as was mentioned earlier, many of the UK pensioners affected by the frozen pension scandal are now in fact registered voters in the UK.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
My West Dunbartonshire constituent, Fraser, has now retired and lives in Australia. He is one of the half a million British citizens and voters now affected by this 70-year outdated and harsh practice. He is from my home town of Clydebank. He worked in the ordnance factory in Bishopton for decades, and then in the Govan shipyards. He paid his national insurance contributions for many years, but his pension is frozen. He tells me that every year it is getting harder and harder for him to make ends meet.
Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a scandalous injustice? We are not seeking a full backdating, but for the Government to introduce some form of yearly indexing to answer that injustice.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that now is the time to grasp an issue that successive Governments of all shades have failed to grasp. This is the Government’s chance to do something positive for older people by ending the injustice once and for all, and I urge them to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for introducing this debate and for putting his case so well on a subject that has been brought to the House’s attention on numerous occasions, both in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber. There are several people in the Public Gallery today who have been involved in the campaign; we thank them for all their correspondence to ensure that we can follow the campaign on behalf of so many British people. Just last week, I was working on some cases in my office. These issues occur regularly, as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) said.
As we are all aware, the Government’s policy on freezing state pensions for British pensioners living overseas affects some half a million pensioners and is fundamentally unfair. I believe that it is morally unfair, because it penalises pensioners who have earned their state pension through decades of national insurance contributions. They have done the same as everybody else and have paid national insurance contributions and tax. They made a contribution to the society that they lived in. Today they are being penalised, and it is grossly unfair.
People who have worked for their entire life in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are being denied the annual pension increases granted to UK residents simply because they chose to retire abroad, often to be closer to family. As they get older, they want to support their family, but their family also want to support them, so there is a physical necessity. People want to make the most of their savings elsewhere, as anyone is entitled to do. For example, a pensioner in Australia or Canada, where pensions are frozen, might receive some £7,000 annually, while UK-based pensioners get more than £11,000 annually as a result of triple-lock upgrading.
There is a real differential and a real problem to be addressed. Over time, inflation diminishes the value of frozen pensions, pushing some expat pensioners into poverty. That has an impact not just on them, but on the countries in which they now live. In extreme cases, pensioners have reported surviving on pensions worth less than £20 a week in real terms. Nobody could survive on that—it is impossible. We ask the Minister to give us some support and give us something to tell our constituents and their families.
The freeze is fundamentally unjust. It penalises pensioners who have earned their state pension through decades of national insurance contributions. I think of Anne Puckridge, a 100-year-old world war two veteran who served in all three branches of our armed forces decoding messages during the war. After working in the UK until the age of 76, way beyond her pension years, and paying all her taxes and national insurance, she moved to Canada in 2001 to be near her daughter. Her daughter wanted her to be there, and she wanted to support her daughter. Her pension was frozen at £72.50 per week, rather than the £169.50 she would receive in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which has resulted in an estimated loss of £60,000 over 23 years.
When Mrs Puckridge notified the Department for Work and Pensions of her move, she was not informed that her pension would be frozen. At no stage was it intimated to her, “Look, if you go there, this is going to happen.” Because of that false pretence—because it did not disclose the full facts of the case—I believe that the DWP stands accused in the moral court of law for how it treated this lady. She only discovered the situation when her first expected increase did not arrive. She stated:
“It’s the injustice of it that is so unfair, the fact that we were never warned.”
They were never told. That is disgraceful.
As other hon. Members have said, the widespread lack of transparency is reminiscent of the lack of transparency with WASPI women. The all-party parliamentary group on frozen British pensions has reported that nearly 90% of all affected pensioners were unaware of the policy before moving. Given that those half a million British pensioners have paid into the national insurance system throughout their working life, does the Minister consider it fair to deny them the annual pension increases that residents of the United Kingdom receive?
An especially important factor is that the affected pensioners are not adding to the pressures on public services such as the NHS on their retirement. When people get to 79 or 80, their impact on the national health service will be greater. They may have complex needs. Their age is agin them. Very clearly, their dependence on the NHS at that stage is much greater. If we take that out of the equation and they go to Canada, America or Australia, there is a real saving to the NHS. There will be no prescriptions either. I speak as someone who takes 14 tablets a day just to stay alive; most of them have to do with diabetes, but that is by the way. If someone is saving the NHS all that money, is only right that that be considered in the financial equation.
The findings in the 2020 inquiry report of the APPG on frozen British pensions indicate that the policy affects war veterans and even some members of the Windrush generation, who have returned to their country of birth but now face economic hardship as a result of this policy. The Windrush generation caught the imagination of this great nation. I became aware of their case through being an MP, and it is a really justifiable one. They are now being penalised if they decide to go back home to be close to their families, having come here, worked all their days and paid their national insurance contributions and taxes.
As the current policy is leaving expat British pensioners having to return to the UK, I ask again whether the Minister will conduct a cost-benefit analysis to assess whether ending the freeze might reduce long-term costs by preventing the need to repatriate. The cost factor is of such magnitude that a review might persuade the Government to ensure that expatriates get their pension.
The freeze is also morally indefensible. It punishes a perfectly valid legal choice to live abroad, and it ignores the contributions that these pensioners made to the economy and to our society. Many moved abroad with a reasonable expectation that their pension, a right earned through years of work, would retain its value. The arbitrary distinction between countries with and without an operating agreement lacks logics and smacks of red tape and bureaucracy gone mad: pensions increase in the US but not in Canada or Australia, for example. We always used to blame the EU for bureaucracy. We might blame it again, of course; later today I presume that we will have a statement in the Chamber on the UK-EU deal, so we will have a chance to go over the past once again.
I support the APPG’s recommendations. It is time to end the frozen pension policy and provide full uprated pensions to British expat pensioners as soon as possible. I believe that that stance is supported by evidence from the Governments of Australia and Canada, with which we have a good working relationship. Has the Minister had the opportunity to talk to the relevant Ministers in those Governments? It is not that they are telling the UK what to do, but I understand that they have suggested that we may need reform. If the Minister has had the opportunity to talk to them, what has come out of those talks?
It is unjust to penalise pensioners for living abroad when they have paid into the system like everyone else. By uprating pensioners globally, the UK would honour its moral and economic obligations and ensure that members of the post-war generation that rebuilt Britain can retire with the security that they deserve, wherever they choose to live. Today is an opportunity to make that request and that plea again, and to ask our new Minister to look at the issue in a positive way and consider all the cost factors. There are many things in the pot that should be looked at once again.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Eleven years ago, my colleague Ian Blackford stood in pretty much this spot talking about exactly the same thing. Exactly the same arguments that were made during that debate could be made today. Things have not moved on. We are not in a better position. At that time, we were talking about 550,000 frozen pensions; now we are down to 500,000. People are dying before they receive their entitlements.
Pensions are a social contract. We pay our national insurance and our taxes into the system in the expectation and with the understanding that we will get something out of it when we become pensioners. This is not party political: it applies to all Governments over the last 70 years. No UK Government have been willing to fulfil the contract with pensioners who choose to live in a certain country. I do not think that that is fair. When we begin to pay taxes, we are not told that our pension entitlement will vary if we choose to live in one of these countries.
That they are overwhelmingly Commonwealth countries seems even more bizarre. We have a special relationship with the Commonwealth: for example, 12% of Canadians claim Scottish heritage and 14% claim English heritage. Scotland is a nation of emigrants as well as a nation of immigrants—not an island of strangers. It is a brilliant thing that we Scots are found all over the world. In a significant number of places, people with Aberdeen accents can be found speaking the Doric.
People should be allowed to go and live with their family in the expectation that the Government will continue to support them in older age, not pull the rug out from under them. They have paid into the system just the same as the people who choose to live here. In fact, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) says, they are taking less out of the system than those who continue to live here. The cost-benefit analysis shows that people overseas are not using the NHS here on a regular basis. They are not getting the free prescriptions in Scotland. They are not getting prescriptions down here. They are not getting a free TV licence—well, nobody is getting a free TV licence. They are not getting the benefits that an older pensioner living in the UK would expect. They are not taking those things out of the system, yet the UK is still unwilling to uprate their pensions. They are going to live with their families, in a significant number of cases, and not getting their entitlements.
The Deputy Prime Minister previously said:
“The situation is unfair, illogical and doesn’t make sense.”
It has never been enough of a priority for any Government to sort out, but given the current Government’s electoral standing with some older people on the basis of WASPI and the winter fuel payment, it might be an idea to solve the situation now and gain back some of that capital.
A lady who lives in Canada is coming to visit Scotland in June and is going to pop into my office while she is here. She is from Aberdeen. She went to St Margaret’s school and her husband went to the school I went to; there is an annual music prize awarded in his honour. At the end of her email asking to come and see me, Maureen added something about frozen pensions:
“I believe the Prime Minister is not happy about us Canadians kicking up a fuss. We have been doing it for at least 15 years, but no one listens.”
That is the biggest injustice of all: the fact that we are not listening.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) has secured this debate. Like many of us, he is standing on the shoulders of giants: the issue has been brought up for years and years, but we have never managed to make enough of an impact on the Government to get the change to happen and have them recognise that this is important. As several Members have said, now that we have had a change in the electoral rights of people overseas so that they are able to vote for longer, perhaps the Government will feel more under pressure. But it should not have taken that. It should have been understood that this was a moral decision. It does not matter where someone chooses to live out their twilight years; they should have the same entitlements as others who have paid the same amount over the years.
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) spoke about his constituent from Clydebank who worked in Govan. The country has been built—these islands have been built—on the hard work of these people throughout our manufacturing history. Anne Puckridge, who is an unbelievable human being, was in the RAF and made a huge input to our prosperity and the safety and security of these islands. We are paying these people back by saying, “Nah, you’ve paid the same as everybody else, but you’ve chosen to live in a different postcode, so we’re not paying it.” This is an injustice that needs fixed.
I know that I have managed to speak for seven minutes, but actually it is pretty difficult to stretch this out. All there is to say is, “This needs sorted. Please could you sort it?” That is the passionate case that we are all making on behalf of our constituents and those who might choose to move to other countries in future. We do not want them to have to ask, “Do I want to live in Canada where my daughter lives? Do I want to live somewhere else, or do I have to stay here because I cannot get my pension uprated?”
I am not asking for a full commitment on any of this. I am not asking for all the backdated stuff. I am not asking for a commitment for every single individual. I understand that some international agreements may have to be made to make some of this happen. But I want the Government to say, “We recognise that this is a priority for people and that there is an unfairness in the system. We will look at doing what we can to ensure that people, no matter where they choose to live, get the pensions that they are entitled to.”
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind Members that we are not supposed to use the second person. Please address things through me and not directly to other Members.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on raising an issue that, quite simply, is a matter of national shame. I had the privilege of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on frozen British pensions for more years than I care to remember, and in that task I had the staunch support of Sir Peter Bottomley, Lord German and many others. We all regarded this as a non-partisan issue. It was quite simply a cross-party matter that had to be resolved.
In spite of the effort that we put into it over many years, successive Governments of all political persuasions have sheltered behind the myth that we uprate pensions only in countries with which we have a reciprocal arrangement. Historically, we have had a reciprocal arrangement with the United States but not with Canada. On one side of the Niagara Falls, people get their pension uprated; a couple of hundred yards across the river, people do not.
That is arrant nonsense, and it is unjust for all the reasons we have heard this morning. These are British citizens who paid their dues over their whole working lives before emigrating. They are as entitled to the full state pension as any other British citizen. John Markham, of blessed memory, led the campaign in Canada for many years. The irony is that, every time he came back for two weeks to make the case to whoever was in power, he would claim his two weeks’ uprated pension, because the moment he set foot on British soil, he was allowed to have it. Where is the sense in that?
The point has been made that pensioners in the majority of Commonwealth countries do not receive uprated pensions, but pensioners in the European Union do, because we reached a reciprocal arrangement when we left the European Union. I am delighted that expat UK citizens living throughout the European Union are getting their pension uprated. That is absolutely right—they have paid their way—but I fail to see why people living in what we proudly used to call the British Commonwealth do not get their money.
What about those living in Australia? What about people like Norma Maloney in South Africa or the greatly revered Anne Puckridge, who I have been privileged to meet on many occasions, in Canada? Why do they not get their money? The answer is quite simple: it comes down to the Treasury solicitors, who have historically been absolutely terrified that, if we give an inch, somebody will try to bring a class action to get a backdated pension, and of course those sums would be astronomical.
When Sir Oliver Letwin was in the Cabinet Office, he made the eminently workable proposal that we should uprate whatever pension the recipient was getting at the time of the uprating. Anne Puckridge would get the triple-locked increase on her fairly pitiful pension, not on anything retrospective. That is not what the expats ought to be receiving or what they are entitled to, morally, but it would work, because over time—by attrition, as people fall off the perch—we would reach the parity we ought to have today.
I was as critical of the previous Government as I am of the current one. They are sheltering behind a Treasury lawyers’ position that is wholly untenable and, I believe, patently dishonest. These elderly people—and I speak as an elderly person—have paid their way. They are entitled to their money. They should have it, and the Government must do something about it now.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Dowd. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate.
Nearly half a million UK pensioners living overseas are being penalised, not because they did not pay into the system but because of where they now live. They are our citizens—our veterans, carers, former teachers and nurses. They worked all their lives, paid into the national insurance system and are now denied the annual uprating of their state pension. Their pensions have been frozen, sometimes for decades, based purely on whether the UK happens to have a reciprocal agreement with their country of residence. As we have heard, it cannot be fair that a pensioner in the US sees their pension rise each year, while a pensioner in Australia does not.
The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for an end to that injustice. We have already heard about Lord German’s sterling work, and I would like to highlight the policy research by Liberal Democrats Overseas, which has proposed a fair and affordable five-year plan to restore full uprating, starting with those who have lost out the most. Campaigners acknowledge the cost of their demands, and are even willing to accept partial uprating as a first step. However, as we have heard, previous Governments have refused to act and, worse, have turned down repeated offers from countries such as Australia and Canada to negotiate new agreements. This Government can take a fairer approach.
It is interesting that the Welsh Affairs Committee is looking into how we can engage the Welsh diaspora in promoting brand Wales overseas. A new settlement for British pensioners living overseas strikes me as a good way to engage with the British diaspora, particularly as we strike new agreements with countries all over the world. We Liberal Democrats call on the Government to stop hiding behind outdated excuses and to start treating all UK pensioners with fairness and dignity.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
People who receive a pension income have worked throughout their careers for that money, and they deserve to be able to access it fairly and with the proper information, lest we see a repeat of the WASPI scandal. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that, for people receiving a UK pension, uprating should not be a lottery of land borders, and that His Majesty’s Government should redouble their efforts to find reciprocal arrangements with countries currently without an agreement with the UK?
David Chadwick
David Lloyd George created the social contract on which our pension scheme still runs, and I am sure he would be proud to hear my hon. Friend calling for that social contract to be adhered to.
Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that we now have many constituents living abroad who have the right to vote. To better represent their needs and make more progress, the Government might wish to consider the idea of overseas constituencies. That would give one or two hon. Members the opportunity to represent the needs of people living abroad who certainly warrant their full pensions.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this debate.
Nearly 13 million UK citizens receive the state pension, and around 1.2 million of them live outside the UK. Most of those people are entitled to state pension increases because they live in the European economic area or in the 15 other countries with which the UK has signed an agreement. In return for uprating the state pension, those countries have promised to continue supporting their own citizens living in the UK.
It is right that UK citizens who have diligently paid into the UK national insurance system over many years are entitled to receive their UK state pension, whether or not they decide to move abroad. However, the issue at the forefront of today’s debate is whether pensioners who reside overseas receive annual increases to their pension.
As other hon. Members have set out, this depends on the specific country in which a person lives. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I know it is unfair that some UK pensioners abroad receive state pension increases while others do not, simply because of the country in which they live, not because of the contributions they have made to the UK national insurance system. Addressing that is a matter of fairness and equality, especially for those who have paid into the UK system for their entire working lives.
There has been a long-standing campaign to rectify this discriminatory system. However, the last Conservative Government refused to take any positive steps to increase the number of reciprocal agreements, which would have had the effect of uprating pensions. In fact, it is disappointing—although unsurprising—that under the last Conservative Government, agreements lapsed and the best interests of both British nationals residing overseas and non-British pensioners residing in the UK were neither prioritised nor championed.
We saw catastrophic economic mismanagement under the last Administration, with spiralling inflation rates and a soaring cost of living. That hugely exacerbated the gap in the value of pensions paid to recipients in countries with reciprocal agreements and those paid to recipients in countries without, with a completely unacceptable impact on hundreds of thousands of pensioners.
The majority of pensioners who live overseas receive pension increases because they live in countries with reciprocal agreements. However, many fall through the gaps and are left struggling. Currently, half a million UK pensioners living overseas do not receive the annual state pension increases that those in the UK and in certain other countries are entitled to. This issue affects my constituents and the constituents of many hon. Members. Their pensions are effectively frozen at the rate when they first started claiming—sometimes decades ago. This frequently leaves long-term pensioners abroad significantly worse off over time.
The UK Government have stated that they uprate pensions only in those countries where there is a mutual agreement. Many of those agreements have not been updated or renegotiated for decades, and no new ones have been signed since 1981. Countries such as Australia and Canada have repeatedly requested new agreements, but the UK has declined. Frozen pensions are the norm in countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and parts of the Caribbean and Asia, despite significant British expatriate populations. It is critical that the Government tackle this injustice and take steps to ensure that all pensioners receive the support to which they are entitled. However, it is also critical that this comes alongside a fair deal for the UK taxpayer.
Rather than unilaterally increasing the state pension for UK citizens living abroad, I urge the Government to prioritise entering new arrangements with other countries that would manage costs and provide oversight. That would be more affordable and provide a better framework for monitoring payments. Colombia, Mongolia, Thailand, Uruguay, Brazil, Australia and Canada have all approached the Government in the past decade to ask for a reciprocal agreement, and each time the Government have refused.
We have seen the Government enter new bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations over the last few weeks. As they work to build new trade partnerships with countries across the globe, there is a real opportunity to speak out for thousands of British pensioners who currently face unfair financial hardship. I urge the Minister to ensure that existing agreements are not allowed to lapse. The Liberal Democrats also call for the inclusion of reciprocal pension agreements in future trade deals. More broadly, the Liberal Democrats believe that the Government should conduct an independent review of frozen pension policy, an issue that has been raised with me time and again by constituents.
The previous Conservative Government abandoned pensioners and totally failed to give them proper support. This Labour Government have also treated pensioners poorly by cruelly ripping away the winter fuel payment. The Liberal Democrats are proud to be the ones who introduced the triple lock, lifting thousands of vulnerable pensioners out of poverty.
Sir Roger Gale
It saddens me enormously that the hon. Lady is trying to make a partisan case, simply because—as I recall, and I think I do recall correctly—a member of her party was the Pensions Minister in the coalition, and one of many pensions Ministers who stood by the present policy of refusing to allow these pensions to be paid. The blame lies across the board, not with any one political party.
Sarah Olney
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his intervention; his memory obviously goes back further than mine on this issue. However, we are dealing with the current situation, and the Minister here today is the person who currently has the power to do something about it. I am merely reflecting on the set of circumstances that led us here.
What I will say is that, in the Liberal Democrat manifesto for the last election, we committed to the triple lock. We remain committed to the triple lock, and I will take further opportunities to ask the current Minister, with the power currently to do something about this issue, to redouble his commitment to it. I will also make the point that, as I am sure the right hon. Member will agree, that this Government are not doing everything they can for pensioners.
The Liberal Democrats are looking to the future, and we want to build a country that is the best place in the world in which to save for and enjoy retirement. We want to give everyone the chance to enjoy a decent retirement, by developing measures to end the gender pension gap in private pensions and to ensure that working-age carers can save properly for retirement. We must also improve the state pension system by investing in helplines to ensure quicker responses to queries and resolution of underpayments, as well as ending the scandal of lost top-up payments by overhauling the processing system and providing proper receipts.
The Liberal Democrats are proud to be the party that champions the rights and protections of pensioners. We will continue to hold the Government to account to ensure that a fair outcome is reached for all pensioners—both those who reside in the UK and those who live abroad.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate, and I thank everybody who is here to take part; it is heartening to see what is, to all intents and purposes, cross-party consensus on this long-term issue, and I am grateful to be able to speak about it today.
It is worth reminding everyone in the Chamber that, as we have heard, this is a full cross-party challenge that we have faced over the last decades and that, as we have also heard, successive Governments, be they Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat, have not grappled with it enough. I am grateful that that point has been raised, because I do not think it would be honest of us to reflect on it in the way that had been done previously.
We have a duty of care to pensioners at home and abroad, and I believe we are all in agreement about that today. However, we have heard much about inconsistencies in how support is delivered and about the ultimate postcode lottery; we speak of postcode lotteries a lot in this place, but this one perhaps wins the prize for being the ultimate postcode lottery. The arguments have been well rehearsed.
The two strongest criticisms of the existing overseas pension system are, first, that most pensioners do not realise that the frozen pension policy exists—perhaps before emigrating to live with their family, as we have heard—and, secondly, that not all British pensioners overseas are impacted by the policy because of reciprocal arrangements, as a result of which, there is a very unequal playing field. Like many here today, until an elector emailed me when I was a candidate in the election, I was not fully aware of this situation.
A large number of overseas pensioners are covered by reciprocal arrangements, which enables us to treat overseas pensioners moving to the UK comparably with UK citizens living abroad. In total, about 60% of overseas pensioners are covered by reciprocal arrangements, which, where possible, is of course the preferred option for pensioners.
However, we have heard some harrowing cases, and Anne Puckridge has certainly got her mentions this morning. That 99-year-old veteran of world war two has lived in Canada since 2001 and is still receiving the £72.50 a week that she has received for 24 years. With 442,000 people receiving a frozen state pension overseas, and often receiving as little as £65 a week or indeed less, the real-life impact of this approach is considerable.
In my South West Devon constituency, I have heard from Denise Bateman, formerly of Ivybridge and now residing in Australia; Gillian Clarke, another Australian resident, who at the age of 87 has seen no increase in her state pension in 27 years; Stephen Mumby, also a resident in Australia; Clive Gray; and Deborah Matthews and Laurie Morbey, who have both raised this issue with me. They are predominantly resident in Australia, but there are also examples in New Zealand and Canada.
As their correspondence highlights, those people could have moved to Turkey or the Philippines, and they would be receiving an unfrozen pension. Yet, they have moved to Commonwealth countries and, despite having worked for many years and contributed to life in the UK, are now faced with a limited pension. Anecdotally, those I have heard from in Australia lived and worked here for far longer than some of those now living in Europe. Indeed, some good friends of mine are retired and have lived in Europe since before I was born, yet they still qualify for the state pension and receive the full pension, having not even worked here in the last 50 years.
As with anything of this nature, the Government need to make sure they properly communicate pension terms to people well ahead of the time they expect receive a state pension. We have seen in the WASPI women campaign the issues that can be caused, and I believe that no one wants to replicate that. British citizens need to know the implication of any move abroad so that they can plan. That is the fairest thing to do, and perhaps work could be done—for example, with well-known employers or organisations in countries that generally support emigration—to help improve the information flows on this topic, in addition to the work that the Department for Work and Pensions and others are already doing.
In 2020, the cost of uprating frozen pensions to 2020 levels was estimated to be around £600 million, and the cost of uprating to today’s levels would be significantly higher. However, as we heard, the End Frozen Pensions campaign has suggested that people do not want the backdating and are happy to see their pension uprated from this point in time, which would cost £55 million. It is worth reflecting that Ministers appear to be having to hunt for cash down the back of the sofa, and I appreciate that the Chancellor has to make the sums add up. That said, the End Frozen Pensions campaign has clearly highlighted that overseas pensioners are in effect net savers for the UK—there is no burden on the welfare system or the NHS—meaning an aggregated saving of around £2,500 per person, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted.
As we have heard, the current system of reciprocal agreements ensures there are protections on both sides for countries in the EU or the EEA, and I am happy to support that long-standing and right approach. However, in the light of the new voting rights, which we have also heard about, this is perhaps the right time for the Government to start exploring conversations on further reciprocal arrangements, especially with Commonwealth friends such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia—countries to which my own constituents have moved. We have heard about the diplomatic awkwardness that this issue causes, which should also prompt such conversations.
The Liberal Democrats mentioned the challenges around pensioners and pensions, and we understand the difficult situations caused by the lack of compensation for the WASPI women, the cruel cut to the winter fuel allowance and the fact that the Government pledged to reduce energy bills by £300 without mentioning that we may all have to wait until 2030 for that to be delivered. Pensioners up and down the country are understandably losing confidence in this Labour Government and in the Prime Minister.
We have talked about the 442,000 people receiving a frozen state pension, but what will the Government do about the 10 million pensioners here in the UK who have had their winter fuel allowance removed? I was surprised to hear that an additional 100,000 pensioners accessed A&E departments last winter, compared to the winter before, which is a direct consequence of Labour’s policy to literally leave pensioners out in the cold.
It really does not matter what dedicated campaigners say in this debate, because we all know that when it comes to issues facing pensioners, we could argue that the Government have their fingers in their ears. However, today is a chance to break the cycle, and for this new Government to be the one that makes this change. It sounds as though there would be enormous support in the Chamber if they chose to pursue that.
We need to push for more action to deliver reciprocal agreements, if possible, with allies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where the overwhelming majority of those with frozen pensions currently reside. That should help to provide more security for all those still affected. None of the Front Benchers here has been a Minister before, so we get the privilege of being a fresh pair of eyes, while recognising the lack of action in the past, whether that be under the Lib Dems, Labour or Conservatives, as we have discussed many times. I understand the Minister’s previous expert experience in this field, and he might have a few ideas of his own, which I look forward to hearing.
I appreciate the concerns raised by colleagues about specific cases, and I sympathise with those who committed so much to our country in their early lives, only to face challenges unprepared, when they should have been made aware of them. Information is clearly going to be a large part of the solution, and debates such as this go a long way to raise the profile of issues that do not always get the airtime they deserve. Judging by the Minister’s nods during the debate, I believe that he agrees, and I know from other things he is doing that information is top of his agenda. I hope we will see some commitment to that this morning.
Finally, I plead with the Minister to get the tone right this time. As discussions take place, will he please not treat these pensioners like the WASPI women and those affected by winter fuel payments? He should be honest in the debate, think clearly about the cost and provide constructive solutions that can help reduce the number of pensioners in this position in five, 10, 15 or even 30 years’ time.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for opening today’s debate, which was granted by Backbench Business Committee, and for setting the scene so well, in a way that others then followed.
I thank all hon. Members who made the time to speak and set out their cases. They covered issues that are important to many state pension recipients living abroad. I recognise that those who are affected, who obviously cannot speak today, feel strongly about this issue; many of us, in their shoes, would feel the same. On that basis alone, it is right to debate this subject and to hear from hon. Members about their constituents, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and others who are not in Scotland.
Late last year, my predecessor, now the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, met Anne Puckridge and others from the End Frozen Pensions campaign to discuss the policy’s impact. We have listened, and I read case studies every week, either from hon. Members who have written in about them or in letters directly from pensioners themselves. We are all aware that there are many countries where high inflation has posed particular challenges in recent years, so I recognise the salience of today’s subject matter.
We all recognise the importance of the state pension, as the UK’s foundation of support for older people. In 2025-26, the Government will spend over £174 billion on benefits for pensioners. That represents 5.8% of the UK’s GDP and includes £145 billion spent on the UK state pension, including for those living abroad. I raise those facts because they are important; they sit behind the debates that we often have here or in the main Chamber about the size of the state and the level of taxation.
As hon. Members are very aware, the state pension is uprated abroad only when there is a legal basis for doing so, which is why we are here today.
Kirsty Blackman
On that, the state pension is uprated abroad only when there is a legal requirement to do so. There is no legal bar to the UK uprating those pensions in countries where there is not a reciprocal agreement in place.
Torsten Bell
There must be a legal basis for making payments. However, the hon. Member is right to say that under the specific policy I am setting out, payments are made only when there is a legal requirement to do so. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon set out right at the beginning, that is a long-standing policy that has lasted for 70 years. For many years, the priority for successive Governments of all parties has been to prioritise those living in the UK when making difficult spending decisions on pensioner benefits. That was true of the coalition Government, when a Lib Dem Pensions Minister chose for five years not to make any progress on this issue. He did that under a Conservative Government and a Conservative Prime Minister all the way through.
The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick)—my constituency neighbour—mentioned Lloyd George, who introduced a state pension with no uprating whatever. The first uprating of the contributory state pension in 1946, under the Attlee Government—again, I am making a point about the cross-party basis of some of these decisions—was not paid to pensioners living abroad. So since the beginning, policy on pension uprating has been consistent.
As we have discussed, people move abroad for many reasons—to be with their family, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) set out, enjoy a particular climate or return to their country of birth. It is for individuals, not the Government, to make those decisions, but when they make them, they will of course consider the impact on their finances, alongside a wide range of other factors. As the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) set out, our duty is to ensure that information regarding the effect of living abroad on the state pension entitlement is available. These days, that is on gov.uk, and includes information on where the uprating does and does not occur.
Pensioners who have retired to other countries will obviously take into account the UK state pension position, but they will also look at the wider provision for pensioners in those countries. Many countries will have a means-tested provision that is similar to the UK pension credit. It is true that the real-terms value of some people’s state pension will fall over time, but in most cases, particularly in the countries that have been mentioned today, that will be compensated for by higher means-tested payments when they are living abroad.
It is also important that further advice can be obtained from the International Pension Centre or the Pension Service. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked whether there is more we can do, and I want to be clear that I am always open to new ideas about what more we can do to communicate what happens to the state pension if people choose to retire abroad. More generally, I am happy to meet with any hon. Members who have suggestions in that area.
Jim Shannon
I gave the example—others will have similar examples—of a constituent who had moved to Canada. She phoned the DWP to ascertain her pension obligations and responsibilities, and was assured that her pension would follow her, but quite clearly it did not. The Minister outlined a system whereby it should be able to follow her, but that lady went a stage further—she actually phoned the Department, which told her that it would not matter and she would still receive her pension—and quite clearly it did not.
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for sharing that story. I have not heard of specific cases like that, and he might like to write to me about it. The position with respect to Canada is clear: somebody can take their state pension with them, but the uprating will not be paid once they are living in Canada. That is what the gov.uk website spells out. However, I am open to talking about individual cases and to hearing suggestions about what more we can do to communicate clearly, because this is an important issue.
Of the 1.1 million state pension recipients overseas, 652,000 live in countries where pensions are uprated. However, I do not want to hide from what that means, because that is why we are here today; as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) said, it means there are more than 400,000 pensioners living in countries where uprating is not paid. By volume, those are in the countries that have been mentioned most today: Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Many hon. Members have spoken eloquently of the impact of living in a country where that uprating is not paid, and I have heard about it myself in correspondence from those affected, as I have said.
That does not mean that we can wish away the real trade-offs that are involved. There would be significant additional costs to be borne by current taxpayers if uprating were extended to everybody living overseas, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North calls for. The cost of increasing all state pensions in payment to current UK levels would be approximately £0.9 billion a year, as has been mentioned. If there were any above-inflation uprating, it would then increase gradually over time.
Torsten Bell
Let me get through the discussion of the costs, and then I will take any interventions on that issue.
I recognise that many campaigners are asking for indexation in future, not for retrospective indexation, although there are obviously disagreements among campaigners about the exact ask to prioritise. However, arguing that we can simply put in place indexation going forward does not escape the need to recognise the real trade-offs involved. The long-term impact would be the same, as the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) explained. In the end, moving to forward-looking indexation would take us to the same increase in spending levels as would immediately lifting people up to the current level of the basic and new state pension. It is the same effect in the long-run, and we owe it to everyone to make financial decisions based on the long-run effects of the policies that we call for.
There are wider considerations about the net financial effects of these decisions. The hon. Member for Strangford and others raised the issue of health expenditure. To get to a wider understanding of the net effects, we have also to take into account where income is taxed and where it is spent. That does not get us away from the underlying point, which is that, focusing narrowly on the question of uprating, the costs are as I have set out.
Sarah Olney
Does the Minister not agree that under a reciprocal arrangement, not only would we uprate the pensions of our citizens who are living in a partner country, but that partner country will then be required to uprate the pensions of their citizens living here, and that would obviously be a benefit to this country, because they will have a greater income that they can spend here? Can the Minister assure me that that particular effect is included in the estimates?
Torsten Bell
I recognise the point that the hon. Member is making. I offer a few reflections on that. Some countries already do provide uprating for their pensioners based in the UK, so some of that is already in place, although it does vary across countries. It is, obviously, always for countries to set in place their own social security system. That is why the Australian system, for example, provides means-testing of the state pension, or elements of means-testing of their state pension. I suspect most people—with the possible exception of the Leader of the Opposition on occasion—do not support means-testing of the state pension.
I come on to the other point made by the hon. Member in the debate, which was to call for new reciprocal arrangements to put in place more widespread uprating. As I have explained, that would require significant tax rises. There is no way around that. The issue she raised would not negate that effect.
It is worth putting ourselves in other’s shoes. Why did the Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister for five years not change the policy on this issue? It was because he recognised the costs involved, and that it would involve tax rises. It is worth us reflecting on why the situation is not as some people would like.
Sir Roger Gale
Does the Minister consider that it is morally acceptable for Canada to uprate the pensions of its citizens in this country and to also bear the cost of this country not uprating its pensions for UK expats in Canada when Canada has formally offered to enter into a reciprocal arrangement? Why is that offer not being accepted?
Torsten Bell
Canada is a close ally of this country. We talk about that a lot in the current climate, for a whole host of reasons, and that is not going to change.
The right hon. Member is correct that Canada has made requests for a formal reciprocal arrangement, but the UK Government’s position—and that, again, of all parties—is that we are not in the business of new reciprocal arrangements with any countries. The only recent agreements have been the roll-over agreements with the EU and the EEA by the previous Conservative Government, but that was to maintain the existing social security arrangements, not to put in place any new reciprocal arrangements over that time.
I fully recognise the case that many hon. and right hon. Members have made today. I see the ongoing campaigning that those Members have put in place and that of many pensioners who are affected, but as I have said, the policy on uprating pensions is a long-standing one. More importantly, changing it involves real costs and trade-offs.
I gently note—very gently, so that I get out of this room safely—that many of the people calling for pensions to be uprated are also calling for reverses to the winter fuel payment policy and compensation for WASPI women, but are not calling for less investment in the NHS or higher taxes. In the current financial climate, there are real choices, and there have been no suggestions in this debate about how any of these policies would be funded.
I fully recognise the issues raised by Members today. I hope that I have explained why that recognition sits alongside the long-standing policy in this area, and I look forward to hearing the closing remarks from the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon.
Gregory Stafford
I think I have 22 minutes; I usually get about 22 seconds to wind up, so this is a luxury, but I will not test your patience, Mr Dowd, by taking the full time.
We have had a very wide-ranging and helpful debate today. I am especially grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) who brings a significant amount of experience from many years on this issue. It was interesting to hear his historical knowledge and, indeed, the potential solutions that he raised.
This is very much about the social contract, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) suggested. People have paid in, so they should expect to receive an equitable and fair playing field, whether they happen to have moved to somewhere in the European Union, the Philippines, Canada or Australia, or they are still living in this country.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted exactly why this is morally unfair—it is by not just the dint of the policy itself, but its impact on people. There are people living on very small incomes who are having to choose between paying their heating bills in those countries and their medicine and food. That is clearly not appropriate, especially as we have discovered many people who have paid into this country not just financially but in terms of the things they have done, for example, serving in the armed forces.
It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on the Welsh perspective and his interesting idea for a number of MPs for overseas citizens. I am not sure whether that is Lib Dem policy.
Gregory Stafford
It is not; the Lib Dem spokesman is shaking her head, but it is an interesting idea. Before entering Parliament, I have to confess that I had no idea this was an issue. People might say that is because I am so young I would not even had to have thought about it—I can see what you are thinking, Mr Dowd. But it has come up time and again. The case of Anne Puckridge really highlights it, but many other Members have mentioned other people who have been affected. I thank the campaigners on this for highlighting it to me and to others. Without them, this issue would really have died a death.
Even after having understood this issue, I did not fully grasp the nature of the problem. I understood that we did not have reciprocal arrangements, and we were not paying uprating in places such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries, which I did not agree with, but I could just about understand because they are foreign nations. I was contacted yesterday by a representative of the Falkland Islands Government—the Falkland Islands is a British overseas territory, and is essentially Britain in all but name. There are 80 people there in this situation, many of whom have served in the armed forces. It seems bizarre that even for our overseas territories we do not uprate the pension. I reflect on that, and I hope the Minister does.
I was disappointed but not surprised that the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), decided to get in some political digs, conveniently forgetting that her party had a Pensions Minister for five years in the coalition Government who did absolutely nothing about it. I think that her comments do her, this campaign and the pensioners no service at all.
In contrast, I thought the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), the Conservative spokesman, were measured and sympathetic. I wanted to correct her on one thing: Anne Puckridge is now 100, and I do not think she would want to be known as that. I suppose it was heartening to the campaign, but disappointing overall that my hon. Friend, like so many of us, has had so many people contacting her about this. She was right; we have a new Government and new Ministers, so we could have a fresh look at this.
I do not lay the blame at the feet of the current Minister, or indeed, the current Government. As I said at the start, this is a multi-generational, cross-party problem for which we all should take some responsibility. However, it is in the current Minister’s hands to fix the problem now. As the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) said, given everything else this Government are doing to pensioners—whether that be personal independence payments, WASPI, winter fuel and so on—this issue could be one where people see they are actually on the side of pensioners.
I am afraid I was a little bit disappointed with the Minister’s speech. I accept there will be a cost to the taxpayer, though I think it is disingenuous to say there is a trade-off between this particular policy and cuts to the NHS. It is a more complex situation, and I get that, but I fear he has been captured—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich said—by the Treasury solicitors. That is unhelpful.
Finally, I go back to the requests I made. Will the Minister agree to meet with the campaigners so that we can go through the cost-benefit analysis and have a discussion about whether his figures or the campaigners’ figures are accurate? Will he at least commit to looking at some of the reciprocal pensions arrangements that we have with some of the countries that have been mentioned today, including Canada? Will he commit to doing everything in his power to make sure that first, people understand this policy and where they can and cannot get their pensions uprated? Even if he cannot commit today to sorting this out, will he commit to it still being on his radar going forward? If he has the opportunity —if finances allow—will he look to remove this policy so that every person, wherever they live, gets the pension they deserve?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered pensions for people living overseas.
GP Services: Christchurch
(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
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I will call Sir Christopher Chope to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to GP services in Christchurch.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. This short debate was triggered by the perverse decision, announced last week, of the Dorset integrated care board to refuse permission for Burton surgery to reopen. The surgery is a premises in Burton village in Christchurch constituency, which has had a GP surgery for more than 30 years. The surgery was converted from a guest house. It has good car parking nearby and a pharmacy adjoining it, and is a well-loved community facility.
In 2007, the GP practice in Burton was amalgamated with Christchurch medical practice and became a branch of that practice. Then, in December 2023, patients were told that the Burton premises would be closed and all patients transferred to Christchurch medical practice in Purewell. I wrote to the integrated care board to express my concern at the impact that would have on the people of Burton. Although the ICB said that it was powerless to intervene because the surgery was only a branch, local residents were confident that another GP practice would acquire the premises and continue to provide GP services, because the building is in really good order: it has 11 consulting rooms and is a very attractive proposition for another GP practice. It was expected that it would be put on the open market for sale.
Much to everybody’s frustration, that did not happen. The owners of the practice decided instead to do a closed deal with a veterinary hospital based in Christchurch, which agreed to acquire the site, thereby excluding the possibility of another GP practice taking it over. However, one thing they had not thought about was that they needed to get planning permission for a change of use. The planning application was strongly opposed by local residents, backed by me, and it became a major issue in the general election campaign. Eventually, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council refused the application on a series of grounds, the principal one being that
“insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the loss of a community facility at this site would not result in a substantial decline in the range and quality of facilities and services available for local people.”
In essence, the local planners said that it was necessary to keep the surgery in Burton because removing it would take away an important community facility. If nobody else was willing to open such a community facility, I would not have been able to put forward this argument, but another practice has now purchased the premises and is willing and ready to open a branch in them. However, in order so to do, it had to apply to the integrated care board for permission. It did just that last November. Extraordinarily, it took months before a decision was reached—so long that I raised the issue in an oral question. The Secretary of State himself took it on board and, as a result, the ICB was pushed into having to make a decision on 23 April. As I understand it, the decision was made on 23 April, but was not communicated until some time afterwards.
In the meantime, and in anticipation that the application to reopen the branch was essentially a formality, South Coast Medical completed the purchase of the building and started the refurbishment. The plan was that it would reopen this summer. The ICB’s decision to refuse permission for the branch surgery to reopen is, in my view and that of my constituents and local residents, beyond belief. I appeal to the Minister to intervene on behalf of the 4,500 patients whom the ICB accepts would choose to re-register at Burton were the surgery to reopen.
Ironically, it is said that the cost of re-registering those 4,500 patients would be a significant burden on the health service. That is because people who are in their first year with a GP are thought to be more burdensome, so the GP gets paid a slightly larger amount for each of them. To describe the exercise of patient choice in that way—as a burden on the NHS—seems to me to be pretty wide of the mark.
After I heard the outcome of the application, I tabled a series of questions, one of which sought to establish how many people have been transferring from one practice to another in Christchurch each year, because I wanted to get a feel for that. The answer, from the Minister for Care, stated that the information is not available.
Some of the arguments made in favour of not allowing the surgery to be reopened, in answer to another of my questions, were based on the number of appointments already taking place in Christchurch. That prompted me to table a named day question on that subject. At about 9.30 am this morning I received a holding response, saying that the information relating to the number of appointments at surgeries in Christchurch over the past couple of years is not available, yet the ICB says that it used that very information to help it reach its conclusion. I hope the Minister will explain why the ICB, which I think is basically the custodian of all this information, so far has not decided to share that information with Ministers. Either it has the information or it has not been wholly open in suggesting that the information helped in its decision.
Sir Christopher Chope
I will not just at the moment, but I may do later.
This whole issue is a test case for the credibility of the new Labour Government’s promises about increasing access to GP services. In August 2024, after the general election, no one in government or in the NHS, including Dorset ICB, was suggesting that a GP surgery in Burton was not needed. Now that a serious plan to reopen the surgery is in place, without any capital cost to the NHS because South Coast Medical has acquired the premises using its own resources and does not need a grant, it is surely perverse that the ICB is arguing that such a branch surgery can no longer be afforded and that reopening it would adversely affect the financial viability of other practices in Christchurch.
I tabled questions on that issue as well. There is no evidence that other practices in Christchurch would be adversely affected, and I challenge the Minister to share with me, the House and my constituents the evidence that has been used to reach this decision. Will she also explain what can be done to appeal against the decision? It has been handed down by an unelected and unaccountable quango, or arm’s length body, which, among other things, has said to me in a letter that there have been no complaints about the quality of service being provided by the other main practice in Christchurch, which was operating the Burton branch and chose to give it up. However, there have been many complaints; I have fistful of them here, some of which I may refer to. Either the ICB does not open its post, or it is closing its eyes and ears to representations about issues relating to the availability of doctors, the importance of patient choice and the inconvenience of having to travel so far in a community that is not well served by public transport and where taxis are very expensive. If somebody is dissatisfied with the quality of service being provided by their general practitioner, they may wish to exercise their choice, and it is good to have some healthy competition, but all that seems to be being squeezed out by the integrated care board.
I will quote from a letter from Helen Yonwin, who writes: “Since the surgery closed last year in Burton and patients were transferred elsewhere, trying to get an appointment has been a nightmare. They seem to be unable to cope with the extra patients. The telephones are not always answered and it can take over 30 minutes to eventually get a response, only to discover that you are number 20-something in the queue. After a long wait to be told there are no available appointments, so ring again the next day, there are still no appointments, ‘But you can receive a telephone consultation from a GP’—but the next available slot is in four weeks’ time.”
That is not improving access to GP services, which is what the Government pledged. It is a levelling down and reduction in service. I hope the Minister will say that it is intolerable and unacceptable, and that for it to be condoned, if not supported, by the ICB is appalling.
Sir Christopher Chope
I will just finish quoting from this letter: “If you are lucky enough to get an appointment, the next problem is getting there. Many people don’t drive or have a car, public transport is not easy for those with mobility issues, and taxis are expensive. If you do drive, another problem arises because parking is very limited.” It continues: “I cannot understand how it was stated that no complaints have been made. I and many others, in emails sent to the ICB, mentioned several issues, but I doubt any were noted.” That is a letter from one constituent; there are lots of others.
A new housing development has been approved in the locality of Burton; with some 700 new houses, there will inevitably be increased demand for GP services. Indeed, the developer, or the owner of the land, has already approached a surgery to see whether it would open a branch on the new estate. That will not be necessary if the branch to which I have referred is reopened.
I will quote from another letter. I will not give the person’s name because it refers to their condition, but she has multiple sclerosis. She says: “It’s so hard for me to get to the Purewell surgery even if you can get an appointment…I fell nearly two years ago, and I still haven’t had a proper appointment to see a doctor to see what’s causing my pain.” She says that she wants to have a choice.
Another person wrote: “I previously lived in Stour surgery’s catchment”—that is another surgery within the Christchurch constituency—“and they were amazing. I couldn’t fault them one bit. I then moved to Burton and was forced into this alternative provision.” She says that it is a nightmare to get hold of and that we should have a right to choose who we want as our GP. She also says, “Every time I’ve had an appointment, it’s been running 30 to 45 minutes late.” Reopening the local branch surgery would resolve those problems.
I hope that I have given a flavour of the strength of local feeling on this fraught issue. Somebody else wrote to me that not everybody wishes to complain publicly about the lack of service available from providers in the Christchurch medical practice, because they are worried about the consequences for them. I think that such concerns are irrational, but they are understandable.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his campaign on this issue. It is what we expect from him, because he is very assiduous and very committed to his constituents. He has clearly laid out the issue. Does he feel that the main reason for the ICB’s not pursuing the case is finance? If it is, even with the proposed new housing, perhaps the Minister needs to look at the case personally to ensure that it is not being held back by anything that the Government are doing at this moment in time.
Sir Christopher Chope
The hon. Gentleman mentions the issue of finances. I tabled a written question about how much the health service has been spending on general practice in the Christchurch constituency. Again, rather surprisingly, the information is available only for the year ending 2023, so we do not have any information for 2023–24. Although I would not expect the figures for 2024–25 to be available, I certainly would have expected the total costs for 2023–24 to be available by now. The answer says that in 2022–23, some £17.5 million was spent on providing GP services in Christchurch.
The idea that the cost of transferring patients from one practice to another should be a decisive factor against the reopening of a branch seems extraordinary. It makes a nonsense of the argument that we must rein in our expenditure. While we are talking about the ICB’s expenditure, for the last several years I have been complaining that, at any given time in Dorset, under the ICB’s supervision, there are some 250 patients in Dorset hospitals who have no need to “reside”, as it is called. In other words, those people are in hospital but do not need to be there. Every day, that is 250 patients at a cost of between £500 and £1,000 each.
The same body is presiding over that scandal. It said last year that it was going to halve the number, but it has failed to do so—indeed, the number is just the same as a year ago. Instead of taking it out on the people of Christchurch and saying, “You can’t have access to a reopened branch surgery,” it should be looking at its own poor performance. As I have said to the Minister informally, the idea that Dorset ICB will somehow be amalgamated with other ICBs—creating even more bureaucracy, and making it even more remote from the people—is, again, farcical.
My final point—I want to give the Minister time to respond—is that, in answer to a written question, the Minister for Care said that as a result of what has happened in the last year, the number of patients in Highcliffe has increased by about 150. In Christchurch medical practice, the total number of patients has actually fallen; in the Stour surgery, it has increased; and in the Grove, it is about the same. To suggest, on those figures, that the financial viability of other practices in Christchurch will be threatened if this branch surgery is reopened seems to be without any justification. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response, although I note that the Minister for Care is not responding to the debate.
Sir Christopher Chope
I will not, because I want to ensure that the Minister has time to respond to those points.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for raising GP surgeries, which is a vital matter to so many of our constituents. That is because GP surgeries are the front door to our NHS, and visiting a GP represents far better value for taxpayers’ money than accident and emergency departments. That is why, since coming into office, fixing general practice has rightly taken up a lot of our bandwidth, energy and focus.
It is worth remembering that we inherited a system in total disarray, and a bizarre situation in which we simultaneously had a GP shortage and newly qualified GPs looking for work. I am proud of everything we have done to turn GP services around in the nine or 10 short months we have had. However, before I come on to that, let me address some of the hon. Gentleman’s points.
Ahead of this debate, I asked my office to get in touch with the integrated care board locally so that we had a fuller picture of what is happening on the ground. My understanding is that Burton surgery was previously a branch of Christchurch medical practice, which is just under two miles away. The surgery closed in August last year because the owners wanted to sell. Although the ICB did not approve of the closure, it recognised that it had little influence over the sale as GPs are independent practitioners.
I am informed that the local community were—as they often are—understandably unhappy with the news about changes to the services, and that the hon. Gentleman got in touch with Dorset ICB. When a veterinary business tried to buy the site, the application received over 100 objection letters and the sale did not go ahead. The ICB then received two further applications to renew the site, about which it considered a number of factors, as is normal practice: whether there is good access to surgeries in the area; what the impact would be on patients and on community needs; how it would affect the quality, equity and safety of provision; and how it might affect the stability and ability of other local GP services to run viable surgeries in their area.
I have been assured that the decision that Dorset ICB took was not taken lightly but based on the needs of and the benefits to all prospective patients in the area. The surgery catchment area for Burton is covered by Christchurch medical practice and Farmhouse surgery. As the hon. Gentleman outlined, reopening would have required additional costs, which were not justifiable given the financial challenges facing the NHS—something that we all understand. Consequently, Dorset ICB felt that those costs would reduce provision in the area and lead to significant financial pressures on other local surgeries, which could lead to further closures.
Dorset ICB has seen no degradation of services for patients since the surgery closed and the number of appointments has not decreased overall. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the numbers, and I do not know why that information is not available; I am happy to take that question back to the Department. Local MPs should have as much information as possible about services in their areas. These are taxpayer-funded services, so I will check as to why that information is not available. Dorset ICB has not received what it calls formal complaints from patients, but it has received communications from a local campaigning group, which is important. On balance, however, it decided that it could not reopen the practice.
On the point about housing needs, which I talked about for many years when I was an Opposition Member of Parliament, the Government absolutely understand the issue of additional demand and the challenge it poses to primary care infrastructure.
Karin Smyth
I will not, because the hon. Member for Christchurch wants me to answer his questions.
We are working closely with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to address the issue of additional demand in national planning guidance and ensure that all new and existing developments have an adequate level of healthcare infrastructure for the community. The NHS has a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient medical services, including general practice, in each local area, with funding and commission reflecting population growth and demographic changes. The hon. Gentleman highlights an important point that we will continue to pursue.
Those are the facts about the decision made by the ICB, which was its decision to make. I am not going to stand here and tell the hon. Gentleman that he is not right to do what he is doing; he is absolutely right to fight for the best possible service provision for the people of Christchurch, and I would do the same for my constituents—all hon. Members do that. These decisions are best made locally, however, and it is for Dorset ICB to use its autonomy to make them, not Ministers in Whitehall.
Sir Christopher Chope
The ICB is not elected or accountable. We have an elected and accountable council—BCP council—which decided that the surgery in Burton, a community facility that had been there for more than 30 years, should remain and that permission should not be granted to change its use, because of its value as a community asset. Why should the ICB be able to second-guess the elected representatives of the community? Is that not intolerable?
Karin Smyth
I could talk for a long time about the accountability of health services, but we do not have time for that. The legislation, as set up by the previous Government and others, is clear that ICBs have responsibility for commissioning services on behalf of the local population within the resources that they have available. They need to do that under particular guidelines, which I have outlined, and it is important that they keep up communications with Ministers and local people.
I am not au fait with the day-to-day running of Dorset ICB—that is not for Ministers—but at a strategic level, I recognise that Dorset currently has the fifth-highest ratio of GP clinicians to patients in the country. I know that everyone wants to be in first place, but I am sympathetic to the ICB’s arguments that other practices may suffer if the surgery were reopened. Closing the former site has made the services at Christchurch medical practice and other neighbouring practices slightly larger, which has given them greater resilience in the long term.
The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned the new Labour Government and what we are trying to address. I do not have the figures in front of me, but every hon. Member present will know there have been hundreds of GP service closures—not just branches but practices—over the past 14 years. The trend has been for primary care to receive a smaller share of the NHS budget, and as a result, secondary care has had much more activity. We all know about the 8 am scramble, and some GPs have been forced to work in appalling conditions with leaky roofs and buckets catching rainwater.
That is why our priority is to stem the flow of resources away from primary care, shift the focus of the NHS from hospital to community, and begin building a much better neighbourhood health service. Our objectives are to hire more GPs, reach an agreement on a new contract, rebuild surgeries through increased capital spend, and bust the bloated bureaucracy that has built up. In the summer, we committed to bringing in an extra 1,000 GPs through the additional roles reimbursement scheme, which we backed with an extra £82 million of funding after changing a technicality that prevented primary care from hiring more new doctors. We have surpassed our initial target and 1,500 more GPs are now serving patients on the frontline. Since we took office, I am happy to confirm that 11 have been recruited by Dorset ICB, including, as I understand, three in the hon. Member’s constituency.
In conclusion, we are committed to shifting the NHS from hospital to community and to building a neighbourhood health service. We are bringing back the family doctor.
Sir Christopher Chope
One of the issues is that since the branch surgery was closed, Christchurch medical practice has reduced its number of full-time equivalent GP doctors. There used to be 10.7 and now there are only 10.2, which may be part of the problem. Surely it must be in the interests of the Government, the taxpayer and everybody else to allow a branch surgery to reopen, at minimal additional cost, to the benefit of 4,500 people in the Christchurch area.
Karin Smyth
As I said, decisions about how the additional costs are borne and the resilience of the rest of primary care in the area are for the ICB. It has been very clear that that is not the case, so the hon. Member may want to take it up with the ICB.
Since we came into office, we have been doing the hard yards of restoring the role of general practice at the heart of our health service, including in the hon. Member’s constituency, by investing in people, places and programmes that cut bureaucracy. We are laying the foundations for an NHS that is fit for the future, particularly based around primary care and neighbourhood health centres.
Question put and agreed to.
Adoption and Kinship Placements
(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
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for children in adoptive and kinship placements.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Harris, and I thank so many hon. Members for being present in the Chamber. I will keep my speech as short as possible so that they can all get in—bear with me.
Children who are no longer able to live with their birth parents are the responsibility of us all. I committed to speak up for them and their families before my election, so it is a privilege to be here to do just that. We are primarily here to talk about those who are fortunate enough to have a permanent placement through adoption, or a secure long-term arrangement with a special guardianship or child arrangements order—in other words, kinship care. However, we know that the average amount of time that a young person or child spends in care before they are adopted is 15 months, and that often involves multiple placements. We also know that around 80% of those children may have experienced neglect, abuse or violence before their adoption. The adoption and special guardianship support fund was set up in response to those realities, which is why the recent uncertainty and the limitations that have been placed on it have been so concerning and have resulted in this debate.
Over recent weeks, the adoption and special guardianship support fund has been raised a number of times in Parliament, first when we were waiting for news about the fund for 2025-26 after damaging delays, and several times since the Government announced that they would continue funding the scheme, albeit with significant rule changes. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom are here today, have been raising these issues and speaking out, as I have, and seeking opportunities to raise the future of the ASGSF in detail.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. Many of us have been talking to special guardians in our constituencies—I certainly have in Hartlepool—and one of their huge concerns is that the cut to this fund will dissuade people from taking on these incredibly important roles in the future. Does the hon. Member agree that that will result in costs popping up elsewhere for the state, costing us more in the future?
Rebecca Smith
The hon. Gentleman takes the words right out of my mouth, and if he stays for the whole debate he will hear me say exactly that. He raises an important point: we are asking people to care for the most vulnerable children, and if we do not give them the tools to do that, they will not apply in the first place.
I am pleased to have secured this debate to shine a further light on the issue, highlight how the Government’s recent position is a false economy, and put further pressure on them to do the right thing and reverse the recent changes. Without access to the previous level of support offered through the fund, there is a real concern that the number of adopters will fall, and more children—including those with some of the most difficult and challenging stories—will face the long term in care, seeing their future massively impacted as a result.
Before I progress, I wish to pay tribute to the thousands of parents, guardians and carers across the country who have been fighting for children and young people in their care—those who are unable to live with their birth parents—and especially to those families in my constituency of South West Devon, some of whom I have met, and some who have written to me to share their experiences. They are all, rightly, incredibly worried about the impact of the cuts on the support that they previously received, and it is a privilege to be here to speak on their behalf.
I also place on record my thanks to the charities that have been campaigning against the recent changes to support for children in adoptive and kinship placements: Adoption UK, Coram, Kinship, Family Rights Group, and the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies to mention a few, as well as local adoption agencies such as Adopt South West, which serves families in my constituency and others in Devon and Cornwall. Their work has been especially powerful over the past couple of months as they have shared information with us and we have fought together.
The adoption and special guardianship support fund was set up under the Conservative Government in 2015 as a result of the Children and Families Act 2014, and it was designed to help families to access the specialist therapy services that they may need. Since the Adoption and Children Act 2002, adoptive families have had a right to an assessment of their adoption support needs by their local authority. However, the 2014 Act introduced a number of further measures to support adoptive families, including the fund. In 2023, the fund was expanded to include kinship care, enabling some children with special guardianship or child arrangements orders to qualify for support too. That was a solid legacy to work from.
Since July 2024, however, there has been a cloud of uncertainty over the future of the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Although it is a lifeline for thousands of vulnerable children, it was left hanging in the balance. Families were left wondering whether the therapeutic support that their children desperately need would vanish overnight.
In April, the Department for Education announced significant cuts to the fund. The annual therapy funding per child has been slashed from £5,000 to £3,000. The separate £2,500 allowance for specialist assessments has gone, match funding to support the most complex cases has gone, and the ability to carry support across financial years has also gone. That is a shocking 40% reduction in funding for the support that we all know is highly specialised and that, as a result, comes at a cost.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate, and I agree 100% with the point that she is making. Two constituents in West Dorset support two children with multiple needs—overlapping autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and significant trauma of the kind she mentioned. The funding for a one-off assessment remains, but the ongoing funding to support those children no longer exists, and that is a fundamental problem.
Rebecca Smith
Absolutely: the goalposts have completely shifted. As we saw with farming, it happened overnight, so there was no warning for families and no ability for them to come up with other ideas.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Following the announcements in April, a constituent got in touch. She has two adopted granddaughters who, given their traumatic start in life, rely on specialist support. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that diminishing the support fund will have long-term financial impacts on the Government’s budget?
Rebecca Smith
I agree with the hon. Member that there is definitely a concern around that issue. I will touch on it more later, but it has already been brought up this afternoon.
I turn to what some of my constituents are saying. My constituent CA said:
“These children are slipping through the net and it is the parents who are dealing with the fallout— excessive child on parent violence, total exhaustion from managing needs at home and constant battling with professionals.
I myself have had to give up my career—”
incidentally, she was a teacher—
“in order to maintain the daily battle of getting her to school, then constant meetings to get her any sort of education that meets her needs. It’s exhausting!”
Similarly, Joanne said:
“Myself and my husband adopted our daughter 12 yrs ago and our son 6 yrs ago. They both have Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder alongside Autism Spectrum Disorder.
My son is 6 yrs old and because of the trauma he endured in utero, he also has complex needs and has suicidal ideation with intent and wishes he has never been born—we were lucky enough to secure vital match funding last year to enable the sensory OT”—
that is, the sensory occupational therapist—
“to have weekly sessions to support him in controlling his emotions and to create a specific sensory diet which school will be able to use”
to support him in accessing school and supporting his needs. She continued:
“To hear that the fund is being reduced to £3,000 is truly terrifying. As a family, we have been in crisis and at risk of family (placement) breakdown, as having 2 complex children is exhausting, physically, mentally and emotionally, and my husband and myself had nothing left in the tank to carry on. I have been unable to work for 6 yrs due to my daughter being unable to access education as her needs were not understood or being met.”
The Labour Government promised to be different, to be bold and to put children first. However, when it came to one of the most vulnerable groups in our society—children who have experienced trauma, neglect and loss—they hesitated, they wavered and they failed to provide the leadership that we had been told to expect.
The Government say that the changes to the fund have been made to “maximise the number” of children supported, but how can they claim to support more children by offering them less? How can they ask families to step up and adopt or become guardians, only to pull the rug out from under them when they need the most support? Nearly 20,000 children received support through the fund last year. That is 20,000 stories of resilience and of families holding on through the hardest times. Now, however, many of those families are being told, “You’re on your own.”
Another constituent wrote:
“I am in the final months of a doctorate to become a Clinical Psychologist and much of my work…is with families who rely on this fund. Children and young people who are adopted have almost all experienced developmental trauma and are left with many relational and neurodevelopmental complexities that require long term specialist support and intervention in order to heal. Parenting these children is usually not straightforward and can be incredibly challenging and draining, requiring specialist support. I have little doubt that with the reduction of the fund, we will see a significant increase in adoption break downs…This is not only incredibly traumatic for all involved, but is also incredibly expensive—far greater than the costs that will be saved through the reduction in the support fund. The cost of keeping a child in care has been estimated at around £280,000, significantly more than the £2,000 that has been cut.
We know that that is not the only cost that will increase. As well as the risk of returning to care, adopted young people face tougher educational and employment outcomes and their mental health and wellbeing is significantly impacted, especially as they transition to adulthood. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill has just progressed through the Commons—why undermine its aims by severely limiting the support in the ASGSF?
In the past few months, it has become clear that this decision should not be binary. It should not be about spreading funding thinly to go further; it should be about extending the funding to its previous levels. We need to see a return to the £5,000 fair access limit, to reinstate the £2,500 allowance for specialist assessments and to allow for match funding. We must make the funding permanent—not subject to annual spending rounds—provide it for more families and recognise that if it is not provided and ringfenced by the Government, it will fall to local authorities to find it, and we know how that tends to end up.
To conclude, I will quote from a constituent who works as a professional in this field and has raised some serious questions that I hope the Minister can address. She says:
“There has been no consultation process at all...how can this be fair or legal as adoptive & kinship families have access to therapies in their adoption and special guardianship order paperwork and in their EHCP agreements?”—
that is, education, health and care plan agreements. She continues:
“Who will adopt disabled children where lots of intervention and support is necessary? How many children will return to care? What will families do without multi-disciplinary assessments where it is beyond negligence to take this away as it is often the only thing that triggers considered recommendations for adopted children in EHCPs for case reviews, for providing carefully managed intervention plans.
Our previously looked after children are being discriminated against due to their complex needs where families face yet another closed door.”
I call on the Minister to reverse her decision and to acknowledge that failing to do so risks an uncertain future for these special children and young people, and their families.
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I am concerned that there are a lot more Members present than on the speaking list. If you have not put in to speak, it is unlikely you will be called. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 3.28 pm, so I am allowing each Member three minutes in which to speak.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on her speech.
This is difficult: because of the Minister’s professional background, I know that she will know everything we are going to say to her in this debate. I know that she cares deeply about this issue. In fact, I know that she will do everything she possibly can to ensure that children who have care experience, whether that is through a special guardianship order or adoption, get the holistic support they need. I know that she wants every child to have the therapeutic interventions that will make a difference to their life course and their future.
I know that the Minister understands the importance of the fund and the transformational difference it makes not only to children but to their families, siblings, parents and environment. I know that the Minister understands that the life course of these children will be different if they do not get that vital intervention as early as possible. I know that she understands the issues associated with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, trauma, abuse, violence and neglect.
I know that the Minister cares deeply about this issue, yet there was a cliff edge between the last fund and this fund. It was only at the eleventh hour—in fact, it was gone midnight—before we saw the confirmation that the fund would continue, but it was not until two weeks later that we learned it had been slashed by 40%.
The outcomes of those young people will be deeply affected. Drilling into the data, the average amount spent on therapeutic support for a family was £3,335 last year. That is the average, so many need more. As a result of the changes, the average will not even be reached and those specialist assessments will not be there. It would be fine if we had these services available in our public sector—I would welcome that—but we simply do not. Those families need vital access.
I suggest to the Minister that she stamps her feet at the Treasury’s door, and that she demands that the Treasury does not play games, like it did this morning during Treasury questions, but actually delivers the money, because it will cost the Treasury far more if it does not. I also suggest that the Minister addresses the big challenge that we are seeing: that the number of children in our country in care is rising. That is where the solution is—getting that early help to make a real difference. I am proud that my city is reducing the number of children who are care experienced, but we need to see this fund restored first.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this debate and on her excellent speech.
We know that adopted children are often the most traumatised in our society. The abuse, neglect and instability that they have endured in their earliest years leave lasting scars, affecting their development, their ability to trust and their mental health. With the right support, those children can heal. Therapy gives them a second chance to feel safe, to build meaningful relationships and to lead stable, loving lives.
Let us take the example of Leo, an eight-year-old boy who lost his parents and two siblings and now lives with his special guardian under a special guardianship order due to his assessed psychological need for permanence. Leo also has a diagnosis of autism spectrum condition, and experienced complex trauma within his birth home during the first few years of his life. Thanks to support from the fund, Leo and his special guardian mum have been accessing specialist psychotherapy. The progress that he has made has been remarkable. He is now able to share his sadness and ask for comfort when he feels overwhelmed—a huge step for a child who used to shut down completely and express distress through challenging behaviour.
Leo’s case highlights why early therapeutic intervention is so crucial. However, due to recent cuts and delays in the ASGSF funding, Leo has been waiting five months to continue his therapy, which is critical work focused on processing the complex grief of losing his entire birth family. The interruption in therapy is more than just a pause—it risks undoing much of the progress Leo has made. Rebuilding trust with his therapist will take time, and the delay may trigger deep feelings of abandonment, undermining his already fragile belief that adults can be safe and consistent. Even when therapy resumes, the reduced number of sessions now available is unlikely to be enough to fully support Leo through his grief. A child such as Leo does not need a quick fix; he needs time, skilled support and consistency to help him to heal.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My hon. Friend is telling the heartwarming story of her constituent. Two constituents of mine, Liz and Steve from Wincanton, have recently become the special guardians for their grandchild. They faced a long-drawn-out process as a result of the delays to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, and they have really struggled to get the support they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should urgently reverse these harmful cuts and reaffirm their commitment to supporting vulnerable children?
Caroline Voaden
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
When children like Leo receive the right early help, they are more likely to thrive in school, avoid crisis services and grow into adults who contribute positively to society. Supporting those children gives them a second chance at life, and ultimately it also saves money. That is why the fund was created in 2015. Early therapeutic intervention can be transformative and much more cost-effective than dealing with complex problems later in life.
Demand is growing—in 2023, 38% of families reported reaching a crisis point, up from 30% in 2022—yet therapists fear that recent funding changes will reduce the number of children they can support. Some are already leaving the field. Families are growing wary, hesitant to invest in assessments and worrying that they will not have enough left for therapy or that funding will run out entirely. I have met one therapist who says she will be able to see fewer children, not more, because of the reduction in funding.
Quality of care is also at risk. Limited budgets may push families toward cheaper providers, who lack the specialist expertise needed to work safely with traumatised children. Many effective therapeutic models just cannot be delivered within the reduced budgets and fewer sessions. The long-term costs of underfunding are enormous. Without proper support, placements may break down, forcing vulnerable children back into the care system. We cannot let that happen. Restoring sustainable ASGSF funding is essential. Every child like Leo deserves the chance to heal, and that starts with the right support at the right time.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this important debate. I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise concerns on behalf of my constituents in County Durham. Kinship carers play a crucial role in our communities. They step up to care for children when their parents are no longer able to do so, often under challenging circumstances. Their care allows children to remain within their families and support networks, which we know leads to better outcomes in adulthood.
Yet, despite their vital contribution, Government support remains unequal. A two-tier system persists, where access to help is based not on a child’s needs, but on how they entered kinship care. That must change. For example, only kinship children who have previously been looked after the local authority can access pupil premium plus, priority school admissions, support from the designated teacher and the adoption and special guardianship support fund. That should not be the case—it is simply unfair. That is one reason why I support the Kinship charity’s #ValueOurLove campaign, which calls for the Government to join up the fragmented system and guarantee access to support, no matter which route is followed into kinship care. Emotional and behavioural challenges are the main reasons kinship carers fear they cannot continue to care for their loved ones. These children, often shaped by trauma and loss, need early, high-quality therapeutic support to heal—support that must be protected, not cut.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to a £40 million kinship allowance trial in 10 local authorities, but we urgently need clarity. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm when decisions will be made, and whether County Durham will be included, since I understand that 317 local authorities are vying to be a pilot authority. In east Durham alone there are 340 kinship families, some of whom are known to me, who face ongoing financial uncertainty and reduced access to support. The limited pilot risks leaving many behind.
The comprehensive spending review is the ideal opportunity to accelerate plans for kinship carers. I urge the Minister and the Government to commit to a non-means-tested allowance, at least equal to the national minimum fostering rate, and to ending the current two-tier system. Carers save the state £4.3 billion annually. Every child matters and deserves the same chance to thrive, no matter their circumstances.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for leading the debate. The crowd that is present indicates how important the issue is. Adoptive and kinship care is a wonderful thing to offer children a safe and caring environment to grow up in, but there is no doubt that it has challenges that need addressing, and in particular need Government support. It is great to be in Westminster Hall to talk about that.
To give an understanding of the topic, in Northern Ireland there are an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 children living in informal kinship care, and the number of children living with friends and family is consistently increasing. As of March ’24, there were some 4,000 children under the care of local authorities, even though a number of children had been adopted out of care in 2023—there are still many more in care than are being adopted. Northern Ireland, along with Scotland, seems to have the highest rate of kinship care, and there is no doubt that more should be done to support those agreeing to take on the care of relatives.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The hon. Member mentions the challenges that kinship carers face; one is the legal complexity of the current system. I recently spoke to a constituent who has a special guardianship order in place for her grandson, for whom she is the kinship carer. On her diagnosis with lung disease, she went to see whether it was possible to add her son, the child’s uncle, to that agreement. She was told that it was not legally possible—but thankfully, and thanks to advice from the Family Rights Group, she learned that it is. Does the hon. Member agree that more needs to be done to simplify the legal processes around kinship care?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is frustrating to have a legalistic system that seems to try to hold up the process, when people are looking for a good way forward for the child.
In October 2024, the Government announced that it would provide some £40 million to trial a new kinship allowance in 10 local authorities in England. The aim is to test whether paying some form of allowance to kinship carers could encourage more people to take a family member in when needed. The Government have said that trial will start in the autumn. Finances are often a block, and relatives who already have children of their own often find they simply cannot afford to take on kinship care. Would the Minister and the Government—those who hold the purse strings—consider extending funding for that trial to Northern Ireland and Scotland, where the figures surrounding children living in kinship care with family members are higher? A trial in those two places would give a better perspective, if the Minister does not mind me saying so.
There are many reasons why a family may choose to adopt, but post-adoption support is paramount. I have no doubt that, with specialist long-term assistance, relationships can thrive. Access to therapeutic services for children is incredibly important to support the child’s emotional and mental wellbeing. For example, in education—I find this to be of major importance—children will naturally discuss their family environments, their parents and their grandparents. For many young people who do not have the same environment, those conversations in schools can become uncomfortable for them. Although we have fantastic pastoral support in schools, perhaps it is not a bad idea for outside specialists to engage with those kids in school to ensure that they have the specific support that they need.
Statutory adoption pay is paid at 90% of earnings for the first six weeks and at a further, lower rate of £187.18 a week for the next 33 weeks. Perhaps kinship payments could also be looked at for those relatives who take on care from birth, so that they are not left behind when supporting young children, and giving them the best start.
To conclude, the sacrifice that adoptive and kinship carers make for the lives of young people is incredibly wonderful. Many people out there make that decision for the betterment of a young person and to give them the opportunity to grow up. Government support for them must be unwavering so that they do not struggle, but have access to sufficient finance and wellbeing support. For the children, having access to long-term assistance will allow them to thrive. What more can we ask for in this debate other than their bright futures?
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Since I came to this House in July, I have found this issue to be one of the few that cuts across parties; all hon. Members see what the adoption and special guardianship support fund does on the ground, whether in their county councils or district councils. It is one of those issues brought up by people at our constituency surgeries, and we see the impact that it has on the families supporting those children.
I pay tribute to the Minister, who has been very patient with the many comments that I have put to her, and supportive in getting me answers, but I have big concerns about the impact of the changes to the fund. It will discourage future kinship carers to come forward if they feel that the financial impacts on them mean that they will not be able to support the children who they desperately want to. Many hon. Members in this Chamber have been councillors and have seen the impact on local government finances. We know that if the Government do not step up or change course on this issue, local government simply will not be able to step in and take their place.
This Government, of which I am proud to be a part, talk a lot about social value in our decision making. I am frustrated that the previous Government did not talk about social value as much as they should have. This is an issue where social value is evidently important in making financial decisions. It is about not just the price to Government of future interventions, whether they be—God forbid—in police or crime or in education, but the impact that it will have directly on the life chances of those children involved.
I took my responsibility as a corporate parent very seriously when I was a county councillor, and I was often very frustrated when politics got in the way of making good decisions about children’s services and supporting children in Worcestershire. We cannot afford not to take better financial decisions on this issue, or it will cost us more money down the road.
In the past few weeks, I have met some of the children in my constituency supported by this fund. Frankly, we are missing out on some of the brightest young people I have met. They have gone through hugely difficult times and will make incredible contributions to society. On this issue, I am more than happy to grab my pitchfork and support the Minister in running to the Treasury. This decision is something that we cannot afford not to change.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing this important and timely debate. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care, I will focus on how vital kinship carers are and on how they are often overlooked and under-supported. Many do not even identify as kinship carers, yet they are the ones providing stability, safety and love to children who can no longer live with their birth parents. Often, they are grandparents, aunts, uncles or family friends; they do this for the love of the children, and often of the families the children can no longer be with, yet kinship carers need proper support to avoid these arrangements breaking down.
In a 2024 survey, 35% of kinship carers rated the information they received from their local authority as very poor, while 44% said they did not trust their local authority at all. They are exhausted by being forced to battle a system that should be supporting them. Many are navigating complex traumas on top of a failing special educational needs and disability system, with half of children in kinship care also not getting the help they need in their education setting. Families also face a cliff edge of support when the young person turns 18.
That is why the adoption and special guardianship support fund—a pot that kinship carers have been able to access only since 2023—is so crucial to getting the bespoke therapies that these children and their trusted adults rely on. In my Chichester constituency, we are lucky to have Beacon House, which is a truly outstanding therapeutic service for young people, families and adults. I will share some of the comments from the children who have had the support of Beacon House. One said:
“It has helped me to understand why I sometimes act the way I do in scenarios and to unload my day to day worries that perhaps were taking a toll on my mental health”.
Another said:
“It’s made me feel safer. It doesn’t make me feel I’m not welcome here”.
And finally:
“It has helped me to think about why I do things and help to understand and for my parents to understand too”.
For so many of the families using services like Beacon House, the adoption and special guardianship support fund has been a lifeline. It benefited more than 18,000 children last year. I believe that the Government know this fund is vital to families up and down the UK, and I understand their desire to increase its availability so that more families can benefit, but the fund is preventing breakdowns in adoptions and special guardianship arrangements. Will the Minister make the argument to the Treasury for increasing the fund, so that all children under care arrangements can access this support, with proper clinical assessments funded so the support can be tailored? These families do extraordinary things, stepping in, often at a moment’s notice, to give vulnerable children a future. The least we can do is give them the support they deserve.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship. Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing what we all acknowledge is a really important debate.
Like a lot of people in the Chamber today, one of my biggest privileges before coming to this space was serving as a corporate parent on the local authority of the place I lived at the time. Although “corporate parent” can feel like quite a stale and bureaucratic term, it is actually one of the most deeply important and human parts of a councillor’s role, making sure they are there for, championing and supporting every young person who, for whatever reason—whatever has happened to them in their life—now finds themself in their local authority’s care. There is nothing more moving or devastating than to speak to some of those young people, to see their inspiring resilience in the face of traumas that lots of people here never have to even contemplate happening to themselves, and to know the very real ways in which the current system is continuing to let them down and fail them.
We know that kinship placements, strong supportive fostering placements and adoptive placements are strongly associated with the best outcomes for young people in care, providing the best support for them to make the best start in life and later to thrive, but far too often the system is not set up to facilitate that. Young people often end up—at great cost to all of us and our local authorities—in unproductive and sometimes deeply cold private placements.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
We rightly hear about the many challenges that adopted children can face, but as a proud adoptive parent, I say we also need to remember the huge joy they bring to their families and adoptive parents. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the many challenges in children’s social care. Does he agree it is vital that the Government get on with the root and branch reform of children’s social care, as they are committed to do, so that we get children into permanent, safe, long-term placements as soon as possible?
Alistair Strathern
Absolutely. In a heartwarming way, my hon. Friend has reminded us of the opportunity we have if we can get the system right, to make sure that more young people who have had deeply difficult starts in life can experience the parenting, support and love that we all want for our children.
I am glad that, whether through investment or reform, the Government are committed to overcome the challenges in the system they inherited. Whether it is finally funding a long overdue and important kinship care pilot or reforming and supporting more local authorities to attract more people into foster caring, there is a lot to shout about. I am glad, albeit with some caveats, that in the context of a difficult financial and public services inheritance, we have been able at least to safeguard existing funding to keep adoption support going for the next year.
Although it is welcome that the funding is now being accessed by many more families, there is no getting away from the fact that the changing cap will have an impact on young people with SEND and their carers. Their concern is understandable. There will be lots of conversations about how we can best bring to life our broader vision and look after the young people in our care in the best way, by supporting more of them into nourishing, fantastic and thriving placements. In the meantime, we owe it to them to use every available lever to provide the fullest support possible.
I welcome that support, but what more can we do to ensure that local authorities use their virtual heads to hold schools accountable for the pupil premium placement money they are given for children in adoption and foster care placements under their watch, to widen support available to them? Where we have given local authorities more money for children’s social care, I would welcome consideration being given to how guidance could be strengthened to ensure that they are filling in the gaps. We know that is in the child’s, the family’s and all our best interests.
Like many others, I welcome further opportunities to work with the Minister. We have a number of champions of care and care leavers here. It is one of the most exciting and energising things about being an MP in this new Parliament. I know we would all be excited to work with the Minister to bring to life fully this Government’s vision of ensuring that every young person, particularly those entrusted to all of us, those society cares for, gets the support in life they desperately need.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for bringing this vital debate. I rise to applaud the work of Beacon House in Cuckfield in Mid Sussex, which serves people across the south-east, including constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). I visited recently and met the incredible people who do incredible work there. Jigsaw in Burgess Hill also supports children who have been adopted. I thank the families in Mid Sussex who have taken on children in kinship care or have adopted them. That is an enormous commitment to make and is so important, as we have heard from a number of hon. Members. I also thank them for writing to me.
As has been said, many of us do not know what it is like to be an adoptive parent or to take on kinship care; I certainly do not. Until a few months ago, I was unaware of the ASGSF and the vital provision it offers to families who have come forward to take on children. When considering the work provided by the ASGSF, we need to remember that we are talking about families, and because of that, a lot of what goes on is in private, behind closed doors and not very visible to the public. That is why so many hon. Members have come today from all parties to make the case for the ASGSF to be reinstated and properly funded. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for her work in pushing the urgent question that came the day after last year’s funding expired, which resulted in ASGSF funding being secured.
Details of the changes to how the funding is allocated were released during recess, and I think we were all deeply dismayed by that. As other Members said, this money gives people the courage to offer to adopt and take on kinship children, and prevents adoption breakdowns every single day. There is a great deal of cross-party support for getting this right, which is why after this debate I am going to the Backbench Business Committee to put in a bid for a Back-Bench debate on this matter, because we share the same strength of feeling. I urge the Minister to come back with a better answer than the one that I suspect she will be able to give this afternoon, although I do not want to prejudge where she is going to go.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing this important debate. I also thank the Minister for engaging constructively with me on this important issue and for the extension of the £50 million fund that supports children in adoptive and kinship care. It helped 20,000 children last year, and that support has really made a difference.
I welcome the Government’s £40 million commitment to the new kinship care trial, which is a positive and much-needed step in the right direction. It is absolutely right that our Government support as many children as possible who have been adopted or raised in kinship care. However, a number of constituents have raised concerns about the future of funding and how it will be delivered in practice.
One first-time adopter in Swindon North wrote to me about his experience of applying for the adoption support fund. He said that overall the experience was positive, but he was concerned about the changes to the funding ceiling and asked whether he will have to reapply. He fears that that could cause delays and that his child might miss out on the vital therapy that they need at a crucial time. Will the Minister confirm whether families that were previously approved for higher levels of funding will automatically be approved under the new lower ceiling without the need to submit new applications?
Another constituent who got in touch with me is a mother who is a special guardian for two children. She, too, welcomed the kinship fund trial, but expressed concerns about the scheme. Currently, no detailed information has been published. She relies on the adoption support fund and is unsure what will happen when it ends. Will the Minister tell us when more information about the kinship fund trial will be shared? Can she confirm whether Swindon will be included in the trial area? It would be nice to get an answer to that, although we have some competition from Dudley.
Finally, the FASD Hub South West team have been in touch. It is a voluntary organisation that provides vital support for children suffering from the effects of FASD. Many of those children have experienced trauma, neglect and irreversible brain damage, and previously benefited from clinical pathways and multidisciplinary assessments, supported by the £2,500 premium, but that funding is now gone. The team are deeply concerned that children with FASD will no longer be adopted simply because the support is not there. Will the Minister provide clarification on the funding levels through the upcoming spending review, and commit to long-term, sustainable adoption support funding for children with FASD? Those children must not be left behind.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing this debate.
About 3,000 children in England are adopted each year, and most have suffered severe abuse or neglect. Earlier this year, the Government left many adoptive families in limbo when they failed to confirm whether the adoption and special guardianship support fund would continue beyond 31 March. That was even the case right up to the end of March. I received a letter from my constituent Laura Blatherwick, the Devon lead for the Like Minds network, who wrote:
“It is now the 22nd March and we still don’t have a decision from the Government on the continuation of the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund… In NINE DAYS the fund is due to close....New applications and top ups to existing support take MONTHS to approve. This means that already there are families not receiving the support they desperately need, and others will have a long gap in their therapy. We are very concerned about current increases to risk and recovery disruption for some of the most vulnerable children we support.”
As we have heard, in the end the fund was retained, thanks in part to pressure from the Liberal Democrats and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who forced an urgent question in Parliament, but the funding available to an individual was slashed by 40% from £5,000 to £3,000.
I have been in contact with two organisations in Devon that are affected by the changes: the Youth Arts and Health Trust and Family Compass. Between them, these two registered charities provide professional therapies for approximately 130 children per year. The children have experienced adoption, and their therapy has been terminated mid-process, often at very risky times in their lives. The Youth Arts and Health Trust is dipping into its limited reserves to continue to offer therapy—for free and at a cost to the charity—to some of those young people who are profoundly at risk. That therapy must continue because the young people are disclosing issues such as youth homelessness and sexual abuse and exploitation.
The huge reduction in funding means that much-needed, year-long therapy is now unaffordable through good-value, trusted providers. We are likely to see other providers that we cannot be sure of moving in to fill the gap. This is not just a funding issue; it is a moral issue. In fact, it is a moral failure. A system that claims to protect children cannot simultaneously undermine the very services that support their recovery.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for enabling us to speak on this subject. I declare an interest as an adoptive parent and foster carer. That experience has shown me the transformative effects that adoption can have and the immense challenges faced by many children who are looked after and care experienced.
When we talk about Government support, let us be clear that we are talking about lifelines, not luxuries. Around 3,000 children in England are placed in adoptive families every year, and 80% of them will have suffered from abuse, neglect or violence, so it is no wonder that they often need specialist support to help them and their families to heal, and to live with the scars that will never fully fade.
I will not speak at length about the adoption and special guardianship support fund, as many hon. Members are raising it in their speeches, but I will say that to limit its reach is to effectively clip the wings of the young people and families it supports, as well as those of the incredibly skilled and compassionate professionals who work with them. I highlight the fact that the Minister is among that group. She draws on a wealth of experience from her career as a social worker, and I know how deeply she cares about adopters and kinship and foster carers. If she faced no financial constraints, I know that the money would be out of the door tomorrow, to support every family to the fullest.
Yesterday, I met Adoption UK, which stressed to me not only the importance of the ASGSF but of the need to ensure that all healthcare and education professionals are aware of the impact of early-childhood trauma and care experience, so that affected children and young people can receive targeted support and advocacy services.
In advance of an Adjournment debate led last month by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), I spoke to the social worker who supports my husband and I with what we hope will be the adoption of our second child. She had lots of thoughts on the subject, and I would like to mention some that I could not raise in that debate. She highlighted the need for improved holistic support in schools, enabled by integrated working among schools and healthcare professionals such as occupational therapists, so that there is continuity of support; closer working between psychologists and adoption teams, because access to support within teams could reduce the need for families to apply to the ASGSF; and higher levels of short-term funding to allow for weekly therapeutic support, which is currently very difficult to obtain through the ASGSF.
Although I do not have enough time to say as much as I would like about kinship care, I will say that too few families receive financial or therapeutic support, but they still face the practical and emotional challenges. The route closest to my heart, which my husband and I took, is fostering to adopt, which gives the benefits of early permanence, but without a cast-iron guarantee that the placement will end in adoption. I hope we will have the opportunity to debate that more in the future.
My point is that whatever the route into permanence, children’s needs are no different. What is different is the consistency and quality of the support they receive. When we ask families to step up for vulnerable children—and they do, day in and day out—the least we can do is make sure that we step up for them.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing this important debate.
The Government’s cuts to the adoption and special guardianship support fund are going to harm vulnerable children in my constituency of Wokingham and across England. Those children and their families will see vital therapies suspended, and they do not know when, or even if, they will resume. Prior to the cuts, one family received 264 hours of therapy, but that will now fall to just 32 hours. Will the Minister meet me and my constituents to discuss the cuts to the ASGSF, so that she can hear directly from those affected? Will she publish the analysis on which the changes to the ASGSF were made? Will she detail the level of consultation that was undertaken with service providers and adoptive and kinship families before the cuts were announced?
Finally, I pay tribute to all the families who will be affected by the cuts, and ask them to continue their incredible work in fighting against them. I also thank my constituent, Clare Solomons, who has worked so hard in organising petitions, speaking in the media and being an invaluable source of advice on this issue. I hope the Minister will listen to the experience of families and reverse the cuts as soon as possible.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this debate.
It is an often repeated political trope that children are our future, but it stands the test of time much better than most clichés. It is also often said that a society can be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable. I feel that the two sayings come together here as we talk about some of the most vulnerable children in our society and the vital support networks that surround them.
Children often come into adoptive and kinship settings having experienced incredible trauma, neglect or abuse in the first months or years of their lives. The complex challenges that arise from those unthinkable but all too real experiences should be talked about more often. We need to do more to highlight how we can support our fantastic adoptive and kinship care support networks, not talk about cuts to the funding that keeps them going.
In the south-west and throughout the country, thousands of children and their families are supported by funds from the adoption and special guardianship support fund. In 2023-24, the south-west had 3,129 applications under the fund approved, with nearly 1,200 applications for creative and physical therapies.
On the economy, kinship care saves the Government about £4.3 billion each year, and adoption saves £4.2 billion, spread among local authorities, the wider economy and the NHS. Why, then, did the Government feel they had no option but to slash the ASGSF budget allocation per child? I am not sure.
In conclusion, we already have a crisis in adoption, with the number of families willing to step forward to adopt plunging. Without the support of the ASGSF for the families who need it, that number will continue to decline and the number of children saved will plummet. I call wholeheartedly on the Government to reverse the harmful cuts immediately, and to reaffirm their commitment to supporting vulnerable children and the families who care for them. We can be a society that cares. We must look after those for whom we need to care so deeply.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who spoke so passionately for children and families.
Kinship carers and adoptive families perform an extraordinary public service, providing stability, love and hope for children who have experienced trauma, loss or neglect. I had the privilege of meeting many adoptive families and family carers in my Stratford-on-Avon constituency. Too often they are left to navigate complex systems with little support. More than half of kinship carers say that their children are not getting the help that they need in education or to access mental health, or indeed any legal advice about their rights or options. Many are forced to reduce their hours or leave work entirely, yet there is still no statutory right to paid employment leave for kinship carers.
On adoption, the situation is no less troubling. Post-adoption support is patchy at best, with some families waiting six months just for an initial assessment, and the Government have now reduced this important fund. The cuts to the ASGSF threaten the very purpose of the adoption system and might lead to adoption breakdowns. These families deserve stability, not sudden U-turns. They need clear, consistent support, not muddled promises. Above all, they need a Government who stand with them, not just in words but in action.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this important debate.
Around 157 children in my constituency are in kinship care. These are children being raised not by their parents, but by grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or close friends who step up in times of crisis to provide stable, loving homes when children cannot live with their parents. They do that not for recognition or financial reward, but out of love and a deep commitment to bringing families together.
Across England more than 132,000 children are growing up in kinship care. Those children might otherwise be in the care system, and it is thanks to kinship carers that they are not. That love comes at a cost—a cost that is often borne alone, as I have heard at first hand from kinship carers in my constituency. When I met our local kinship care group in Polegate in my constituency—set up by formidable local kinship campaigner Wendy Turner—I listened to carers and children and heard about the challenges they face, particularly financially.
Unlike foster carers, most kinship carers receive little or no financial support, despite taking on exactly the same responsibilities. Recent research from Kinship and the Centre for Care reveals that kinship carers contribute more than £4.3 billion to our economy, yet many struggle to make ends meet. The figures are deeply troubling. Kinship carers are twice as likely as other adults to rely on food banks and four times as likely to be behind on their bills, and one in eight may be forced to make the heartbreaking decision to stop caring for the children they love, simply because they cannot afford to continue.
This is not just about fairness to carers; it is about doing the right thing by children. When I think of those 157 children in kinship care across Lewes, Seaford, Newhaven, Polegate and our local villages, I see 157 reasons why we must do better. I have written to the Chancellor urging investment in kinship care to be prioritised in the upcoming review, and the message from my constituents is clear: these families stepped up for children when it mattered most; it is now time for us to step up for them.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this important debate; she and I are both passionate about this issue, and I know she cares about it deeply.
I will start by reminding colleagues—as many have done already—about who the children we are talking about are. These are children who have experienced the kind of trauma that none of us should ever have to experience in our life. After I first brought up the adoption and special guardianship support fund with the Prime Minister in March, a lady from Lincolnshire wrote to me. She is a special guardian for a child who witnessed her mother being murdered by her father at the age of two. For some reason that child does not qualify for child and adolescent mental health support, and has been able to access only a limited amount of counselling. That is the sort of child the ASGSF is for.
These are also children who have been abused and neglected. When I spoke to the Purple Elephant Project, a therapy provider in Twickenham, its chief executive officer Jenny, who has worked with adopted children for many years, spoke to me about children she had worked with who had been made to sleep in the garden, or who had ingested heroin. Those are the sorts of experiences these children have been through. They need our collective help and support to overcome that trauma, as do the amazing people who step up to care for them, whether through adoption or often as kinship carers overnight.
As one adoptive parent in my constituency said to me, these children deserve
“the absolute best second chance in life.”
I implore the Minister, who has a professional background in this area and cares about this issue deeply, to please listen to the pleas from those on all Benches about the support that is desperately needed.
Before I talk in a bit more detail about the ASGSF, let me say a couple of words on kinship carers, given that I have been proud to campaign alongside my party for kinship carers for a number of years. I welcome the limited progress we have seen under this Government and the previous one on support and recognition of kinship carers, but as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said, we have to go much further. We have to roll out allowances on a par with those for foster carers across the country to all kinship carers, extend employment leave to kinship carers and ensure that children in kinship care are given the support that they need in education through pupil premium plus and priority school admission.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) said in a recent debate, adoptive parents make a “lifelong commitment” to children. We heard from the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), who has also adopted, that the state needs to give them a lot more support. One constituent said to me that the ASGSF is the only post-adoption support there is for these children.
That brings me to the ASGSF. I cannot begin to describe my anger and dismay at what has happened. I will try to contain that emotion as I speak. The stories that have been sent to me, and that I have heard face to face as I have been working on this issue in recent weeks and months, have on a number of occasions moved me to tears. These families faced months of uncertainty. The Minister had to answer a litany of written questions and letters from Members from all parties on whether the ASGSF would continue for this financial year. Those Members were stonewalled.
I have explained the trauma that these children have experienced. They have had a huge amount of uncertainty and instability in their lives, and the Government added to it. We were all stonewalled. It took me dragging the Minister kicking and screaming to the House of Commons Chamber to answer an urgent question the day after the fund expired for her finally to commit to renewing it for this financial year. There was a sigh of relief among carers, adoptive parents, kinship carers and charities across the sector that the uncertainty had ended, despite the backlog that had built up in the meantime and the interruption in therapy for so many children who had had to stop therapy because they had run out of money from last year’s fund.
However, there was no hint from the Minister during her response to my urgent question of the cuts that were to come. Instead, the Government waited until the depths of the Easter recess to sneak out a private letter to local authorities and charities about the 40% cut to grants, the removal of the assessment grant and the scrapping of the match funding. An adoptive mother I met at the drop-in organised by Adoption UK and Kinship yesterday told me that that felt very underhand. She said, “It felt like the Government didn’t care as I was dealing with my adoptive son, who was dysregulated and trying to hurt me.”
There was no consultation with the sector, despite the fact that the Government have reference groups, such as the kinship care reference group, that they talk to on a regular basis. There was no consultation with them and no formal public announcement. Even the Government website on the ASGSF remained out of date for several weeks, until our first day back after recess, when the Minister issued a fairly scant written ministerial statement. My first question to her is: when she answered my urgent question on 1 April, was she aware that these cuts were coming, or did she inadvertently mislead the House on that occasion?
The impact of the changes to the ASGSF means that we have a backlog. Everybody who had previously applied—some 46% of applications for grants for this financial year exceed the £3,000 limit—has to reapply. There will now be a delay and an interruption in therapy. The mum I met yesterday told me that she is borrowing money from friends and family to continue therapy because, in her son’s last therapy session, they finally achieved a breakthrough and she cannot bear to stop it. Purple Elephant in Twickenham is desperately fundraising to try to make sure that there is no interruption in therapy for the 40 or so children that it supports.
We know that, with smaller grants, providers will struggle to provide adequate therapy. Given the sorts of trauma that we have talked about, these children’s brains need rewiring and they need time to build trust. Often, therapists have to run several sessions before a child will even come through the door. That takes time; it will not be done in the few short sessions that the grants will cover. Given that the assessment costs will now have to come out of the reduced grant of £3,000, after a bespoke assessment is made there will be very little, if anything at all, left for the actual therapy.
In addition to the impact on the children and the carers who are desperately trying to look after them, the changes will undermine and destabilise the charities and other providers that offer support in this area. As many hon. Members have said, we are talking about children who are dysregulated and exhibit challenging behaviours, and the changes will lead to adoption and kinship care placement breakdown, which will result in extra costs for the taxpayer, because more children will go back into care. We will probably also see more school exclusions as a result of dysregulated behaviours, and therefore poorer educational and employment outcomes. Sadly, care-experienced children are four times more likely than other children to end up with a criminal conviction by the age of 24.
The costs to the taxpayer of the changes, in the short term and the long term, are exorbitant, yet the fund is only £50 million; in the grand scheme of things, it is not a huge amount of money. If the Government wanted to extend the fund, say by 50%, I could tell the Minister exactly where she can get the money from. In her written ministerial statement, she suggested that the fund can be topped up from local authority children’s services budgets. I am not sure whether she is aware of this, but a lot of local authorities are on the brink financially, and many children’s services budgets are in huge deficit. However, where she can find the money is in the £46.5 million that the Department for Education spent on advertising, consultancy and marketing costs in the last year. I suggest that she halves that budget, and instead expands the ASGSF by 50%.
These cuts are entirely incoherent and contradict Government policy. The DFE has recently written to Adoption England calling for improvements in adopter recruitment, and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill mandates the signposting of support, yet everything we have discussed today will go against those measures. I have three asks of the Minister: please apologise to carers and children up and down the country, reverse the cuts—I have told her where to get the money—and fight tooth and nail in the Treasury over the spending review for the next financial year, and make that announcement early. Carers and children will continue to campaign, and I will be alongside them.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this important debate. Keen observers of Westminster Hall debates will have noticed that she responded on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to the debate that I had secured this morning, so there is a nice symmetry in the fact that I am responding to her debate this afternoon.
My hon. Friend gave an excellent summary of the current system and the impact that the changes that happened overnight will have on adopters and carers and, of course, on the children they support. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have powerfully demonstrated the impact that the changes are having on their constituents, and the situation in my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, which includes Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, is no different. Hon. Members will have to forgive me; because so many Members have spoken in the debate, I will not be able to mention all their contributions. However, I pay special tribute to those Members who referred to their personal experiences in this matter.
First, I want to note the strong record of the previous Conservative Government on supporting kinship carers, adoptive families and some of the most vulnerable children in our society. While others have made promises, we took action. However, there is no doubt that there is more to do, which is why I welcome this debate.
The Conservatives have a strong record of prioritising and increasing adoption and strengthening kinship policymaking, including by introducing the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which provided financial support to local authorities and regional adoption agencies to pay for essential therapeutic services for the most vulnerable children. The Government’s decision to cut the fund was a retrograde step, and it has placed significant stress on the near 17,000 applicants in 2023-24 alone who utilised services such as family therapy, parental training and creative therapeutic intervention.
It is highly regrettable that the Government failed to provide clarity about the continuation of the fund before its expiry on 31 March. Despite repeated calls for assurance, including from practitioners and sector leaders, Labour delayed its announcement. When it finally came, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) stated, it confirmed a 40% reduction in the fair access limit, capping support at £3,000 per child per year compared with the £5,000 that families could access previously. The reduction places pressure on local authorities to bridge a shortfall of almost £34 million, using already stretched children’s services budgets.
The Minister has stated previously that additional support can be provided above the cap, but only at the discretion and financial behest of local councils. As hon. Members have said, many local authorities are not in the position to do so, but even if they are, this approach risks creating a postcode lottery, with some of the most vulnerable children supported but others left out.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
As one of the vice-chairs of the APPG on kinship care along with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I want to add my voice to those calling for a reversal of the cuts, and for the Government to go further and better support families in adoption and kinship care.
Gregory Stafford
I know what a doughty champion my hon. Friend is for this cause, and I entirely agree with him. The Government need to set out precisely what they will do going forward, as well as reversing the cut that they made. I seek clarification on what the Minister’s adoption strategy is, beyond the delayed and unfair cuts that she has made so far for these children. In 2024, there were nearly 3,000 looked-after children who were adopted. Putting aside the fund that we have been talking about, how is she going to support those vulnerable children?
While the continuation of essential schemes remains, let us say, grey under this Government, adoptive families now cite a lack of support as a key barrier. Without essential support, the whole adoption process risks becoming what former MP and Children’s Minister, Tim Loughton, called a “false economy”. The truth is that when we fail to invest in adoption, especially in kinship care, we end up relying more heavily on a state system that, in the long run, costs more and too often fails children. It leaves them more vulnerable to poor outcomes, including higher risks of criminal involvement and limited aspirations. When it is done right, adoption offers the security, stability and sense of belonging that every child deserves, and we should support it accordingly.
Likewise, the deeply flawed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill represents a major failure for kinship carers. The lack of statutory obligations and the concerns about the sufficiency of financial support highlight the need for continued advocacy and potential further legislative action to ensure that kinship carers and the children they support receive comprehensive support. Those carers typically receive little financial or emotional support, despite playing a vital role in keeping children out of the formal care system.
These often unsung heroes deserve better. That is why the previous Government introduced the social impact bond model, an innovative funding approach that backed targeted projects to support kinship families. They included initiatives such as training and guidance for carers; family group conferencing, where social workers bring family and carers around the table to discuss the most viable options for the long term; and other structured efforts to prevent the breakdown of kinship placement, which, if unsupported, can push children into the care system.
A notable example of such an SIB is Kinship Connected. Funded by private investment, it aimed not only to relieve pressure on local authorities but, more importantly, to enhance stability and wellbeing for the children at the heart of these families, by rehoming children with their grandparents when the immediate family had broken down. That ensured that siblings remained together and received consistent, supportive care within their extended family network. That approach prioritised emotional continuity and minimised the trauma often associated with foster care placements.
Kinship care and adoption offer vital, human-centred alternatives to the traditional care system, yet too often those pathways are undervalued. To truly serve the best interests of children, we must ensure that local authorities are supported and broaden our strategy to actively support and invest in family-based solutions beyond the boundaries of state control.
The Minister has been widely praised this afternoon by Government Members. This is the time for her to live up to that reputation, so I will close my remarks with four questions to her. How are the Government working with local authorities to ensure that they are able to provide the best care available for vulnerable children, especially following the cut to the adoption and special guardianship support fund? Secondly, what steps will the Minister take to ensure sustained and equitable support for kinship carers, particularly in the light of the cuts to that fund and the absence of statutory obligations in legislation? Thirdly, how are the Government ensuring that private capital is not isolated by their state-focused strategy, so that that as much investment as possible can be awarded to worthy schemes for kinship care? Finally, how are the Government extending family group conferencing to ensure that children are kept within the family unit, where they can be safe and happy for as long as possible?
I agree with the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore). I will take up my pitchfork, too, and go to the Treasury to get the funding. We have a duty of care to these children. We need to support adopters and carers. If we do not, the financial cost will be great, but the human cost will be far greater.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
I recognise that there are many champions of children and families in Westminster Hall this afternoon. Indeed, there are many passionate Members who really want the right outcomes for children who are adopted and who are in kinship care through special guardianship or child arrangements orders and others.
I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing this important debate. I too want the best support for adopted and kinship children, and I acknowledge her sincere interest in the subject. There have been many interventions, questions and speeches. Because of time I will not refer to each Member by their constituency, but I will do my best to respond to the many questions that have rightly been put.
We recognise the particular needs of adopted and kinship children, many of whom have experienced trauma. Some will have experienced in utero damage, which can result in foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and other conditions. That is why the Government have continued to provide funding to support these children through the adoption and special guardianship support fund and other ways. There have been no cuts in the overall budget of the adoption and special guardianship support fund. When that announcement was made, I said that further information would follow. The further announcement was made during recess so that the fund could be opened and therapy could be accessed. We had to announce that so that the new criteria were available and the funding could be opened.
Although funding has been confirmed at £50 million this year, we know that it will not be enough to meet the expected demand, and we are therefore making these decisions now to enable us to support the maximum number of children. Families will still receive a good standard of support through the fund: £3,000-worth of therapy each year is a substantial amount of support, and will fund an average of 19 to 20 hours of therapy on current costings. Where needed, local authorities and regional adoption agencies can use their own funding to increase the amount of therapy, if needed. Both multidisciplinary assessments and specialist assessments will be able to continue, but the money for that will have to come from that £3,000. We have decided to stop match funding and the separate funding of special assessments, but, as I said, such assessments can continue out of that £3,000.
Janet Daby
I will give way to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) first.
Tom Gordon
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for allowing me to intervene first. In the Adjournment debate that I held on this subject, the Minister responded,
“support for adopted children is critical. It can decrease the likelihood of adoption disruptions or breakdowns.”—[Official Report, 3 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 555.]
In real terms to people on the ground, this is a cut, so will she acknowledge that the actions of her Government will have an impact on adoption breakdown and disruption?
Janet Daby
I absolutely recognise that the threshold and criteria have changed to enable us to reach as many children as possible under the current funding of £50 million. It is crucial that assessments continue for those children to enable them to have the right types of therapy. If Members allow me to press on, I will be able to respond a bit further to the many things they raised.
I turn to the point about adoption and special guardianship support funding not being available to all children living under special guardianship orders. The main reason that the fund is available only to previously looked-after children living under special guardianship or child arrangements orders is that previously looked-after children, such as those who have been in foster care or residential care, may face higher levels of vulnerability and disadvantage than their peers. These funds aim to provide targeted support to address the specific challenges associated with their prior experiences.
I was asked many questions about the kinship pilot and kinship funding, and I want to say more about the adoption and special guardianship support fund. On 14 April, the Department announced that the fund would be open to applications with changed criteria and a fair access limit of £3,000 per child per year, and that match funding and the separate funding of specialist assessments would be stopped. When assessed as having a need, families can approach their local authorities and regional adoption agencies. Adoption England is obviously working with regional adoption agencies. We also have specialist centres of excellence—a multidisciplinary approach to ensuring the essential provision that adopted children need.
Alison Bennett
What is the Minister’s assessment of the reserves that local authorities and adoption agencies have available to boost that funding?
Janet Daby
We have invested a further £8.8 million in Adoption England, £5 million of which will go towards centres of excellence. On local authorities, Members will be aware of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. They will also be aware that we are investing in early prevention and intervention work in local authorities. In doing so, we are trying to support families through kinship arrangements. Members will also be aware that we have committed £40 million to a pilot for kinship care.
Rachael Maskell
The bottom line is that there is insufficient money for specific therapeutic interventions for those young people. Will the Minister commit to go back to the Treasury and make the case for ensuring the full funding of therapeutic interventions so that no child misses out?
Janet Daby
The Government are in a challenging situation, but we will continue to ensure that provision is in place for adopted and kinship children. We will always make sure there are certain provisions in place, and we will continue to look at the different types of therapy that are needed. Obviously, I will continue to have conversations with the Treasury about the essential funding that is needed in this area.
I am very conscious of time, and the hon. Member for South West Devon needs to respond. On the £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance from kinship carers, hon. Members across the Chamber have put in bids for their local authorities, but we will make sure that there is a call to all local authorities for expressions of interest. That will be launched this summer, and it will identify which local authorities will be best placed to deliver the pilot from autumn 2025. Unfortunately, I cannot guarantee that it will be local authorities that have already put in bids to me.
Adopted children and those in kinship care should be supported to obtain good educational outcomes. However, many do not do so, as this cohort has poorer GCSE results than the overall population and higher exclusion rates. Adopted children are entitled to priority school admissions, plus advice and support from designated teachers. Schools also receive £2,630 in pupil premium plus funding for every adopted child in their school. Both adopted children and children in kinship care can receive advice and support from local authority virtual school heads. We will fully update the statutory guidance for virtual school heads, including sections on supporting educational outcomes.
Through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are seeking to mandate local authorities to appoint at least one person to promote the educational achievement of children who live in kinship care, regardless of whether they have been in local authority care. These duties will ensure that they receive consistent support to improve their outcomes.
There is much more to be said on all this and in response to all the questions. I am grateful to hon. Members for raising the important subject of adoption and kinship care support today, and for such a thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. I will take away many points from today’s debate.
On match funding for assessments, match funding applications accounted for less than 2% of all applications in the last financial year. It is important to put it in that wider context. There was wide disparity in the country on match funding but, as I have said, there are other avenues that adoptive parents and kinship carers can pursue to ensure that they get the additional support they need for their children.
I have listened carefully to Members’ remarks and I know that many outside this House will be very keen to follow up on what has been said. I am sure there will be opportunities to further question me and this Government on these issues, and a Backbench Business debate has been mentioned.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the biggest tribute must very much go to the parents and carers of adopted and kinship children. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) mentioned the joy that adopted children and kinship children bring to their families. I want to acknowledge that, and to thank all those parents and carers who continue to demonstrate compassion, resilience and dedication.
Rebecca Smith
We heard earlier about the role of a corporate parent. That did not make it into my speech—I ran out of time—but although that might be a local authority responsibility, it is clear that today there are many who take the same approach as parliamentarians.
Hon. Members have highlighted the opportunity to provide the best possible outcome for children in adoption, kinship and foster care, but also the need for significant commitment to ensure that the specialist resources required to deliver on their potential are a certainty for families. I think everyone in Westminster Hall would agree that we have not heard that certainty today, and I believe that we will all be working incredibly hard to keep pressing the Minister—and, by the sound of things, the Chancellor —to ensure that we get the funding required for these vulnerable families. No doubt we will all see each other, I hope, in the main Chamber to discuss this further.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for children in adoptive and kinship placements.
Government Travel Advice: Laos
(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
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government safety advice for visiting Laos.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful for the chance to lead this debate on the Government’s safety advice for visiting Laos and to raise awareness of the dangers of methanol poisoning.
Late last year, the family of Simone White contacted me to alert me to her tragic case and their worries about a lack of awareness among young people of the dangers posed by counterfeit alcohol. As any Members present who have seen the media coverage will know, Simone was travelling with her friend Bethany in Laos, as many young people from the UK and other countries do. They were staying in the town of Vang Vieng, a regular fixture on the backpackers’ trail around south-east Asia, when they drank free shots that they were offered in a hostel. The next day, both felt unwell and initially thought that they had food poisoning, but a few days later, Simone tragically died in hospital, the victim of methanol poisoning.
I have since had the opportunity to meet Simone’s family and have heard what a wonderful young woman she was, with a brilliant life ahead of her. When attending her funeral in January, it was clear from the eulogies delivered the kind of esteem in which she was held by friends and family. What really struck me was the sense of determination that came through from her friends and family that, no matter what, when she set her mind to do something, she would go out there and achieve it, whether that was playing a musical instrument or deciding at 13 that she wanted to become a lawyer, as she subsequently successfully went on to do. The eulogies also told of a keen sportswoman who regularly played football and netball, as well as finishing several half-marathons to raise money for good causes. A testament to her character was the voluntary legal work she took on outside her job, helping victims of domestic abuse. She also became a covid vaccine volunteer.
I pay tribute to the courage of Simone’s family—her mum Sue, her dad Neil, and Tom and Amanda, and their wider families—as well as to her friend Bethany, who was with her in Laos. They have shown courage in fighting for justice for Simone and in trying to raise awareness so that other families do not lose loved ones in the same tragic circumstances. I welcome members of Bethany’s family and others involved in tragic cases involving methanol to the Public Gallery this afternoon—thank you for joining us.
Simone was not the only young person to die at the hostel, with two young Australians, Holly Bowles and Bianca Jones, two young Danish women, Anne-Sofie Orkild Coyman and Freja Vennervald Sorensen, and an American, James Louis Hutson, losing their lives as well. All our hearts go out to their families, who lost loved ones in the most difficult circumstances. As Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in November, this is “every parent’s worst nightmare”.
I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for taking the time to meet Simone’s family earlier this month, and for her replies to my many letters on the subject. I appreciate the support that the Minister’s Department, along with Kent police, have offered to the family during this awful time.
Issues with the addition of methanol to alcohol are not confined to Laos, with reports of over 30 deaths in Turkey earlier this year. Nor is the issue new: just over 10 years ago, Cheznye Emmons was travelling in Indonesia with her boyfriend when she drank gin that had been mixed with methanol. The inquest into her death heard that she suffered sudden blindness and convulsions, and died five days later.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. I do not think anyone was not shocked and moved to hear what can happen, especially to young people, who go for one of those adventure holidays where they look forward to the excitement they will have together. Does he agree that although it is ostensibly safe to visit Laos, British citizens need to be aware that excursions out of the safe golden triangle are an absolute no-go? Rules are already in place, but those rules are perhaps not raised enough with British citizens. How does he feel we can effectively get the message across?
Jim Dickson
It is indeed the case that not enough awareness is currently out there among citizens of all ages travelling from the UK to places where organised crime regularly doctors drinks. Part of the mission of this debate and our conversations with the Minister and the families is to raise awareness and find ways that the Government can help to do that.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I want to raise awareness of this issue today in the name of Kirsty, who tragically died in Bali as a result of methanol poisoning. I also pay credit to her family, who live in my Cheadle constituency—some members of her family are here—and tirelessly campaign to raise awareness of the issue. Methanol poisoning is not just a problem in Laos but in many countries across the world. Does the hon. Member agree that more needs to be done, including having a curriculum fit for the 21st century and a greater public awareness campaign that involves travel agents, NHS providers, schools, colleges and universities to inform and educate people on the very real dangers of methanol being used in countries across the world?
Jim Dickson
I thank the hon. Member for that moving intervention. Our hearts go out to Kirsty’s family; it was a pleasure to meet her mother just now. I pay tribute to them for the work they have been doing since their loss. I agree very much with the hon. Member that more needs to be done to strengthen the curriculum, particularly to ensure that young people are aware of the risks involved in methanol. But there is much more that we think the Government can do, and I will suggest some ways in which they can do that later in the debate.
Following Cheznye Emmons’s tragic loss in Indonesia, Cheznye’s family, including her mum Pamela and her sister Measha, have been campaigning through their “Chez—Save A Life” campaign to warn of the dangers of counterfeit alcohol. I hope we can use this debate—I know other Members wish to participate—as an opportunity to widen awareness of the significant danger that methanol poisoning can pose. That is especially crucial for travellers heading to countries where organised crime, as I said, seeks to profit from using methanol as a cheap way to dilute spirits.
I hope that there will soon be progress in the case of the death of Simone and other tourists who died in Laos. I hope very much that those responsible will be swiftly brought to justice, but I know that the case is ongoing and the outcome is uncertain. I am optimistic that with the Government’s support we can take important steps to prevent more families going through what Simone’s family has experienced. I know they would like to see the dangers of methanol much more widely communicated, especially to young people and other inexperienced travellers heading out on those incredibly important first trips abroad.
In Australia, the Government are taking steps to increase awareness of alcohol-related risks in overseas travel and are launching a dedicated advertising push to reach young Australians. The Smartraveller hub is a website provided by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It will roll out a specific marketing campaign to raise awareness and educate Australians on the signs of methanol poisoning and how to protect themselves from drink spiking, and on broader alcohol safety, as well as warning young people that they must travel knowing the risks and watch out for their mates.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The case he raises touches the hearts of those across the world who have also lost loved ones in the tragic circumstances of methanol poisoning. Would he agree that it is imperative that we must build awareness of how to stay safe abroad among all those preparing to travel, regardless of their age, to ensure that these tragedies are not repeated?
Jim Dickson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This issue does not just affect young people. It is important that we get messages across to young people, and I am suggesting a variety of ways to do that, but travellers of all ages could be at risk from methanol poisoning, and other alcohol tampering and spiking. I will also suggest some ways that the Government could deal with that issue.
I would like the Government, as part of their ongoing work, to reform the curriculum, perhaps through personal, social, health and economic education, and to consider how we can build awareness among young people of how to travel safely. If they are looking for inspiration, they might want to look at the Australian campaign and lessons on alcohol safety. I know that Simone’s friend Bethany currently has a petition on the parliamentary website to that effect.
I appreciate that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has updated the health section of the travel advice on its website, but I hope that we might be able to review what could be done to make the warnings clearer and more explicit, and that information more readily available. The Government’s Travel Aware website has an informative section on methanol poisoning, but could more be done to make that advice and guidance better known to young people before they travel? Someone really has to search for it to find it.
I also hope that the Government might explore whether one of the big players in the travel industry—we all know that big brand names are involved in the travel industry—might consider funding an awareness-raising campaign to educate travellers about how to stay safe as they explore. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that she may be able to answer some of the questions I have raised, and further reassure Simone’s family that everything possible is being done to protect and inform young people of the dangers of methanol poisoning. I commit not just to listening to the response to this debate, but to continuing the campaign to make sure that the different parts of Government that have to work together to solve this problem genuinely do that.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) for enabling me to make a brief contribution to this debate, and to highlight an issue about a Brit from my constituency who faced a very difficult situation in Laos. I wish, however, to start my remarks by saying how sorry I was to hear about the truly tragic death of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I very much appreciate the family being here today, and all the work they have undertaken.
My former extremely vulnerable constituent was coerced into drug trafficking, apparently enabled online, and detained at the Laos border in June 2024. From then onwards he was detained awaiting trial and facing the death penalty, and under Laotian procedures he was unable to move prisons for more than six months before he died. In December he spent one night in hospital before being discharged back to prison, where he died at the age of 65, thin and with wounds on his body apparently from scurvy. I know that the FCDO engaged with his case when he was still alive and after his death, but I wish briefly to underline two points.
First, the length of pretrial detention can make British citizens and their families vulnerable to financial extortion in Laos, and there is a particular problem with obtaining good quality legal support. I urge the Department to continue to engage with my constituent’s family on that issue, given their concerns about recommended lawyers. I appreciate that the FCDO’s travel advice indicates that legal representation is far below UK standards in Laos, but the impact of that on people in desperate situations cannot be underestimated.
Secondly, and finally, it is imperative that the risk of what is effectively the transnational exploitation of vulnerable people is better recognised. There must be a co-ordinated response between police and border services, especially when clearly vulnerable individuals are travelling to countries such as Laos. The FCDO website is rightly clear about penalties in Laos for illegal drugs, and that the standard of prisons is poor, but vulnerable and coerced individuals are being manipulated, and they need more than information on a website to protect them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and it was wonderful to hear the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson). I thank him for securing it. I know that he has been active in supporting his constituents all along. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft), the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland), who have all been active in assisting with educating Members of Parliament—who have so much to do with their young constituents—and were active in a parliamentary lobby just last month. All these approaches will hopefully lead to a proper prevention strategy.
I also pay tribute to Sue White, Neil White, Tom Sampson and Amanda Dennis. That family tragically lost their dear daughter Simone White to methanol poisoning in Laos. I want to repeat here what I said when we met last week over in King Charles Street: thank you for your determination to raise the profile of a problem facing so many young travellers. So much fortitude has been shown by the families and other young people, and family members being here today makes this debate even more salient. Our thoughts are with all the families of those who set off with high hopes for their holidays, yet tragically lose their lives.
I am grateful for the contributions from other hon. Members today. I pay tribute in particular to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). She is right to raise the situation of the family of her constituent who tragically died. My door is open, and I look forward to meeting the family when they are ready to have a conversation about the tragic loss of their dad.
My right hon. Friend is also right to emphasise the transnational repression element, which sadly seems to be quite prevalent in parts of the Indo-Pacific, for which I am the Minister. I am very pleased that we have this opportunity, because of the strength that it gives me to improve my mandate to take up this issue with like-minded countries. She raised transnational repression, but also the lack of good quality legal advice in country. Often when a family hear of something, they arrive in a country that they do not know anything about, and, particularly in the country that we are talking about here, the system is very different from that in the UK, so this is where we really do need there to be that high quality legal advice.
Laos is a country under significant strain, and that includes its health system. It is a one-party state socialist republic. Culture, history and levels of socioeconomic development inform how open societies can be, and in this particular case, of course, we are dealing with a way of doing government that is very different from our own. Having said that, I was very pleased on a recent visit to Vientiane, the capital of Laos, to be able to raise both the tragic case of the loss of Simone and that of the constituent of my right hon. Friend.
For all of us at the FCDO, supporting British nationals abroad is a priority. I want to underline the fact that, happily, most British people who travel abroad do so without incident or the need for consular assistance. Yet every day our staff here in the UK and in our network around the world work tirelessly to help people facing some of the most distressing events imaginable. They work around the clock, keeping cool heads in all sorts of emergencies and crises, to provide assistance to people on one of the worst days of their lives. When an incident occurs, people rightly want to know whether it was preventable and what steps are being taken to stop such incidents happening, so let me set out some of the ways in which the Government are acting, informed in part by the activism that has come out of such tragic losses.
The FCDO regularly updates travel advice, including recently on the methanol poisoning question. We also seek to underline other risks—for example, the dangers of travelling on motorcycles without helmets. Our embassy in Vientiane regularly engages with the Laos authorities to help to prevent accidents and incidents. In this particular case, the Laos authorities issued an order prohibiting the sale and consumption of Tiger vodka and Tiger whisky because of concerns that they posed a risk to public health. I emphasise to anybody listening to the debate that it is not simply a question of a shot being offered to someone. It is also the fact that what is in bottles in supermarkets, in some cases, will not be what is described on the label.
During my visit to Laos last month, I discussed those priority consular cases with the vice Foreign Minister, and since then our ambassador in Vientiane has met the Ministry of Public Security to receive an update on the ongoing investigation. We cannot prejudice ongoing criminal investigations and potential prosecutions, but we continue to raise with the authorities the need for a swift and transparent inquiry into this tragic case.
I have also had the opportunity to raise the issue with the ambassador to the UK and a delegation of travelling Members of the Laos National Assembly. I emphasise that it is not the exact same situation as an MP, as elections in Laos are very different from those in the UK, but I was able to raise the issue with an audience of a dozen influential Laos National Assembly Members.
In all our efforts, our goal is to help British nationals make better informed decisions about international travel. Safety is always our top priority. Our advice is there to guide people, but obviously not to set rigid rules; people have their own autonomy with their travel plans. Our work considers all the risks proportionately, and draws on local knowledge to offer advice to those travelling overseas. In the wake of Simone’s hospitalisation, we reviewed and updated our travel advice for Laos to reflect the risks of methanol poisoning.
We now include warnings about the risks of methanol poisoning or counterfeit alcohol in the travel advice for Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Fiji and Turkey. Since then, we have worked with like-minded international partners to review our travel advice globally to ensure that we highlight the risks from methanol poisoning accurately. We have over 30 million individual views of our travel advice every year, so there are a lot of people who follow the Foreign Office as a regular part of their travel planning.
Alongside travel advice, the Government also aim to reduce incidents through our long-standing travel aware campaign. This includes encouraging British nationals to secure appropriate travel insurance, read our travel advice, and sign up for alerts. A dedicated section on the risks of spiking and methanol poisoning now shares practical tips on how to spot and prevent it. We are working in partnership with more than 100 organisations across the travel industry to reach more people and direct them to our travel advice and travel aware pages online. That includes airlines, tour operators, and insurance providers.
We have a targeted youth travel ambassador programme, and we are giving special thought to this summer, so that we can impress upon youngsters travelling to the Laos region what the dangers are. We are working with partners such as Vibe by Jet2holidays and Gap 360 to reach younger audiences with bespoke information and blogs that highlight the dangers of methanol poisoning. All that raises awareness, and we are committed to improving. Indeed, we are updating our travel checklist to ensure it includes advice on the risks of methanol poisoning—and we welcome all feedback.
Finally, I recognise the depth of feeling on this issue. We all want to help Brits abroad to stay safe, and our message to those who find themselves in hot water abroad is: “We’ve got your back.” None of us wants any other family to go through this. The FCDO will consider any future proposals carefully. We will explore more ways to inform British travellers about the risks of methanol—for instance, through channels online—and work with others to get the message out.
I thank all MPs who were able to speak in the debate. This debate can also play a role. We will continue to provide clear, accessible, and up-to-date travel advice, and keep it under constant review. We will also work with Governments around the world to reduce the risks, wherever we can—including in Laos.
Question put and agreed to.
British Steel: Special Measures Update
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
The Government committed to updating Parliament on British Steel every four weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025.
Government landmark achievements and actions
Since the oral ministerial statement on British Steel on 22 April in the House of Commons, and the repeat statement on 24 April in the Lords, the Minister in the Lords—my noble Friend Baroness Gustafsson—and I have written to a number of Members to respond to specific questions. I can also confirm that work is under way on developing an impact assessment and on bringing forward regulations under section 7 of the Act, which allows the Secretary of State to introduce a compensation scheme for steel undertakings affected by the exercise of powers under the Act. The Secretary of State will also reply to correspondence from the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee to enable ongoing scrutiny of the Government’s use of these powers.
We have prioritised securing the future of the UK steel sector since our first days in office. As we have shown with the passing of the Act on 12 April, in what was a unique and unprecedented situation, we will not hesitate to take steps to safeguard the future of UK steelmaking, protecting jobs and supply chains.
On 8 May we reached agreement on an economic prosperity deal with the United States, which will save thousands of well-paid, high-skilled jobs that are vital for our economy. For the steel sector, this deal will see the US remove 25% s232 tariffs on steel for UK exporters.
Yesterday, 19 May, as part of the substantial package agreed at the EU summit, we also agreed to work towards linking the UK and EU emissions trading systems, creating the conditions to exempt UK exporters from the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM—something the steel industry has been seeking, to lower the cost of decarbonisation, avoid competitive distortions and boost market confidence. The European Commission has also confirmed that, in a specific product category subject to the EU steel safeguard measure, it will restore the UK’s country-specific steel quota to historic levels and that this will be reflected in a post-2026 regime. This will ensure that UK producers, including British Steel—the UK’s largest producer of these goods—will continue to be able to export tariff free at historic trading levels.
British Steel Ltd
Our intervention in British Steel under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act has enabled us to secure the raw materials required to maintain a two-blast-furnace operation in Scunthorpe for the coming months. The redundancy consultation initiated by British Steel’s owners, Jingye, has also been cancelled, removing the immediate risk to 2,700 jobs.
Government officials remain on site in Scunthorpe. Our priorities are continuing production, remedying critical health and safety issues, and stabilising operations.
We recognise the considerable interest from Members across both Houses regarding the funding that will be required for the Scunthorpe site. We have been clear that all funding will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out by the Government in the 2025 spring statement. As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made clear, the UK’s fiscal rules remain non-negotiable.
To date we have provided £94 million for working capital. This covers items such as raw materials, salaries and addressing unpaid bills, including for SMEs in the supply chain. This does not take into account future revenue. The Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26 will reflect the financial support that the Department has given to British Steel.
We have also been clear that there will need to be investment to secure British Steel’s long-term future—including private investment—in modernisation. That position has not changed. Work continues at pace to develop the optimal policy and strategy approach.
Steel strategy
This Government stand by our manifesto commitment to spend up to £2.5 billion to rebuild the UK’s steel sector, in addition to the £500 million we have committed to Tata Steel UK for the transformation of Port Talbot. This is being delivered in part though the National Wealth Fund. The National Wealth Fund is operationally independent, and financing is already accessible to projects that meet the investment principles. Companies across the UK are already engaging with them on projects within the steel sector.
We continue to develop our thinking on the steel strategy. The recent developments in the UK steel industry, including at British Steel, have underscored the need for a steel strategy that represents a long-term vision for a revitalised and sustainable industry and the actions needed to get there. Understanding how the future of British Steel fits into this is crucial and will take some time to work through.
I have engaged extensively with the steel sector in recent months, visiting sites across the country and participating in roundtable discussions with producers, buyers and metal recyclers. This has given me an insight into the emerging opportunities and significant challenges that the UK steel industry faces. I have been left with no doubt that the sector is at a critical juncture, and it cannot afford to wait any longer for decisive action.
That is why we are now looking at what actions we could take under the steel strategy. We sought views on the issues that we know are important to the sector in the Green Paper we published on 16 February, such as electricity prices. We are also looking at ways to increase demand for domestic steel, including through public procurement. We are thinking about the best ways to defend the sector from challenging global market conditions on UK producers and unfair trading practices, and how to support the sector through the transition to greener steelmaking to deliver economic growth. Steelmaking is essential for our modern economy, supporting jobs and living standards in the UK’s industrial heartlands. We are confident that steel has a bright future in the UK and the full strategy will be published later this year.
We will provide a further update on British Steel to Parliament in June.
[HCWS649]
Office for Nuclear Regulation Corporate Plan 2025-26
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Later today I will lay before this House the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s corporate plan 2025-26. This document will also be published on the ONR website.
I can confirm, in accordance with paragraph 25(3) of schedule 7 to the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published documents on the grounds of national security.
[HCWS648]
Assistive Technology
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have a plan to support the use of assistive technology throughout an individual’s education and adult life.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I remind the House of my declared interests.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to increasing awareness of assistive technology and building digital skills for disabled people. The Department for Education is promoting evidence-based practice and expanding assistive technology use with new research and national training for teachers in 2025. The Department for Work and Pensions is improving the Access to Work scheme and consulting on its future through the Pathways to Work Green Paper.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that quite helpful response—it happens every now and again. Would she give us some assurances that we will not get bogged down in issues of diagnosis but will go to a needs-based reaction for the technology? To get an assessment for a neurodiverse condition can cost you £750. That delays the process. Can we get to something where, if you have an identified need, we address that need more quickly?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for recognising me being quite helpful—I am starting the day as I mean to go on. He makes an important point; if he is particularly referencing the disabled students’ allowance then I understand his point. More broadly, the Government are bringing together people who need to use assistive technology, alongside tech companies and others, in the assistive technology working group, which is an important way to identify not only how quickly people can make use of assistive technology but how that technology can be developed to help people further.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland. A vast amount of a child’s communication development takes place in the first two years of life. Without AAC specifically in these years, these children are already at a significant disadvantage, yet too many children are not referred to speech and language therapists until after the age of two. The practice of having to prove competence in order to receive an AAC system, for example, is one unnecessary barrier. How will the Minister ensure that the assessment for and availability of AAC mirrors that of typical language development and is a priority for these early years?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a specific point, although her broader point about the need for earlier assessment is one that the Government wholly recognise. We are, for example, providing further training for those in early years settings to be able identify needs earlier. As she says, we need to get better at the specifics around how we identify a need for assistive technology. That is part of the reason for training teachers, for example. I will take back her point about how we ensure that that happens as early as possible.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the present system is time-consuming, as the pupil often has to wait quite a long time, and it is costly. Would it not be sensible to use the expertise of qualified SENCOs in schools to speed up the process?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that SENCOs play an important role in identifying a need for assistive technology. That is why SENCOs receive specific training on how to use assistive technology. From this September, as part of initial teacher training, all teachers will receive training on the use of assistive technology. In that way, I hope that more teachers will understand the benefits for children and that the equipment will be used in schools not just more quickly but more effectively.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Assistive Technology recently recommended the creation of a centre for assistive technology to pull together the strands of exciting innovation to the benefit of students with disabilities and those in employment. Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s response?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am aware of the important work that the all-party group does and the specific recommendation for the centre that the noble Lord outlines. I understand that my right honourable friend Stephen Timms is working on the short-term improvements to the distribution of assistive technology, as spelled out in the Government’s Pathways to Work Green Paper, and thinking about how to develop the type of centre that the noble Lord and the APPG were talking about.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the fact that those new to the profession will be trained on assistive technology. That is a brilliant departure. I wonder if she can say anything more about the kind of catch-up that is obviously needed for those who may have been in the profession for some time.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right. I made the point about the training provided to SENCOs, which means that there is capacity within schools to make sure that all teachers have an understanding of the potential uses of assistive technology and that the SENCOs are able to focus particularly on those children identified as needing it. There is always a problem when you focus on those new to the profession, but I am sure that they will bring renewed knowledge and enthusiasm that others in the staff room will be able to benefit from.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said recently, there is very good evidence that those with disabilities or special needs benefit from edtech. One has to look only at Orchard Hill College, one of south London’s largest SEND schools, which received its third consecutive outstanding Ofsted rating, with inspectors praising assistive technology. In government two years ago, we set up the assistive technology test and learn scheme in 151 schools across the country, with really positive feedback results. Will the Minister confirm that her Government will continue what was widely recognised as an excellent initiative?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Earl is right that that research—which, to be fair, happened under the last Government—is an important basis on which we can now expand the ability to use, and improve the use of, assistive technology across schools and education. That research has identified the barriers in the system and the opportunities to address them. It is why, as I have already said, we will be able to expand workforce training, improve connectivity and facilitate better multiagency working. We will be publishing research on that later on, in the summer. I think those things will make a genuine difference to assistive technology users across the country.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, some years ago, my granddaughter had to move school in order to be identified as having dyslexia. She was treated as stupid at the first school. She then had wonderful training from the school she went to—a brilliant primary school in Kentish Town. What sort of training are teachers getting to at least identify that dyslexia is there?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble and learned Baroness raises a really important point. We need to ensure that all teachers are, first of all, able to be special needs teachers, because that is their role. Secondly, we need to ensure the much earlier identification of those children with special needs. That needs to start, in many cases, before children even get to school. That is the reason why we have improved the guidance and training for those in early years settings and are improving the support available to schools to be able to identify children much earlier, including those with dyslexia, so that action can be taken. There is, of course, more that we need to do in this area, which is why special educational needs reform is a key priority for this Government and the Department for Education.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, how will the Minister work with Department of Health colleagues to ensure that there are sufficient speech and language therapists, not just teachers, to enable this population to engage in their education?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
There is a need for multiagency work not only at a local level but across government, as the noble Lord has identified, and I have talked about the work being done with the Department for Work and Pensions. He is right that the ability for children to have the best start in life, and particularly for those with special needs to have them identified and dealt with, requires joint working between the Department for Education and the Department of Health. In governance, we join up on that in the opportunity mission that is at the heart of this Government’s work. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State works very closely with the Secretary of State for Health to make sure that that join-up happens and, more importantly, that those professionals and that resource are available for children when they need them.
Healthy Life Expectancy
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reverse recent declines in healthy life expectancy, and to address poverty-related inequalities in life expectancy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, it is unacceptable that who you are or where you live can impact healthy life expectancy. Reversing the decline in healthy life expectancy is a core part of this Government’s health mission. There is a long way to go but we are making good progress—exceeding our pledge to deliver an extra two million operations, scans and appointments by delivering well over three million, and addressing major health risks that particularly impact more deprived areas.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her Answer. She may be aware that, this morning, the Health Foundation published a new international benchmarking report. It highlights that, in the 2010s, in all parts of the UK outside London, mortality rates increasingly lagged behind progress in the other 21 countries in the study and that, by 2021, mortality rates in the north-east and north-west of the UK were 20% higher than in the south-west. In light of this, will the Government heed the Health Foundation’s call for a new health inequality strategy that has a particular focus on those parts of the country that have faced long-term industrial decline?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend raises an extremely important point about inequality. The Health Foundation report focusing on the 2010s shines a light on the need to drive action, which we are doing across government through our missions, with a very ambitious goal and the right approach of halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions. Although I am certainly very interested in what the Health Foundation report says, further strategy is not needed at this time because of the approach we are taking. But I assure my noble friend that in addressing health inequalities, including in areas of past industrial decline, we will be driving economic growth and removing health-related barriers to health, wealth and prosperity.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, people are not living as long as they were because of the obesity epidemic, which is killing people at an earlier age from a variety of very unpleasant diseases. Does the Minister agree that there are a lot of pseudoscientists around putting out propaganda that people cannot exercise personal responsibility and therefore government action must be taken? Could it be that those people do not want to see the end of the obesity epidemic because they are making so much money out of it?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord always has interesting observations that I listen closely to. I certainly agree that obesity is a major contributor to ill health. Some 64% of the adult population is overweight or living with obesity, and it does indeed, as he says, pose a major health inequality issue. The approach has to be on many levels, and there is government action. For example, we have laid secondary legislation on TV and online advertising restrictions on less healthy foods. We got on with that because we thought it extremely important. Equally, we support people not just through policy or medical intervention, but by encouraging them to adopt a healthier lifestyle. The reasons why people are obese are complex, and we approach it in that way.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I welcome His Majesty’s Government’s commitment to bringing forward a child poverty strategy. The interaction between mental ill-health and poverty is well known. Will the strategy address access to vital mental health support services, especially for those in more remote rural areas where they are difficult to access?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is quite right to draw attention to mental health impacts and the inequality of their incidence. As I mentioned, there has to be a cross-government approach because if we address it through health alone, we will not succeed. Factors such as poor housing, low income, worklessness and disability, as well as ill health and many other factors, affect healthy life expectancy. That is why we are approaching it not by a separate strategy, but by a mission-led approach.
Baroness Barker (LD)
Through the work of people such as Professor Michael Marmot, the Government know about the different incidences of ill health across the country. Retailers, particularly food retailers and high street pharmacies, know about the incidence of ill health way in advance of that because they have the data on consumption and purchasing behaviours. Will the Government work with them, particularly the large supermarkets, to increase the availability of data in advance, so that we can prevent some of the incidence of ill health rather than getting the NHS to pay for it when it has happened?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Prevention is certainly the best approach. As noble Lords will be aware, one of the three pillars of the published 10-year plan is moving from sickness to prevention, so that will feature very much in the plan. We work closely with industry to ensure that government can benefit from its information and its approach, and that we can bring industry along with us to ensure that, collectively, we are taking the best approach to making healthier foods available. We also have to make sure that people have the resource to have healthier foods, as well as information. It is, again, a many-pronged approach, but that is why it has to be a joined-up approach.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, while accepting what the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, and the Minister have said about social inequalities in health outcomes, there are other issues. For instance, period mortality affects life expectancy, so a male aged 65 will expect to live another 18.5 years and a female another 21 years. In turn, period life expectancy is affected by mortality rates so if you improve mortality rates, particularly for diseases where the rates are highest, you will improve life expectancy irrespective of social inequalities. That means that we need the health service to deliver high-quality care for those conditions which result in high mortality rates. Any forward plan or 10-year plan should address that issue. Does the Minister think that might be wise?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I do feel that that would be wise, and we as a Government have already shown that trajectory. To give just one example, smoking remains the preventable killer in our country, and the landmark Tobacco and Vapes Bill will deliver the ambition of a smoke-free UK. We will have a smoke-free generation and will gradually end the sale of tobacco products across the country. We have to break that cycle of addiction and disadvantage which is particularly focused on areas of greater disadvantage. As ever, the noble Lord speaks wise words.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, as somebody who has embraced the healthier lifestyle and healthy eating—far later than I should have done—I have looked at every strategy in the book and found one that works. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that Japan has the highest life expectancy in the world at birth. Multiple studies have put this down to both healthy eating habits and a strong culture of exercise, both of which are reinforced during school. With Committee of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill beginning today, what steps will His Majesty’s Government be taking to ensure that our children receive better health and exercise education to emulate the success of Japan?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Baroness on being an example to us all. She referred to learning from international examples, including Japan, and indeed we do. We know that some 12 million adults and approximately 2 million children are not physically active enough, so we are developing targeted plans to help children build healthy eating habits and embed physical activity support into routines. We will continue to work closely with DfE on this.
Sudan: Ceasefire Talks
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in establishing a Contact Group for Sudan ceasefire talks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the Foreign Secretary hosted the London Sudan Conference on 15 April to galvanise international efforts towards ending this conflict and improving vital humanitarian access. No formal new contact group has been established, but attendees agreed to increase diplomatic co-ordination and engagement going forward. We are pursuing all diplomatic avenues to push for an end to the conflict. Just two weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary joined European counterparts in Warsaw for a discussion on priority issues including Sudan.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, earlier this month the chair of the African Union Commission stated that the AU
“will not accept any interference in the internal affairs of Sudan”.
The Minister referred to discussions that are going ahead. What discussions have the Government had with the African Union on the fact that some Arab states have blocked the agreement of a contact group? Have they discussed with the AU how they now plan to prevent any further interference by those states? Without a contact group and discussions about ceasefire, the two warring parties in Sudan continue to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We should not underestimate the importance of the Sudan conference, which was to raise the profile. One really important thing was that the African Union co-chaired it and was part of the process and the dialogue. The current focus of the UK Government is on co-ordinating existing initiatives and increasing international focus and engagement. We will join the next meeting of the Sudan consultative group for the first time in Brussels at the end of June to discuss joint efforts for peace. We are absolutely focused on that. The important thing is to avoid a multiplicity of actions and contacts. You could then end up with the warring parties choosing which one to go for. We are absolutely focused on ensuring international co-ordination and on pathways to peace.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest in supporting the civilians of Sudan. The Minister will be aware of the recent developments; the head of the Sudanese Armed Forces has appointed a puppet civilian Prime Minister. This has been welcomed by the African Union, and there are concerns that it will be endorsed by the United Nations. Will the Minister reassure the House that, as the UK is penholder and with all that the Minister and the Government are doing, we will not legitimise either the RSF or the Sudanese Armed Forces with proxy civilians until there is a legitimate peace process that can allow this terrible war, with the suffering of civilians, to come to an end and until there will be a genuine civilian authority at the end of it which is representative of the people of Sudan?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord knows that has been my clear ambition from the contributions I have made in this House, and certainly from the contact we have made with all civilian groups in trying to bring them together to plan for a Sudanese country free from military rule and led by civilians. He also knows that both warring parties have announced or attempted to set up Governments. We are avoiding any efforts to do that. We want a unified Sudan under a legitimate Sudanese civilian Government. In the meantime, we need to focus on ensuring that we can establish a process for ceasefire, peace and, of course, humanitarian access.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, at yesterday’s summit the UK and the EU undertook to engage and co-operate further on priority regions such as the Horn of Africa. Can the Minister confirm that this will include, as a matter of priority, acting together to counter the malign and destabilising influence of Russia in Sudan and the region more widely?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I can confirm that. The noble and gallant Lord knows better than most that Russia’s actions, particularly in Sudan, have been to ensure the war continues. It has been actively engaged in both sides. He is absolutely right; we know what Russia is doing, and we are ensuring that we focus on those institutions through which we can develop a way forward that supports African-led and civilian-led Sudanese government. That is our priority.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Anelay reminded us, the violence in Sudan is exacting a massive toll on innocent civilians. The level of human suffering, as the Minister will be aware, is unconscionable. Millions of people need urgent humanitarian assistance, and the UK has a moral obligation to do all it can to end the fighting. In addition to sanctions, what steps can the Government take to put pressure on the leadership of the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese Armed Forces to cease their violence?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary convened the conference on 15 April precisely to do that: to bring all regional parties together to focus on ways for peace. The fact that we had co-sponsorship with the African Union was really important. Do not underestimate the impact of that conference. We are following through with the chair’s declarations from that conference. We are focused on trying to end this evil war.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, women in Sudan have a rich history of political activism, but their contributions have not translated into official recognition in political processes. In this crisis we have seen women actively responding to the violence, forming coalitions such as Women Against War. Does the Minister agree that women’s active participation in the peace process in Sudan is not just a matter of equality but a strategic objective?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. As she knows, in March I co-chaired with Denmark a UN Security Council meeting particularly on conflict-related sexual violence. This was followed by chairing a round table with the fact-finding mission that we supported on Sudan and managed to get through the Human Rights Council. All these actions were about listening to and hearing the voices of women. Those recommendations were passed to the Prime Minister to ensure that they helped to shape the discussions at the April conference, which will be very important to follow up—this is absolutely vital. From our women, peace and security agenda, we know that the engagement and involvement of women lead to a more sustainable peace.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, following the welcome declaration by the UK, France and Canada of concrete action if Israel does not end the intolerable situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, will the Government take a similar approach with external parties to the war in Sudan? They are fuelling the biggest humanitarian disaster in the world, particularly those supplying drones that are being used to attack Port Sudan, the lifeline for desperately needed humanitarian aid.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not want simply to repeat myself, but it is really important to understand that we were absolutely trying to convey those messages at the conference on 15 April, which we convened. We made very clear that all those engaged regional parties should resist supporting one party or the other and supplying arms. That was the focus of the conference; we made that clear, and that was the outcome of the chair’s statement.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I follow that question and the one asked by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who referred to the RSF, which is a paramilitary rebel force guilty of committing war crimes and of consistently obstructing aid coming in. It survives only by third-party sovereign funding. Can the Minister elaborate on the steps being taken to put pressure on those third-party sovereign states that are funding the RSF and therefore playing a part in creating so much misery?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Our engagement with international partners continues to emphasise the importance of refraining from actions that prolong the conflict. We seek to do that in terms of the influence they may have to bring the two parties to the negotiating table. Individuals and entities breaching the UN arms embargo may be subject to targeted measures, as stipulated in Resolution 1591, which established a travel ban and an arms embargo on those who were impeding the peace process in Darfur. States cannot be targeted under the embargo, and we emphasise to all countries the need to prevent and refrain from actions that prolong this crisis.
Criminal Cases Review Commission
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the exoneration of Peter Sullivan after 38 years in prison, what assessment they have made of performance of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in dealing with cases of miscarriage of justice quickly and decisively.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, my deepest sympathies are with Peter Sullivan for the miscarriage of justice he has faced. The whole criminal justice system must learn from what happened here. I also express my sympathies for Diane Sindall’s family. MoJ officials hold regular meetings with the CCRC executive to monitor the organisation’s performance, and they use a range of factors, including case review timeliness, to do so. The CCRC has a target of completing 85% of cases within 12 months of receiving them. The most recent annual report, which covers the financial year 2023-24, shows that it met or exceeded this target in 10 months out of 12.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer. Of course, Peter Sullivan’s case is even more extreme than Andrew Malkinson’s—38 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. The issues arising include the CCRC’s refusal to review the case in 2008, the delay in re-examining DNA samples until 2021 and then the further four years it took to bring the case before the Court of Appeal. Pending the promised CCRC review, which the noble Lord mentioned on 7 May, how will the Government now ensure that all current cases are considered urgently and with some independent oversight?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The ministry has provided additional funding for the CCRC to look at closed cases where advances in forensic science could now provide new evidence. The CCRC is actively working with the Forensic Information Databases Service to ensure that it can effectively track and revisit unmatched DNA profiles. The CCRC is in the process of amending its case management system so that it can identify and monitor any cases for relevant scientific, medical or other developments—for example, when DNA testing does not produce a profile.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the CCRC currently has 10 cases before it of postmasters who used the Capture system, a forerunner of the Horizon software system at the Post Office. Those cases date back to the early 1990s; those individuals are often now in ill health and have been waiting for justice for too long. What pressure can my noble friend put on the CCRC to review those cases as a matter of urgency? Otherwise, those individuals will not get justice before many of them pass away.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I shall write to him. I do not have an answer to the point that he raises, but I shall ensure that it is brought to the attention of the CCRC board.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, does it not add insult to injury that, after a person has spent the whole of their life wasted in jail, they do not get immediate compensation as soon as they are released? I have read that one of them has been waiting for years. There should be no cap on the compensation; it should be given absolutely immediately so that the person emerging from prison has something to fall back on. We cannot let them loose on the streets with no compensation.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The Government are actively looking into the concerns raised about the compensation cap and will provide an update on that matter in due course. We would encourage Mr Sullivan to make an application to the miscarriage of justice application service, and we will prioritise his application because of the length of his prison sentence.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, since we discussed the CCRC last week, it has become apparent that Mr Chris Henley KC, who wrote a review of the CCRC in relation to the Malkinson case, thinks that the chief executive gave inaccurate evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee. Nobody places any blame on the Secretary of State or on the Minister in this place for the current state of the CCRC, but has the time not come for the decision on who should be the next chair of the CCRC to be made not in the near future but today? It is unravelling quickly, and there will be more Malkinsons and more cases of that hideous nature unless the Government really grab hold of it and take charge.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord raised those points a couple of weeks ago and, since then, we have had the letters in the Sunday Times about the appearance of the chief executive in front of the Justice Select Committee. I shall not comment on that, because the CCRC is an independent body, but it has already begun to implement a number of the Henley recommendations—and, of course, we intend to go further on that. On the appointment of the interim chair, as the noble and learned Lord will know the objective is to have an interim chair for 18 months to review the CCRC’s operations. An individual has been identified and is going through the approvals process, so the announcement will be made imminently.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, at the reverse end of the spectrum, we have a case that has gone before the Criminal Cases Review Commission for preliminary consideration—the Lucy Letby case—with all the uncertainty that must be creating for the families, particularly as they are also having to navigate a public inquiry. Can the Minister satisfy this House that there is adequate resource within the commission to deal with that case expeditiously?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
There has actually been an increase in resource for the CCRC over the past five years or so, partly to meet the point on forensics that I made in answer to an earlier question. If there is a disproportionate extra amount of work because of the particular case to which the noble Baroness refers then I will make sure that the authorities within the MoJ are aware of that but, as I say, there has actually been an increase in resource for the CCRC for a number of years now.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, any miscarriage of justice has tragic consequences, not only for the wrongly convicted but for the victims of the original crime. It is also liable to undermine public confidence in the justice system. We have seen recent cases where innocent persons have spent tens of years in prison despite repeated applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. There is a concern that the commission has been overly cautious in referring cases back to the Court of Appeal, so what measures will be taken to address that concern? Will they include a question over the composition of the commission, and not just its chairmanship?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The short answer to the noble and learned Lord’s question is yes. The review, which, as I said, will take about 18 months, will indeed look at the CCRC’s composition. Of course, the Law Commission is due to produce its report next year, so with the combination of these activities we see some radical reform of the CCRC on the horizon.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister give us any indication of how many outstanding cases of this nature are still waiting to be dealt with?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I will have to write to my noble friend; I do not have those figures in my pack. As I said, the CCRC has a target of completing case reviews in about 85% of cases within 12 months, which it is meeting in 10 months out of 12. I cannot answer my noble friend’s question with an exact figure, but I will write to her.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, do the Government agree that the provisional proposals for reform of the tests and processes of the CCRC, indicated recently by the Law Commission, have a lot to commend them? No doubt the Government will say that we should wait for the Law Commission’s final report next year, but meanwhile has any assessment been made of the implications of likely reforms for applications that have previously been rejected by the review commission, which may well require reconsideration? Has any assessment been made of the implications for the workload of the Court of Appeal?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a number of very important questions, which will, of course, be answered by the interim chair when that name is announced. The workload of the Court of Appeal is an important factor in this, and the tests for how those cases are referred up to the Court of Appeal are important as well. As I said earlier, the answer to the question lies in both the Law Commission report and the work of the new interim chair.
NHS and Care Volunteer Responders Service
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the NHS and Care Volunteer Responders service has completed more than 2.7 million tasks and shifts, including more than 1.1 million telephone support calls, over the past five years. It provides volunteering support seven days a week, underpinned by wraparound support and assurance, as well as safeguarding, problem-solving teams and helplines running from 8 am to 8 pm. Volunteers are ID checked, have role guidance, hold DBS checks when required and have their expenses paid by the programme. How will the Government ensure that volunteering in the NHS and social care is encouraged and facilitated, given that the need for volunteers across the country remains acute? When will the new scheme begin operating and can the Government guarantee that existing patients will not be left in the lurch?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
I start by saying, as I am sure the noble Earl agrees, how grateful we are for the generous contribution made by volunteers. They play a vital role in supporting patients, staff and services in many ways. The national NHS and Care Volunteer Responders programme was first established as part of the Covid response, and the noble Earl helpfully set out its contribution. The fact is that a model that worked well in a national crisis is no longer the most cost-effective option, so there will be a new recruitment portal for NHS volunteers to be fully launched this year. This is all about expanding voluntary opportunities and getting more volunteer hours to further support patients even better than volunteers do already.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Where will the current funding for this programme go? Will it go into the new scheme the Minister has mentioned, or into community services or support for vulnerable groups, or will this result in some kind of cut to services?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that there is no intention that this will impact on services. As I mentioned, this is about getting value for money; the previous scheme did so during the Covid pandemic and just after, but we are in a totally different world now. All those who volunteered through the scheme that is being brought to an end will have been sent an email advising them how they can continue their volunteering—we do not want to lose people—and how it will be easier. The launch of the portal will provide a one-stop shop, overseen by NHS England. That is what will be funded. I hope that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will find the website a much friendlier place through which they can volunteer.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister assure me that we will not use volunteers to plug the gap in NHS services and that people will get an appropriate level of care when they arrive at an NHS facility?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point and I can give her that assurance. For me, volunteering provides a different type of resource. For example, Mid Yorks is advertising for trolley volunteers, ward befriending volunteers and café volunteers. It is about supporting the staff in their efforts, and supporting patients. Volunteers have always had a role, and long may that continue.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, if the Minister is concerned about the use of volunteers, will she then consider the role of community first responders? Responses by volunteers are included in measuring the response times of ambulances to 999 calls. Based on her logic, she should now exclude that from response times so that we get the required transparency.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This announcement does not affect transparency or services directly provided by the NHS. We are seeking to improve the volunteering offer to make it more cost-effective, and to retain, recruit and better utilise volunteers. I will look at the point the noble Baroness raises, but I emphasise my point to your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Whittington Hospital, which is my local hospital. It has a very strong volunteer scheme and is recruiting volunteers all the time. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that this is about enhancing the work that is done locally, because most volunteers are recruited and most volunteering is done locally?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point and I can certainly give her the assurance she seeks. Over 50,000 additional volunteers are recruited by NHS trusts, which they then support directly in the way my noble friend describes. Their roles are totally unaffected by the change to this programme. There are many thousands of volunteers who support the NHS directly or indirectly via other local and national voluntary sector organisations, and I pay tribute to them all.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of Attend. Can the Minister explain how, in the new system, the Government will work with an organisation such as Attend, which provides insurance, legal advice, financial services and networking to a whole series of agencies that provide volunteers across the country, to ensure that there are rigorously high standards and that those who volunteer are protected in their role, and that they benefit in addition to providing maximum benefit to the recipients?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. I am sure there are many, like me, who have volunteered, or still volunteer, and gained as much as they gave, although they did not expect to. It is important to have standards, and to protect volunteers and everybody involved. That will be the case. A lot of local action builds relationships with local organisations, which is a very successful way of harnessing the benefits of volunteers and volunteering.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I in no way denigrate volunteers, but can the Minister confirm that when a volunteer in a hospital comes across information about patients it has the same level of confidentiality as it would if it had been found by a member of staff, and that it is not acceptable for any information gathered by a volunteer to be used improperly?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I share the noble Lord’s view. Various directions are given to volunteers about how to behave when they receive information that may be to do with safeguarding, and where it should go. It is important that volunteers and staff do not keep it to themselves and that action is taken, so I can give the assurance that he seeks.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the Air Ambulance Service is a vital part of emergency care. It is a matter of concern and shame that one of the richest countries has to rely primarily on charitable donations, which cannot provide a consistent and stable service. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Air Ambulance Service is properly funded from the public purse.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
There is a role for charitable organisations. One example is hospices. As I have been told many times in this Chamber, as well as outside it, many hospices and other charities, including air ambulances, welcome and relish the freedom they have as charities and do not want government funding or intervention. Of course, we very much respect and appreciate the role that the Air Ambulance Service plays. My own brother was saved some 10 years ago, so I feel very connected to this point. He is grateful, as am I.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the Minister says—that this is about a new scheme that will encourage volunteers within the NHS. However, sadly, data shows that instances of volunteering are declining across this country. Does the Minister know what measures will be put in place to ensure that all the volunteers who are currently on the scheme that is going to be closed are supported into whatever the requirements are in the new scheme? Having to go through DBS checks again, reapplying or anything like that might just put barriers in the way of supporting people who are already valued into the new scheme.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand that point. It is important to retain and develop people’s interest and commitment. The new portal will be a one-stop shop and will be much better at achieving what the noble Baroness and I seek. I know, having heard about it already, that it has functionality that is not there now. I cannot currently put in my postcode and find out what volunteering opportunities there are, which seems ever so basic—we do that on many other fronts. The new portal will allow that. In other words, the potential volunteers will find it much more accessible and will be matched better. The standards of recruitment will be higher and we will retain people. The noble Baroness makes a very good point—it is why NHSE has written to everybody on the old functionality.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to— (a) improve the safety and wellbeing of children;(b) improve the regulation of children’s homes, fostering agencies and other settings where looked after children are accommodated;(c) improve safety and standards and remove barriers to opportunity in schools in England and Wales;(d) make provision regarding children not in school.”
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 1 in my name seeks to clarify the purposes of the Bill. While the Government’s intentions, to improve children’s safety, well-being and education, have widespread support, I tabled this amendment because I believe there is currently an unbridgeable gap between these aims and several of the provisions within the Bill.
I must express profound concerns regarding both parts of the Bill. There is a troubling pattern throughout it of an unclear definition of the problem it seeks to solve, insufficient evidence for the proposed solutions, a lack of successful piloting to give us confidence these changes will achieve their intended outcomes, no clear implementation plan, insufficient resources to implement and important gaps in areas including children’s well-being, special educational needs and disabilities, smartphones, social media and more. So, our job across this House, as the scrutinising Chamber, is to do just that, and to ensure that the Bill leaves this House stronger and in a state where we can all feel confident that it will work in practice and not just on paper.
In recent weeks, I have spoken to a number of directors of children’s services and practitioners, who have all, unprompted, raised serious concerns about Part 1, particularly around the reforms to family help, children in need and child protection. The most alarming concerns came yesterday from Professor Eileen Munro, author of the 2011 review into child protection, who stated in a letter in the Times:
“The government's proposed reforms of children’s social care risk dismantling a system that has steadily improved, without clear evidence that the replacement will work. While the ambition to expand early help is welcome — indeed, my own review called for this — the plan lacks realism, rigour and a clear safety framework”.
She continued:
“These reforms radically restructure a complex system of professionals and safeguarding arrangements. Yet the Department for Education is altering or removing key processes without asking why they exist or how they interact with other checks and balances. What looks tidy on paper (neatly divided ‘pillars’ of reform) may create dangerous, unpredictable consequences in practice as they interact”.
These are concerns from one of the greatest experts on child protection in the country, and we should take them very seriously. Her letter closes with the hope that, as this Bill passes through your Lordships’ House,
“the government will use this opportunity to listen, pause and revise its plan”.
I hope that, when she responds, the Minister, who has great and much-respected experience in this area, will be able to offer some encouragement, in contrast to the tone of the Government’s response in the Times yesterday. As Professor Munro wrote yesterday:
“Reforms must strengthen child protection, not weaken it”.
So why are the professor and other senior leaders in the sector so worried? In simple terms, I believe it is because these early clauses have not been properly tested. Indeed, there are reports that the initial pathfinder sites are encountering significant implementation problems that need to be resolved before a wider rollout. Surely the Government should publish the evaluation first and then adapt their approach depending on what it shows. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm when that evaluation will be published.
Equally concerning is the inadequate funding to implement these extensive changes, particularly in relation to children’s social care. The £290 million allocated for one year falls dramatically short of the £2 billion-plus estimated by the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care as necessary to make early help effective. Without proper resources, we risk creating a system that cannot deliver on its promises.
More broadly, Part 1 is quietly unambitious. It fails to offer a vision of how to expand the reach of well- tested approaches, such as family group decision-making, or to present a convincing approach to grow capacity to support looked-after children in their communities and avoid unnecessary placements in children’s homes or, worse, in unregistered provision. I cannot overstate our collective responsibility, as a House, to address these issues thoroughly and carefully in the interests of those children. This is not a matter for party politics; we have a duty to get this right, or children will be harmed.
As was evident at Second Reading, there are also serious concerns about Part 2. The proposed changes to academy freedoms are both puzzling and troubling. Among the most egregious is the delay in introducing effective interventions for schools to be judged in special measures or inadequate, which was described by the Children’s Commissioner as something that will leave children
“spending longer in failing schools”.
The Bill removes trusts’ discretion to use their professional judgment regarding curriculum and teacher pay and conditions. The new power of the Secretary of State to intervene when they judge that a trust is likely to breach its funding agreement and direct the remedy. The Bill’s own impact assessment says that the limitations on pupil admission numbers will
“limit the ability of popular schools to grow”.
For decades, parents have voted with their feet when it comes to schools, and this will erode parental choice and drive down standards.
Regarding home education, the proposed register misses both ends of the spectrum. At one end, the scheme, as drafted, will not adequately protect the most vulnerable children. At the other, it is unnecessarily intrusive, requiring disproportionate detail from parents who pose minimal risk to their children. Most critically, it fails to address the needs of parents who never intended to home educate but feel they have no choice due to inadequate provision for their child with special educational needs. We will be putting forward amendments to address these shortcomings.
The Bill presents a critical opportunity to shape the next decade of school improvement in England. On these Benches, we would support an effort that builds on what has been learned from the academisation journey thus far. The first phase of academisation addressed entrenched underperformance in a small number of schools. The second phase saw some multi-academy trusts use their autonomy to innovate and raise standards. Now, we need to scale the best practice of the most effective trusts and the most effective local authority schools to deliver better outcomes for pupils, more opportunities for staff, greater choice for parents and a more resilient school system.
Surely, we need a system where the lowest performing trusts and local authorities feel the same level of oversight that is currently felt by the headteacher of an under- performing school. This means evaluating not just results but the value that responsible bodies add. Thought needs to be given where another body could improve outcomes for pupils to what the mechanisms might be that could facilitate that change so that autonomy and accountability are aligned and the interests of children are kept paramount.
There is a tremendous opportunity to bring forward measures in the Bill that will deliver for children, staff and parents. I hope the Minister will consider concerns expressed across the House, and indeed outside it, in the spirit in which they are offered and be open to amending the Bill to achieve much more. If we do not make these changes, or at least give them the chance for honest and detailed consideration, we face four unacceptable risks.
The first is we end up with a rather ineffective, overly bureaucratic regulatory regime for residential care and independent fostering agencies. The second is we get a set of rules in relation to home education that neither keep the vulnerable few safe nor respect the rights of the majority. But it is the most serious risks that need spelling out. In relation to our schools, we face at best stagnation and at worst a steady decline in standards. In relation to children’s social care, we face an increase in the number of children suffering avoidable harm. I know this is not what the Government, and particularly neither of the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench today, want to see happen—they do not want that anymore than the coalition Government wanted to create some of the problems we see today in relation to the SEN system when we passed the Children and Families Act. Introducing major structural reform, in this case in both children’s social care and schools, without proper preparation, evidence and funding is irresponsible and puts the cart before the horse at a time when we already have wholesale reform in our local authorities, integrated care boards, curriculum, inspection regime and more.
I absolutely commit to both Ministers to engage in the Bill in the most constructive spirit possible, and I hope that they feel the amendments in my name are practical and constructive. I also owe both of the Ministers my honesty in setting out the degree of concern, even though, standing here right now, warm words might feel easier to say. The stakes—the safety, well-being and the future of our children—could not be higher.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Marlow Education Trust, which is a multi-academy trust.
This amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend, is necessary to confirm and clarify the objectives of the Bill, but also to stop the Government doing anything that is outside those objectives. I recall a similar purpose amendment being moved at the beginning of the Renters’ Rights Bill by my noble friends; a similar amendment was tabled at the beginning of the then Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Fox, from the Lib Dem Benches, proposed an identical purposes amendment to the then Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. It therefore seems that such so-called purpose amendments are becoming a feature of the process of legislative scrutiny, made more necessary when the time for Second Reading, which also deals with the purpose of the Bill, was so short.
The amendment sets out the ambitions of the Bill, and the only point I want to make in a brief intervention is that these ambitions do not seem to take account of the many challenges facing the education sector. The Bill is in a sort of vacuum, detached from the real world.
The provisions of the Bill, as my noble friend just said, will impose new responsibilities on local authorities, children’s services, adult services, schools and teachers, but this is expected at a time when there are already enormous pressures on the sector, raising the question as to whether there will simply be the capacity to deliver, however much good will there may be and however well intentioned the measures.
Let us take finance. Non-protected departments such as the DfE have been told by the Treasury to model reductions of 11% in their expenditure. We do not know the outcome of that round, which is designed to keep the Government within their fiscal rules, but I would expect the department to have to make some uncomfortable decisions, and that will affect the capacity of officials to deliver reform and indeed of the department to fund reform.
These pressures are already present in many local authorities. Several local authorities, many of them education authorities, have already issued Section 114 notices. Some large county councils are being closely monitored by the MHCLG, as they are at risk of falling over this year. If that happens, they will have to cut back on existing services before they think of introducing new ones. The pressure on children’s services is already acute.
Then, as my noble friend mentioned, the Government’s recently announced proposals involve many local authorities being reorganised as we move from two-tier to unitary. There may be good reasons for this, but it will be a major distraction for local authority staff from doing their normal duties as they worry about whether they will have a job within the new structure. Expecting those officers to take on more responsibilities on safeguarding and supporting children in need, children in care, care leavers and children being home-educated is a big ask for those officials at a time of turbulence.
Schools are already confronted with unfunded pay increases for teachers, unfunded before any settlement above the Treasury estimates are arrived at. For many schools, there is an increase in employer contributions for pension funds—unfunded—and the employer NI contributions increase is also not fully funded.
Schools face numerous challenges. Many are struggling to find and retain qualified teachers, particularly in certain subjects such as physics, design and technology, and languages, with some subjects experiencing a 60% to 83% drop in postgraduate teacher recruitment. As my noble friend mentioned, there are also rising mental health issues among children, with a six-year wait for ADHD treatment, as we read in yesterday’s Times2. The SEND system is broken, with councils winning only 1% of appeals, and there has been a significant increase in pupil absenteeism since the pandemic, particularly among disadvantaged children—the subject of recent Questions.
That is the context of the amendment and the Bill. Ministers may fairly argue that some of the pressures are inherited, but many are not, and the Bill’s proposals are, in essence, those of the Government. Ministers are demanding a lot of the system. I pose the question whether there is the headroom, the capacity in the system, to deliver the reforms in the Bill. I hope the Minister will be able to allay my concerns.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the purpose clause, particularly where it describes the purpose of the Bill as being to
“improve … standards and remove barriers to opportunity in schools in England and Wales”.
I will be very brief and focus on Part 2, dealing with schools. For me, Part 2 should be first and foremost about promoting parental choice, because only parents really know what sort of education is best for their children: not the state, but parents. There should be choice—as much as possible—since children are all different, and what can be better than an education which enhances the unique talents and personalities of each child? This also chimes with Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which states in terms:
“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.
So choice should be enshrined in any Bill purporting to promote children’s well-being.
Is this the Bill’s aim? Looking at Part 2, I rather fear that the opposite is the case. To take just two examples, academies are important, since their heads have shown by their excellent records of achievement that they know how to run schools better than government. But Part 2 would impose a one-size-fits-all national curriculum on academies, with the worst probably to follow in sweeping Henry VIII powers. Then there are faith schools. What could be more important than a child being educated in an environment rooted in discipline, dignity and duty, which are the hallmarks of our faith schools, such as Haredi schools and other faith schools? But Part 2 would grant sweeping powers to local authorities to monitor, register and regulate faith-based settings. It seems to be an agenda seeking uniformity over choice and threatening our diverse landscape, so much admired across the world. As it stands, therefore, Part 2 of the Bill does not enhance children’s well-being, which is what the Title of the Bill says it is supposed to do.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, here we go in Committee and here we have had, probably, our first Second Reading speech from a colleague. I will not make a Second Reading speech; I will address this amendment, which I think is unnecessary. We have a perfectly sensible, comprehensive description of what this Bill seeks to do. We do not need another list in the Bill.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the purpose clause from my noble friend Lady Barran has given us to range far more freely than the tightly timed Second Reading allowed. I could only comment on what was in the Bill and pay scant attention to what I sensed was lacking. Part 1, and therefore the first half of the purpose clause, is where my sights are set in this Bill: improving the safety and well-being of children and improving the regulation of children’s homes, fostering agencies and other settings where looked-after children are accommodated. We heard from my noble friend about Professor Eileen Munro’s letter to the Times yesterday. She robustly supports the expansion of early help. It is in the provision of this where the Bill needs strengthening and greater specificity: for example, about the role of family hubs, which are not even mentioned.
A complex system of professionals and safeguarding arrangements is being restructured and key processes changed or removed, without it being clear what functions they are already performing or their place in the bigger picture. I was on the design group of the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care—I mentioned that at Second Reading—and my most detailed offline discussions with the review team were on this restructuring, which I can see might be perceived to be finicky and potentially unnecessary. I am hearing concerns from directors of children’s services, and now from Professor Munro, that these reforms could weaken child protection, at a time when we are trying to batten down the hatches with, for example, the single unique identifier. As I will keep saying during Committee, I am concerned, as I was during the independent care review, that we are trying to do by process what we should be doing through relationships between professionals.
Does the Minister agree with the Department for Education spokeswoman, also quoted in the Times, who said that Munro’s criticisms
“demonstrate a lack of understanding of the proposed reforms, which have been widely supported and rebalance the system away from crisis intervention and towards earlier help”?
In other words, does she think that this eminent professor has not grasped her Government’s plans? Can she name current directors of children’s services who are enthusiastic about this restructure?
Child protection is the business of everyone who is involved with families and children, hence my amendments later in the Bill for family hubs to be included in safe- guarding arrangements. Of course, not all local authorities have family hubs yet, but an audit of the family hubs network carried out for Nesta earlier this year found 973 family hub networks in 133 out of 151 upper-tier councils, so the vast majority now have family hubs.
I and other Members in this Committee, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong and Lady Longfield —whom I welcome somewhat belatedly, but no less warmly—have been urging all Governments to commit wholesale to family hub rollout across the country. Their propagation is unfinished business from both the founding of the welfare state and the full implementation of paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, as I have said many times before. Hence I support the proposed new clause from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which would require local authorities to provide family support.
Health, education, social work and other arms of the state all have to pick up the pieces when families falter. The concept of family support needs presence in a community, so that parents in danger of splitting up have somewhere to turn; ex-partners going through a separation that is beginning to look messy can get early intervention in the form of mediation, after careful triage; and parents losing control of their teenagers can get support before they get drawn into gangs. The support that families need in myriad ways is co-ordinated and accessed through family hubs and their network of buildings and organisations, through a respectful, relational approach.
Of course, there is variability, and only 75 local authorities’ hub networks are funded. They are also tightly managed by the Department for Education’s family hubs and Start for Life programme. Since 2007, I have been working with Dr Callan to implement a hallmark of the family hubs network: its responsiveness to local needs. Many local authorities have a great track record in opening successful family hubs; they have told the family hubs network that they have had to slow down the rollout of services to older children, so that they could dot the i’s and cross the t’s required by the Start for Life programme.
I am a firm believer that family support has to start in maternity, and ideally earlier. That early intervention is far more easily achieved when local family support professionals have built relationships with parents, carers and children from the earliest days. I have amendments later in the Bill that would ensure that parents know where to get that help and support in their local area, by requiring local authorities to publish a Start for Life offer. That support should continue when a mother has, tragically, had a newborn, or often older children, removed from her care. Case files from the family courts show that history repeats itself and that judges can take as many as 14 or 15 children away from the same mother. Our care for the mother should not end when a child is safe, given the likelihood that the safety of future children will also have to be secured.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard some highly respected voices this afternoon, and I want to put two or three things on the record.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly draws attention to the fact that this kind of clause is now becoming commonplace at the beginning of Committees on Bills. I understand why people might want to raise specific issues, or even flag the amendments that they want to move in Committee, but if we prolong this stage to the point where our debates lose their purpose or we go on into the night—when, frankly, it is impossible to have rational and sensible debate—we will lose the purpose of the Committee itself.
I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who I respect as a friend, said about Second Reading. I was frustrated to have only four minutes, and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was deeply frustrated because she was trying to get back to Britain and could not. But we cannot have Second Reading debates at the beginning of every Committee.
I make an appeal. I have amendments down, and I understand that we need to listen and learn. On Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister did just that, and listened to what I and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others from outside this House, were saying. There is a willingness to listen and reflect and to believe that we do not get things right the first time. There is real wisdom and experience in this House and beyond that can be brought to bear, and we can change the Bill and have a better result at the end of it. But, to pick up what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, we will do so only if we respect each other, with no calling out of people due to ill will, and if Ministers are committed to working with us. That is the role of our House. Over the 10 years I have been here, I have understood, in a very clear way, how different it is from the House of Commons. If we are able to listen to each other, take well-meant amendments and see how we can provide a better outcome for all, so much the better for this House.
The respect of this House is really important. I have never understood why, recently, those who are most committed to this kind of second Chamber go about undermining it. I did not understand when that happened on the Football Governance Bill and other Bills—this one is in danger of going the same way—where we prolonged debate rather than concentrating and focusing on improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, is quite right—I am in favour of what he is saying, and of bringing back the old local Sure Start programmes. We will be able to debate that on amendments being put down. I would like to pick up the issue of what Part 2 is about. I think it is about raising standards, opportunity and life chances for all children, not just those who can jump through particular hoops. We touched on this with the 80 people who spoke on Second Reading. Let us try to get through Committee stage and to Report. At the end of it, let us all believe, whatever part of the House we are from—there should be no “sides”—that we have done a good job in making this Bill better.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I sat through almost all the Second Reading but deliberately did not intervene in it because I was trying to ascertain how much of the Bill was to do with Wales and how much was not. In the context of her amendment, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to clarify subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause, where it says, and I select the words deliberately,
“improve … standards … in schools in … Wales”.
Education in Wales is a totally devolved subject. I know that the Welsh Government and the Senedd have asked for certain provisions to be made via the Bill for application to Wales. I am sure the Minister can confirm that. Those are specific provisions that have been asked for and not a matter of generality. As I read the proposed new clause, there is a suggestion that it applies to the generality of standards in schools in Wales. The noble Baroness spoke of autonomy and accountability. That goes to the heart of the administration and provision of education in Wales, which is a devolved matter, and we must be clear in our minds why we are choosing those words.
Clearly, the term “England and Wales” can arise quite rightly when we are talking about the jurisdiction or the legal aspects of it. But here we are talking about the administration of education. Specifically, we are talking about schools and schools in Wales, and the Senedd has the right to know to what extent amendments such as this are meant to apply to them.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I will not repeat my Second Reading speech. I draw attention to my interests on the register, particularly the fact that I am chair of a multi-academy trust.
Regarding subsection (1)(a) of this proposed new “Purpose” clause, the Long Title states that it is to make
“provision about the safeguarding and welfare of children”.
Nothing that we could do to further that endeavour could be greater than to restrict access to social media to those aged over 16. That is why I have tabled Amendment 177 to that effect. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, said, this is so central to the overriding purpose of the Bill that I will take a few moments to elaborate.
I think we all know naturally that social media is very harmful to our children, but there is now an overwhelming body of evidence to support this. I recommend that anybody who has not done so reads the excellent book The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt. We want our children to be brought up confident, able to engage in deep thought, reflective and able to concentrate, to exercise judgment, to see the other side’s point of view, to be compassionate et cetera. We also want them to get a good night’s sleep. Smartphones and social media set up exactly the opposite behaviours.
In the 2022 PISA assessment, our children were in the bottom 10 of 31 countries in areas such as curiosity, perseverance, emotional control, stress resistance or grit, empathy and co-operation. There is now a strong body of clinical evidence on the harm that excessive use of smartphones and social media is doing to our children’s brains and eyesight.
Adolescence is a period of life in which our sense of self undergoes a profound transition. As teenagers become more conscious of how others see them, they often experience increased self-consciousness and self-criticism. Social media and the algorithms attached to them serve only to amplify this.
We also know that the adolescent brain is particularly susceptible to addictive behaviour. Constant exposure to fast-paced, highly stimulating content can condition the brain to expect frequent, rapid rewards, making it harder to sustain focus and concentrate. Numerous studies have shown the causal link between screens and the use of social media and sleep and depression.
A recent UCL study corroborated the link between social media and eating disorders and found that young people with eating disorders are more likely to be shown harmful content by social media algorithms. Samaritans research has shown that young people frequently see self-harm and suicide content across all social media sites, some of which display particularly graphic and triggering content, and almost three-quarters of teenage girls think that social media creates more pressure for them to look a certain way. Nearly one in five people arrested for terrorism-related offences in the past year was a child under 18. The Metropolitan Police has attributed this rise to social media, saying:
“You have the combination of the overt social media and then closed messaging apps”.
Social media has significantly expanded the reach of criminal drug networks, particularly among teenagers and young adults. Numerous studies in the UK have shown that gangs view social media platforms as essential tools for drug trafficking and gang recruitment. Parentkind tells us that more than 90% of parents think that social media is harmful to children and that more than 80% of parents feel that the age limit of 13 for signing up is too low. Australia has raised the limit to 16, Ireland is considering doing so and the EU is now considering similar measures. Bill Gates has described what Australia is doing as “a smart thing”, and we know that many people who work in the tech industry severely restrict their children’s use of social media and smartphones and often send their children to very screen-light schools.
Teaching unions have strongly pointed out the dangers of social media. The president of ASCL has said:
“It leaves a trail of harm—safeguarding concerns, fractured friendships, bullying, anxiety, and the spread of extremist ideologies. And increasingly, it is being weaponised against schools and teachers, with disgruntled parents using it as a platform to target staff”.
The general secretary of the NEU has said:
“We have to view the online world, social media and mobile phones in the same prism as we view the tobacco companies. These are harmful to our young people and they need regulating”.
The general secretary of NASUWT has described mobile phones as “lethal weapons”. Why should we let the consequences of this fall on our hard-working teachers, who have enough to do as it is?
The movement in support of the thinking behind my amendment is growing rapidly. We now have Health Professionals for Safer Screens, Smartphone Free Childhood, the Safe Screens campaign, the Unplugged Coalition and many other organisations.
Speaking to subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause and turning to improving
“the regulation of children’s homes, fostering agencies and other settings”,
I will sound just one note of caution. I am totally in favour of cutting out the cowboys, but the Government should exercise their powers to restrict profits and impose unlimited financial penalties with caution. Residential settings for children and other groups are very out of favour in the private equity space, and further restrictions on their financial flexibility can only reduce capacity. The public sector has no money, as we all know, so in order to increase capacity, private sector professional operators must be encouraged.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
This is a Second Reading speech, but it is very interesting. Does the noble Lord accept that the charitable sector and social enterprises probably have quite an important role to play in the delivery of residential care for children and that flexibility will help with the finances of that because they are not in the business of making excess profits?
Lord Nash (Con)
There are many in the charity sector that are professional, but there are many others. I do not think we disagree about this.
Turning to other settings, I am an adviser to the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation, which works with more than 200 independent and state boarding schools across the country to support care-experienced and vulnerable children into often fully funded school bursary places. A significant proportion of the almost 300 children supported since 2021 are either with foster carers or in kinship care arrangements. Those in kinship care arrangements have achieved a 100% stability rate, which means that they have not needed to change carers, and those in foster care a 98% stability rate. Independent research by the University of Nottingham shows that they are four times more likely to achieve good GCSEs when compared with a matched control group, and 75% of them are going to university versus just 13% of care-experienced young people nationally. RNCSF is working hard to expand this provision, and I would be grateful if the Government could consider meeting its representatives to discuss how they can help it to do this further. Perhaps the Minister could indicate that she or one of her colleagues is prepared to meet them. They are good people.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, whom I respect and enjoy debating with, but does he accept that if all 80 of us who made Second Reading speeches—and I enjoyed his four minutes—speak for nine minutes, as he has done, ranging across the whole of the Bill, it will make a nonsense of the work of this House?
Lord Nash (Con)
I have a great deal of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I do not think all of us are going to make a nine or 10-minute speech, but I will wrap up now and hope that keeps him happy.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I was unable to speak at Second Reading and I will resist the temptation to make a Second Reading speech now. Rather, I wish to concentrate on Amendment 1.
Any consideration of a proposed purpose clause should take us all back to the Renton report, in which it was said that sometimes such clauses can be useful and sometimes they can be unnecessary, and that they should be used selectively and with caution. On one view, the scope and effects of this Bill are clear enough and there does not appear to me, at least, to be any complexity for which a purpose clause would help interpretation.
However, there is perhaps some value in this amendment, which uses the word “improve” three times, emphasising the intention of the Bill—and the Bill as amended in due course—to achieve improvement in the areas specifically mentioned, and not to maintain or simply tweak the status quo. For that limited reason, I would support Amendment 1.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, in responding I hope the Minister will be able to point out that the purpose of the Bill has a golden spine running through it, and that is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The different clauses should be able to read across to the convention, and wherever the child is and whatever group they are in—and we have lots of groups in this Bill—fate can be extremely cruel, and we know that every day around 127 children lose a parent.
Bereavement is a major issue and hits different groups in different places at different times and affects their outcomes. I hope that we will have a statement from the Minister in responding to this which is about the principle of what we are really trying to do for children across the whole nation, everywhere.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech, but I am probably fairly unique in this House in that I was brought up in a children’s home. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who is not in his place, and I have a joke that he got to prison and I ended up in a children’s home but we both somehow ended up here.
What I find lacking in the Bill is that I have never felt that it is dealing with children; it is dealing with administration, with very worthy things. I do not feel that, when I was in a children’s home, I would have benefited from the feelings in the Bill. It just does not seem to take me anywhere. One of the problems we have to face is the attitude of society to children.
I am not going to tell a long sob story, but I was extremely badly treated by my parents. A lot of people tried to help—teachers, social workers, neighbours—but there was an air of embarrassed indifference. People wanted to help but did not feel they could; they did not know how to. One of the things we have to get away from is the idea that it is someone else’s job. For about five years I was chair of an outfit called the association of Labour social workers. That was when I was in the Labour Party, incidentally, I say to friends on this side. One thing that struck me was how difficult their job is. One false move and you are condemned. You often look at a child as a social worker and think, “This child should be in care. I should be going to a magistrate”. But as you work your way up the food chain, caution comes in. It is not cruelty; it is caution. People say “Are you sure? We don’t want to be all over the Daily Mail. We have to be careful. We have to respect the rights of the parents”. This is legitimate, but I do not think we should imagine that there is some golden, secret, easy way of dealing with this. I have said in this House before that you cannot privatise compassion. Whatever you do and however much you say, “Let the private sector deal with this”, you cannot deal with the human and emotional cost.
I will mention the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. He was leader of Sheffield City Council, of course, some time after I was in its care. If anyone wanted to see a local government machine which worked, it was the county borough of Sheffield. I was extraordinarily well looked after. They probably put me in the Labour Party for about 30 years, before I found my natural home.
Sheffield, under the formidable presence of Alderman Grace Tebbutt—I think only the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, will remember that name—ran the children’s homes in an extremely compassionate and direct way because she knew what was going on there. She knew quite a lot of the children. The lesson I took from that was that you have to respect the children. I was not an easy child by any means—any more than I am easy now.
One thing I will give a man called John Freeman and his assistant Mary Armitage, the director and deputy director of children’s services in Sheffield, was that they listened. They were prepared to listen to a 13 year-old child. That helped enormously, because I felt suddenly that I was valued. Someone wanted not only to hear what I wanted but to explain why it could not happen, to help it happen or, often, to half help it happen, because I had not understood the situation and they had. They also understood the need to listen in order to shape the outcome to the need. That is why intervening on this amendment is relevant—because that does not come through in the Bill, and I am not sure I have the expertise to bring it through, but I am willing to work with anyone who thinks they have.
The old children’s department network was a success. When I began my official career as the research officer for the Committee on One Parent Families, Baroness Lucy Faithfull, who was a Member of this House and knew an enormous amount about children, and Barbara Kahan—who never joined this House but was the children’s director for Oxford and a member of the Finer committee—helped inform us of what it felt like to be a child. That was missing. We had a lot of seminars with very well-meaning people—often men, I have to say—who told us what children wanted, but, until Lucy Faithfull came along, we had very little contact with children who were actually in care, to try to shape things for them.
So I say to the Minister—this is not a criticism but is meant as a help—that we must try, if we can, to reshape the Bill just slightly so that it brings the child to the fore, rather than the administration, because it is the children who, at the end, will be affected by the Bill. It is they who will, in years to come, either bless or curse us for what is in it. There will not be much from the officials—we will all have long passed away—but it is the children, some of whom are not yet born, who will be the recipients of the policies we end up with.
We are all people of good will here—including the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, behind me, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, whom I knew by repute when he was leader of Sheffield, although I had long left—and we try to do our best. We must now extend that to the Bill, so that we have done our best.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
The noble Lord has made an important and timely intervention about the focus of the Bill, which is indeed on children. It is the first Bill of its kind that has the phrase “well-being” in its Title. He reminded us why we are here.
In the context of the debate we have been having across the House about the nature of this debate, and about Second Reading interventions that would more appropriately be presented as amendments, I say to the noble Lord that there is a series of amendments that we could get on to quite quickly and which would give us the opportunity to discuss the child at the very heart of improved systems of engagement and communication about the future of children, in the context of childcare services and the family. The next two groups of amendments give opportunities for the whole family, in a new way, to be engaged in determining the future of the child in the extended family, rather than in institutions or by way of administration.
These are very important debates. They require and invite a long and a proper discussion in the Committee, and many people would want to contribute. It would be welcome if we could now hear the Minister wind up in response to this general debate and could get on to these amendments, where the noble Lord’s concerns would be properly displayed.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I could make a small contribution. This is about a purpose clause. It is a broad amendment, and noble Lords are speaking to the amendment, whether that be proposed new paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d). It is on the Marshalled List and has been checked with the Clerk of Procedural Practice. If it were not right and appropriate, it would not be on the list today. So all contributions from all noble Lords are welcome, whatever their contribution might be. There are noble Lords in your Lordships’ Committee who still wish to make a contribution, which they will keep as brief as they can. The amendment is on the Marshalled List.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I, too, would like to speak to Amendment 1. I realise that it is a broad amendment, so I shall concentrate on proposed new Clause 1(1)(a), and the
“safety and wellbeing of children”.
Last week, I asked why His Majesty’s Government had not followed France in banning mobile phones in schools, a policy introduced seven years ago and linked to better academic results and reduced bullying. The Minister rightly pointed out that France has a more directive education system, something my party would surely not want to replicate. She is quite right: we oppose excessive central control, especially when it threatens school autonomy or family life. But this is about the well-being, safety and health of children, just as school meals and physical activity are.
As my noble friend Lord Nash pointed out, phones disrupt learning, harm mental health and hinder social development, especially for young children. This brings constant pressure on schools to manage distraction, cyberbullying and the emotional toll of social media. Schools that ban phones see calmer classrooms, better behaviour and stronger results. This advantages particularly children who are disadvantaged pupils.
In primary schools, the case is even stronger. Young children do not need phones during the day, as nearly 80% of parents agree. France, Spain, Italy and Greece have all acted, and the Department for Education now encourages schools to limit phones throughout the day. The guidance is welcome, but it is not enough.
As proposed new Clause 1 calls for, we need more clarity about those specific points. Similarly, healthy food in schools is also vital. A balanced diet supports learning, concentration and behaviour. Italy and France offer a powerful contrast; pupils sit down for a proper meal, with vegetables, protein, cheese, yoghurt and fruit. Meals are unhurried and part of the school day, free from sugary snacks and drinks. The results speak for themselves: childhood obesity in France is significantly lower. In England, more than one in five children is overweight or obese by the time they start primary school; by the time they leave, it is nearly one in three. These are not statistics: they are our children, growing up at risk of preventable diseases and poor mental health.
In France, food education is part of the curriculum. From a young age, children learn about nutrition in science and civil lessons. Some schools offer classes on meal planning and basic cooking. Most importantly, children learn by example—by having structured, healthy meals. In England, food education is fragmented and school meals are often rushed, unbalanced and of poor quality.
With regard to the proposed new clause, I ask, while we are talking about the well-being and safety of children, why the Government want to centralise and concentrate decisions on some areas that affect family life but not on areas that are really about the core well-being of children—nutrition, mobile phones and cyberattacks? This proposed new clause is necessary, because it is needed to clarify quite a few things.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I was not going to speak, but I sat through the Second Reading and it was long. We have had some of the same speeches again—not put in the same way, but the phraseology is going in that direction.
The mover of proposed new Clause 1 was actually very good at making sure that she was using active verbs. I do not like passive ones—I go for the active ones. What are they? “Improve”, “improve”, “improve” and “make provision”. If you are dealing with children, the legislation needs to tell us that there are some things that we want to do—and of course, with them, not alone. For that reason, I want to support the Bill.
I say to my dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that I love his way of speaking and he is very persuasive, but I do not understand why he thinks that paragraph (c) applies simply to Wales. The improvement will be in England and Wales, because the legislation will apply to England and Wales. Of course, there will be questions in the Parliament there and they will be talking about it, but the Bill as it stands is for schools in England and Wales.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I will soon sit down, so the noble Lord need not worry; I will tell him when I am about to sit down so that he can speak before I stop.
I love the new clause and I support it, but the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, gave us a warning, and I hope we heard his experience, not only in Sheffield but when he was Secretary of State for Education. There are things we could do throughout the Bill without laboriously going through 200 pages of amendments. This amendment paper is as big as the Bill itself. On the football Bill, I nearly lost the will to live because there were so many amendments. The guy or woman who is actually going to do the work at my little club, York, has my sympathy. I used to support Manchester United, but I told noble Lords at Second Reading why I no longer do so. Friends, could we not do better than laboriously go through every amendment that is proposed?
Some of the amendments are good. I definitely support those of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, because there are things in them that I can take away, but I am not so sure where some of the others are going. I am about to sit down, so the noble Lord can have his say.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am very grateful. The point I was making was about the application of this legislation to a subject that is devolved. We need clarity in the Senedd in Cardiff, which nominally has responsibility—and factually has had responsibility up to now—for education in schools in Wales. If an introductory clause like this brings in the whole gamut of being governed from Westminster, there is a lack of clarity which must undermine devolution. All I am looking for is clarity, and I think the noble and right reverend Lord will understand that.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I do—I do not doubt it at all. Certainly, bits are devolved, but just looking at education in Wales and education here, we have to say that there are improvements already happening in England, and areas where Wales wants to catch up. People will have to be very careful. I am absolutely in favour of devolution, so do not misunderstand me, but looking at what is happening to England, you would not want it to happen in Wales, although the matter is devolved. It simply talks about improving. Would you not want to learn? Would you not want to know? The good thing is, as Donne said,
“No man is an island,
Entire of itself;”
Nor is Wales, entire of itself.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, proposed new paragraph (c) in this amendment touches on the Bill’s purpose of removing barriers to opportunity. It raises my concern about the Bill in general that, as my noble friend Lord Young said in his excellent remarks, we are being encouraged to consider this legislation somewhat blind and flying in the dark. That is because we have not yet had either the full final report of the Becky Francis review into curriculum and qualifications or the Government’s response to it. This is essential for a fair and full consideration of this legislation. This review is not just another consultation or call for evidence but the Government’s flagship review of curriculum and qualifications which is examining exactly this matter of how we remove barriers to opportunity in our system.
We already know, however, that the relentless narrowing of options at age 16 is clearly not helping learners in this transition to level 3 study. Some 5% of 16 to 17 year-olds are NEET, up from 3.9% in 2015. This is an exceptionally worrying trend, and the Department for Education’s relentless quest to further narrow options through the defunding of applied general qualifications such as BTECs will not help matters at all. T-levels, while well intentioned, are not proving suitable for most learners. Just 2% of the cohort are enrolled on T-levels, compared to almost 20% pursuing applied general qualifications such as BTECs. By pressing ahead with the further defunding of those remaining BTECs after 2027, the Government will increase the number of young people who feel that there is no place for them in our system.
For us to do our job properly, this Bill and the curriculum review running alongside it must be seen together. We need to ensure that they work in concert so that all young people, not just the most academic, have an ambitious and achievable path forward at 16.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, as we have discussed at length, this is a multifaceted Bill, so I would welcome our achieving greater clarity of purpose. Without purpose, there is no focus, and we can get very lost in complexity. As we progress through Committee, I ask noble Lords to consider the opportunities offered in this Bill to improve well-being through healthier young lives. Let us not lose sight of health, because without good, healthy young people there is no opportunity for learning or well-being. I am talking about both physical and mental health.
When I was president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health between 2012 and 2015, we had slipped over the preceding 15 years to being one of the worst-performing countries in Europe for infant and child mortality. Mortality, in particular infant mortality, is used globally as a sensitive indicator of the health of a nation. It is the canary in the coal mine for how we are looking after children and young people; it signals alarm if that is not going well. Since then, we have seen infant mortality rise among infants born to poor families while it continues to fall among the wealthy. We are looking at a variety of public health issues that should give us pause for thought, including poorer vaccine uptake and worsening health inequalities more generally, in particular obesity. Between 2014 and 2019, teenage mortality edged up rather than down, and noble Lords are well aware that teen mental health is deteriorating.
In relation to the Bill, it is important that we think carefully about how we are using the public health workforce, such as school nurses and others, and give careful consideration to the multiple pulls on their time and how different parts of the Bill differentially pull on those resources. Equally, we must consider how significant system change is going to impact designated doctors and nurses, whose carefully worked out roles are, at best, stretched, so that those do not become further stretched by the changes in the systems.
During the passage of the Bill, we should consider carefully exactly what is going to happen to that precious workforce, which we should use to maximal effect. I hope the Minister can give us her thoughts on how care will be given to that aspect.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I support this amendment, and I hope to illustrate to the Government that this proposed purpose clause will help them and will be of benefit to the debate in reaching an effective and clear Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I do not have a Second Reading speech; I am focusing only on this amendment.
The noble Baroness on the Government Back Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for whom I have the greatest respect, and other noble Lords seemed to be saying, “We don’t need no education Bill purpose clause”. I suggest that many Bills, including this one, would benefit from a purpose clause. It provides clarity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, said, and the ability to check each clause against it to ensure that they would indeed meet the purpose of the Bill. It also provides needed clarity to the debate.
The principle can be seen in any organisation that is trying to think through a change in direction and how to implement it. It starts with the strategy, which is the purpose. Having decided the strategy, it moves on to the tactics—the other clauses are the tactics that fulfil the purpose. Otherwise, you are not quite sure why a whole range of clauses are there. You cannot fit them into the overall plan; there is no strategy, there are only tactics, with the ability for people to cram all sorts of things into a Bill that do not actually meet whatever that strategy was.
The purpose clause, as written, is not controversial. If a further clause in the Bill does not meet purposes (a), (b), (c) and (d), then it can be more swiftly disposed of or amended so as to meet whatever the Bill’s purpose is—which is of course for the Government to decide and accept. However, a purpose clause goes beyond that. Such a clause on the front of the Bill will, for that regrettably small part of the electorate who will read this Bill, provide clarity as to what on earth those hundreds of pages are up to. As we all know, any Bill is quite difficult to read. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, just pointed out, the Bill becomes much clearer with a purpose clause. For those tasked with the unfortunate duty of implementing the Bill, to know what they are trying to accomplish will reduce the horrors of compliance.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, spoke about outcomes and having active verbs in the purpose clause. Active verbs lead to outcomes, and my noble friend Lord Balfe pleaded for outcomes, not process, to be the Bill’s purpose. In this House, we very often seem to focus on process—how something is going to be done—rather than outcomes: what on earth we are trying to achieve.
I meant to say when I was addressing the good remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that he should be comforted by the fact that around half the amendments that he complained were taking up so much time in the football Bill came from his side of the House. Therefore, as to his reprehending the length of time—which I also had to sit wearily through—when one points a finger forward, there are three fingers pointing backwards.
My noble friend Lord Balfe, in pleading for outcomes, put his finger on what is wrong with a Bill without a purpose clause. Whatever outcomes the Government wish to achieve, let us know what they are, let us be able to test the Bill against those proposed outcomes, and let us have this purpose clause, as my noble friend Lady Barran has advocated.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of the purpose clause, in particular, subsection (1)(a) and (c), improving
“the safety and wellbeing of children”,
and improving
“standards”,
to
“remove barriers to opportunity”.
I also refer to my interests in the register.
As the Minister will have gathered from some 188 pages of amendments, there are serious concerns with the Bill. I am sure she will dismiss many of these as distractions, but I want to assure her that having spent nearly 15 years trying to improve the education of young people, mostly from areas of deprivation, and therefore the opportunities for them, that is not my purpose.
I first give credit to the Government for tackling the issue of kinship care. The educational outcomes for children in care are shockingly bad. If there is any cohort of children in our society that has been dealt a cruel hand, it is those children. Kinship care is often an obvious and decent solution; however, many of these children have been traumatised by several years in severely dysfunctional families, and the task facing the new carer is formidable.
That is why I have always been such a strong advocate for offering boarding school places for those children. Not only does this provide a safe and stable environment but it has shown a dramatic improvement in their outcomes when the data has been analysed. In December 2017, when I was the Minister responsible for this, we launched the boarding school partnerships service. The aim was to link local authorities with the relevant children’s charities and boarding schools themselves.
I will not repeat the data cited by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, on the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard’s Care-Experienced and Vulnerable Children programme, or indeed the comments from the Nottingham University report. However, there is one statistic that he did not mention. Not only are the outcomes for children in boarding care compared to those for a similar cohort extraordinarily higher but the costs are of a magnitude lower. In the sample that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, talked about, the cost for the cohort going into boarding schools was £3.6 million versus £8 million when they were retained in foster or residential care. The additional and perhaps even more important advantage is that it takes pressure off the kinship carers, as the intensity of their role is reduced. Common sense would suggest that this route would make it a much less daunting task. Indeed, how many times in politics do we get a chance to use an innovative measure that is both much cheaper and far more effective than the opportunities being pursued at the moment?
The national curriculum seems to be a wholly unnecessary imposition on a sector that has spent more than 10 years developing curricula that work for their schools and the communities that they serve. It is extremely important to clarify to everyone in this Chamber that every school in England has an obligation to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum; it is not a free-for-all. This is a fundamental tenet of any Ofsted inspection in all phases of education.
Having experienced at first-hand almost dozens of inspections over the years, I know that, in every instance, Ofsted requires to see the materials used and asks teachers to give them feedback on the effectiveness of them from a teaching point of view. In the case of the academy trust that I founded, we have painstakingly built an all-through curriculum for all phases. It has been colossally expensive and time-consuming, but it is working. Children arriving from feeder primary schools into our secondaries make demonstrably faster progress, as they are on a familiar path. In our maths curriculum, we have developed a 70-block building stack which goes from year 2 up to A-level.
Here is a summary of what an Ofsted report said about the curriculum in a recent inspection of one of our schools:
“The school’s curriculum is ambitious. The knowledge pupils need to know to succeed in the future is set out clearly and in a logical order. As pupils, including those with special educational needs … progress through the curriculum they use what they have already learned to understand new information”.
However, it also pointed out weaknesses. That is why, although the school got an overall “Good” with an “Outstanding” for personal development, it did not get an “Outstanding” judgment across the board, and we have addressed those perfectly fair criticisms.
Last year, that school had one of the biggest improvements in its Progress 8 score in the country. When we took it over, it was in such a mess that a campus capable of educating over 1,800 children was down to educating 400, such was its abandonment by the local community. As I speak today, the confidence has returned to the extent that a whole new school building is under construction, and I thank the Minister and her department for that.
My point is: why tear that up? A far more sensible approach would be to require any school failing an Ofsted inspection on its curriculum to then be required to follow the curriculum imposed by the DfE—deal with the 20% at the bottom of the system and do not drag the good ones down pointlessly.
I turn to admissions with the local authorities. I completely accept that there needs to be proper joined-up thinking between local authorities and schools, which should of course include academies. However, it must be for the right reasons and not for the administrative convenience of the local authorities. By that, I mean forcing outstanding schools to reduce their pupil admission numbers just so a failing local authority school does not have to bite the bullet in addressing its own failures.
That happened recently in one of my trust schools in Norwich. Norwich is a zombie zone for primary education. Some 19 of its 24 primary schools last year failed to achieve the national standards at key stage 2. We run two of the five that did. One of them is an outstanding school, but we were asked to halve the pupil admission numbers. The only way a school can do that is by merging year groups with a commensurate drop in standards, as teachers try to teach across an excessively wide age range. We were able to decline that request, but under this new legislation it will be a different story. That was one more act of self-immolation in the battle to raise standards.
Turning to qualified teachers, I believe that this terminology is a complete misnomer. Apparently, someone with a subject-specific degree in, say, maths or science is less qualified than someone with a degree in a different subject than the one they are teaching—but that is fine, because they completed a nine-month course which it is almost impossible to fail. In 2023, only 8% of applicants failed to gain qualified teacher status, and mostly because they dropped out. How can that make any sense? We keep hearing from the Minister how she trusts “great headteachers” and “brilliant schools”; if that is the case, why can she not trust them to hire the people they consider will have the best chances of success for their children?
That is before we get into the reality on the ground, which is that it is becoming increasingly harder to recruit teachers. The rates of exodus from the profession seems to be accelerating, particularly among younger teachers. The Government have even admitted that, in the past few weeks, their much-vaunted additional 6,500 teachers, paid for from the tax on private schools, is proving virtually impossible to achieve. This is just another example of what sounds like a convenient political slogan bearing no relation to what is going on in the real world.
I will end on this point. We continually hear from the Government about all the wonderful things they will do, but their words are in complete contrast to what they are actually doing. It is the cruellest of ironies, which I simply cannot reconcile in my own mind, because the people who will suffer are the children in the poorest communities, where it is extraordinarily difficult to hire good teachers. I thought that a Labour Government sought to represent these communities, but I see nothing in this cheap political manoeuvre that will in any way help those disadvantaged children.
I understand that Ministers are surprised by the level and range of pushback on the Bill, but they should not be. It was rammed through the Commons over Christmas—without a Green Paper or a White Paper and without any consultation—in a Chamber with literally hundreds of new and inexperienced MPs who were not equipped to give it proper scrutiny. That scrutiny now falls to us. The Government should not play fast and loose with the futures of millions of children, who get but one chance for their education. I urge Ministers to show some humility over the next few weeks in the passage of the Bill and adopt, as government amendments, many of the practical and useful suggestions that have been tabled. If we are to be ignored, rest assured that the avalanche of amendments will continue, as I, for one, will not go down without a fight.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, as a non-contributor to the Bill so far, it seems to me that the amendment is not being spoken to. I wonder whether I could support those who have enjoined contributors, on this day 1 of Committee, to speak to the amendment and to limit the length of their speeches. I also ask the Government Front Bench whether they would monitor this.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, I speak to the intended purpose of the Bill, which includes improving the well-being of children, as given in subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause, and removing barriers to opportunity, as given in subsection (2)(c) of the proposed new clause. I declare my interests as governor of Shoreditch Park Academy, former chair of the national plan for music education and co-founder and chair of the London Music Fund.
We are debating the future of our schools and children, and the well-being of our children. What could be more important than that? This Government were elected on a mandate of change, but on so many issues Ministers cannot explain the reason, in this Bill particularly, for the change. What is the problem the Government are trying to solve? On this Bill, the bewilderment about the reason for change is now greater than ever.
As my noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone said, we will be voting on a Bill that includes a curriculum that all schools will be obliged to follow—a curriculum about whose content neither we nor, it seems, the Government have any idea. This is absurd. This is not change to benefit children and improve their well-being but simply ideological change to satisfy trade union leaders and their followers. If they get their way, children’s education will certainly be damaged, not just for the sake of change.
At Second Reading, I focused on the importance of academy trust independence. Today, I narrow my focus to follow the procedure to one subject which I believe is missing from the Bill that could have a hugely positive effect on the well-being and academic outcomes of every child. That subject is music. Do noble Lords recall that, on the day of the magnificent VE celebration concert in Westminster Hall, the composer and conductor Keith Burstein said of music that it unites, consoles and galvanises?
The evidence is there: music helps listening, concentration, reading and memory. Music boosts self- esteem and helps young people understand the benefits of discipline. You cannot learn a musical instrument without self-discipline. That, in turn, helps to develop self-reliance, determination and grit—the very word the Government invoked last week. Music is not just about learning notes and techniques; it helps emotional and social development and brings young people together, enriching their lives.
The Prime Minister recently warned of the danger of Britian becoming a nation of strangers. Music, as he has acknowledged in the past, unites people. It unites children. Children of all backgrounds would benefit from the common enjoyment of music in their schools. An RPO survey showed that 85% of children wanted to learn a musical instrument. Music makes children happy and particularly benefits children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Every school should have a flourishing music department.
Music can transform an unhappy, failing school. In Bradford, at Feversham Primary Academy, in one of the most disadvantaged areas of the city, an intensive music programme for every pupil has transformed the school from failing to outstanding. I have visited a great many schools with wonderful music, choir ensembles and orchestras. Most are academy trusts, such as United Learning, Ark Academy and the City of London Academies Trust, whose schools, including Shoreditch Park, where I am governor, have the ethos and music of their hugely successful independent schools: the City of London School for boys and City of London School for Girls.
As co-founder and chair of a music charity, the London Music Fund, I have seen how music has changed lives. Our four-year scholarships for children from disadvantaged backgrounds are transformative. Many of our students from the first cohorts are now university and some are at the Conservatoire.
Among hundreds of examples, I think of one girl living in a high-rise on a bleak west London sink estate. Her mother seldom left the flat. The 10 year-old girl had only once visited central London. She had shown an aptitude for music, so we awarded her a four-year scholarship, gave her a clarinet, paid for her music lessons, gave her a mentor and helped her join an orchestra. Alongside music, she excelled at maths. Thanks in part to the London Music Fund, she is now studying maths at Imperial College. Talk about opportunity.
Even for children who are not musically talented, the benefits of the programme are wide ranging, improving self-confidence and well-being. Research from countless countries—Finland, Hungary, Turkey, China and so on—shows the value of music education and the positive impact it has on young people. Why is it that, after all these years of evidence, politicians still seem to have a blind spot about music? What do they not understand about the benefits of music education? I live in hope that, with the Prime Minister’s early enthusiasm for the flute and the imminent curriculum review from Dr Becky Francis, there will be a significant change of heart.
But—I stress the “but”—more teachers are needed to teach music. Schools must have the freedom to hire the best music teachers, not just the ones who have qualified teacher status. Taking away that freedom is change for change’s sake, simply pandering to the unions, not benefiting the children. A serious, long-term funding commitment to music that puts music at the heart of every school would improve the well-being and the academic outcomes of the next generation.
Support for these disadvantaged children, whose well-being and academic outcomes would undoubtedly be improved if music became a central part of their school lives, is so important. I would add: put the child to the fore in this Bill.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, as your Lordships will know from my register of interests, I am currently the leader of the London Borough of Bexley. That means I have an involvement with both the Local Government Association and London Councils. What my entry does not say that I am now the longest-serving leader of the London Borough of Bexley and that, before I was leader, I was the first cabinet member for children’s services in our borough.
Your Lordships might ask why that is important. Over that period, during which we were the first authority in London and only the second to Leeds in the country—as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, will attest—to achieve two outstanding ILACS Ofsted inspections. We also have a very good reputation for our local schools, which include four grammar schools, and we take in many young people from neighbouring Labour boroughs whose parents aspire to a better education for their young people. In this contribution, I will focus my comments on the children’s social care aspects of the proposed Bill.
Over the years, I have had the absolute pleasure to work with some fantastic local authority officers, including some superb directors of children’s services, or deputy directors who have gone on to become directors. I will not name them, to save their blushes, but they will know who they are. These are the people we all trust to make the right decisions, on a daily basis, to keep our young people safe and keep families together, if possible—but, if that is not possible, to ensure that the children who come into our care are prepared for the future. They are statutorily responsible and, if anything goes wrong, they are often held to account for the decisions taken.
Over the last few weeks, I have had exchanges with a number of senior practitioners whom I respect, and they are really concerned about the consequences of some aspects of the Bill. I know my noble friend Lady Barran has had similar conversations. So, my contribution to this debate will probably be very different from many others, as I have first-hand experience of seeing for myself the passion these professionals have for our children in our borough, to keep them safe, as well as having aspirations that they become successful, independent young people. They also have to forecast and take ownership of budgets, often with little control of implications. I am sure that some Members will be interested to know that you can have a young person move into the borough for whom you need to find care that can cost as much as a room in the Savoy for a week.
The conversations we have had suggest that there are some good aspects to the Bill, some of which will reinforce the good practice already taking place in some areas, or plug some of the gaps in current legislation, but fundamentally support the principle of meeting children’s and families’ needs, as they emerge, at the earliest possible time. But there are some major concerns about other aspects of these proposals. I know that we will get to the detail when we get further into the amendments, but some of the main concerns are that some of the proposals are unfunded.
The Josh MacAlister review said that £2 billion was required to implement the reforms in his care review. There is currently £290 million, and that has been agreed for only one year. This shows just how far away we are from what is required and what has been given to local authorities. Most of this will have to be funded from already tight local authority budgets that have become even tighter as a result of the Government’s national insurance contribution increase. Mandating that all child protection functions be held within multiagency teams marks a major shift from the current practice. While the intent is to foster stronger collaboration and clearer accountability, professional bodies and academics have warned of a number of potential unintended consequences if the model is implemented without careful safeguards. One of those consequences is budgets and, of course, in addition to actually determining future funding for social care for both adults and children should be, there is real concern about cost shunting, especially given that there are already suggestions of cuts to safeguarding budgets by local police and health communities.
There have been 10 pathfinders, but, as has been said, the key findings from those pilots have not been published and, as you would expect, the word on the street is that there have been issues with those pathfinders. Surely the sensible thing is to share that information and consider the findings before agreeing this Bill.
The intention might be to have clearer decision-making, improved information sharing, and unified threshold application, but the unintended consequences could be: a dilution of professional expertise; confusion over legal accountability; weakened local authority leadership; loss of focus on early help and prevention; operational bottlenecks and inflexibility; undermining universal services’ safeguarding role; implementation disruption; inconsistent models; and legal and human rights risks.
I know I come at this from a different perspective from many—but not all—in this Chamber, but I know that none of us would want to see young people being put at risk from ill-thought-out legislation.
I am sure that many noble Lords—this has been referred to—saw the letter in the Times yesterday from Eileen Munro, a very respected person in the field. When such people say that they are concerned about some aspects of the Bill, they deserve to be listened to, and we need to respect what they have to say. I hope the Minister will do so.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the proposed new clause and to support, in particular, subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c). As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, it contains the key word “improve”. One of the purposes of a purpose clause is to set out very clearly for the courts how legislation should be applied and to what end it is achieved. It will be a matter of debate—I am sure the debate already happened at Second Reading—whether measures in here will improve things: that is a matter for debate. But if we have this, I hope that my noble friend Lady Barran will put it to a vote on Report, so that all the House in its conscience, when it is determining what parts of the legislation we retain, change or drop entirely, comes back to the central purpose: what is this doing to improve the outcomes for children?
I say to my noble friend Lord Balfe that the Title of the Bill should really be “Some Children’s Wellbeing”, because clearly it does address well-being for some children. I suppose I am sharing my frustration—not that I am challenging the guidance of the clerks, although we can have a debate about it—that the scope of the Bill is actually pretty narrow in considering how to improve the well-being of children. I would hope that proposed new subsection (1)(a) would allow us to consider further matters which are not addressed in this Bill about the well-being of all children, which we are here to consider.
I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech—far from it—but there are undoubtedly omissions in the Bill about things such as child maintenance, which would certainly contribute to powers that have already been passed by Parliament but have not yet been commenced by Governments. I say “Governments” deliberately because I am conscious that applies not just to this Government. Those powers could be commenced by adding a clause to this Bill, but it is not within its scope at the moment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Balfe made a very good case for a purpose clause that puts children at the front of the Bill. I will make a rather more restricted case to use a purpose clause to support the home education clauses in the Bill.
The first virtue of a purpose clause, when it comes to home education, is that we are trying to give local authorities guidance on how they conduct themselves towards the home education community. To have something clear at the beginning of the Bill would make that much easier for them. Secondly, we are dealing with a diverse community in home educators; for them clearly to see the effect on them, in a complicated Bill, and the Government’s underlying purpose would be a great help in moderating and steering their interaction with the Bill after it is introduced. So I strongly urge the Government to consider a purpose clause when it comes to home education. It does not need to be much longer than “to support children not in school, and their parents”. Something like that would make a substantial difference to the way the Bill is read.
I will pick up on some difficulties that I have with the Bill and the way it is drafted, and in understanding its purposes. In English law, parents are responsible for their children’s education. In the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, said, the Government make substantial moves towards transferring that responsibility to the state. New Section 434A(6)(b)(i), in Clause 30, strikes at the heart of the relationship between parents and the Government. It will have enormous ramifications for the whole of the education system if we go down this track.
The way that personal data collection and use systems in the Bill are expressed, and the control of education providers, leaves me at a loss as to the Government’s intended purpose for the relationship between home-educating parents and the state. Understanding that better—having it clearly set out—would inform our whole consideration of the Bill.
What is the Government’s purpose in seeking to be—as I read the Bill—so intrusive and punitive towards elective home education? The state should be respectful and humble in its dealings with parents who educate their own children: respectful because it is a huge commitment that lifts a great burden from the state, and humble because of all the children we fail in the state system. Yes, we have some reasonable and long-established requirements that education should be satisfactory and that children should be safe and emerge as fully functioning members of society, but the best way to achieve that is to be supportive. In that way, the state gets to see the children and to help them and their parents. All that is left are the few cases where things are going wrong, on which the local authority can focus its efforts.
Home educators are a complex and diverse community. Partly, they are people with a different philosophy of education, and the time and dedication to make it work. If they are doing well, why should the state not applaud that? Partly, they are people who the state has failed and who benefit the state hugely by removing difficult cases from underperforming schools. Do they not deserve our wholehearted support?
Sometimes, parents bite off more than they can chew; local authorities such as Coventry, which reacts supportively, can crowd in the support of successful home educators to turn them around. Sometimes, parents are ill-intentioned or neglectful and their children need rescuing; a local authority such as Coventry finds that much easier because its time is not taken up with persecuting the well-intentioned. Some local authorities, as I am sure the Minister knows, are at the other end of the scale; their treatment of elective home educators is truly maniacal and damaging. A purpose clause would really help to set the intentions at the beginning of the Bill so that it became obvious to local authorities and home educators what the Government’s intentions were towards looking after their children.
One case that needs careful examination is Haredi education, which is a particular aspect of home education because so much of it is religiously based. The community needs the Government to be clear and open in declaring their purpose towards it. Minister Morgan says that educational settings which operate full time—and, as a result, can be expected to bear a very great responsibility for children’s educational well-being—should be regulated to ensure that children in those settings are safe and receive a suitable education. That is being read as a direct threat to Haredi education.
Ministers know, I am sure, what Haredi education is: an intense education in the Torah, plus home education. They know, I am sure, that that educational system has good outcomes: fully functioning people, albeit very much in their own tradition. Do the Government agree that these families are not neglecting their children’s learning but providing learning in keeping with their own long-established ethnic background, with secular subjects taught during evenings and weekends? Do the Government agree that yeshivas are not schools and should not be assessed as such? The schooling of these children takes place outside the yeshivas and should be assessed as home education.
What is the Government’s purpose, in the Bill, towards this community? At the moment, it is obscure. Something at the beginning of Bill that makes it clear how the Government respect the different traditions and religions of this country, and the way that they wish to bring up their children, would be a really helpful addition.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I too speak in support of the purpose clause tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran. I declare my interests as a member of Beckfoot multi-academy trust and of the Leeds Diocesan Learning Trust.
It surprises me greatly that adoption does not form part of the Bill. Despite improvements in the adoption system, evidence highlights significant gaps in support. Last year’s Adoption Barometer showed that the proportion of adoptive families facing severe challenges increased from 30% in 2022 to 38% in 2023, which is the highest over the six years of reporting. Also, the number of prospective adopters has declined.
There are particular issues with support for contact between adoptees and members of their birth family, and with transition to adulthood. Some 4,000 children per annum are adopted—of those, 80% have suffered abuse, neglect or violence, and 11% come from dysfunctional families. Many spend up to 15 months in care with several foster families before being adopted. Adopted children are more than twice as likely as other children to have special educational needs.
The virtual school has different remits for different cohorts. Adoption UK evidence shows that where virtual schools go above their statutory duty, which is limited to previously looked-after children, there are positive results. The Bill potentially produces an inequality in the wording around the remit of virtual schools for different cohorts of looked-after children.
One in 10 adopters home-educated their children in 2023. In the majority of cases, that is because the school system is not set up to support their child’s needs. Adopted children have lower attainment, higher rates of SEND and higher evidence of autism and ADHD. The Bill presents the opportunity to consider the barriers that lead parents to home-educate in the first place, and to review the support that local authorities offer to adopters.
Parents of adopted children are not the only group who feel that state education is inadequate for their children. The Bill demonstrates a shift of power from families to the state. As my noble friend Lady Fraser said at Second Reading:
“The powers in Clause 30 … override the rights of parents and families to decide what is best for their children”.—[Official Report, 1/5/25; col. 1408.]
On improving safety and standards in the education system, which is included in my noble friend Lady Barran’s proposed new purpose clause, I welcome the efforts of my noble friends to ban the use of smartphones in schools. Policy Exchange has done incredible research on the impact that smartphones have on children in school. It is striking that where smartphone bans exist, students in those schools are achieving GCSE results one to two grades higher than those in schools with a more laissez-faire policy. I hope the Government will accept the amendments tabled by my noble friends that seek to implement a universal ban on smartphones in schools.
My noble friend’s proposed new purpose clause is key to defining the objectives of the Bill. It is the duty of us all to bring about positive changes to the Bill if there is to be any possibility of improving the well-being of children.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly and will save most of what I want to say for the specific amendments. I listened to the entire Second Reading debate below the Bar, but at that point I was not able to speak in this House.
I support my noble friend Lady Barran, who has rightly drawn attention to the need to have express purposes linking through to the improvement of provision for children. I support all four proposed new paragraphs and I share some of the concerns that have been expressed, especially by my noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, for example, about conceiving this from the starting point of children and thinking about their experience in the round.
When I read the Bill I was struck that the Long Title does not mention the word “well-being”, despite the title, and I could find no thread through to explain what it meant. For me, it is the likely outcome of loving a child, caring for them, looking after their health, educating them and making sure they have peers, good relations with the adults around them and the opportunities to discover where their strengths lie. Many such things contribute ultimately to well-being.
We need this test around improvement because there are—I will not go into this now—a number of clauses where it seems to me that there is clear, direct and sometimes quite recent experience to make us believe that it is more likely that the clauses will do harm than good. I want to make sure that in debating the amendments there is enough space for us properly to consider the true likely impact and that that will be recognised and taken into account by the Minister.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly in support of the proposed new purpose clause from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. This is an enormous Bill on children’s well-being and schools. It could be two enormous Bills. What we have seen in this House with many other Bills is that, when we have an enormous Bill, all sorts of people and organisations want to hang things on it like Christmas tree baubles and it becomes unworkable, so I welcome this proposed new purpose clause to give us some sort of sustainable and impactful legislation, hopefully, at the end.
Nobody has mentioned children with special educational needs, which, as the noble Baroness knows, is my special interest in this. I support the proposed new purpose clause because it brings us back to the interests of all children, including those with profound needs and disabilities, who are very difficult to accommodate in the usual school system. We are not alone in that. I can point to studies from Sweden, Denmark and all across the world about the difficulty of grappling with this challenge.
Profound disability remains strongly associated with poor educational outcomes. We know from experience—although sadly not from data, because we do not collect it—that these children achieve lower overall grades than children without profound disabilities. This cannot be put down just to people having a learning disability. For example, only one in two children with CP has a learning disability. I know that there are children with high-functioning cognitive abilities who have been accommodated in mainstream schools throughout their entire lives, but when it comes to choosing GCSE subjects they are offered only a very restricted choice. Why is that deemed acceptable?
Studies have shown that parents of children with profound disabilities lack confidence in their local authority’s ability to make suitable arrangements for their children. The two sides look at it from very different perspectives. Parents view the system as being obstructive, inconsistent and unaccountable. Provision often tends to reflect what local authorities are able to provide. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, mentioned, it is vital that health and education professionals come together in this space and form expertise around what the child concerned requires to have the best possible life chances. As families wait for EHCPs to be agreed and as children develop and needs change, this is a fluctuating and ever-changing system.
If the Bill can do one thing to remove those barriers, which often are not understood by educational providers, it will improve the safety and well-being of children. But we need to remember, which is why I support this proposed new purpose clause, that the Bill covers all children with all abilities, whether or not they are in school and whether or not local authorities can provide the services they need.
Lord Storey (LD)
Nobody has spoken from these Benches because we did not expect to be talking in generalities. We welcome this very important Bill. As I listened to some important contributions, I found that those people who spoke about a particular issue, were short in their comments and stuck to the point made an incredibly valuable contribution. The more I listened, the more I thought that maybe there is a case for having a purpose clause where you set out where you are going. This is a large Bill, and the amendment paper is bigger than the Bill itself. That does not happen often.
The last Bill was the famous Schools Bill from the previous Conservative Government. Had they had a purpose clause in that Schools Bill, maybe it would not have been abandoned in the way it was. Maybe they would have thought that they were going to be hijacked by the academy lobby, with the few minor changes that were suggested in that Bill, and the purpose would have been thought through. Had it not been abandoned, we would have already sorted and carried through many of the issues that we have grappled with over the past couple of years, such as unregistered schools, hundreds of thousands of children missing, home education et cetera.
I was particularly taken by the comments about music from the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet. I remind her that we have to thank a Conservative Government and Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who introduced the national curriculum, because before the national curriculum, schools could do whatever they liked. The only subject they had to teach was religious education. By having a national curriculum, we said nationally that we wanted our children to learn these subjects. My view now is that we should have a national curriculum, but that the national curriculum must leave space to do other things as well, and I think that is a common view. Going back to the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, in which she talked about music, it is about not only the national curriculum but the dreaded EBacc, which has seen the number of people studying music in schools plummet as a result of its attack on creative education.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, on her speech. It was spot on, and it made me think quite clearly. I think that Part 1 is going to make a huge difference to children and families. Some of the amendments to Part 1, whether on kinship carers or whatever, will be life-changing if they are agreed.
On Part 2, we are clearly going to be divided. I have nothing particularly against academies. I am involved with an academy. I think we want to take the best of what academies do and make it available for all schools, perhaps in a reformed way, but I also want to do away with the excesses that academies seek. Academies should not be deciding—I am doing what I should not be doing. I am doing a general debate. Stop it. I want to look at particular issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, started quite rightly. Governments of all political persuasions, when there is a problem that they do not know how to solve, often get an expert. They drag an expert in and say, “We want you to look at this problem”. Nine times out of 10, they do not follow through on the recommendations, or they just take part of the recommendations. With safeguarding, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is absolutely right that Eileen Munro, an expert in her field, put forward some important recommendations, and they were quite rightly being piloted. We should learn from that piloting whether that is the way we should go. The Government must show what the evaluations of those pilots have shown. That is not a shameful thing. It is a sensible thing to do. If the evaluations show that, yes, this is great, let us do it. If they show that there are problems, perhaps we need to modify what we are doing. I hope the Government will think along those lines.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, that I remember being very proud of serving on the Children and Families Act 2014 Committee. I think everyone on that committee felt that we had done a good job. It was one of those Bills that you actually enjoyed being involved with. At the end, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, organised a sort of celebration where we all got certificates and awards for various contributions we had made to the Bill.
However, on reflection, I wish we had piloted some of the key recommendations. Education, health and care plans are, quite frankly, in an appalling mess. Maybe we should have piloted those proposals to see whether they worked and got an evaluation. We would have then known the correct way to go. We should never have got rid of school action and school action plus. We should have kept general special needs in schools. That has gone, at the expense of education, health and care plans.
I end by assuring the Government that we will be constructive in everything we do, and we will support amendments, wherever they come across the Chamber, if we think they will actually enhance opportunities for families and young people.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords, not only those who have contributed today but those who have already contributed to the discussions on this important Bill at Second Reading. In fact, people enjoyed Second Reading so much that they decided they would have another go today.
The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, accused me of wanting to dismiss any amendments. That is wholly wrong; I want to get on to discuss the detail of those amendments in this Committee, as is the function of this stage. On this occasion, I fear that Amendment 1 not only is unnecessary but has been tabled to delay our detailed consideration of the significant legislation before us.
First, from a legal perspective, the proposed new clause would not have meaningful, practical effect. Secondly, on the point that many noble Lords have referred to about being clear about the purpose, intent and the outcome of this Bill, Ministers in the other place and at the Bill’s Second Reading in this place have been clear about the purpose of this critical legislation. I will use this as an opportunity to remind the Committee of what the Bill will achieve. This is a landmark Bill that will reform both children’s social care and education to ensure that, for all our children, background does not mean destiny and that at every stage of life, young people are supported to achieve and thrive.
As is already outlined in the Bill’s policy summary notes, the Bill has seven key ambitions. Its Explanatory Notes set out what each measure in the Bill aims to achieve and how it will do so. There will rightly be ample time in Committee to discuss these in the detail they deserve, and to listen to concerns and issues that have been raised by noble Lords and others. I hope to provide assurance on those or, where necessary, change them.
An ambition running through the whole Bill is to make up for lost time—14 years in fact—when action could have been taken to strengthen child safeguarding, to ensure that no young person slips out of sight of the agencies designed to advance their education and opportunities, and to set a minimum, a floor but no ceiling, on the standards we expect in every school across our country to enable every child to achieve and thrive.
In Part 1, the Government aim to keep families together and children safe, to support children with care experience to achieve and thrive, and to fix and support the care placement market. Importantly, the Bill will help more families to thrive together, while keeping children safe from harm and supporting them to succeed. Through the introduction of a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting—which I hope we will come on to discuss shortly—we are prioritising helping families and tackling problems before they become crises. This model builds on what we know works well.
Keeping children safe is a key purpose of the Bill. That is why, after years of inaction under the previous Government, we are legislating to stop children falling through the cracks and to ensure they are not out of sight of those who can keep them safe. As we will come on to discuss today and later in Committee, this is why we are legislating to introduce a single unique identifier, registers of children not in school, and new duties around information sharing. The Bill will also allow for more effective intervention when children are at the greatest risk of harm.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this amendment. It feels curious that the Minister started her remarks by questioning my integrity in tabling the amendment, suggesting that it is a delaying tactic. I think I raised extremely serious concerns that are being put forward. She does not need to believe me, but I respectfully suggest that she should listen to those with the greatest expertise in this area. I said, and I commit to this again, that I will approach this Bill in absolute good faith and, particularly regarding Part 1, there should be nothing political in it. I hope we can build a bridge to make positive change in the Bill.
I would also just like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that we did not in any sense intend to overturn any of the powers held by the Senedd. I am sure, if the purpose clause had intended to remove the devolution of education powers in Wales, that would have deserved at least one bullet point in the amendment.
This debate was also a reminder of the expertise in this House. I would like to mention a few of the points that were made and invite the Government to think about drafting their own purpose clause if they do not like my drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, made a very important point about the need to focus on outcomes. If we do not know where we are going, we definitely will not get there. I know the Minister set out the aims, but very valid concerns were raised.
My noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham, echoed my concerns about the capacity to implement these changes at a time of significant other restructuring across local authorities—health and others. There were practical solutions with a real call for focus from the noble Lady, Baroness Cass, and she spoke of the important inclusion of public health in children’s well-being. There were also calls on where not to focus, including from my noble friend Lord Agnew. My noble friend Lord Lucas and others made the point about the helpfulness of some sort of public-facing language at the beginning of the Bill.
I say again that there are experts on both parts of the Bill who are flagging serious concerns. I do not question for one second the Government’s good intentions in this Bill; I question the ability to achieve that without some reflection. I was interested to learn that the evaluation of the pathfinders is due to be published in spring 2025. I guess we are on special government time, as we are in May.
As I close my remarks, I hope that the Government will adopt the constructive tone they have suggested they will as we get into individual amendments, and perhaps they will look again at Hansard to see some of the very valid points that would help us all achieve the goals of this Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Baroness Barran
“(1) When a local authority starts formal child protection proceedings in relation to a child, the authority must offer a family group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the offer of a family group decision making meeting when formal child protection proceedings are initiated and / or when the child protection plan is failing to protect the child instead of before the local authority makes an application for a care and supervision order as the trigger for offering the meeting.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 2, 15, and 16, which concern the mandatory implementation of family group decision-making processes. While I broadly support the intention behind these provisions, there are several important issues which need to be considered carefully if we are to achieve the best outcomes for vulnerable children.
First, I will place this proposal in context. As the Minister knows, most local authorities already implement some form of family group conferencing—in old language—or “decision-making” processes in the Bill. That is set out in the statutory guidance to the Children Act 1989, which says that, where there are court orders and in pre-proceedings, children’s services should consider making a referral for a family group conference
“if they believe there is a possibility the child may not be able to remain with their parents … unless this would be a risk to the child”.
I want to understand why the Government think this needs to be mandatory, perhaps rather than other approaches. Is there a specific problem that the Government want to solve by doing that?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I should advise your Lordships that, if Amendment 2 is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendment 3 for reasons of pre-emption.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. As we have just heard, it has a simple purpose: to allow families access to a family group decision-making meeting at the earliest possible opportunity in the child protection process. As I am sure noble Lords have seen, the Family Rights Group briefing, for instance, noted that, when a local authority issues parents with a pre-proceedings letter, concerns around a child’s welfare will already be serious and could mean that an intervention at this stage through a family group decision-making meeting is, unfortunately, already too late. The British Association of Social Workers and Coram have expressed similar worries that waiting could mean that opportunities to bring families together are lost, with difficulties having escalated too far to be addressed.
I believe that research on the ground shows that family group conferences can be effective whenever the time is right for the family—in most cases, that may well be the sooner the better. Indeed, some local authorities are already successfully offering family group conferences earlier on in the child protection process. As my noble friend outlined in her opening remarks, having a family group decision meeting earlier on would allow the wider family to more fully understand the local authority’s initial concerns, and it could— I am not saying it would—allow them to demonstrate that they were able to protect the child concerned.
I hope the Minister will look favourably on this proposal, which aims simply to ensure that families have the best possible chance of staying together if— I stress “if”—issues around a child’s welfare can be properly addressed at the earliest opportunity, or at the very least to ensure that the measures put into the Bill do not force this option to be totally closed off.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I was a family judge for about 35 years, and I tried mostly care cases. I very much support this amendment and will make three points. First, I entirely agree with the previous speakers: hold the meeting as soon as possible, because it is unlikely that the decision to make a make an application for a care order or an interim care order comes at a very early stage. One hopes that the social workers would have been working with the family before this becomes inevitable. Consequently, the sooner the discussions can be had—and the other members of the family identified where possible—the better it will be, and it may not be necessary to have the care application before the magistrates’ court in any case.
Secondly, not only is it important to have the meeting early but there must be a degree of ability for the local authority to deal with members of the family—because, not in every case but in some cases, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has said, there will be very unhappy divorce proceedings pending, whereby the parties will use the children as the arena for their attacks on each other. That is the typical sort of unhappy divorce case—fortunately not frequent, but one that occurs in care proceedings. Consequently, you may find that one or both of the parents should not at some stage be at the meeting. It is crucial that local authorities are warned, if they do not know already, and given at least, under statutory guidance, some help on how to deal with that issue—not in this Bill, of course, but in statutory guidance.
The third absolutely crucial point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, made is not to let a particular parent or someone with parental responsibility have the opportunity to use the meeting to delay the proceedings that are necessary. Again, it is absolutely crucial that, if a member of the family is trying to delay the proceedings, the local authority can go ahead without having the meeting. That is the one point that worries me about saying that they must have the meeting, although I think that probably, under the later part of Clause 1, it is possible not to have it. Again, in the statutory guidance it is crucial that local authorities are warned that the family meeting must not take place if, in fact, the delays are there for that particular reason.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I, too, have laboured long in the family courts. I think that we are all basically aiming in the same direction, but the detail is important. Family group conferences or meetings, as described in this Bill and in the amendments, are a valuable process, often best used as the pre-proceeding stage rather than after a formal application has been issued. I cannot help wondering whether there is not some lack of clarity in the drafting, at least of the amendment. The Bill as I read it is clear enough; it says that the local authority must include the offer of such a meeting in a letter before proceedings. That is entirely desirable in my view, whereas the amendment says:
“When a local authority starts formal child protection proceedings”,
which to my mind reads as if it means “Once it has actually issued the formal application”. In some cases, that may be too late. I think that there is a mistake, possibly unintended, in the drafting of the amendment.
The general thrust of what the noble Baroness said—that the meetings should be initiated as soon as possible—is clearly right. These meetings are valuable for three main reasons. First, they enable family members to be informed of what has happened and why the local authority has intervened, as well as to learn what is planned or may be planned for the child or children concerned. Quite often one finds in practice that the parents have not told the wider family what is happening, sometimes out of shame or pride, so that the first the wider family learns of the proceedings comes from the social worker—and that can come as a surprise or, indeed, a shock. Even if the family knows what is happening, a formal meeting enables it to get an accurate first-hand account that is not filtered by the parents.
Secondly, conferences enable the social worker and guardian, if one has by then been appointed, to form an initial assessment of the strengths, weaknesses and attitudes of the wider family and the possible realistic options for the support of the parents and any alternative arrangements for the children, either in the short term or in the long term. In the long term, if in reality adoption is going to be the outcome, the court will ultimately have to consider the relatives’ ability to provide a secure environment under the statute that governs adoption decisions.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I speak in support of this amendment and wish the Government to explore whether it is possible at an earlier stage for these meetings to be considered.
My noble friend referred to the delay, with parents saying that there was going to be a meeting and not turning up to it. As I read the amendment, it includes
“parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child”,
who must be offered the meeting. There may be circumstances in which the court has previously made a special guardianship order that leaves the parents with only aspects of parental responsibility, which are to be told of a name change or to be told that the child will be leaving the jurisdiction. That is a very limited amount of parental responsibility. If for whatever reason—often due to illness of the special guardian—the risks rematerialise and you are back into care proceedings, is it envisaged that such parents, who may not have heard anything for a number of years because the child has not left the jurisdiction and not had their name changed, will be included in the mandatory duty to be offered to be part of this decision-making process? If that is the case, if the logic is correct, you are stacking the cards for the situation that my noble friend has mentioned where parents are suddenly back involved and then delay the meeting. How would this provision sit with an existing special guardianship order that has that effect on parental responsibility?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Good. I mean that it is good that we are now into the detail of what it is that we are here to consider. I am very pleased at the support and welcome for the process of family group decision-making, which I know is behind all the amendments and contributions that have been made today.
This measure places a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents, or any other person with parental responsibility for the child, before an application for a care or supervision order is made. This Government want to help more families to stay together by mandating the offer of a family group decision-making meeting for every family at the point before it is necessary to initiate care proceedings for a child. I very much appreciate the intentions of the amendments that have been tabled, which tally with the Government’s aim to maximise the impact of family group decision-making. But I hope, therefore, that I can reassure noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary to achieve that.
I know that the amendments seek to balance the provision of family group decision-making with the need to avoid delay to child arrangements proceedings or permanent arrangements. I think we have been supported in this consideration today by the considerable expertise of noble, and noble and learned, Lords, but we believe that this balance is already provided by the existing statutory frameworks and guidance.
I agree very much with the noble Baroness that all family networks should have the chance to benefit from the transformative family group decision-making process at multiple points in their journeys with children’s services. I think the argument being used is that if this is as effective as it is, should families not have the opportunity to benefit at different stages? The Government wholeheartedly agree with that. Indeed, in relation to Amendment 2, the Working Together statutory safeguarding guidance makes this clear and sets out the activities that a local authority and its partners should undertake where there are child protection concerns under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. This includes the use of family group decision-making as part of child protection planning.
I understand the points made by noble Lords that using this as early as possible in the child’s journey and repeating it as necessary is important: that is in fact what local authorities are encouraged to do. Again, on the point about the evidence, the £45 million Families First for Children pathfinder and the Family Network pilot aim to make greater use of family networks, involving them in decision-making at an earlier stage and providing practical and financial support via family network support packages to help keep children safe at home. There is, as noble Lords have mentioned, robust evidence from research which shows that children can be diverted from care when family group decision-making is offered at the pre-proceedings stage.
I come to the reason that the legislation focuses the duty at the point it does. The new duty for family group decision-making to be made at the pre-proceedings stage ensures that every parent is given the offer at this critical stage before care proceedings are initiated. This voluntary process enables a family network to come together and make a family-led plan in response to concerns around a child’s safety and well-being. We are confident that the new duty, alongside the existing framework for child protection, is sufficient to support children to stay at home safely where this is possible.
The noble and learned Lord identified that there is a very clear message set by making the statutory duty in this legislation that there is an expectation at the point of the use of a family group decision-making process, but that is in order to emphasise at the point at which we believe, from the evidence, that it will certainly be able to prevent more children going through the process of being taken into care. That is not to say that it is not beneficial at other stages. I hope and believe that, both through the statutory guidance and through guidance that already exists, we be able to make that very clear to local authorities. There is robust evidence from research which shows that children can be diverted from care when family group decision-making is offered at the pre-proceedings stage.
Amendment 15 seeks to ensure that, in providing for family group decision-making, there is a child-centric approach that accounts for the best interests of children under two. I wholly understand the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the need to ensure the best interests of the child, particularly at such a young age. Of course, local authorities already have a duty to act in the best interests of the child, and that includes consideration of their age. Equally, if it is not in the child’s best interest for family group decision-making to take place, the offer should not be made to the family. This is an important point. We need to be clear that the offer is in the child’s best interests for it to be effective. Local authorities may also withdraw the offer of a meeting if it is no longer in the best interests of the child for the meeting to take place. I hope that that partially responds to the points made about delay and about others not being able to use the meeting process as a way of delaying or bringing other pressures to bear on the family environment.
On Amendment 16, the Government are committed to reducing unnecessary delay in the family courts and securing timely outcomes for children. However, as I have already identified, Clause 1 relates to a specific point before court proceedings are initiated, where robust evidence shows that strengthening the offer of family group decision-making will reduce family court applications and prevent children entering the care system. On some of the particular questions about delays, I can assure noble Lords, as was suggested, that these points about delay will be covered in statutory guidance. I think I have already made it clear that a local authority will be able to withdraw the offer of the meeting or the process if it believes that it is being used for delay, which would clearly not be in the best interests of the child. On the point about whether it will delay interim and emergency orders, I am pretty confident that it will not, but I am prepared, because it is an important point, to come back to noble Lords in writing.
We are therefore confident that no provisions in Clause 1 would result in an extension to the 26-week limit for care proceedings, which starts, of course, when an application for a care order is made—in other words, after the point at which the family group decision-making process is used. I hope that I have managed to reassure noble Lords about what would happen if other things were to cause delay in the proceedings and reassure them that we believe in, and have evidence for, the efficacy of this process. That is why, although this is a statutory duty at one point in the process, we are very clear and will continue to encourage and develop, through the Families First programme, the use of family group decision-making at all stages of the process, because of its effectiveness. I hope that has reassured all noble Lords and that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I would be grateful if she would outline the response—maybe she needs to write to me—on the specific situation that I raised in relation to special guardianship orders. I recognise that there is a best-interest test, but, as the main clause of the Bill reads at the moment, parents with that limited parental responsibility are covered by the duty and it would be good to have some clarification.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I cannot answer that today, but I certainly undertake to write to noble Lords on that important point and that juxtaposition in relationship.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. It is a privilege to have the experience of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others around the House on this. In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on our drafting, I feel I need to make a general plea for noble Lords to listen to the intent of what we are trying to do rather than focus on the specific wording. We were not intending to change the spirit of the Bill on pre- proceedings.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to extend the right to Family Group Conferencing to children aged 16 and 17 so they are able to agree their own care plan.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in my name, which is cosigned by my noble friend Lord Effingham. The Bill states that
“the authority must offer a family group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child”.
In moving this amendment, I seek to extend the right to family group conferences to children, young people and young adults so that, most importantly, they can contribute to and ultimately agree their own care plan. The purpose is as simple as that. Why should they not be able to do this?
I thank all the organisations that work tirelessly to support families, children and young people every day, including for their briefings on this important subject. I am only sorry that I cannot refer to them all. Research commissioned by County Councils stated that there would be nearly 100,000 children in care, representing a 36% rise in a decade. By including 16 and 17 year-olds in the family group conferencing, we may be able to reduce the number going into care —where it is safe to do so—and staying, with the support of their family or those with parental responsibility, reducing the trauma they may face and ensuring that their futures are not impaired. That is a laudable aim that I hope all noble Lords will support.
I am grateful to the Family Rights Group for its briefing on the Bill, in particular on this issue. It said:
“The Bill gives the local authority the discretion to decide if the child is invited to be involved in the FGDM process or not. This is unsatisfactory and does not make for a child-centred process. This approach differs to elsewhere in the child welfare system, for example looked-after children reviews, where there is a presumption in favour of the child taking part. The Bill should ensure children are invited to take part in their family-group decision-making meeting, if safe and consistent with their welfare to do so”.
The British Association of Social Workers welcomes and supports the proposal to extend family group conferencing to include the voices of 16 and 17 year-olds. It says:
“This approach is rooted in social work values of participation, empowerment, and ensuring that young people are not passive subjects of decisions, but active partners in shaping their own futures. It also aligns with our support for the Keep Caring until 18 campaign, recognising that young people need to be heard, supported and cared for consistently as they transition into adulthood”.
I could not have put it better myself.
I received this from Action for Children:
“The Children’s Charities Coalition believe that real, positive changes to the lives of young people cannot be achieved without listening to their wishes and feelings when making decisions that affect them … We urge Parliamentarians to ensure the Bill strengthens requirements on local authorities to ascertain the wishes and feelings of children and give their views due weight in decisions that affect them”.
This amendment seeks to strengthen this request by extending the right to family group conferencing to children aged 16 and 17, so that they can agree their own care plan. I cannot help but reflect on my noble friend Lord Balfe’s contribution and how he wished that somebody had listened to him. For 32 years, I have been involved with young people. They are an admirable bunch. They have different characteristics and get into different kinds of trouble, but they succeed on many occasions.
Let me tell the Committee about one young lad. All he wanted to do was work in a television shop. He wanted to repair them, and we found him a job. He was excellent at the work and the employer loved him, but one day the employer called me and said: “You’ve got to get him out. You’ve got to come and withdraw him”. I went along ready to do the deed. I said to the employer, “What’s wrong with him?”, and he said, “His personal hygiene is disastrous”. I sat the lad down with the employer and asked him, “How’s things at home? How’s it all going? What challenges have you got?” He said, “My mum’s died and my dad does the washing by chucking it in the bath. I don’t even think the hot tap comes on”. While the employer heard that, it obviously touched his heart, and the long and the short of it was that the boy moved in with him and his wife, had his washing done and had a terrific career.
This is all we want for young people. My amendment simply says that we must listen and take their views into account. I beg to move.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I have five amendments in this group, all of which come from my knowledge and understanding of evidence-based work. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Foundations What Works Centre for Children and Families.
I have been involved in this even longer than the noble Baroness opposite. My first job in this country was in 1970 in Newcastle, at what was then the first of the children’s departments after the Seebohm report. I had just qualified as a social worker specialising in family casework. You do not get anything like that these days.
I was keenly aware that this country, in its legislation on children, responds to tragedies, and I have seen this all my working life. We do not start by asking what we need to give children the very best. We start from: “This child died in dire circumstances and we must make sure that it never happens again”. Of course, we have to do that, but we need legislation that starts by asking: what are the best ways to support families to enable their children to have the very best in life? We get things the wrong way round, so I am pleased that the Government are trying to start by asking what we mean by the well-being and best interests of children, and how we can start there, rather than just asking how we protect children. Protection is very important, but if we think about well-being first, many of them will not need a level of protection.
My amendments all come from the work that Foundations has done on family group conferencing. I am delighted that the Government talk about family group decision-making in the Bill, but I want them to be brave and go to the next stage: the family group conference, which is now a well-established and researched evidence-based model. In 2023, Foundations completed a randomised control trial of family group conferences—the first in the UK and the largest in the world—which involved over 2,500 children and their families across 21 local authorities in England. The evaluation found that the children whose families were referred for an FGC at pre-proceeding stage were less likely to go into care. It also found that 12 months after the pre-proceedings letter was issued, 36% of children whose families were referred were taken into care, compared with nearly half, or 45%, of children who were not. Children who had been part of this process were less likely to go to court for the decisions about their care: only three in five—59% of children—who were referred to FGCs had care proceedings issued, compared with 72% of children who were not referred. They also spent less time in care: six months after the pre-proceeding letter, children whose families had been referred to FGCs spent an average of 87 days in care, compared with 115 days for those who had not been through the process.
Foundations estimated that 2,293 fewer children would go into care within a 12-month period if FGCs were rolled out nationally. This in turn could save taxpayers over £150 million within two years, from a reduction in both court proceedings and the number of children entering the care system. From my perspective, when I was dealing with this in government and was responsible for social exclusion, it was so clear that when you used evidence-based programmes, although you did stop a bit of, “Let every flower bloom”, which we love in this country, you got much better outcomes for children; for example, by introducing parenting classes in Sure Start—I could say a lot more about that now, but I am not going to. We need to look at evidence-based programmes and use them. We do not have time to let these kids suffer while we think, “Oh, that might be a good idea. Why don’t we try that instead?” Until we have based something on evidence, we should be giving them the strength of what we know works.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as one of the many qualified teachers in your Lordships’ House, I will speak to Amendment 14 in the names of my noble friend Lady Tyler—who cannot be with us today—me and others. Before I do so, I warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, to this Committee. I know that as the Children’s Commissioner she was so very committed to all these issues, and I know she is supporting the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, today.
I was involved with the legislation that set up the UK Children’s Commissioner in the first place and was involved in making sure that the commissioner “must” have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, not “may”, as was in the original version. That is relevant to what I will say about Amendment 14.
The intention of Amendment 14 is very simple: to ensure that those making decisions affecting children and young people seek and take into account their wishes and feelings, if they wish to give them, and to support them to do so. I welcome the Government’s ambition to be a child-centred Government and support the important steps taken in the Bill to strengthen the systems intended to keep children safe, yet there is more that the Bill could do to be truly child-centred. Specifically, it currently fails to embed meaningful consideration of the child’s wishes and feelings. I would like to strengthen it, hence this amendment.
As noble Lords will be aware, more than 30 years ago, in 1991, the UK ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In doing so, we recognised that children have a distinct set of rights that uniquely value all that it means to be a child. Article 12 of that convention sets out the right of every child to express their views freely and to have those views given due weight in all matters affecting them, including the family conferences we are talking about. They must be afforded that chance to express their views, wishes and feelings. The word “should” in Amendment 13 is not quite good enough in that respect.
In short, it recognises that children are experts in their own lives. I believe that children under 16 are perfectly capable of this, so I do not support the bit of Amendment 12 that limits this to over-16s. As long as they have appropriate support and understanding, many young children can be very articulate about what they think.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the systems designed to protect and support children and those who work with them are founded on the basis that we can hope to truly understand what is in a child’s best interests only by hearing and giving heed to their experiences and unique perspectives—the voice of the child, as we often call it.
As we know, in cases of abuse and neglect, giving children the opportunity to express their views is a critical factor in building trust and keeping children safe. Children themselves tell us that they are not routinely heard when decisions are made that affect them. Indeed, research undertaken with children and young people for the Children’s Charities Coalition’s 2024 Children at the Table campaign found that 62% of UK children think that politicians do not understand the issues that affect them, and almost three-quarters feel that children are not listened to by politicians. Let us listen and hear them today.
That is why I consider Amendment 14 to be so important. It would ensure that local authorities, in offering family group decision-making, are required to ascertain children’s wishes and feelings and give them due weight when making decisions related to that decision-making. It would also provide for a clear entitlement for the child to be supported to participate in the family group decision-making meeting. Where this is not in the child’s best interests, it would provide for the local authority to ensure that the child’s wishes and feelings are appropriately represented, for example by an independent advocate. Some effort will have to be made by somebody who really understands these things to ascertain those wishes.
The Bill currently requires local authorities to seek the child’s views. I welcome the Government’s recognition of the importance of listening to children in the context of family group decision-making, including by the Minister in response to a similar amendment in the other place. But this duty falls short of the gold standard of the Children Act to seek and—importantly—give due weight to the wishes and feelings of the child in different contexts, including children in need assessments, child protection and any decisions relating to a child in care, or possibly going into care. We know from serious case reviews and inquiries that where children are not listened to, it can have devasting consequences.
Wishes and feelings are broader than views. Amending the Bill in this way would mean that those children who choose not to express their views—perhaps they are younger or shyer, are non-verbal or lack capacity—will still have their feelings taken into account when decisions are being made about their safety and where they might live. Passing Amendment 14 would do all that.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 18 in my name and to Amendments 7 and 14, which have just been ably spoken to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong and Lady Walmsley. Amendment 7 is also supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Longfield and Lady Drake, and Amendment 14 by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Tyler of Enfield, who is not in her place.
This group is primarily about family group decision-making, so I will speak to Amendments 7 and 14 first. The Government have avoided referring to family group conferencing per se, presumably because they want to allow for evolution of good practice of the family group decision-making model. But as I said at Second Reading, the evidence base on which they are relying for this legislation assumes faithful implementation of what we know makes a difference.
One key aspect of family group decision-making is that it is not a one-off meeting. If it were, this could become a token effort to bring together all those with family or other close relationships to the child. Currently, however, the Bill makes provision only for the offer of a family group decision-making meeting.
Rather, family group decision-making involves a process with careful preparation that typically goes way beyond a single meeting, as Amendment 7 would require. When the child is supported to be involved in an initial meeting, as Amendment 14 specifies, they might flag that key people are missing, or their input might throw up previously unforeseen issues that need attending to before important decisions are made concerning their future.
Support is required because many children will be daunted by being involved in a family group decision-making meeting. They might even say that they do not want to be there but regret not being involved later on. When there have been long-standing difficulties in a family, they might be concerned about revealing secrets, getting into trouble or making things worse.
Safety planning—a key aspect of any process involved in rehoming a child—can also be delicate and difficult and should certainly not be rushed. The pressures on local authorities are unlikely to ease anytime soon, and the legislation should not be written in such a way that short cuts are taken and the family’s involvement is marginalised to speed things up. That cuts across the spirit of the whole approach, which is the coming together —and, we hope, the strengthening and developing— of a relational network for the good of the child at the centre.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Armstrong. I appreciate having this opportunity to discuss in more detail family group decision-making. I welcome the measures in the Bill that seek to offer families the chance to build solutions together that can secure their children’s welfare and give them agency.
I am pleased that we are seeing support across the House for family group decision-making; that is a very positive start. My interest in supporting these amendments is about ensuring that the process is strong enough to drive and deliver the outcomes that we all want to see, so that children have better outcomes and more can safely stay with families. We have heard about that at length because of the evidence surrounding it.
I declare an interest as the executive chair of the Centre for Young Lives; I also share an office building with foundations of which my noble friend Lady Armstrong is a trustee. My experience with this, and my relationship with those organisations, goes back decades. Over that time, I have been convinced of the benefits of family group conferencing, having spoken to and worked with professionals, families and children who have gone through that process. When I first found out about it, I did not approach it as a professional who knew about that area of practice. Instead, I spoke to family members who found themselves in a situation that was spiralling out of control; they did not feel that they had any agency to provide support for family members. They had come across family group conferencing as something that their local authority had already been testing, and through it they found themselves at the centre of shaping an outcome that was much more favourable to them and their siblings.
With the amendments, we are looking at moving from a decision-making meeting that might fall foul of box-ticking tendencies, to a process that has strength and an understanding of the need for experienced leadership, trained co-ordinators and a wider network beyond the family. Some people might think that that is strange, but we all define our support networks very differently, and our wider networks can have a very strong impact on our life. As has been said, these amendments have a child-centric approach that has, as a default, the need to include children in the process.
My experience with families that have been through this, and indeed with others in the family, is that it has been transformational at a time when families often find themselves without any agency in a process that they feel is going only one way. If you have this as part of the recognised local authority system, it can be understood by families and by professionals. It is not just a whim of the director of children’s services at the time; it can be baked into the wider process of family support. It is of course so important to link this very closely with early intervention.
There are two things I wanted to say in addition. First, this will really strengthen that protection for children. This speaks to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, talked about: most families whose children end up in care are actually in a position of adversity. The Leeds Relational Practice Centre estimates that 90% of children are in care because of family adversity. This speaks to supporting those families, and it is right to do so. Secondly, it is not a soft option. This is challenging work for everyone involved, and the bars are high.
Finally, I too have been speaking to directors of children’s services. Most are very enthusiastic about family group conferencing and completely enthusiastic about the ambitions and intent of the Bill. I have a list of those directors of children’s services, and of the 82% of local authorities who now have family group conferencing as part of what they do. Sometimes, that is done in a small way that can be built upon, but there is a long list of authorities with a huge track record of making this work and the evidence to show that it brings better outcomes for children and families.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 14, already very ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. I want to widen the political breadth of support for the family group decision-making process by strongly offering the Green Party’s support.
Amendment 14 differs from the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which refers just to 16 and 17 year-olds. It is more expansive than the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, in that it stresses the need to make every effort to ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings and give due consideration to them.
However, it is worth noting that all the amendments in this group and the associated amendments reflect, as others have said, briefings from the Children’s Charities Coalition and the Family Rights Group, which are saying, as other noble Lords have said, that the Government are going in the right direction but the Bill needs to be strengthened and made clearer, which is what this amendment and others seek to do.
In backing this amendment, I am reflecting statements I have been making in your Lordships’ House and amendments I have been tabling and signing, going back a considerable distance to the Health and Social Care Act and the Mental Health Bill. They are about listening to children and ensuring they have agency.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to the survey showing that almost three-quarters of children—some 73%—feel that they are not listened to by politicians. We know there is a mental health crisis, particularly among our young people. Psychologists tell us that, as is clear to us from a common-sense perspective, not having a sense of agency or feeling as if you have control or are being listened to is damaging to your mental health.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s report from 2023 raised concerns about the significant barriers to the meaningful engagement of children in decision-making in the UK, particularly the seldom heard and marginalised group of children we are speaking about here, who are likely to be involved in family group decision-making processes. We have to ensure that people are listened to and feel that they have agency. This amendment takes us in the right direction in a constructive way, and I hope we will hear from the Minister that we will at least be taking steps in this direction.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and to have the former Children’s Commissioner in this House. This is a good Bill but, like all Bills, it could be better. I support Amendments 3, 13, 14 and 18.
In 1988, I wrote a report, having been chairman of the Cleveland child abuse inquiry. In my report, I said that children should be listened to. I also said that children were people and not objects of concern. I remember talking as recently as last year to a young person whom nobody had told what was happening to him. He had no idea until he was moved. This is very serious. It is not just that nobody took any notice of what I said; the fact is, everybody else has been saying it. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to the voice of the child. The voice of the child is crucial at all stages of what happens to children.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief indeed. I just remind noble Lords that in considering the first amendment, which went on rather a long time, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is not in her place, talked about children’s rights being the “golden spine running through” the Bill, but that is not explicit in the Bill. Amendment 14, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is a very good example of how we could be promoting children’s rights much more explicitly in the Bill.
I very much support the amendments. I will be introducing amendments myself at the very end—if anyone is still standing at that point. I had hoped to do it at the beginning. The more we can come back to this thread of children’s rights throughout the Bill, the better. I hope noble Lords will realise the importance of the amendments on children’s rights, which will be introduced at the end of the Bill.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 8, to which I have added my name. In this, I declare that I am one of the school of qualified teachers in this Chamber. I am also a kinship carer of twin 13-year-olds.
This is a very small but important amendment. As we have heard, the Bill attaches great importance to family decision-making. I recently had a cup of tea with my noble friend Lord Laming to ask his advice about the Bill. Sadly, he is unable to take part, but if there is one person in the House who is an absolute expert in this field, it is he. His concern—which I share, having been in decision meetings that have gone wrong—is that a badly handled meeting can do more harm than good. The wrong timing of a meeting, the participants not realising the aims or bad chairing can lead to a breakdown of trust and irreparable harm being done to a child’s future. This amendment goes a long way to making sure that the importance of an FGDM meeting is acknowledged, with the fact that it can be facilitated only by an independent, suitably trained person, and I urge the Government to accept it.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which I have co-signed.
Family group conferencing was born out of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 in New Zealand, whereby families became key participants in a process of decision-making. Family group conferences are now used in approximately 30 countries worldwide and in at least 22 countries in Europe. Indeed, research has shown that children whose families were referred to a family group conferencing at the pre-proceedings stage were significantly less likely to be in care 12 months later than those whose families were not so referred. This should not be a surprise to your Lordships, as such preparation and discussions offer a compelling opportunity for families to come together and unite around important decisions for their child, which has the benefit of making that child feel loved and wanted, as well as the ability to address with professionals any glaring gaps in the child’s well-being.
Amendment 3 is a simple amendment that seeks to extend the right to family group decision-making meetings to children aged 16 and 17. It is surely important that we allow children who are on the brink of adulthood to take part in decisions that could materially affect their lives. That would appear to be eminently sensible. At the age of 16, a child can agree to their own care plan, so by that very same logic it is fair and reasonable that they are involved in the family group decision-making process. This is a family-led process and is absolutely essential in keeping children with their families where possible. We should be avoiding at all costs children going into care; that should be the absolute last resort. So, allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to share their voice and their opinions would ensure that this process is as child-focused and effective as it can be. It is essential that family group decision-making is done right, and ensuring that older children are able to contribute would be an extremely positive step in that direction.
I am very pleased to see that I believe this sentiment is shared by the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong, Lady Longfield and Lady Drake, with the amendment tabled in their names. Proposed new subsection (7A)(c) in their Amendment 12 seeks to achieve what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and I are aiming for, and we very much hope there will be cross-party support from other noble Lords on this important foundation stone.
Amendments 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, seek to set out key principles when implementing the family group decision-making process. Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that there is a process that accompanies these meetings. It is important that they are not isolated events but that instead the process is child-led and includes the family throughout.
Amendment 8 is similar in spirit to Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which will be debated later, so I shall only briefly touch on the issues, but we absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, that a trained co-ordinator would prove an excellent addition to the family group decision-making team.
Amendment 9 rightly notes that an essential part of a proposal regarding concerns about a child’s welfare is the implementation of the proposal so that the best outcomes for that child can be put in place.
Amendments 10 and 11 seek to ensure that the parents or those with parental responsibility for the child, rather than the local authority, agree as to who may attend the family group decision-making meeting. It is important that those who know the child ensure that the relevant voices are heard.
Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, with its proposed new clause after Clause 1, aims to ensure that there is proper oversight of the child protection plan if a child under the age of five is subject to care proceedings. It is of critical importance that the matter of the child having been significantly harmed or being at risk of the same is kept in view given the general length of proceedings and the risk of harm during them. Many local authorities discharge the child protection plan and associated formal processes when the proceedings are issued; the child’s care also often moves to the court social work team. Many of these children are living with the parents where the harm, or risk of it, is happening, and this is why they must be protected during proceedings, which run on average for 52 weeks. Their protection and arrangements for formal monitoring must be maintained at all costs. Indeed, the risk to the child might actually be raised during proceedings given the pressure on their parent or parents.
We acknowledge that this amendment has a potentially arbitrary cut-off, but it does cover preschool-age children, who all too often have been the subject of serious case incidents, when the tragedy of a child losing their life or being seriously harmed has occurred. This amendment aims to be the grit in the system that ensures that a senior, fresh pair of eyes looks at such cases to ensure that a child protection plan is not ceased without their approval.
Regarding specific amendments concerning child attendance at these meetings, set out in Amendments 13 and 14, we regret that we do not support proposals that would permit children to attend these meetings. Of course, as we have heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, the voice of the child is crucially important, but we are concerned that the attendance by the child could potentially be traumatising, create a sense of rejection and constrain necessary conversation. This must be child-centric and the child must be heard, but possibly not in these meetings.
Amendment 18 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer seeks to ensure that the changing needs of the child are considered throughout childhood. It is important to recognise the changing family landscape and, as such, this amendment is a sensible one as the “family network” may be able to support the child. If that is possible, the local authority should take action so that the child can benefit from such support as and when it becomes possible.
In conclusion, family group decision-making has tremendous potential to transform outcomes for vulnerable children, but only if we achieve the scope and implementation correctly. We urge careful consideration of these amendments to ensure that this promising approach will deliver on its full potential.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I might say how both interesting and informative I found the contributions on this group of amendments. It is something to be in this House and be able to hear the experiences of those, like my noble friend Lady Armstrong, who has experience as a social worker and a long history of campaigning and policy-making in this area, my noble friend Lady Longfield, who, of course, was an important and impactful Children’s Commissioner, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who just gave us a small exposition of the enormous experience that she has in this area—and many others, as well, who have made important points.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I very much welcome my noble friend’s recognition of the importance of the voice of the child, but the point was made from around the Committee that the principle derives from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. She did not mention children’s rights in the UN convention, so it would be reassuring if she put on the record that she acknowledges that this is an important thread that runs through many of the provisions in the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We recognise that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is an important thread, but that does not necessarily mean that it can be used as a trump card on every future occasion, which I am sure my noble friend would not choose to do. I think I clearly said that the rights and voice of the child have to be absolutely at the heart not only of the Bill but of the way in which it is implemented throughout children’s social care.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I just wonder whether the Minister was referring to my Amendment 17, rather than my Amendment 19, in her response. She talked about not making an assumption that a child would need a child protection plan if they were going into kinship care, which is linked more to Amendment 17. Amendment 19 is about the plan not being dropped for a child under five who is already on a child protection plan and goes into care proceedings. I am very happy for her to pick that up in another group, if we are allowed, but I wonder whether there has been some confusion.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It may be that in part of my response I pre-empted the point that the noble Baroness is making in Amendment 17, but I did recognise the point about Amendment 19, which I think the noble Baroness made, about the process in place to discharge that particular child protection plan. On that, I outlined that we are confident that the current system and the strengthened focus on multiagency child protection are robust and that there is sufficient accountability around discharging child protection plans. If I have not sufficiently reassured the noble Baroness about that, I am willing to write to clarify the points I was trying to make on that amendment.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply, which was very encouraging, as especially was the spirit in which the debate happened. Things seem to have calmed somewhat.
I did not quite get what I wanted, so I will reserve the right to think about it for Report, but I hope we can keep the dialogue going. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Legal Aid Agency: Cybersecurity Incident
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, while the Government Benches may criticise the role of successive Governments in preventing cyberattacks, we must not lose sight of where the true blame lies. The primary responsibility for this deeply troubling incident rests with the malicious individuals who orchestrated it.
This was not merely a digital intrusion; it was a direct assault on some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The data accessed is, in many cases, highly sensitive—it includes medical and other personal records—and the scale and nature of the information compromised over a period, apparently, from 2010, may mark this as one of the more serious data breaches that the Government have suffered in recent years.
Given the gravity of the situation, will the Minister confirm how many individuals have been affected? How are the Government supporting the individuals whose data has been exposed? Is he able to confirm the possible motive and identity of the attackers? Has there, for example, been any form of ransom demand from those who perpetrated this act? We welcome the involvement of the National Crime Agency and the National Cyber Security Centre. Their expertise will be essential. Clearly, it is imperative that those responsible for this breach are held to account and brought to justice.
Significant concerns remain regarding the Government’s handling of this matter. I therefore seek clarity from the Minister on a number of issues. Why were Parliament and the public not informed immediately when the breach was discovered on 23 April? We now understand that the data access may include information dating back to 2010, as I said before, and that over 2 million records may have been compromised. The delay of almost a month before this was made public may have prevented individuals taking timely steps to protect themselves from potential risks. Was there a failure to properly appreciate the seriousness of this breach?
Further, can the Minister update the House on the status of the operational systems that are vital for processing legal aid and payments to legal professionals? If these systems are not fully restored, how can we expect to return to full functionality? It may seem odd to talk about payment of legal aid to lawyers but, of course, those working in the fields of criminal law and family law, which are severely underfunded in many respects, will find the cash flow from the legal fund vital to their continuing activities. It is therefore important that that issue should also be addressed.
We heard in the other place that the Government believe that the incident has been contained. How did the Government arrive at that conclusion, and could the Minister explain to the House what is meant by “contained”? Will he confirm whether the Ministry of Justice has conducted or intends to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of its wider digital infrastructure? Will similar assessments be made in other departments to safeguard against future vulnerabilities?
I also ask the Minister to ensure that Parliament receives regular and transparent updates as the investigation progresses. It is critical that we and members of the public should be informed clearly and promptly about the consequences of this breach and how it is being addressed. The breach itself represents a significant failure in the protection of our justice system’s digital infrastructure. That is liable to undermine public trust and raises serious concerns about data security and transparency, so I ask the Government to respond with urgency and openness to this issue.
Finally, I will raise a question about the devolved Administrations. For example, Scotland has its own legal aid structure, as, I believe, Northern Ireland does also, but those structures in turn depend on data from the United Kingdom—for example, access to social security data. Have they been impacted by this event? If so, what liaison has there been with the devolved Administrations to try to minimise the difficulties that they may have been caused by this data breach? I am obliged.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this cyberattack and its result have exposed the lamentable insecurity of the Legal Aid Agency data systems. The ramifications are serious. The personal information that goes into legal aid applications and is held by legal aid providers includes much highly confidential material, which can be used by criminals not just to embarrass but to defraud and, in some cases, harass applicants for legal aid. We are told that the attackers in this case accessed residential addresses, contact details, dates of birth, and employment and financial data—indeed, much of the material that identity checkers seek and criminals could profit from. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, said, it appears to have affected 2 million items of data and legal aid applications going back as far as 2010. In addition, as became clear in the House of Commons, that information would have included sensitive medical information. Indeed, that must be right, because many applicants for legal aid would include such information with their applications. Can the Minister say whether there are plans to establish a dedicated helpline or other support systems, and if so what support systems, for individuals who may seek advice or protection in the light of this attack?
Of course, our first condemnation is for the callous criminality of the attackers, whose actions exposed so many vulnerable individuals to risk. These cyberattacks appear, according to the Minister in the other place, to have come from organised crime. It would be helpful for the Minister, so far as possible and without jeopardising security, to give an account to the House of what steps the Ministry of Justice takes routinely and has taken in the light of this case to protect the data of those seeking to access legal aid.
This question is similar to one asked by the noble and learned Lord: will the MoJ carry out a full independent inquiry into this attack, and what can be done to restore public confidence in its future cybersecurity arrangements? We understand the need for the Legal Aid Agency’s systems to go offline in the short term, as they have, but can the Government say how long the shutdown of online services is likely to last and how far the legal aid system will be impacted through delays and in reduced ability to deal with its workload?
We should not underestimate the degree to which the MoJ’s IT systems are antiquated, inefficient, insecure and, frankly, unfit for purpose. We on these Benches agree that that results from a neglect of the system over years under the preceding Administration. As the Statement rightly points out, the Law Society has been complaining for years about the outdatedness of our legal aid IT systems. The £20 million promised for updating the agency’s systems will help. However, regrettably, I worry that there is some complacency about the sentence in the Statement that reads:
“At this stage, we believe that the breach is contained to the Legal Aid Agency’s systems; there are no indications that other parts of the justice system have been impacted”.
Can the Minister say whether the Government will now institute a survey of current IT systems across the department to consider their security? Will the department also institute a system of regular cybersecurity audits for the future, to ensure robust defence of its digital systems and to prevent recurrence of this breach?
More widely, this event should act as a wake-up call for government as a whole to investigate how far its IT systems can provide the public with a high standard of data security. We hope that the promised cybersecurity and resilience Bill will bring some improvement, but we will not keep citizens’ data secure without investing the necessary resources. The reality is that we are working with old and inefficient systems that, frankly, grow creakier and creakier, just as the ingenuity and criminality of the potential attackers becomes ever more sophisticated, not least as the value of personal data rises and the potential for its abuse becomes ever greater.
The Statement rightly reminds us that every organisation is at risk from this kind of criminal behaviour and government is not exempt. As a vital part of the social compact, it is a responsibility of government to keep the personal data it holds on individuals secure. If government fails to live up to that responsibility, it rightly forfeits public trust and we concerned are to know, from the Government, how they intend to retain that trust.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
I thank both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord for their questions. I will endeavour to answer them as fully as I can. I say at the outset that I share their sense of concern about this breach. It is undoubtedly very serious—one of the more serious ones that have happened to Governments in recent years. I agree, of course, with the point that the noble and learned Lord made, that the primary responsibility is with the criminals who themselves undertook this hacking of the LAF systems.
I want to check and correct one point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. He spoke about medical records. As far as we are aware, there are no medical records contained within this system. There is other information available, which is, of course, a great cause for concern, but there are no medical records that we are aware of.
The noble and learned Lord asked when Ministers were first made aware of this breach. The departmental staff stood up an immediate operational response upon being made aware and ministerial colleagues and I have been updated throughout. There is a cross-departmental response under way. But it is fair to say that the seriousness of the breach became evident only some time after we were made aware of the initial breach. It was when the situation worsened that it was decided to put the information in the public domain and report the incident to Parliament.
Noble Lords asked how many people have been affected. We have not put forward a number as such. However, they are right to say that we are talking about all the data going back to 2010. That is many thousands of people. The nature of the data is, indeed, personal and people need to take remedial action if they have had interactions with the Legal Aid Agency to make sure that their data is not compromised. So, if people try to contact them on numbers they do not recognise and so forth, they need to be suspicious and careful.
Another central question was about what the Government are advising people to do if they think they may be victims of this theft of data. The primary port of contact will be the providers themselves—the lawyers and barristers who have been using the Legal Aid Agency. They will be in a better position to advise the people who may be victims. However, if we are made aware of individual people who are particularly vulnerable, the MoJ or the Legal Aid Agency will also endeavour to contact them directly. But the primary source of information will be from the providers themselves.
The noble and learned Lord asked me to comment on the nature of the attack. I cannot do that because there is a criminal investigation under way. I will not comment or speculate on the motive either.
Both noble Lords asked about the current operational system. The current system is offline. We hope to get it online as soon as possible, but I am not in a position to give any commitment on that front. I can say that there are systems in place to ensure that the providers themselves will get paid, so that they can continue to work, but it will be a reduced method of payment. I do not mean that the amount of money is less but there will be less systemisation within the payment, if I may put it like that. Nevertheless, the payments will be made in the immediate future.
I reassure noble Lords that all the various government agencies have been informed about this. There is an ongoing risk assessment and there will be an update to Parliament when appropriate.
I can also tell the noble and learned Lord that the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Scotland have been informed and are well aware of this. Although, as he rightly observed, they have stand-alone systems, there is overlap between the two systems. So, although their own systems will not be affected by this, it may be that they will have more restricted access to data from the Legal Aid Agency, which covers England and Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, asked about a full independent inquiry. I cannot make that commitment, but I can absolutely say that this is being taken extremely seriously across government. There has been a review of systems in other parts of government and, as far as we know, there are no similar hacking attacks in other parts of government, although of course one should not be complacent about these things. I am absolutely sure that these reviews of the other systems will be ongoing, just to check that no future hacks become apparent.
I do not think it is fair for the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to say that there was a degree of complacency in the statement that we believe the breach is contained; that is an honestly held belief. The many professionals involved in containing this particular breach, but also looking across government, are very acutely aware of how systems need to be updated and kept under review, and there needs to be investment. The noble Lord mentioned the sum of money the Government are going to invest, but it is worth repeating the point made by my honourable friend Sarah Sackman that this breach came to light only because of the extra money we are currently putting into the system. It would not have come to light without that additional investment. But, of course, we want to go further, and we need to go further to make sure that the systems are updated as far as possible.
I do not want to make the obvious political points about the legacy systems. I think we all understand the position we are in. Nevertheless, this is a serious matter, we are not at the end of the road yet and I absolutely undertake that we will keep Parliament informed as the situation develops.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
“(1A) A family group decision-making meeting must be offered by the relevant local authority when a family is going through private law proceedings.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to reduce the conflict in private law proceedings by offering a family group decision making meeting, allow other family members to support the child as well as to identify where there are significant safeguarding risks to the child/children. It seeks to strengthen the intention that mediation and reconciliation out of court are better for the child.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 4, 6 and 17, which are in my name. They present a more ambitious use of family group decision-making processes. I am keen to understand whether the Government have considered these at all and, if so, why on balance they were excluded from the Bill. If they have not considered them, perhaps there is room to reconsider. For many children, being able to live with another family member, even if they still require support, is a better outcome that going into stranger foster care or a children’s home. This group aims to test the Government’s appetite to expand the scope of family group decision-making further.
Amendment 4 would extend family group decision-making process to private law cases, which is something the noble Lord, Lord Meston, questioned in his earlier remarks. I think the Minister will be aware that this was raised as a recommendation in evidence in the Public Bill Committee in the other place by the chief executive of Cafcass. Two-thirds of Cafcass cases are private law proceedings. The Minister knows just how acrimonious these can be; indeed, we heard about that from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. That includes, of course, cases of domestic violence and abuse.
My amendment would move these cases into scope. I understand that this would extend the scope of family group decision-making significantly and there are resourcing implications, but I would like to understand the Government’s logic in using this approach with some cases with material safeguarding concerns but not others that share many of the same characteristics about the risks posed to children. We know that, tragically, a number of child deaths have happened after family proceedings rather than proceedings in public law or child protection.
I have not put down a specific amendment on this point, but, in a similar spirit, I wondered what consideration the Government have given to a situation where a Section 7 welfare report is requested by the court. As the Minister will know, a Section 7 report is a court-order document, prepared under Section 7 of the Children Act 1989, and is ordered when parents cannot agree on arrangements for their children’s care, usually only if there are any aspects of the children’s welfare that require further investigation. My question is: could this also be an area where family group decision-making might apply? If the Government have not considered these options, can the Minister, as a minimum, commit to considering them and working out the practical implications? This is exactly the kind of situation where the wider family could help but where the involvement of child protection professionals is needed.
I am optimistic—although my optimism might be waning—that the Minister might look favourably on my Amendment 6, because it makes so much sense for children. It addresses another current gap, when a child is reunited with their parents after a period of being in care. Reunification is the most common way for children to leave care, with 27% of those leaving care returning home in 2022-23. However, the number of children who then re-enter the care system is far too high, with 12% of those children re-entering within three months and more than a third within six years. Of course, we all want reunification to have the best chance of success. The statistics on those breakdowns are pretty stark, but the human cost for those children is far starker.
Finally, my Amendment 17, which I think the noble Baroness was starting to talk about on an earlier group—but maybe not—seeks to give a continuing role to the local authority in safeguarding a child in kinship care. With this amendment, I seek to probe what safeguards are in place around kinship care. So, if I have understood correctly, if the public law outline for care proceedings has started or the child has been made subject to a child protection plan—both of which would be the case when a family group decision-making process starts, as per this legislation—the significant harm threshold has been met. New carers may not be able to address all the risks that a child faces; they may well be the right place for that child to be, but they might need additional support.
For example, from my work prior to coming into your Lordships’ House, I know of a number of cases where a child’s parents coerced the kinship carer into allowing them to have unsupervised contact with their children—which we can all understand, on a human level, may be very hard to resist. I appreciate that this is a very delicate balance that needs to be struck, but this amendment aims to give the local authority the ability, where needed, to create something like a kinship protection plan, rather than a child protection plan, until it is confident that the arrangements are safe and in the child’s best interests, or until a child arrangement order or special guardianship order is made by the family court. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on these amendments, which would significantly improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, unusually, I entirely disagree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has put forward by way of an amendment. It is not just overambitious—in my view, it is plainly wrong, for two reasons.
Although there is—thank goodness—a minority of almost insoluble family cases, there are other ways in which to deal with mediation. Some of the work, although not all of them do, and I do not think that a local authority should interfere in private law cases. Perhaps more importantly, there is a brilliant system started by the then Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, and the present President of the Family Division; I think it is called Pathfinder, but I am not entirely sure. It has been rolled out in four places. When a family starts contentious divorce proceedings, all those involved with the family—the local authority specifically, Cafcass, the police, local health people and anybody else who may be involved with the family—meet to decide whether it is a domestic abuse case, in which case it goes through a longer channel, or a case in which the parties are behaving properly but cannot agree.
In the majority of cases, as the President of the Family Division has told me—he also gave evidence to one of the Select Committees in the House of Commons on this, perhaps the Home Affairs Committee—he or other family judges get rid of the case within two hours; they are completed. It would be unnecessary and unsuitable to have a family meeting of the sort proposed. There are real dangers to it in the other cases, particularly since there are other systems. So unusually, as I very often agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on this occasion I think that she is wrong and very much hope that the Government take no notice of her amendment.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I, instead, speak in support of Amendment 6. As we have heard, reunification is the most common way for children to leave care but, sadly, the number of children who re-enter the system remains far too high, as many reunifications break down due to lack of support. There is currently no strategy by which to support reunifying families, and 78% of local authorities admit that the support that they provide is inadequate.
A breakdown in reunification not only is tragic for the children and families involved but costs the Government around £320 million annually. Action for Children estimates that the cost of providing family decision-making support to meet the costs of all reunifying families across England would result in significant cost savings of a potential £250 million.
On the basis that this is accepted and viewed as a positive step among professionals, should be in the best interests of care for children leaving school and, finally, has the potential to provide cost savings to the Government, which could be recycled into the system, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on including in the Bill a duty to offer family group decision-making during reunification.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this was a very reasonable sounding amendment, then the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, took a sledgehammer to it. Will the Minister give us a little guidance on the Government’s thinking on this? When people with experience on both sides are talking it is best that we hear the whole thing, but I will be very interested in what the Government say because if the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—probably our biggest expert in the Chamber—says there is something wrong, I would be very inclined to listen to her. But, as I said, it was a reasonable sounding discussion that brought it forward.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I have already expressed my views on Amendment 4, but I think I need to emphasise, particularly as my noble and learned friend has just made the same point, that I think it is unrealistic and unnecessary for private law cases. Many disputes resolved in private law cases are minor and concern perfectly manageable—I will not say “trivial”—problems over contact arrangements and so forth. That cannot justify a family group meeting.
In any event, as my noble and learned friend has said, the existing mechanisms are already well tuned to dealing with disputes. Cafcass gets involved at an early stage; there is what is called a safeguarding report; and if the dispute does not go away, Cafcass produces a Section 7 report. Along the way, there is a dispute resolution hearing in front of the judge, and noble Lords can take it from me that the judge applies a fair amount of pressure to resolve the matter and to explore the realities of settling the case, which quite often involves exploring what can be done with the wider family. Of course, the wider family may have the time and the resources that the parents lack and help sort it out, but it does not really need a meeting; it just needs someone getting the parties in a room in the court with the Cafcass officer to sort out the practical realities of where things are going. I wish to emphasise that I do not think that Amendment 4 will assist.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
I recognise that the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is to test the extent to which family group decision-making can be used in other circumstances. I think it is a tribute to the significance and efficacy of family group decision-making that people are so keen to test where else it can be used in the process. I will respond to the two examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has identified and then address Amendment 17.
As we have heard, Amendment 4 would extend family group decision-making and, I have to say, was ably opposed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I appreciate the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in seeking to ensure that as many families as possible are offered the opportunity of family group decision-making, including those outside of public law proceedings. The Government recognise the importance of supporting families in private law proceedings. We want to help families resolve their issues quickly and without coming to court. That is why there are already requirements and processes—one of which the noble and learned Baroness talked about—that support families at this point. There is already a requirement, for example, that anyone wishing to make a private family law application must attend a mediation information and assessment meeting to discuss options to resolve their issue outside court, through mediation or other means. The Government also fund the family mediation voucher scheme, providing families £500 towards the cost of mediation. This scheme has helped nearly 40,000 separating parents. The noble and learned Baroness talked about other alternatives as well.
On the Section 7 welfare report, the explanation was ably given by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but my understanding is that, as a welfare report, it can be requested by the court in any family proceedings where there are concerns about the welfare of a child. It is mostly done in private court proceedings, by the local authority if it is involved or by Cafcass if not. I am not convinced, for many of the reasons we have talked about, that this would be an appropriate point to mandate a family group decision-making meeting. I hope the noble Baroness is reassured about the other routes for supporting families in these cases.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their comments on this group. Obviously, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have day-to-day experience of this area. This amendment was raised in Committee in the other place, and I will read briefly from the oral evidence given by the chief executive of Cafcass:
“We see 140,000 children through proceedings every year. The Bill tends to focus on those who are in public law proceedings. Two thirds of the children we work with are in private law proceedings, where there are family disputes about who children spend their time with and where they live. Very often, those children are in families where conflict is very intense. There are risks to them; there is domestic abuse. The Bill is silent on children in private law proceedings, and I think there is an opportunity for that to be different”.
This is a real concern. Maybe there are different ways of approaching it, but the concern about harm to a minority of children in private law proceedings is a valid one.
On Amendment 6, my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park put it extremely well when she said that this is a relatively small and discrete group. The work has been done on what it would cost to offer this. I hear what the Minister said, and I probably often said similar things when I was on the other side of the House. However, the fact that it is not mandated in a world where resources are understandably tight risks it not happening. If we really are going to focus on such things in the Bill, this is a small group, and this amendment could make a real difference to the stability of their return home. I hope the Minister might think on it a little bit more.
To be clear about Amendment 17, we were not assuming that the local authority would need to have a child protection plan for a child in kinship care, but, again, in real life we hear that it is difficult for the local authority to get right the balance between keeping eyes on the child to make sure that everything is okay, and supporting the family without being overly intrusive and behaving like the heavy hand of the state. It is a real issue that practitioners are worried about, so I hope that, together with colleagues in the department, the Minister will consider it some more. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Earl of Effingham
“(1A) The family group decision-making meeting, or meetings, must follow an evidence based approach including the appointment of an independent and suitably trained coordinator, including in relation to domestic abuse.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that family group decision-making meetings follow an evidence based approach.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to Amendment 5 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who has considerable experience in this subject. It is similar in purpose to Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 11, and we need to follow key principles to make sure that the family group decision-making model is implemented effectively. The LGA said in its written evidence to the Bill Committee in the other place:
“It would be helpful to make clear in guidance the elements of the model that make it particularly effective so that these can be built on locally”.
As we have heard from other noble Lords, the Family Rights Group is very experienced in this area, and there is considerable evaluation and evidence which needs to be followed, so that the meetings are seen as safe and trusted by families and do not inadvertently become seen as heavy-handed state intervention. I would be grateful if the Minister reassured the Committee about how cases involving domestic abuse will be handled, since there is clearly the potential for coercion of the adult victim and other family members.
The other issues have been picked up by the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong and Lady Longfield, such as the importance of having an independent co-ordinator who receives proper training. We should not underestimate how skilful a job this is.
The Family Rights Group has been clear that there needs to be private family time, and the meetings must avoid introducing any ambiguity into the local authority role. They need clarity to help families make decisions to provide care and support.
We look forward to the contributions from all noble Lords. I beg to move.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran because I am also deeply concerned that children benefit from the right level of expertise in the family group decision-making process. I have already mentioned Eileen Munro’s commentary on the Government’s reforms in the Times yesterday, where she warns against the shifting
“of child protection responsibilities to less-qualified family help workers. Although they offer support, many are not trained to detect hidden abuse such as psychological harm or coercive control. Supervision by overstretched social workers is no substitute for expertise, especially with workforce shortages and rising caseloads”.
These comments, although focused on a different part of the child safeguarding system, also seem highly relevant here. Bringing together family members and others who are important in the life of a child means engaging with a family system that can be highly complex.
Many here will remember the case of Shannon Matthews from West Yorkshire, a few months after the huge publicity following the tragic disappearance of Madeleine McCann. In February 2008, nine year-old Shannon was reported missing. She was eventually found in a house belonging to an uncle of the boyfriend of the kidnapped girl’s mother. The kidnapping was planned by Shannon’s mother and her boyfriend to generate money from the publicity and the sizeable reward, which her mother planned to split with the uncle when he “found” Shannon and took her to a police station.
Perhaps noble Lords are already very confused about these family arrangements, and there is no doubt that the protagonists at the centre of this case were highly unusual. I am not sure whether Shannon’s mother would have been offered a family group conference, not least because of the involvement of other family members in the crime.
When the police initially investigated Shannon’s disappearance, they had to look first at the extended family. What they found was such a complex web of interrelationships, such as children of different fathers in the same family and the same fathers in different families, that they described Shannon’s extended family tree as a bramble genealogy.
To reiterate, this was a highly unusual case, but it illustrates that kin altruism cannot be assumed. Those with a biological relationship to a child may not be committed to a child or be best placed to discuss the sensitive issues inherent in family group decision-making. The Bill already and quite rightly gives the local authority discretion not to offer family group decision-making in extreme cases, but even in dark family situations, very often there will be responsible, kind, dedicated family members who want to act in the child’s best interests. However, there will also surely be many times when it is not clear where family dysfunction begins and ends.
Those involved as family group decision-making co-ordinators must, as my noble friend’s amendment says, be independent, trained and experienced. They need to be able to spot signs of potential psychological harm or coercive control. They are a key last line of defence against future harm coming to vulnerable and traumatised children.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 5 in the names of my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Farmer. I hope the Minister will agree that this is a sensible amendment aimed at ensuring that all families who need it have access to a family group decision-making meeting that is underpinned by strong evidence that it works, without being overly prescriptive.
Family group decision-making is a broad, generic term without clear principles and standards about what families can expect, and there is concern among charities and organisations supporting vulnerable children on the ground that approaches unsupported by evidence may proliferate at a local level as a result of the current drafting of the Bill.
In its briefing on the Bill, the Family Rights Group says that it is
“already seeing evidence of local authorities claiming to use such approaches, including reference to ‘family-led decision making’ to describe meetings which are led by professionals and where family involvement is minimal”.
It also points to the experience of Scotland, where a failure to be more specific and clearer in legislation about what FGDM should be offered has resulted, 10 years after it was enacted, in a third of local authorities still having no actual offer. Obviously, none of us wants to see that, and it is clearly not the intention of the Government in bringing forward this new duty on local authorities.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we very much believe that there should be an independent and suitably trained person; that is really important to us. We also appreciate that if this amendment were agreed—I do not know the timescale of training people up—there might have to be some transitional arrangements. It slightly jars with me that the party adjacent to me does not necessarily believe that teachers should be fully qualified—you can have unqualified teachers—but on this issue it wants a suitably trained person. In any situation where young people are involved, it is important that the person who is training or teaching is qualified and has the right skills.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment. Clearly, the family decision-making groups are extremely important, and we are discovering them rather late in the day. I could have said this on any of the other amendments involving family groups, but this one particularly caught my eye because of the emphasis on an evidence-based approach. The Scottish Government have had this for nearly 10 years, which gives us a tremendous opportunity to learn from the successes and failures they have experienced over that time. How much contact has the Minister had with her Scottish colleagues to learn from the best and the worst, and what has she taken from that to put into this Bill?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The fifth group we are debating comprises only one amendment, but we have had some useful contributions. However, quite a few of the arguments that I would make in response to this group were those that I made earlier in response to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Armstrong on the need for evidence-based practice and on the use of proven approaches such as that of family group conferencing. I will repeat some of the points I made and respond to some of the particular issues that have arisen.
On the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, I do not know the extent to which we have reviewed the experience in Scotland, but as we discussed earlier, we have looked extremely carefully at the research carried out by Foundations that we talked about earlier and the recommendations and approach that it brought forward.
I agree with the intention behind this amendment that we should ensure that family group decision-making follows an evidence-based approach and is co-ordinated by trained facilitators. That is very important, and I liked the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on this point about qualifications, and in this particular context he has identified a little discrepancy in the position of some noble Lords opposite.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, refers to the LGA saying that it thought that we should make it clear in guidance what that evidenced-based approach is. I wholly agree with him and the LGA, and that is why we will use statutory guidance to set out clear principles of practice, building on the evidence from successful models, such as the family group conference approach, to ensure that all families are offered quality family group decision-making. That includes people being trained to do it.
On the point about independent co-ordination, I made the point earlier that while I think that in the vast majority of cases it is right that there is independent facilitation, there might be circumstances where the family want the process to be run by a social worker who is somebody they have a very strong ongoing relationship with.
On the point about private family time, it is obviously an important potential part of the process that the family have the opportunity together, with appropriate preparation, to consider what would be appropriate for them, but here as well there could be circumstances—the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, referred to the issue of domestic abuse, for example—in which it would not be appropriate to leave only the family to lead that decision-making if there were fears that there was a dynamic within the family that perhaps made it important for there to be somebody else as part of that process. I think people could envisage a situation in which that happened.
This is not to say—I think this charge was made earlier —that the Government take a laissez-faire approach to the way in which family group decision-making is developed. We do not want to see a thousand flowers bloom, as was suggested by my noble friend Lady Armstrong earlier on; we want to see the right evidenced-based flowers blooming. In order to make sure that is the case, we will be very clear in the statutory guidance about the approach that needs to be taken when organising family group decision-making. I hope I was clear about that earlier on.
There is also a need to ensure that suitable people and resources are there, and that is why the Government have committed to an uplift of £13 million for the children’s social care prevention grant for 2025-26, which will be used to support the rollout of family group decision-making across the country for all families on the edge of care, including for recruiting or training extra staff to facilitate that process. On the basis of those assurances, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It is important for all these children that we do everything we can to make sure that these processes can be implemented successfully, and ensuring that an evidence-based approach is followed is a key part of this. I briefly flag in particular the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who said that this is a key last line of defence. It is extremely regrettable that we cannot fix all the problems—there will be issues that get through the net—and that is exactly why we need a key last line of defence to help with those problems.
I will also briefly flag the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. They absolutely correctly pointed out that the evidence from Scotland is that the execution of the plan is critical, and an evidence-based approach is crucial. We would be well advised to learn from the experience of what has been taking place over the past 10 years and, I hope, take all the positives and learn from the negatives. On that basis, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran.
Lord Hampton
“(2) In subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraph (a) in the definition of “relevant agency”;(b) at the end of the definition of “safeguarding partner”, insert—“(d) those relevant agencies which are designated childcare or education agencies.”.(3) For the purposes of this section, a relevant agency is a “designated childcare or education agency” if it—(a) has functions relating to the provision of childcare or education (or both), and(b) is designated as such by regulations made by the Secretary of State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to expand the definition of safeguarding partner to include all “designated childcare and education agencies” by default. It also seeks to remove the requirement that “relevant agencies” are designated by the Secretary of State.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 24 in my name, for which I am indebted to Action for Children and the Children’s Charities Coalition for their support, and to the more technical Amendments 20 and 25; I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bichard for drafting them with the Public Bill Office, while I sat there looking rather bewildered. Unfortunately, he has had to catch the last home to Gloucester, so he cannot be here.
Education settings can and often do play a vital role in safeguarding. This applies from early years to FE colleges, but is particularly important in primary and secondary schools. Including education as the fourth statutory safeguarding partner has been called for repeatedly in recent years, including by the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care and the 2022 reviews into the deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson.
The question of education’s role in safeguarding was part of the consultation for the latest version of Working Together, the Government’s response to which was published in December 2023. There was very strong support across the children’s sector for this being implemented. The DfE response noted that, of 978 respondents, 69% agreed or strongly agreed that education being a statutory safeguarding partner was essential for effective local collaboration. However, the DfE noted at the time that any formalisation of education’s role through statutory guidance could happen only following legislative change. The Government committed in early 2024 to setting out a timetable for doing this, including a specific consultation on whether and how to make it work, but it was derailed by the election.
Education playing a full role as a safeguarding partner is a long-standing policy goal for many children’s charities. It was a key recommendation in the Jay review of criminally exploited children, published by Action for Children in 2024, as it was a strong theme in both the oral and written evidence submitted to the review. It was also a recommendation in Above and Beyond, Action for Children’s report on schools’ role in supporting disadvantaged children.
The difference between the amendments is whether the responsibility is given to the Secretary of State or given by default. To quote the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, please look at the intent rather than the drafting. Either way, they endeavour to make education a powerful partner in safeguarding: exactly how it should be. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
I support the amendment and will not add more to the case put forward by Action for Children, although I am grateful for its input and for that of my team at Centre for Young Lives. Schools and colleges are the public bodies and the people who often know children and young people best. They can see most children every day, and they will see where there are changes to children’s lives; they will know when things are tough at home; and many will intervene to do what they can about that. They will often provide family support: increasingly, food banks, sometimes laundries and, increasingly and very relevant to this Bill, breakfasts.
Schools and colleges will actively assess children’s well-being and regularly refer children for mental health support. They will know when children are not in school and when they are of concern. They also know the local context and any concerns locally around exploitation, drugs, county lines and the like. The pastoral teams in schools are the eyes and ears, as are youth workers and family support workers: they will all have specialist knowledge about those children and young people. We saw that, in particular, during the pandemic, when schools came to the forefront in community support and safeguarding and were recognised for their protective factor, especially for those children who were not in school. They have vital information to identify safeguarding needs and will often be very involved in supporting children and young people to keep them safe when necessary.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to my Amendments, 21, 22 and 23. First, because these three amendments are explicitly focused on family hubs, I declare my interest as a guarantor of FHN Holding, the not-for-profit owner of the Family Hubs Network Ltd.
These amendments are probing because, as I have said previously today, I am interested in hearing how committed this Government are to local preventive family support in every community. More importantly, dedicated teams in local authorities and their partnership organisations up and down the country also need to know what they can expect. Including this infrastructure in safeguarding arrangements makes complete sense because, as I said in my explanatory statement, family hubs support families as the primary means by which children are safeguarded. This can easily be forgotten when we talk about who has responsibility to keep children safe.
This is also important in the wider discussion of the Government’s social care reforms: how do the Government see the role of family hubs in the landscape of the more preventive, early-intervention approach which I support? Families need to experience non-stigmatising and seamless support. Family support staff, perinatal clinicians, mental health professionals, even mediators around the time of couple separation: any professional based in the hub can spot problems early that might need bringing to the attention of social services. This is presumably how schools and childcare agencies will function in their safeguarding arrangements.
Families’ engagement with social workers, even in quite complex interventions, can take place in family hubs or in the wider family support network of buildings and organisations connected to those hubs. When social workers begin to see progress in these families, it is vital that there is ongoing support and lower-level input, including from volunteers in the community, and that they are not just left to flounder.
Active prevention of cycles repeating themselves can also happen by stepping the family back down into what I will loosely call family help. This was how the Isle of Wight came to pioneer family hubs. Its social services were taken into special measures because so many children were not receiving the assessments that they needed, because social workers were so deluged by actual cases. Hampshire County Council, the overseeing council drawn in to help it reform, was very impressed by this solution. Early intervention hubs, also known as family hubs, were set up within existing budgets to help hold families waiting for social services assessments, so risk was managed. They also prevented many families coming to the point when an assessment was deemed necessary: when a child was returned to a family or the parents had received social work help so that their child dropped below the threshold of need, they were stepped down into family hubs. None of this could have happened unless these family hubs were operating skilfully in safeguarding.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, we should pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, in his promotion of family hubs. They are places where families can be offered a range of services and integrated support and information. In my assessment, they have transformed the picture of family law and family practice. They are increasingly widespread and have an important role in the modern functioning of childcare. To that extent, I support the noble Lord’s amendments.
I have a boring technical legal point. A hub is a place, not a person, which uses volunteers and community workers, as well as professionals. If the noble Lord’s Amendment 21 were to be accepted, we would need some clarity on who exactly, under the legislation, would have responsibility on behalf of the hub.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, before addressing the amendments in my name in this group, I echo the appreciation expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for my noble friend Lord Farmer’s tireless work on family hubs. It is fantastic to hear that they are making a real difference on the ground.
My Amendment 26 seeks to find a way through the difficulty in the degree of statutory involvement—the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is not going to like my language—of education and childcare agencies in safeguarding. It requires the Secretary of State to produce a report to Parliament two years after the implementation of the clause which sets out the impact on the resources and costs for education and childcare agencies from their new duties. It could look more widely at the impact on safeguarding and whether there is a need to follow the recommendations of many of the children’s charities and the Children’s Commissioner in making it a full statutory safeguarding partner.
Page 34 of the Government’s impact assessment is studiously vague. It talks about
“possible costs and time implications on LAs to set up new infrastructure”
and
“time implications on some education leaders to engage with systems that they may not have previously been involved in”.
I am not sure how these impact assessments get written, but this feels like it is bordering on the naive. Of course, there will be direct costs for schools and childcare agencies, in both time and money, and we need to understand the extent of them. My amendment seeks to achieve this.
We need to know what this approach will mean in practice for education and childcare agencies, which already have considerable safeguarding duties. Presumably, they will need to put in additional processes and checks; if this is just making the status quo statutory, I do not really understand why it is necessary. Perhaps the Minister could explain in her closing remarks.
My Amendments 27 and 28 are probing amendments, again trying to find out the Government’s thinking on how this will work in practice. The hesitation on the part of the Government in this area, which I think is reasonable, reflects the difficulty in implementation, given the number of organisations involved in education and childcare. My amendment suggests that it would help to have a single point of contact both within the local authority and within the education and childcare sector. Can the Minister confirm whether the assumption is that education and childcare providers can all contact the LADO in their local authority with any safeguarding concerns, and is she confident that the LADOs around the country will have capacity for this? Similarly, is the local authority expected to contact every organisation directly, or is there a role for a single point of contact who could perhaps advise on general queries?
Finally, I have given notice that I intend to oppose the proposition that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. To be clear, unlike some of my other clause stand part notices, this is purely probing. The policy summary produced by the DfE states:
“These arrangements enable education and childcare agencies to have representation”—
this is my emphasis, not that of the policy summary—
“at both the operational and strategic decision-making levels of these safeguarding arrangements”.
The summary continues:
“Practically, this may look like including the breadth of education settings: from early years and childcare to schools including academies, independent schools, alternative provision and further education in operational safeguarding boards, and”—
again, this is my emphasis—
“having representation for their views at executive boards so that they can influence decisions being made about safeguarding in their local area”.
Interestingly, there is no mention of special schools in that list. I am not clear why, because I would have thought that safeguarding would be a particular priority. I think we all have a sense of what this looks like at an operational level, but the policy summary talks about involvement at a strategic level. Will the Minister explain who is going to be able to represent all agencies in an area, what representation of their views at executive boards will look like in real life, and how this will be resourced? Clause 2 is an area where there is broad support for the Government’s approach, but we need more clarity on how they intend to implement these duties and how they will be funded.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has done us a favour by bringing the education organisation into this. It has the most contact, and it is a logical point. I cannot fault him on that. I also had a great deal of fellow feeling when he described his experience of watching the appropriate amendment being concocted. The idea of sitting there looking puppy-like and saying, “Please, this is what I’m trying to say. Will you help?” is something I think we can all empathise with at some point in the Bill.
It sounds eminently sensible that, where you are seeing a young person outside the family and very regularly, that fits the logic and the approach here. As for family hubs, yes, they are good things—they remind me a bit of Sure Start but, hey, that is history. If we are going through the other technical amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran—who, let us face it, we all know knows her way around the system and the department—it would be interesting to see the technical answers to those, because it will definitely colour the way this discussion takes place in later stages.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran. These proposals are clearly well intentioned but there are reasons why this has not been done before, and her desire to explore how these amendments are intended to work is absolutely right.
Just to put it in context, in a typical local authority, there are 400 or 500 schools and nurseries. This goes beyond anything that can reasonably be characterised as a “partnership”. So, how will it work? How much capacity will it absorb in each of those? What will it add?
The core documents that all these providers must work with in keeping children safe in education and working together, get bigger and bigger each year. Many schools and childcare providers are close to the limit of complexity that they can manage.
I should have declared an interest at the outset, as a former chief inspector of Ofsted.
Most schools that fall down on safeguarding at inspection are small—typically primaries, often standalone primaries, and special schools. The vast majority take safeguarding seriously but some are struggling with the complexity. We need to be very sure about layering on safeguarding partnership responsibilities and, later in the Bill, corporate parenting duties, on top of all the existing duties. It may not add anything to safeguarding and, in some cases, could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and drives good staff out, or forces early years providers to close.
Generally, layers of duties that make everyone responsible tend to blur who has the primary responsibility in any given situation. There will be the greatest value in these provisions if they work to achieve maximum simplicity and clarity, so that they are workable in the hands of normal, well-intentioned people.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after such knowledgeable contributions from all noble Lords. It is fair to say that all the amendments in this group are wrestling with the same issues, which have been raised by the Children’s Commissioner and by the independent review into child social care, led by the honourable member for Whitehaven and Workington.
We want to include education and childcare agencies in safeguarding arrangements. Indeed, schools already play a huge part in this area and make a significant percentage of safeguarding referrals where they have concerns about a child. But in practice it is hard, because of the number of organisations and their differing size and capacity.
We have heard from all sides on this, with many calling for full statutory partner status for education and childcare—such as in Amendment 24 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield—while others are worried about workability. We fear that we may err on the side of caution regarding how full statutory partner status could work in practice, although we will of course reflect on the points made by all noble Lords.
We support the aims of Amendments 21 to 23 from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who has such a depth of experience and understanding of these areas in general and of family hubs in particular. Amendments 20 and 25, from the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Bichard, aspire to have an inclusive and non-bureaucratic approach to these arrangements. Naturally, we fully support Amendments 26 to 28, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, everybody who has contributed to this group has recognised that education and childcare are fundamental at all levels of safeguarding arrangements. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, was right that there is a range of approaches to this, from those who argue that education needs to be a statutory safeguarding partner to those who, understandably, question how the Government’s proposals in this clause will work in practice, and I hope to bring a bit of clarity to that in my response.
We can all agree that education and childcare settings should be consistently involved in multiagency safe- guarding arrangements across England, and that is what this clause sets out to do. On the Clause 2 stand part notice, by strengthening the role of education in multiagency safeguarding arrangements, Clause 2 recognises that crucial role that education and childcare settings play in keeping children safe. The evidence of the way in which education has tended to be involved in safeguarding is that while in many schools there are reasonably well developed processes for safeguarding, including designated safeguarding leads and, of course, the focus that they are able to put on it, and while there are lots of places in the country where schools are being well engaged in safeguarding arrangements, it is not true, generally, that the whole breadth of education and childcare settings is engaged in that. My noble friend Lady Longfield made an important point about early years settings and their ability to contribute here, and of course FE colleges are far less frequently engaged in safeguarding arrangements.
The intention behind this clause is to ensure that education and childcare settings are consistently involved in multiagency safeguarding arrangements across England so that opportunities to keep children safe are not missed and we reduce the risk of children falling through the cracks between services. It places duties on those existing safeguarding partners—the local authority, police and integrated care boards—automatically to include all education and childcare settings in their arrangements. This will help to ensure that they work together to identify and respond to the needs of children in their area and that they consider in the fora in which safeguarding is pursued in these areas the relationships and processes that are necessary to ensure that the voice and knowledge of education and childcare settings are included in safeguarding arrangements. Where this is happening, we see improved communication between the safeguarding partnership and education, better information sharing and more opportunities to influence key strategic safeguarding decisions. This will also mean that all education and childcare settings must co-operate with safeguarding partners, ensuring that those arrangements are fully understood and rigorously applied in their organisations.
Turning to Amendments 26, 27 and 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I appreciate the point made that we need to understand how this will operate in practice and to understand the burdens and costs for education and childcare settings. On how it will operate in practice, the point I was making previously is that we are beginning to see how, where education and childcare are properly included, local authorities are resolving some of the practical issues that the noble Baroness raised and are finding the relationships, the forms of communication and the fora necessary to enable education and childcare to be properly represented in safeguarding arrangements, but she makes a fair challenge to me to explain a little bit more about how that is working. Perhaps I can write to noble Lords with some examples of how we would expect to see this operating in practice.
There are a couple of specific points that I can respond to today. First, on the point about identifying a single point of contact to be involved in safeguarding, if we are not careful, mandating that that happens would incur duplication, and new burdens and resourcing pressures, as there is no single point of accountability for the sector at the moment. I do not think the noble Baroness was suggesting that new posts should be created for this role.
She specifically asked about the role of the LADO. Can I be clear that the LADO role would not be appropriate to support education and childcare settings with their safeguarding responsibilities with respect to this clause unless it was in relation to allegations against people who work with children? That is the specific responsibility of the LADO and where this is the case of course the LADO can be contacted. But that would not be appropriate to be a single point of contact for safeguarding arrangements in this context. Through this legislation, as I think I have suggested, safeguarding partners should be continuing to strengthen existing relationships with education and childcare settings to ensure that there is join-up and an enhanced role in safeguarding arrangements.
On the point about accountability, we need to understand and have sight of how this is working. The Secretary of State has oversight of yearly reports by local children’s safeguarding partnerships which must include scrutiny by an independent person of the effectiveness of the arrangements. We will support safeguarding partners to ensure that this includes the representation of education. Through those yearly reports we will be able to see how education and childcare settings are being included in the safeguarding partnerships.
I turn to Amendments 20 and 25, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Bichard—introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—and Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. They relate to the suggestion that education should become the fourth statutory safeguarding partner, and I think this was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. There are considerable difficulties in terms of structure and accountability with making education and childcare a statutory partner in the way in which he suggests. There is no organisation or individual who can take on the equivalent duties as a safeguarding partner for education.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, to the House. I am sure that her expertise in all areas of education and children’s social care will be important and helpful for us in our deliberations. She identified that a wide range of education and childcare settings would not be able to take on the equivalent duties as a safeguarding partner for education, because the expectation for those three statutory safeguarding partners is, first, that they have the authority to make decisions for all settings; secondly, that they are able to commit funding on behalf of all settings; and, thirdly, that they are able to represent the views of all settings.
Lord Hampton (CB)
I thank noble Lords for this interesting and thought-provoking debate. I thank the Minister for her thorough explanation—I think I understood quite a lot of it. I would go along with the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, asking for maximum clarity and simplicity. I greatly look forward to the letter from the Minister which will explain a lot more of this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.